Talk:Nordic race/Archive 5

Nazism ("Aryan race") and "Nordic race"
It is a very common confusion to consider Nazism as an ideology of "white supremacy". Indeed this position is used by many proponents of Nordicism to promote their views. "Aryan race" is not an "Ethnic" concept, as it is made clear in the related Wikipedia article. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Himmler had brown hairs and were not of "Nordic appearance". Aryan race is a cultural concept. As such it has nothing to do with Nordic race. The reference provided is an indirect one, and is subject to controversy. The author may explain the controversy in the article, but not in the summary. It must be neutral. --jose (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The hair colour of Hitler et al is irrelevant. This is about Nazi theories, not the real or imagined racial identity of Nazi leaders. In any case, your personal opinion is neither here nor there. There are innumerable reliable souces that attest the significance of Nordicism in Nazi ideology.   Just pick up any book on Nazi racial theory. As for the "Aryan" race, that meant different things in the different contexts. Sometimes it was just a synonym for "white non-Jewish". At other times it meant "Indo-European". At others, as the article explains, it was equated with the Nordic race (on the grounds that the earliest Aryans were Nordics, and thus Indo-European expansion was due to Nordic racial characteristics). All this is well documented in this article and the reasons explained. There is no doubt whatever in reliable sources that Nazism was strongly influenced by Nordicism, nor is there any "controversy" about this fact among historians. This very article has numerous sources, both primary and secondary, explaining this. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is your personal opinion that "There is no doubt whatever in reliable sources that Nazism was strongly influenced by Nordicism", and that "nor is there any "controversy" about this fact among historians". There is a STRONG controversy with numerous articles and scientifics books. Many authors share your position for sure, but many of your statements are controversial, when not pseudo-scientific:
 * This is your personal opinion that "There is no doubt whatever in reliable sources that Nazism was strongly influenced by Nordicism", and that "nor is there any "controversy" about this fact among historians". There is a STRONG controversy with numerous articles and scientifics books. Many authors share your position for sure, but many of your statements are controversial, when not pseudo-scientific:


 * Hair colour of Hitler et al IS relevant. The flagship persons of nazi ideology were not "Nordic people" as defined mainly by American writers like Ripley. I have modified one previous version of article stated that "aryan race" is a subcategory of Nordic race! This is a complete misunderstanding of Nazi ideology centered on "German people" (read My Kampf). In the related book, of Hitler himself, you will find no mention of "Nordic people". Numerous authors may think they have a better knowledge of Nazi ideology than Hitler himself, this is the core of the controversy! It is a bad joke to think that Hitler and al could consider themselves as inferior to a "Nordic race".


 * Your statement "As for the "Aryan" race, that meant different things in the different contexts" is a pseudo-scientific statement, not relevant for an encyclopedia. Aryan and "Arian race" are clearly defined by scientists. Aryan is related to a well defined linguistic approach. "Aryan race" is the specific background of Nazi ideology (see wikipedia article). Moreover significance of "Aryan race" comes more from racial policy of Nazis than from previous writers, often manipulated by Nazis.


 * Your statement "on the grounds that the earliest Aryans were Nordics, and thus Indo-European expansion was due to Nordic racial characteristics" is not only controversial, but completely false! Quite all the references in literature about this statement are false, and proceed of "white supremacy propaganda" in post WW2 context. See my updates about Gobineau, and I have no time to proceed to more updates now.


 * Your statement about Aryans: "Sometimes it was just a synonym for 'white non-Jewish' " is of the level of a teenager discussion in a coffee-shop. Nazis had very codified policies about who are Aryan and who are not. A specific SS division (SS-Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt) under Himmler supervision was in charge of identifying and qualifying Aryan people, mainly to authorized or not sexual intercourses and wedding of SS members. In this frame Aryan were the top of the hierarchy, just below are European people, except Slavic, but with the addition of Japanese! Below were Africans, slavics and others, considered as "slave races"; and below again were "untermenschen" that is Jews and Tsigani. Whith little efforts you may notice that guiding line IS NOT white race! Jews in East Europa as well as Slavic people are supposed to be "white people", Japanese according to Gobineau are supposed to be "Yellow people". But Japanese are at the top of the scale, just under Aryan (in Nazi point of view). And you probably forget that black Jews exist, as you probably forgot that part of "Nordic people" are not "white people" as stated by Ripley.


 * The ONLY people with distinctive "appearance" codified by Nazis were Jews. In that case medical exams were applied. But it was accepted that mixed marriage of Jews with "German blood" could lead to aryan people.


