Talk:Nordic race/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To much emphasis on Racism

Why must there be so much emphasis on racist theories involving the Nordic people. This isn't an article about Nordicism, Aryanism, or Nazism, but that is what it is primarily composed of. It just seems a little racist to focus so much on all The bad things Nordic people have done. There should be a section on Nordic Racism but it doesn't need to be in the opening section, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The guy on the left (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? Because this article used to be about Nordicism and the Nordic theory. It think it was a bad idea to merge and rename the content. See the old discussions from 2008: Talk:Nordic race/Archive 3. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Very simple. Do not you see it? This article is plagued with losers who think that hey belong to some Race that is superior. It is the only consolation they have for being losers, ugly and weak. It is especially interesting the jealousy they experience towards the so-called Mediterraneans. Just read the article. It is really funny. It will be very hard for you to find this type of bias anywhere else in or outside internet. Even in Nordicist supremacist pages you won't find this bias so strongly expressed. These people have big issues with race and their own feeling of identity. Let them their own petty space to vent off. Pin Pon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear "Pin Pon", why should any editor here wish to delete your comment? Yes, Dougweller did deleted an earlier version because it contravened WP:TALK. Specifically, you were not proposing any definite changes to the article. In other word you were just ranting (see WP:NOTAFORUM). But what is, in a way, charming about your rant is the fact that it complements the previous editor perfectly. Mr "guy on the left" gets very disressed about the fact that article "seems a little racist to focus so much on all The bad things Nordic people have done", while you, in contrast, seem to believe that the very same article "is plagued with losers who think that hey belong to some Race that is superior". So make up your mind, people. Is this an article that belittles the great "Nordic" people by saying they are all implicated in "bad things", or is it the work of "losers who think that [t]hey belong to some Race that is superior"? Personally, I think you have to be seriously obtuse to think either of those things. Only someone fixated by racial identity would believe either. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is a piece of crap, among the worst in Wiki. ONE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN EXPERT IN RHETORIC to see it. Reading skills is more than recognizing words. This is a piece of cheap racist propaganda, with the minimum criticism so that it looks alright, the same as the Mediterranean race article. But I guess people with severe identity issues need this type of feed-back. It is a shame though that they use something that is supposed to be something different, and my first response is ironic PiPo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I can only see one person with "severe identity issues", and that's you. This vacuous hysteria indicates an inability to recognise facts. Do you have an specific complaints about the content? Paul B (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues with the section: Attitudes in ancient Europe

Ancient Greeks


All sources cited and referred to in the following text can be found online on this link (Invention of racism in classical antiquity): http://books.google.no/books?id=jfylyRawl8EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Invention+of+Racism+in+Classical+Antiquity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CGQfUpqQOfKP4gSLn4GIAg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Invention%20of%20Racism%20in%20Classical%20Antiquity&f=false


This claim from the Wikipedia article cites no sources:

“Most ancient writers were from the Southern European civilisations, and generally took the view that people living in the north of their lands were barbarians.”


The article cites Benjamin Isaac as a source for the following:

"Pale skin and light hair were described as signs of barbarism by Polemon of Laodicea in his book Physiognomica.[3]"

“Blond and whitish hair, like that of Scythians signifies stupidity, evilness, savagery"

No such thing, although suggested by the Wikipedia article, is said on pages 56-58 in Isaac's book; The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. As will be seen in the following quotations from Isaac's books, his arguments are quite the contrary.


Contrary to what source [4] indicates, physiognomonica (which is wrongly spelled the Wikipedia-article) is definitively not a work of Aristotle (Isaac, 151). Also, there is nothing indicating that the physiognomonica perpetrates a view where Greek superiority is seen as visible in their medium skin tone. On the contrary, according to Isaac, the physiognomonica seem to perpetrate high regard of people living in the North. This is illustrated in the following quote:

“Those living in the North are brave and stiff-haired, and those living in the South are cowardly and soft-haired” (Isaac, 151)


Isaac notes no prejudice of blonde or Northern people in the physiognomonica in general, and in the one instance so-called stiff hair is regarded as a sign of cowardice, it is attributed to the Ethiopians:

“However, there are inconsistencies, for elsewhere in the same text we read: “stiff hair on the head betokens cowardice”. Too dark a skin also marks cowardice and both characteristics are ascribed to Ethiopians.” (Isaac, 151)


As a general note, Isaac marks the following on page 151:

“…the standard collection of stereotypes found in various classical sources: people living in cold climate are forceful, self-confident and courageous, those living in hot climates have less self-confidence and courage, and are more emotional.” (Isaac, 57)


The view of fair-haired people that perpetrates no prejudice is supported by the evidence from Greek mythology and art. A notion that the ancient Greeks saw blonde people as cowardly and inferior is unlikely bearing mind the high number of blonde heroes in Greek literature. In addition, several of the most well-known and heroic figures in ancient Greece are described and depicted as blonde in ancient sources and art; including Alexander the great.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/alexanderarticles/ss/031211-What-Color-Was-Alexander-The-Greats-Hair.htm


Quoting from the Wikipedia article “blonde”:

“Pindar described Athena as fair-haired, and Pheidas described her as golden-haired. Hera, Apollo and Aphrodite were also described as blonds.[57] Pindar collectively described the Homeric Danaans of the time of the war between Argos and Thebes as fair-haired.[57] The Spartans are described as fair-haired by Bacchylides. In the work of Homer, Menelaus the king of the Spartans is, together with other Achaean leaders, portrayed as blond.[57] Although dark hair colours were predominant in the works of Homer, there is only one case of a dark hero, and that is when the blond Odysseus is transformed by Athena and his beard becomes blue-black. Other blond characters in Homer are Peleus, Achilles, Meleager, Agamede, and Rhadamanthys.[57]»


In general, the fact that the ancients Greeks saw blonde hair as a sign of beauty and nobility, just like the Romans, is repeated continuously in the book On blondes by Joanna Pitman.


The following from the Wikipedia article is a gross simplification of Aristotle’s argument in the source cited [5]:

«Aristotle himself claimed that blue eyes had less liquid in them than darker eyes, and that they indicated poor eyesight, especially in daylight.[5]»


Firstly, in the source, Aristotle argues blue eyes have less water in them, not the other way around:

“To suppose that the blue are fiery, as Empedocles says, while the dark have more water than fire in them, and that this is why the former, the blue, have not keen sight by day, viz. owing to deficiency of water in their composition, and the latter are in like condition by night, viz. owing to deficiency of fire- this is not well said if indeed we are to assume sight to be connected with water, not fire, in all cases.”


Secondly, in the source, Aristotle argues blue eyes have better sight at nigh:

“We must suppose the same cause also to be responsible for the fact that blue eyes are not keen-sighted by day nor dark eyes by night.”

In any case, Aristotle’s metaphysical view of eye color is hardly relevant to the discussion of the ancient Greeks and their view of Northern people.


Ancient Romans


From the Wikipedia article:

“Likewise, the Roman historian Tacitus idealized the Germanic tribes (which he considered autochthonous to their land) for qualities such as superior warlike ardor and chastity, in contrast to the Romans of his day - though his portrait is not unmixed - as he also portrays them as incurably lazy and addicted to gambling.[7][8]"

Tacitus does not write that the Germanics are addicted to gambling. His words are that they simply have a “passion for gambling.” http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitus-germania-6.php


Germanics as lazy is misworded and taken out of context. Tacitus writes the following:

“Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and to feasting…” http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitus-germania-4.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinkhel (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Heinkhel (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right in some respects. This article is plagued with bias from all sides. For example, the way all references to people living to the North of Greece try to present them as Nordic. First, obviously a lot of the information is cherry picked and biased, but most importantly, Greeks never had any relevant contact with "Nordic" people. The people who lived and live to the North of the Greeks are and were a lot of different things: some called here and there Dinarics, Southern Slavs, whatever. Anything except "Nordics". "Yugoslavs", who are not Nordic by any means, do have a much higher percentage of blondism than Greeks, for example. Those and others like them were the people that were for Greeks from the North. This is just an example of the intelectual level of the article and the theory Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please let let me know in what respects I am not right. It is not true that Greeks never had any relevant contact with the "Nordic" people. Firstly, you have the voyage of the geographer Pytheas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas#Discovery_of_Thule
Secndly, there is extensive evidence of trade between Scandinavia and Greece dring the bronze age.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011012000736
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jgg/article/view/23276
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870461.htm
Well, obviously Yugoslavia were not north of Greece during antiquity. Neither slavs nor Nordics existed as categories back then, hence the lack of relevance. Heinkhel (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Superiority complex

I do not know if it should be elaborated on, but I think that Nordic Race theory is one of the best examples of the Superiority Complex:


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex

Here is a cut and pasted introduction:

Superiority complex is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person's feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority.[1] The term was coined by Alfred Adler (February 7, 1870 – May 28, 1937), as part of his School of Individual psychology. It was introduced in his series of books, including "Understanding Human Nature" and "Social Interest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you will have to prove that people of Northern European ancestry feel inferior to Southern Europeans then. In general, I feel you are misunderstanding the concept. Most proponents of nordicism were not from Scandinavia, and some were even from South America and Italy. --Heinkhel (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why Southern Europeans? It is interesting, but some Nordicists do seem to be fixated with Southern Europeans! I mean, the theory seems to be a good example of a superiority complex in relation to all other populations that are not considered Nordic, right? Then we have the theories about this superiority complex that I mentioned. That is all. I did not mention Southern Europeans!. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting then, is that people in Scandinavia feel inferior to every other population in the world, and that nordicism is a result of this (even though nordicism is not Scandinavian in origin)? Heinkhel (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the IP made no mention of Scandinavia, I fail to see why you are disputing what no-one has said. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It is Pipo who need to explain what people in particular have an inferiority complex, why they are having this, and how that is related to nordicism. Heinkhel (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Background" section is basically original research