 * I stop here because, a book can be written about that controversy. I do it to bring some light about this question of "Nordic Race" which is mainly an approach of American authors (beginning with Jefferson). It should be noted that almost nobody supports these views in Europe, and in North Europe in particular. For Nazi ideology Aryan is defined by "German blood and character", white appearance is only a subsequent effect. Again read "Mein Kampf" as a primary literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseREMY (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, this is full of totally confused comments. You say "The ONLY people with distinctive "appearance" codified by Nazis were Jews." baloney. The "appearance" of Jews was never codified in Nazi law. It didn't matter what your appearence was if you were Jewish. Indeed as Fritz Lenz said, "a blond Jew is still a Jew". Their race/religion, not their appearance was codified in law. Also Benjamin Franklin wrote Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, not Jefferson. Since I wrote the entire section about its last paragraph, you don't need to refer me to my own contributions.


 * Yes, I wrote ""Sometimes it [Aryan] was just a synonym for 'white non-Jewish' ". You say this "is of the level of a teenager discussion in a coffee-shop." No, it's you who are at that level. Read Yehuda Bauer, for example. The Nazis used the word in their accounts of the area beyond the Warsaw Ghetto (the 'Aryan district'). 'Aryan identification papers' included documents saying that you were a Pole, Ukrainian, etc. Yes, most Nazis thought that Slavs were inferior, and to be subjected to Germans, but that's quite quite different from saying they were not Aryan. Overwhelmingly, Aryan meant "not-Jewish". Of course it also excluded other races, but they were not present in eastern Europe, so that was not really an issue. In this respect in practice Aryan generally meant "white non-Jewish", just as I said, and could be used to include Basques or Hungarians, even though these people are not "Indo-European". Even Jews used the word in this way, for example Freud. Here's another example: an official textbook/dictionary from the Third Reich defines the term "Aryan" as follows: "Races that have lived in Europe for a long time: The Nordic, the Pfalzish (fälische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische), the Ostic (ostische) and the Dinarish (dinarische) races." ("Volks-Brockhaus", 1935. Similar, but not identical statements are made here: This is based on Hans Günther's typology, and as you can see it's essentially a synonym for "white" here. I don't know how much of what I am saying you can understand, but the only thing you say that is true is that there was no legal discrimination on the grounds of hair colour or physical appearence in Nazi Germany. No-one said there was, but there was discrimination in practice for access to the SS and there was ideolgical emphasis on Nordic superiority. You say "for Nazi ideology Aryan is defined by "German blood and character", white appearance is only a subsequent effect." There is no evidence of this at all.


 * You say: "Your statement "on the grounds that the earliest Aryans were Nordics, and thus Indo-European expansion was due to Nordic racial characteristics" is not only controversial, but completely false! Quite all the references in literature about this statement are false, and proceed of "white supremacy propaganda" in post WW2 context. See my updates about Gobineau." The theory that the original Aryans were Nordic dates from after Gobineau, but before the rise of the Nazis. It originated with Penka and was established as mainstream by Kossinna. Whether or not it is in fact false is irrelevant. You seem not even to have read the article. This is clearly explained and is not controversial. It has nothing whatever to do with "white supremacy propaganda in post WW2 context". Kossinna died before the Nazis even came to power. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

JoseREMY's changes
look, JoseRemy, beside the fact that you contributions are not even in literate English most of them are either wrong or totally irrelevant. We don't need to know what a physiognomist said about Egyptians in an article on the Nordic race. Likewise, having 'clear' and 'bright' eyes may refer to absence of clouding in the whites, and have nothing to do with iris colour or 'race', so it is not pertinent here. The staement about the Vandals is wrong, since they did occupy northern Europe. Most of the comments about Gobineau, where they are intelligible, have no relevance to this article since they are not about the Nordic race or Nordicism. Detailed accounts of his theories should go in the article about him. The statement that blond hair was admired in "England" shows that you have not read the footnote, which refers to Shakespeare's sonnets challenging the European norm which was defined by the Italian poet Petrarch. Altogether, you seem to be familiar with the ideological misinformation to be found on Stormfront and other online white nationalist websites, but not with the actual facts. Paul B (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

....................................................................
 * ....Please STOP removing my contributions about Greek philosophers!


 * If you think my english is not good enough,improve it!