Having seen the discussion above I took a look at the section in the article. This article is about the concept of a 'Nordic race', and our sources should discuss the concept. So far as I can tell, virtually none of the subsections use sources that discuss 'Nordic race' and it seems to be original research that for instance the views of classical writers were related to the concept of a Nordic race. I shall probably delete this soon if sources aren't provided. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As for the section on classical writers, much of it is not only original research but blatant fabrications. Heinkhel (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Some of your 'failed verification' tags could be described as a blatant fabrication. The sources I checked do indeed contain the statements you claim are not in the sources given. In some cases there may be legitimate grounds for arguing about interpretation of what these ancient physiognomists are saying, but there are no grounds for claiming there has been any 'fabrication'. There is one seriously mixed up footnote: the one about the Scythians. I don't know where the quotation about "stupidity, evilness, savagery" of Scythians comes from, but the source clearly states that "Blond thick and bleached hair indicates wild and savage customs: this is the type of the Germans" (p.157). In other words the source does make the salient point, but the passage has become garbled at some point and mixed up. As it happens, I've just published an academic article on this topic [1], which could be used to cite some of the material in these sections. It's not accessible online, however. Paul B (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please ellaborate upon and refer to specific pages and passages for the whole section rather than claiming you have "checked the sources". Based on the source cited, it has already been proved that people "living in the North" were highly regarded by anient Greek writers, in which can be verified online [2]
“…the standard collection of stereotypes found in various classical sources: people living in cold climate are forceful, self-confident and courageous, those living in hot climates have less self-confidence and courage, and are more emotional.” (Isaac 2006: 57)
“Those living in the North are brave and stiff-haired, and those living in the South are cowardly and soft-haired” (Isaac 2006: 151)
I'll have a look at it, to verify your claims about p. 157 in Isaacs work.
How is an acedemic article about alleged Northern European prejudice aainst Southern Europeans relevant to the discusson about he authenticity of the claims about ancient sources? We are discussing alleged prejudice against "Norhtern people", not of "Northern people" against "Southern people". If this to you is a postmodern political issue, you are hardly qualified to participate.Heinkhel (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, since you haven't read the article, you wouldn't know, would you? The article is about Nordicism. And "we" are not just "discussing alleged prejudice against Northern people", no. You are. You seem to be fixated on the idea that the ancient Greeks and Romans admired Northern peoples, your every comment is about challenging some supposed negative comment on Northern Europeans (hence "it has already been proved that people 'living in the North' were highly regarded by ancient Greek writers" etc etc). The section should have a proper balance of negative and positive views, per sources. The relevance of this section is that ancient writers were regularly quoted by both Nordicists and their opponents during heyday of these racial theories. Paul B (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a book description, and the point of it is to tell you what the bok is on about. Again, the book seems hardly relevant to the discussion about antiquity. I am fixated on making this articile reflect the sources it refers to properly, and there is no reason to become hostile about it. To the the extent this article is prejudiced, at least in the first section, it is mostly against people who can be said to be "Nordic", who are described as evil, savage, stupid, inferioir (beuase of lighter skin color), and as being barbarians, lazy, addicted to gambling and having poor eyesight. Which of course is ironic, since this artcile is abuth nordicism, not some alleged inferiority of "nordic" peoples.
I agree with you in that there simply should be a proper balance of negative and positive views, per sources. Yet, criticism should come under criticism and the prime goal should of course be to reflectd sources properly, whether they are "negative" or "positive".Heinkhel (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the entire section. There probably is sourceable material about the concept that discusses its background, but that wasn't it. Paul, I'm sure you can find some. If you want to replace or add material that you know there are sources for as you suggest, start a new section - either with sources or fact tags where you know there are sources but don't have time yet to add them. Heinkhel, it isn't obvious there should be a separate criticism section. We try to avoid those where possible. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I restored the 19th century material, as it really is important in situating the Nordic notion in scientific racism more generally. The relationship to the "Aryan" notion is rather complex, but important in history-of-ideas terms. Attitudes in antiquity are off topic unless mentioned by sources that are explicitly addressing the Nordic notion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the 19th century is vital, but I'd still like sources that do the relationship as I suspect that this section is also OR. Which doesn't make it wrong of course. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

copying statement from User: Maeveh's talk page

I 'm editing Wikipedia photo of the Nordic race, because when I entered in wikipedia and saw these examples of Nordic race , I found them false and offensive .

I put photos of plates of Official anthropology, anthropologists like Bertil Lundman .

Meyers was a Nazi , and therefore was considered nordic , nordic but there's nothing in him, his features are Mediterranean , her hair is dark , her eyebrows are dark.

If you read the Germnai of Tacitus describes the Germanic people , and it's nothing like Meyers . I have nordic examples that are really different from Mediterranean examples . True Nordics, no mediterraneans o mediterraneans mixings.

Meyers was used as an example of Nordic race because he was a Nazi.

It's just offensive, it is offensive that you use a Mediterranean like him.

My photos show Nordic , your photos show Nazi Mediterranean .

My pictures are examples of true Nordic race , far from the Mediterranean .

Your examples are Mediterranean , far from the Norse.

The Nazis wanted to be Nordic , but were Mediterraneans , these features are mediterraneans.

Tacitus never described someone as well .

Everyone knows that the Nazis dreamed of being Nordic, but they were all Mediterranean.

These examples are Mediterranean.

I want to put people with NO MEDITERRANEAN features

OFFENSIVE

ARE MEDITERRANEANS

I try to put real examples of the Nordic race and prevent me from doing.

Plates are official. True Nordic.

It's offensive.

I can't understand this. First, you are removing templates that tell readers that there are problems with the article. I told you twice about these 5 days ago. Secondly, you are saying that a Dane and a Prussian have Mediterranean features. I was trying to figure out who Meyers was but I realised that you are talking about an encyclopedia, the Meyers Blitz-Lexikon which used Karl von Müller as an example of the Nordic type. You seem to be saying that Germans are Mediterranean, have I got that right? And "Nordic" and "Norse" are not the same thing. Note that the article also says "Coon affirms that the Nordic race are just depigmented Mediterranean. However, it also affirms that other anthropologists have called Nordic to other different types . Like for example, Bertil Lundman, whose examples of Nordic race are quite differents of the Nordid Race of Coon." In other words, according to Coon Nordics have Mediterranean features. It isn't up to Wikipedia to decide which description of the Nordic race portrays aome "true Nordic race". Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"The Nazis wanted to be Nordic , but were Mediterraneans". This is frankly nonsensical. "Meyers was a Nazi , and therefore was considered nordic". The image is of Karl von Müller, a member of the German National People's Party, which was a more traditionally conservative rival of the Nazi party. Joseph Meyer was an 18th-19th century scholar who founded the lexicon. The person in your image looks, frankly, mad. I don't think it's an appropriate lede image. Your upload information says it comes from "Book of Races FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN", which is not very informative. What book? Paul B (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad examples of Nordic Race

Well, I tried to put photos of real examples of Nordic race and not permitted me.

I will explain to convince everyone that these pictures are bad and must be changed by my examples.

First picture:


This man, is physically Mediterranean.

To show this, I recommend you visit the wikipedia page about the Mediterranean race:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race

Now look at this picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mediterranean_race_Fischer_Lexikon.png

Obviously has the same jaw, nose, etc. .. that the example of the Nordic race.

Here we will compare both examples:

Mediterranean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mediterranean_race_Fischer_Lexikon.png

Nordic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MPP-Nord1.jpg

Both look as the same race.

And now something very obvious is nonsense to an article which speaks of depigmentation and light hair and the main example has dark hair and bushy black eyebrows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_von_Müller.jpg

I want to put Nordic examples and non examples of Mediterraneans.

This is a nordic:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Nordic_Race_Example.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeveh (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maeveh, please try to engage in discussion rather than just assertion. On Wikipedia you can't say "look at the person he's obviously medierranean". You have to have what we call reliable sources. Read WP:RS. Also, the "Nordic race" is a concept - one of the categories into which the European population was divided by anthropologists. If they say a person is Nordic, then they are: at least according to one version of what is "Nordic". Of course if you have evidence that an anthropologist disagreed, that could be included. The article would benefit from including a range of views over what was or was not considered to be "Nordic". Paul B (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Only people classified as such in historical sources should be used. No original research. Furthermore, we only use free images, and nothing indicates the ones you are adding are in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Carleton Coon believed that type of examples were depigmented Mediterraneans, but in this case is not even depigmented and has dark hair and very dark eyebrows.

It is contradictory to speak of a depigmented race,with ligth hair, etc.. and put that example dark-haired with bushy black eyebrows.

That's a contradiction that you can`t deny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeveh (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

All that matters is that it is properly sourced and that the images are free. And by the way, you have an amazing ability to determine colour from a black and white photo, which was probably retouched to make features more visible... Furthermore, cranial features are more important than pigmentation for these classifications. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The photos that I put were in black and white, compared eyebrows of some and the others. In the black and white looks perfectly with a normal vision. The bushy black eyebrows are mediterraneans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeveh (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired and do not want to continue. I just want people to know, that the examples of the Nordic race are frauds, which are clearly Mediterranean. The true Nordics are quite diferent. I personally do not want to to collaborate here anymore. But is evident that are mediterraneans and not nordics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeveh (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maeveh, please try to keep your contributions in conventional paragraphs, rather than adding breaks after every sentence. It makes them easier to read. Also don't inset with the space bar. It creates formatting problems. Again, you are just making assertions. You are not a 1900-1950 anthropologist - the period when these categories were used. You cannot add to the debate with your own views. BTW, there were more categories than just Nordic and Mediterranean. You write as if a person had to be one or the other. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hitler

"Adolf Hitler read Human Heredity shortly before he wrote Mein Kampf, and called it scientific proof of the racial basis of civilization."