 * About Physiognomist...This article previously referred to Greek philosophers who are Physiognomists. These references were not neutral. They tend to show Greek philosophers as early proponents of racism (as stated in reference to an American author: Isaac, Benjamin in Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity). This could be written, but is controversial. I have added citations showing these Greek philosophers are Physiognomists and not proponents of any kind of Southern race superiority. In addition it is important to note that they claim superiority of Greece, and not of a racial group. The statement about Egyptian demonstrates that "Polemon of Laodicea" didn't intend to criticize a "Nordic Race". His remarks about 'clear' and 'bright' eyes confirm this point.


 * Isaac is a reliable secondary source. Your contributions are welcome, but you are not a reliable source for interpretations of primary material beyond their plain meaning. Of course they claim superiority for Greece, but that's not the point here. The reason for this section's existence is to summarise physiogmomic theories that are relevant to the later codification of Nordic identity. The whole of ancient physiognomic theory is not relevant here, only that aspect related to opinions of north Europeans. Obviously Polemon "did not intend to criticise the Nordic race" because the concept did not exist at the time. His comments about clear and bright eyes do not confirm this point since it is more likely that he is describing healthy eyes as opposed to eyes with cataracts, which can occur to anyone anywhere. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About Vandals: The statement is relevant because they are "German tribes". The reference in the article is related to the fall of Rome. At that time Vandals are mixed with Sarmates and other tribes of middle Asia. Tacitus is making a statement about these tribes. This statement doesn't mean he is in favor of a "Nordic race" as stated fallaciously by the article.


 * The article never said Tacitus was "in favor of a "Nordic race"". Never. Nowhere. The article refers to his ideas about northern Europeans, ideas that were later incorporated into theories about the Nordic race. Whether Vandals were mixed with Sarmites, or Marmite Sarnies is irrelevant. They were probably mixed to start with. It's a tribal name, not a biological entity. In any case, Tacitus is writing centuries before "the fall of Rome" Paul B (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About Gobineau. He was cited previously and fallaciously by the article. The statement was that Gobineau considered Nordic people as the first Aryans. My references are showing it is wrong. It is relevant to the article, and it is relevant to my first modification about a supposed influence of the concept of "nordic race" on Nazi ideology. In addition it is relevant to your wrong assertion about the link between "Nordic race", and "Aryan" / "Nazi ideology".


 * No, the article never said that "Gobineau considered Nordic people as the first Aryans." Again, it is difficult to discuss content with someone who has not understood what was written. The article says "Gobineau did not equate Nordic peoples with Aryans", going on to say that he believed that Germans were its best modern representatives, not "the first Aryans". The article clearly states that the idea that Germany was the home of the "first Aryans" dates to Penka and became increasingly influential in the late 19th-early 20th century, especially in the writings of Gustaf Kossinna. I've already explained this in the section above. I have also given you numerous references explaining "the link between "Nordic race", and "Aryan"/"Nazi ideology". It derives from the model developed by Kossinna, Madison Grant and the theories of Fritz Lenz, Hans F. K. Günther, Eugen Fischer and others. It's a link that no historian disputes . Paul B (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About Shakespeare, the article previously stated "During the Renaissance blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin were regularly portrayed in literature as signs of beauty". I consider this as a non neutral statement. It is not acceptable to extend the wording of this Shakespeare sonnet to whole Europe and whole Renaissance period. I just added "English" to limit the scope of this assertion.


 * Jeez. This again just shows that you didn't even read the citations or my own explanation earlier. Petrarch, a medieval Italian poet, defined the ideal of the blonde. Shakespeare's girlfriend, known as the Dark Lady, does not have blonde hair, but black hair. He is parodying the blonde ideal which was well established across Europe. In other words, this is not an English ideal, its is a European-wide one. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About ideological misinformation. All my comments have clear references, and they neutralized what is clearly propaganda in favor of clash of races.--jose (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to understand what you mean about "propaganda in favor of clash of races." The article describes theories about "the clash of races" that were once very influential, placing them in historical context. Your additions simply wandered off into tangents that were irrelevant or factually incorrect. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you have no chnace. This guy, Paul, seems to be the owner of the article. As an Australian this poor guy probably thinks he has to do with all this fantasy and cheap pathetic propaganda for idiots. His contributions and deletions of contributions go always in the same direction. Let if be. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.237.66 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you think I'm Australian, but my contributions are designed to keep the article accurate and NPOV as any perusal of their contents will indicate. Paul B (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Isabella I of Castile
I think that your assertion that:

"Spanish Queen Isabella I of Castile had Nordic features: fair hair, blue eyes, and whiter skin." with no further comment or clarification is highly misleading, as it gives the impression that it actually supports nordicist fantasies that there is a "nordic" ruling caste within southern European civilizations, ultimately responsible for their remarkable achievements.

Isabella I of Castile inherited those physical characteristics from her grandmother, Catherine of Lancaster, born in England from flemish born father (John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, son of english father and flemish/french mother) and spanish mother (Constance of Castile, daughter of spanish parents). She was of remarkable fair complexion and that complexion was inherited not only by Isabella but by all members of that line of the Trastamara family.

But the fact is, that Isabella I of Castile had, like most members of the royal families of that age (because of "political" marriages), a very mixed blood. She had mainly Portuguese and Spanish (both Castile and Aragon) but also English, Flemish, French and Italian ancestors.

I think all this should be clarified on the article... or maybe simply remove the offending text and photo. I believe they are utterly pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.210.106 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything that isn't sourced should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that some Nazis who run this article, like Paul B. accept such propaganda. What a shame for Wiki this article is. Boob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The real origins of the "Nordics" from the UK.
Here again the real origins of the "Nordics" from England, Scotland and so forth. In fact: Iberians (Just to avoid saying Spanish or Hispanic):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80

Taking into account that Nordicism arose quite a lot as a result of jealousy of Southern Europeans, this fact must be a blow to the "Narcissist" sorry I mean "Nordicist" mind, at least to the English and British branch. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You've posted almost identical topics to Talk:Nordic race, Talk:Scottish people, Talk:Hispanic and Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. As per WP:MULTI, please limit the thread to one talk page (I suggest Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles as it is the most relevant) to avoid fragmentation of the discussion. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  08:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's known that the British population comes from the amalgamation of Germanic and Celtic peoples, who colonized that island in different ages; however there was also a third, often forgotten element that already lived in Britain before the arrival of either Celts and Germans: those were the Paleo-European also known as Old Mediterraneans. Many peoples indigenous to the Atlantic/Western Europe were of Paleo-European origins, for example: the Basques, the old Iberians, the Ligurians, etc, as well the peoples who lived in Britain before the arrival of the Celts and the Germans.  Wales, Devonshire and Cornwall are the places where you can often notice Paleo-European looking people (skinny or petitte, dark-haired or black-haired, brown eyes, angular-shaped noses, narrow chins, a skin tone that is slightly darker than the average in Britain).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.54.216 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I thik this may help you update yout theories a little bit:

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):


 * "By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."


 * "...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:


 * "In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic "clans". He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:


 * The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both "Basque" and "Celt" are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt "Basque" or a Basque "Celtic", is a fallacy.


 * The contribution of the Celts of central Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal; most of the genetic contribution to the British Isles of those we think of as Celtic, came from western continental Europe, I.E. the Atlantic seaboard.


 * The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain. The two "Pictland" regions are Tayside and Grampian.


 * The Anglo-Saxons are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes's opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.


 * The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England - the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.


 * The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.


 * There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.


 * In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.


 * There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland. The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.


 * There is evidence for a "Genghis Khan effect", whereby some male lineages in ancient times were much more successful than others in leaving large numbers of descendants; e.g. Niall of the Nine Hostages in 4th and 5th century Ireland and Somerled in 12th century Scotland.

Some quotations from the book follow. (Note that Sykes uses the terms "Celts" and "Picts" to designate the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Isles who spoke Celtic and does not mean the people known as Celts in central Europe.) “

[T]he presence of large numbers of Jasmine’s Oceanic clan … says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic seaboard north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. …The mere presence of Oceanic Jasmines indicates that this was most definitely a family based settlement rather that the sort of male-led invasions of later millennia.[4] ” “

The Celts of Ireland and the Western Isles are not, as far as I can see from the genetic evidence, related to the Celts who spread south and east to Italy, Greece and Turkey from the heartlands of Hallstadt and La Tene...during the first millennium BC…The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about the same time as farming reached the Isles. (…)

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus…. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland. (…)

They [the Picts] are from the same mixture of Iberian and European Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.[5] ” “

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantis chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes…I can find no evidence at all of a large-scale arrival from the heartland of the Celts of central Europe amongst the paternic genetic ancestry of the Isles… can[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.68.73 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nordicism and Afrocentrism.
The claims of Nordicists are so incredibly similar to those of Afrocentrists that one wonders why there is no section in this article devoted to this interesting fact. Look at this article and then you can easily see the similarities.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-africans-who-discovered-europe-first-europeans-part-ii/