The source states or implies nothing of the sort. Also, since when has a biased source "holocaust studies" been considered a reliable source?

The source not only does not claim that Hitler said it was "scientific proof of the racial basis of civilization." It also does not give sources for it's claim that Hitler used it's 'essential ideas' in Mein Kampf.

Very, very biased and bad for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A source from University of Minnesota is reliable unless we have reason to doubt it. It says what the article says. It does not need to give sources. We give it as a source. There are numerous other sources for the same wholly undisputed point. Here's Guenther Lewy (The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies, Oxford University Press, p. 38):
Hitler's thinking was decisively affected by the teachings of racial hygiene. While Hitler was in jail, serving his prison term for the failed Munich putsch of November 8, 1923, Munich publisher Julius Lehmann, one of his early and ardent supporters, sent him a copy of a textbook on human heredity and racial hygiene by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz. When Lenz later reviewed Hitler Mein Kampf, published shortly after Hitler's release from prison, he correctly claimed that Hitler had incorporated parts of this textbook into his book. Mein Kampf mirrors ideas taken from this and other books on racial topics that Hitler read during his incarceration. He denied the equality of the races, demanded the subordination of inferior and weaker races to better and stronger ones, attributed the decline of civilizations to the mixture of blood, and advocated preventing the reproduction of so-called sickly or criminal elements. Hitler reserved his special ire for the Jews, whom he denounced as the absolute enemy of the Aryan race.
So nothing is really in dispute. As for the phrase "scientific proof of the racial basis of civilization", it's not in quotation marks in the article, as if those actual words were spoken/written by Hitler. It's a summary of Hitler's opinion of the book. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nordicism"

Is this something that exists today? Should its discussion be in the past tense? Why is it in the lede section? At the very least I will change it to the past tense. Dynasteria (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could say it is pretty common among North European neo-Nazis. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it still exists, but it's pretty marginal these days [3]. I think either past or present tenses are acceptable. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The problems of Nordic theory.

The problem of Nordic theory is that it has gone hand in hand with a theory (a cry) of self-proclaimed superiority that is the reaction to an inferiority complex since the XVI century and has a connection with religion and Protestantism. Precisely, if we analyse the peoples with the qualities of leaders, conquerors and builders of empires that this theory so desperately proclaims as typical of this ¨race", and we refer only to Europe, one does not have to have a PHD in History to know that the list of peoples of Europe who created great empires is the following: Ancient Europe: Greek and Romans. Modern Europe: Portuguese, Spanish, English and Russians, being the Russians the only ones that continue to hold on to a major part of their Empire. The French could be discussed as well on a lower level, I think. In short, the peoples who are supposed to belong to that "race" are clearly underrepresented (and so are Protestants). This article should reflect this fact more clearly in a criticism of the theory, especially when a branch of it, headed by the German Nazis, proclaimed the profound inferiority of the Slavs in general and the Russians in particular. I wonder what Hitler was thinking when the Russians invaded and conquered Berlin. By the way: A map showing the cultural and linguistic expansion and areas of influence of the Latin peoples of Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples#mediaviewer/File:Map-Romance_Language_World.png (and it does not take into consideration that more than 50 per cent of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin: In this sentence these word: consideration, per, cent, vocabulary, Latin, origin) PetertheGreat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • No "facts" without reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This article's name?

This article seems inappropriately named. It is not about people whose ancestry is "Nordic". Instead, it is about outdated racist concepts from the 19th century up through World War II. There is an article titled "Ethnic groups in Europe" that is actually about the people of Europe. In my opinion, this article links being "Nordic" with being a white racist, which in itself is kind of biased against Northern Europeans.

As a historical matter, it is somewhat interesting to review these so called theories, but factually they were never all combined together under the term "Nordic Race" as this article might seem to imply. Thus, Wikipedia is creating a new term for old junk. If the article is about some historical artifact, e.g. a "theory", then it should be titled appropriately. If, on the other hand, Wikipedia is suggesting there is such a thing as a "Nordic Race" then the article should be about living, breathing people and their ancestors. Dynasteria (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Aricles are titled according to WP:COMMONNAME, and the overwhelming majority of sources refer to this racial concept as "Nordic race". That's all that matters, not whether the title is somehow deemed to be unfair to someone, though frankly I fail to see how it is. As for the claim that Wikipedia is "creating" a term at all: there are literally thousands of sources that use this term in the way it is used in the article [4]. Titles should kept simple, with disambiguation only used when necessary. We simply refer to historical concepts, whether discredited or not, by their names: e.g. Luminiferous aether, Phlogisten, Flat Earth etc. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned above, this term was not "created" by Wikipedia, so the point is completely moot. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
FunkMonk: OK, I get your point, creating was not entirely accurate. I was thinking that the term had fallen out of use for several decades and is now being reestablished or perhaps endorsed in a way. I was also thinking that the term was not definitive in the era in which it was in use. HOWEVER, I actually just looked "Nordic" up in my 1969 American Heritage Dictionary and there it is, virtually word for word, the definition given in the WP article here, so I'm somewhat convinced.
Paul Barlow: As to whether the "overwhelming majority of sources" use(d) the term, I don't know. The article doesn't support that contention but it doesn't deny it either. It was in use enough to warrant the title of this article, I suppose. On the other hand, it is possible for an outmoded term to be offensive to the ethnic group to whom it refers. I am offended by the automaticity with which anything to do with Nordic people becomes linked to racism. The irony here is that most Nordic people aren't very worked up about it and so there is no "National Association for the Protection of Nordic People" out there to demand victim's rights. ;-)
Dynasteria (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In my experience there is no "automaticity with which anything to do with Nordic people becomes linked to racism". The most common use of 'Nordic' in modern English is roughly synoonymous with 'Scandanvian'. When people refer to the supposed 'Nazi' racial ideal they tend to use the word "aryan" rather than Nordic in modern English. I think your notion that North Europeans are "automatically" linked to racism is frankly rather idiosyncratic. As for the claim that the article "doesn't support that contention" that sources use the term, what evidence do you want exactly? There are numerous souces cited, and you can read them for yourself. Paul B (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Mr. B you are not making sense. The operative words were that the "overwhelming majority" of sources did not use the term. The article supports your view more or less and I agreed it was an appropriate title under the circumstances. What else do you want from me?
So, OK, your experience with linking "Nordic race" automatically with racism differs from mine. We can deal with that. Once again, the difference here is that there are living, breathing Nordic people, and then there is this outdated, outmoded, defunct, archaic ideology that drags around its baggage from a century ago like some grotesque zombie. But, if in your mind, "Nordic" is synonymous with Scandinavian, then having an article on Wikipedia that links the "Nordic race" with racist attitudes is in itself a racist sleight against Scandinavians. It is tantamount to calling Scandinavians racists. Do you really not see this? Thanks for responding, BTW. I left a somewhat challenging message on your talk page. Dynasteria (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You do not understand what I am saying. In standard usage in modern English "Nordic" typically means "Scandanavian", and 'Nordic people' would refer to them. But this article is about a racial concept that was influential in the early to mid 20th century. Other racial concepts of the period have similar names, like "Alpine race". It's just called that, and has nothing to with attitudes towards modern people who live in the Alps. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The article should be titled with the name used most commonly in contemporary sources, not in antiquated sources. I think it would be a good idea to rename all of the old school racial anthropology articles to reflect that they are not currently consider to have any empirical validity. Indeed it should not be the case that the article on "nordic race" cover content related to people with scandinavian ancestry as those two things are clearly separate topics in the literature with very different scientific status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the most common name in contemporary sources, as I've already pointed out. There are numerous contemporary sources cited which use the term. You are confusing the terminology of contemporary science with contemporary reliable sources on this topic, which is part of the history of ideas. As I said, the article on phlogisten is called phlogisten, even though it's not a concept that exists in contemporary science. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope the article on Phlogiston is called phlogiston and not phlogisten. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, "Nordic race" refers to a distinct, "metrical type", which is not synonymous with Scaninavian. Some Scandinavians are supposedly of the "Nordic type", others not. It doesn't simply mean blonde and blue eyed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to make it clear the term doesnt refer to any actual in objective reality but is a pseudoscientific grouping that has been used in very different and mutually contradictory ways by different writers. Sometimes blond and blue-eyed has been enough, at other times it hasnt.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's a difference between the "scientific" use of the old physical anthropologists, and the more "philosophical" and more whimsical use of various writers, which is not what I was referring to. FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually dont think such a distinction can be meaningfully made no. The uses of the concept in physical anthropology has been every bit as whimsical and philosophical as the use by non-anthropologists. That is the reason these categories are no longer considered to make any scientific sense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a proponent of these terms, but you could say exactly the same about taxonomic ranks. "Genus" is about as arbitrary as "race". FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps , but it does not come prepackaged with questionable metaphysical and political ideologies. (Though in fact I even doubt that comparison, since as one ascends the taxonomic tree the biological differences covered by the categories take on a different scale and hence becomes less liable to the strictly subjective and highly culturally contingent evaluations that have formed the basis of racial "science" since its inception.)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nordicism should have its own page. "Nordic race" should only discuss like the Dinaric race. FossilMad (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's been tried, but it's pointless. Nordicism is only intelligible in the context of the definition and wider debates about the history of the 'race'. An article just on the race-concept would be redundant. All the race-concept articles include the ways in which these races have been characterised in terms of supposed temperament, history etc, where that is significant. The only reason there is little to say on that subject as far as so-called Dinarics are concerned, is that little has been said. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