Goof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.68.73 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent Capitalization
I am merely wondering what the reasoning is behind the capitalization of nordic throughout most of the article. --Saerain (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * because it is a name (proper noun). Paul B (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Finns in article
I think with proper sources the mention of the Finns is appropriate among the current scientfic material. However, Nordic clearly refers to the Germanic group. If we want to introduce a discussion of when the mutations arose and how or why they spread it does seem very relevant but it needs proper citation. Also the stature statements seem questionable since I believe the Netherlands has the highest stature and a high incidence of R1b. Where the mutations are today is a separate discussion of when they arose and how they spread and need proper citations in genetic research for inclusion here, an article which also has to address semi-science, racism and pseudoscience all under the same umbrella. It's an important article that will change as discoveries unfold in the next several years. Statements about Finland must be very carefully documented and must have demonstrable relevance to a given section. Finland is full of Swedes and gene shift and selection for these traits needs a scienific analysis and again, good citation. I support the general topic for inclusion as we bring this article in line with genetic research. I will insist however that "Nordisc(h)" Norse etc are the eponymous labels of Germanic people and the article is necessarily about them. The associated mutations and their origins are somewhat tangential. Obotlig (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More of this material has been added without proper citation. I don't completely disagree with it but it has ORish elements and may be jumping the gun. Let the anthropologists and geneticists put this together for us (if their universities and foundations will even allow them). For example with the Dutch and Flemmish populations there is a lot of R1b but it is primarily, I believe, from a recent subclade which is very important to note. It is difficult for a layman to interpret a lot of the published material because it is not about anthropological conclusions but rather for helping other scientists reach those conclusions. Let's not make this article worse or introduce deceptively synthesized material. Again I have to admit to a personal bias as I did in the Germanic People article that I am I1, proud of it, and feel a degree of personal insult. To me this is an article about my heritage that is under assail from every side and it is hurtful. I may need to recuse myself here as well and hope that other diligent editors can step in. Obotlig (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup material in lede
I'm removing the bulk of the haplogroup material in the lede for reasons of relevance and OR. The article is primarily about the now-obsolete concepts of the Nordic race and Nordicism, which predate and are not supported by modern genetic studies. The information itself is sourced solely to a map (tertiary source) which gives only a very broad overview of Y haplogroups. Nowhere does this source make any connections between these results and the existence of the Nordic or any other race, nor does it claim that the haplogroup clusters form any sort of group besides those very clusters. There is nothing about hair or eye color, and there aren't even any percentages given - these appear to be the work of the editor eyeballing the various charts in the map. In short, the text added to the article appears to be entirely the editor's own interpretation of the map - a clear example of original research. Issues with the haplogroup material have been brought up elsewhere (see here at the NPOV noticeboard). Some of the earlier material on haplogroups, while with more and better sourcing, should also be looked over for relevance. Ergative rlt (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On the above: some of the material might be useful in the Genetic Reality section, or used to show why anthropologists etc. don't support the idea of a Nordic race today, but would need to be properly sourced. Ergative rlt (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do remove all the recent stuff. All we really need is a brief statement that today spatial genotypical variation of humans is investigated by looking at clades of DNA. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The concept of a Nordic race became obsolete before the advent of population genetics - as far as I know no reputable geneticists have suggested we reintroduce it - we shouldn't pretend otherwise. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Mongoloid race has similar problems.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Ergative rlt's edits. The lead section is supposed to be a brief introduction to the entire article; there's way too much pointy DNA stuff in there. None of the DNA-refs in the article I've skimmed through mention a 'Nordic race'. It makes me think that an editor has been 'connecting the dots', synthesising sources, to make a make a point. If someone has good sources about how genetics is important to the concept of the 'Nordic race' then please post them here on the talkpage.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of information.
Nordic propaganda has been based mainly on manipulation of information. It can be seen in the article. Here you have an example of what I mean, although it is about an article not related to this one, but I think anyone can see what I mean:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/26/why-do-iq-scores-vary-by-nation.html

This article states several theories about IQ, one of them claiming that Northern Climates could select for higher IQs. In fact the article mentions several countries with the highest IQS, like Japan, South Korea or Italy. Obviously Italy has a colder climate than the world average, like the rest of Europe does. The Nordicist utilizes this statement, takes it out of context, and uses it, for example, to imply that English people should have higher IQs than the Southern European Italians, using something that was actually meant having the Italians in mind. This pervades the entire doctrine and it is also obvious in this article, as you can see in the references to colder climates, etc, which actually meant Europe as a whole, especially classical Rome and Greece. In spite of the respecful efforts of some users, this article sometimes looks like a manifesto of Nordicism. Something should be done about it. Boo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nordic race is not obsolete
Modern scientists, such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1994, 2001) and Peter Frost (2006) recognise that there is a unique phenotype of Northern Europe in relation to fair (blonde/red) hair and light eyes. In other words the Nordic race, or northern phenotype of Europeans is still recognised. Although these scientists attack the notion of race (most politically correct scientists do) they still nonetheless have claimed there is a distinct northern phenotype distinguished by blonde hair and light eyes. Therefore this should be mentioned in the article. The fact is Scandinavians are phenotypically Nordic, it would be silly to deny this. BrutusofTroy (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, and Poles, and Russians, etc. but they were never classified as nordic.Boo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Poland and Russia have mixed subrace populations. Coon (1939) records Neo-Danubian (Nordic), East Baltic (Baltid), Lappish, Ladogan, Alpine, and Dinaric elements. You can find the same in Lundman (1977), as well as some Pontids (Med). These regions also have far lower percentage of fair hair when compared to Scandinavia, and Coon has noted that the eyes are light-mixed majority, not strickly blue. BrutusofTroy (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Finland has the largest amount of blondism and genetically they have a strong connection with Asia. You mention the aforementined authors as if they were taken seriously today. Pook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nordic race
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nordic race's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nelis": From Fixation index:, see table From Genetic history of Europe:, see table 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Distribution of I1 in Europe map
The I1 map is misleading because it does not show percentages. I1 is a minority Hap. in all the areas involved, in some actually very minority, yet the coloring in the map clearly suggests otherwise in some areas. Either the percentages should be shown, like in the R1b map, or it should be deleted. On top of that the map is also wrong because the Balkans show among the greatest concentrations of this Haplogroup and it is not shown. It is incredibly bad.

See: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Pook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I had said I would recuse myself from this topic, but unfortunately I feel that I have to go back on this. I agree, this is a bad and potentially misleading map. However I will address a few points.
 * The Balkans are (apparent) home to the male predecessor of I1, usually called I. I1 is addressed separately as a distinct clade and population group which arose from a single male of that group (I). We are all descended from someone else; the letter can be arbitrary, although I think the apparent origin in the Balkans is very ineresting for further study by geneticists, linguists, anthropologists, etc. However it does not belong in any way on this map.
 * The map is not based on necessarily the most reliable or recent data. Neither is the McDonald map (which I personally like a lot, but its data is old and has graphic design issues of its own).
 * There are serious questions about how any of this data is even collected. How are "native locals" identified and to what extent is such status ignored. All these maps and datasets can only offer an impression, hopefully a fair one, of what population genetics looked like when the ethno-linguistic groups emerged into our recorded history, or where people live today.
 * The map is definitely misleading by not using 50% gray as an indication of 50% incidence (which would be the very highest except in isolated locations).
 * Despite these problems, I can only interpret the strong push against illustrations or mentions of I1 as indicating a strong POV against an exclusionary identity of what it means to be Nordic in modern society. I don't think that is the design intent of the maps or that it needs to be. I think it is important to somehow convey that these clades do exist and that groups like the Celts, Slavs and Nordic peoples, as self-defined, do have some marked elements of shared ancestry (R1b, R1a and I1 respectively). The sensitivity of this topic is heavily politicised and the scientists, even those backed by powerful orgaisations, must pussyfoot around a topic that does not need to be seen as exclusionary or racist in and of itself. It is merely informative. Hopefully with the most clarity and least bias possible. We should kep some map here and this one is "good enough". I would dedicate time to making a better but cannot. I hope someone with an impartial view on this will do so. Obotlig (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that if the map is misleading, then it shouldn't be in the article. I think that if we can't come up with a couple decent sources which link haplogroups to the supposed race, then we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to delve into particular haplogroups; it's original research if we do.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not original research to offer sourced material on the population genetics of the regions where people who identify as Nordic live. We are not offering unsourced conclusions or synthesis, merely providing relevant material. This map is potetially misleading as outlined above. It could be fixed without too much trouble. I do not believe the map is wrong though (a few localities may actually be wrong). To show the strongly prevalent clades which everyone agrees exist in certain regions is only informative. My question would be is where we gauge the intelligence level of the reader and how do we label this map to avoid the impression that most Nordic people are I1. Again, as someone who is I1 this is a sensitive topic to me and I struggle to reflect on my own bias. Do we remove a map that on the whole shows somehing true but which might be misunderstood, and is there a POV behind wishing to do so? I feel this article is a target of racism and bias against an ethnic group but I cannot step back and see what would be the neutral way to handle it. I wish that I had the time and resources to work on a map of adequate quality and clarity for this... Obotlig (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