"New York Times" should replace typo: "New Your Times" in reference 97

[1]

Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nordic_race&diff=642328640&oldid=641862890 Cannolis (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of "Nordics" in Sweden and Germany

  • Sweden - 10%
  • Germany - 6-8%

"According to an examination of army recruits undertaken in the years 1897-98 to analyse the racial make-up of the Swedish people, only 10% of them were classified as examples of the [pure] Nordic type." - Dahlberg, Gunner. (1942). Race, Reason & Rubbish: a Primer of Race Biology. (1942). Columbia University Press. p. 202.

"When Guenther informs his followers that in a 'Nordic nation' such as Germany but 6 to 8 percent of the population display the morphological traits of the 'pure Nordic,' he condemns the 'movement' to the fate of an exclusive sect outside of which remain over 90 percent of the population." - Gregor, Anthony. J. (1961). "Nordicism Revisited". Phylon. 22(4). pp. 351-360.

This is why the late 19th century and early-mid 20th century race typologists had to introduce countless "mixed" sub-racial types with Nordic:

  • Ireneusz Michalski: Northwestern (= Nordic + Mediterranean), Dinaric (= Nordic + Armenoid), Teutonic (Nordic + Cromagnonoid)
  • Jan Czekanowski: Northwestern (= Nordic + Mediterranean), Dinaric (= Nordic + Armenoid), Subnordic (Nordic + Lapponoid) FossilMad (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The article makes it fairly clear that any single definition of "Nordic race" is a snapshot in time of the development from circa 1855 to today. There apparently has never been one consistent definition. It seems to vary between meaning generally the people who originate in Northern Europe to the concept of a "pure" Nordic or a Nordic "ideal", which I will leave to anyone's imagination. Does this study define its terms? Of course a lot of this kind of discussion was in reaction to the Nazis, of which Hans F. K. Günther was one. The more I think about this term the more I agree with others (perhaps including Paul B) that this is a pretty useless and antiquated term. I started out just thinking it meant "people from the north" but it has been misused over the years, not unlike the term "Negro". Dynasteria (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody thinks races are "pure". It's a Marxist race denial strawman. It's more of a range on a continuum, in this case, although discontinuties are more significant between major races. Dismissing the term as "useless" because it's not "pure" is a false dichotomy. 121.133.79.235 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what denying the existence of "pure" races has to do with Marxism (Marxism in fact says nothing about race. Indeed the existence of racial differences is perfectly compatable with it). However, Dynasteria rightly says that the term can simply mean 'people of Northern Europe', or it can mean a type, of which a pure or 'unmixed' model can be imagined/identified in the minds of the theorists who propose such. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler and family.

Heinrich Himmler was one of the main champions of the Nordic Race as a Master Race in Germany, of which he considered himself a member, of course, along with his family. Why not show a picture of him and his family in the article?

This is a significant one: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/01/28/why_himmler_letters_deserve_closer_study_mallick.html

By the way, Nordic Race theory is closely linked to the Master Race theory and racial supremacy as it is stated in the article. For the Germans, the Master Race or Nordic Race were ubermenschen, or superpeople. On the other hand, there were the untermenschen, or subhumans. For whatever reason, the subhuman race has been much mentioned in relation to Jews, but the German Nazis included as subhumans the Slavic peoples, that they wanted to exterminate or to enslave: Poles, Checks, Russians, etc. It would be interesting to see or analyse how this theory has been dealt with in countries like the US in Nordicists-Supremacists circles, taking into account the mixed nature of the American whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:B5A9:9124:9FFB:F011 (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Petter--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:B5A9:9124:9FFB:F011 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We should only show photos used as type examples by old sources. In any case, Himmler isn't a prime/typical example (receding chin, broad forehead, etc.) by any standards. Nor were any of the top Nazis, funnily enough. Inferiority complexes? FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Search this and update

They went on to argue that "the original Indo-Germanic civilisation" was carried by Nordic migrants down to India, and that the physiognomy of upper caste Indians "disclose a Nordic origin".[47][48][49] Origin and physiognomy are of Nordic origin.

Corrections- All three statements are correct which includes origin, physiognomy and the first Indo-Germanic Civilization.