11 Dec edits
The sequence of edits made by Taylor 2742 removed several citations, broke others (including reverting a fixed cite to a previously broken one), added material of dubious relevance to the lede, and added a spelling error (like one of the cites, one that had been fixed before). The reverts make no acknowledgement of these concerns and add unspecified claims of "poorley written" and "bad grammer" (sic for both). And no, I don't think there is any serious debate about the supposed superiority of the "Nordic Race", nor do I see why it is "important to note" some of the contributions of Scandinavians or agree that they are "the most talented people." I invite the editor to discuss these edits. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. Which sources are debating the supposed superiority of the Nordic race? Which sources are using that the Vikings discovered America first as an argument for the supposed superiority of the Nordic race? Which sources are using the climate in Scandinavia as an argument for the supposed superiority of the Nordic race? Blatant OR in my opinion. 2 lines of K  303  11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made major edits that I hope have eliminated the problem. Please point out anything that needs to be done further, or just go ahead and edit. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should strive against all POV pushing in the article. If edits are being made with the assumption that no population group could have on average a higher aggregation of mutations or other qualities that offer some advantage, it should be put in check, and that conversely ediing done to promote the view that a group does shoud be put in check. And so for every sensitive topic of the article. RS, NOR and NPOV are important things for all of us to reflect on in making this article as good as it can be. Let us keep in mind there is some group of people who call themselves Nordic and believe themselves to whatever degree to have loosely identifiable qualities. This article deserves the same respect as any other about a population group. Obotlig (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this article as being about a population group at all. It's about an obsolete concept of a race. If someone said to me "I'm Nordic" I would interpret that to mean that they come from one of the Nordic countries, not to anything about their physical appearance. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not how the label is used. If someone who was a black African said they were Nordic I don't think it would make sense to anyone, even if this person had been born in Sweden. On the other hand, no one would question someone with brown hair who was born in Sweden with 16 Swedish great great grandparents claiming to be Nordic. Similarly is everyone who is born or lives in England English? To some it may be so, to others it would be wrong or confusing. Even in the US terms like Anglo-Saxon are used (often completely incorrectly) but does that mean that the prerogative of people who have primarily that heritage to use it as their exclusive self-label has been revoked? Are we here to promote socio-political agendas against identities based on heritage and report on the perceptions of ignorant people, or provide encyclopedic material? "Race" is not a synonym in English for subspecies (or whathaveyou) nor is its meaning limited to 19th century anthropology. The title of the article itself is problematic. It is designed as a vehicle against racism but ends up targeting ethnic groups for dissolution. Obotlig (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It should not be a vehicle against racism. It should certainly not "target ethnic groups for dissolution", which sounds like genocide. The solution is to remove any off-topic statements. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Meditteraneanism?
Does Mediterraneanism merit its own article? It seems to be a reactionary counter-Nordicist movement. One of the earliest examples I can find is in an issue of The Fascist by the Imperial Fascist League (a British-Nordicist Fascist group). In issue #65, October 1934, it quotes Mussolini as saying: "We can afford to look with disdain upon these doctrines which are coming from the North. In the South we had Virgil, Cicero, and Augustus before the Germanic Race could either read or write." This seems to be a promoting a sort of Mediterraneanism -- the superiority of Mediterranean culture and civilization (though not necessarily race, although it might be implied) over the Nordic one. Mediterraneanism is also discussed by Aaron Gillette in his book Racial Theories in Fascist Italy. --ChristianHistory (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources (meaning, more than one) that actually use the term "Mediterranianism" to mean a belief in the superiority of people from that area? I Googled the term and found that it has been used to refer to a number of different things, including the idea that there is an identifiable "Mediterranean" culture (without necessarily implying "superiority") as well as an artistic movement.  It also appears to be the name of a current philosophical/cultural movement in Israel. So it would have to be an article about a phrase that has been used to mean different things, and each of them would have to be adequately sourced.  Neutron (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a significant phenomenon as a racial concept. Mussolini was not an exponent of racial theory beyond the normal prejudices of his day. He specifically rejected race as a useful political concept. Current discussion of theories on the superiority of the Med peoples in a specifically racial rather trhan just historical/cultural sense is in the article on Guiseppe Sergi with some discussion in Mediterranean race. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that the editor who started this thread has been indefinitely blocked (not having anything to do with this page.) But hopefully he will read this and see that the subject is indeed covered, just not under the title (and perhaps not in exactly the same way) he would prefer.  Neutron (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw Man
This section:

"In the 21st century there is unanimous agreement among anthopologists and biologists that completely "pure" races do not and have not existed. Current views of European anthropologists on race: influence of educational and ideological background.[93] In other words, there are not identifiable clades of humans that exactly correspond with any ethnic groups, although population genetics have identified some dominant clades among the ethno-linguistic groups. This opportunity for population genetics has reduced the degree of speculation about human prehistory and about the validity of early recorded history."