Update this accordingly, This is for education purposes only. No association to any parties ( I come under this classification)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJSoni (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Descriptions

Let's not add our own language to any more descriptions that are based on sources that say otherwise. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Political Bias and Personal Opinions Interfering With Article Quality

I've just gone through and added several requests for citations, as well as adding links to Persons of Note that were inexplicably absent. Please, leave your political and philosophical beliefs at the door, this is Wikipedia, we are here to disseminate information. If you disagree with something in an article, please properly research and cite any edits or changes you make. This is not the place for political, philosophical or scientific discussion. The information is either out there or it isn't, Wikipedia is about gathering and disseminating information, not expressing opinions. Thanks! 24.77.157.232 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

My reversions here and on Aryan race

We can't state as fact that "They were generally responsible for what is the best in European civilization." My edit was an attempt clarify that this is the opinion of Cogni. I am not sure why these improvements were removed, and it's unclear how a link to Hitler's Table Talk in the edit summary would be useful. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Nordic race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nordicism

Nordicism should be a separate article, as it clearly surpasses the “nordic race” in the academic literature count. If anything, the “nordic race” should be a subtopic of Nordicism. But better to just keep them separate. Nordicism is much more connected to early 20th century politics than purely racial topics. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Nordicism%2C+“Nordic+race”&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNordicism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%22%20Nordic%20race%20%22%3B%2Cc0 SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC) SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Nordic race as a historical race concept and Nordicism as a supremacist ideology are two separate subjects, and a WP:CONSPLIT certainly applies here. As your ngram shows,[5] Nordicism is a notable subject in its own regard. As the size of the article is quite large, a WP:SIZESPLIT might also apply here. This would make the article more readable. Krakkos (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like we can move ahead and have a new article created then. Since there's an active redirect for Nordicism, I'll need to ask an admin. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Let me know if you need any assistance. Krakkos (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Greyfell

Where is your evidence that Nordicism has been "discredited" rather than abandoned? HRKent444 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nazism would be enough to discredit this ideology, but even without that, science has moved on and disproved the underlying premises of these silly fantasies. Nordicism#Post-Nazi re-evaluation and decline of Nordicism is a starting point. Further, the numerous fussy and peculiar racial hierarchies and sub-categories of Scientific racism are discredited as a whole, as they are fundamentally flawed at their core. As you have previously argued against the existence of scientific racism, despite countless academic works discussing and refuting it, I do not intend to waste my time trying to explain it to you further. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fälish" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fälish. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 27#Fälish until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Germanic peoples

@Beyond My Ken: Hello, please note that this template is inappropriate here. Racial concepts like the one in question are obsolete, pseudoscientific, and have consistently been coined and perpetuated on a stereotypical, discriminatory and offensive trajectory (cf. specifically Nordicism here). As opposed to that, I'd plead that the idea of "Germanic peoples" is probably rather unsuspicious / innocuous, by comparison, and still valid in terms of historical and ethnological research – but that has nothing to do with "race". Also, as I already tried to clarify, "race" and people would be two distinct things, and to me there seems to be no good reason here to establish – or rather suggest – any kind of actual relation between an infamous, pseudoscientific and highly tendentious lemma on the one side, and a serious, well-established, scientific concept on the other side. In fact, mind that what you are trying to do is quite a dangerous undertaking if you ask me – in any case, you're skating on extremely thin ice …--Hildeoc (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a clear and obvious connection between the concept of "Nordic race" and the concept of "Germanic peoples". This is true regardless of whether "race" in general or "Nordic race" in particular are "outdated", "pseudoscientific", "obsolete" or whatever else you'd like to call it. Whether it is factual or not, the concept existed, which is why we have an article about it, as we should.
Please do not remove the template again without a consensus to do so on this talk page, which you do not have at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The Germanic peoples are a subset of many ethnic groups that racial classifiers have considered to belong to the "Nordic race". The article also mentions Baltic Finns, Balts, Celts, French people, and Slavs; singling out "Germanic peoples" gives this undue weight. Moreover, the template serves no useful purpose here anyway; readers interested in the concept of "Nordic race" do not need to read up on totally not race-related subjects such as the Nordic Bronze Age, Early Germanic architecture, and the West Germanic languages.  --Lambiam 10:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I don't see any connection between the two concepts: The "Nordic race" is outdated according to clear scientific consensus, while "Germanic peoples" is not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It might bear mentioning that the concept of subraces/small races based on anthropometry is considered outdated in the US scientific community, but not always internationally. E.g., it was used in Soviet physical anthropology and still is used. See e.g. the Russian Wikipedia page (run through a translator and check the contemporary sources like Drobyshevsky). Not going to add it out of fear of antagonising the mods, but it's something that one ought to know, so let's keep it on this page. 45.72.224.134 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
We know that the concept of races was popular during much of the 20th century and is still popular among people who desperately want to belong to a superior race. But Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on our personal preferences. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nordic_race/Archive_6&oldid=1108566869"