Is a straw man. No one ever claimed the Nordic race is pure. The early anthropologists who recogised the Nordic division within Caucasoids (Europids) always maintained that the Nordic racial type was composite, and a mixture of Europid subtypes or a modified form entirely (usually a depigmentated Atlanto-Mediterranean strain). OrangeGremlin (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"anthropologists using scientific racism"
This phrase in the first sentence of the article seems out of place because "scientific racism," according to its own article, is defined as "a term used by critics to describe the use of pseudoscientific techniques and hypotheses to sanction the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority, or alternatively the claim of 'classifying' individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races or ethnicities." It is essential to note that the term is inherently biased against such concepts ("used by critics"), and—from a purely technical standpoint—it seems improper to state that anthropologists were "using" the "use" of certain hypotheses. Goldenbrook (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Maps are pure nonsense, "original research"
The two maps do not meet even the lowest quality criteria. Just look at the source where they come from. Self-proclaimed "anthropologist" Robert Frost does not cite any statistics (the truth is that often none exist) and thus these maps are merely pure fantasy drawings - look nice but do not contain any reliable information. --Furfur (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Peter Frost is a renowned Canadian anthropogist who specialises in sexual selection. Université Laval Ph.D., anthropology (cultural and biological 1995). His Pubications:

(2012a). Tay-Sachs and French Canadians: A case of gene-culture co-evolution? Advances in Anthropology, 2 (3), 132-138.

(2012b). Vitamin D deficiency among northern Native Peoples: a real or apparent problem? International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 71, 18001 - DOI: 10.3402/IJCH.v71i0.

(2012c). Reply to W.B. Grant ‘Re: Vitamin D deficiency among northern Native Peoples’ International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 71, 18435 - DOI: 10.3402/ijch.v71i0.18435

(2011a). Hue and luminosity of human skin: a visual cue for gender recognition and other mental tasks, Human Ethology Bulletin, 26(2), 25-34.

(2011b). Human nature or human natures? Futures, 43, 740–748.

(2010a). Femmes claires, hommes foncés. Les racines oubliées du colorisme, Québec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 202 p.

(2010b). The Roman State and genetic pacification, Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 376-389.

(2009). Black-White differences in cancer risk and the vitamin-D hypothesis, Journal of the National Medical Association, 101, 1310-1313.

(2008a). Sexual selection and human geographic variation, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4),169-191.

(2008b). The spread of alphabetical writing may have favored the latest variant of the ASPM gene, Medical Hypotheses, 70, 17-20.

(2007). Comment on Human skin-color sexual dimorphism: A test of the sexual selection hypothesis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology,133, 779-781.

(2006). European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 85-103

The source for his maps is Beals et al 1965, which was a popular anthropology university textbook (it was revised many more times). OrangeGremlin (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Leading paragraph
Is there really any need to emphasize as much as what is said?--English Patriot Man (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree. The lede should summarise the content of the article. At the moment its a chaotic combination of summary and attempts to debunk, which are themselves rather confused. The last sentence is utter garbage from what looks like a self-published book. Its blub on Amazon reads like a parody of sub-intellectual theory-babble . Paul B (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I should have checked the last sentence, but my point was the material may still have a place in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is important to have in the lead. Nordicism was and remains a very important and controversial concept, it was prominent in Nazism and remains so in neo-Nazism in Nordic societies. Its claims of Nordic purity were long since criticized with depigmentation theory by the 1930s that claimed that the Nordic type were by-in-large depigmented relatives of the Mediterranean type.--R-41 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is "important", or indeed why you think the depigmentation concept is somehow a 'criticism' of the idea of the Nordic race. Both Sergi and Ripley both said that Nordics were descended from the same paleolithic population as Meds. That's quite a commonplace argument. Ripley claims that the two populations were split by the advent of Neolithic Alpines, and subsequently evolved separately. In other words the idea that Nordics are depigmented Meds adapted to life in Northern europe is quite commonplace, and is a view held by believers in the theory that the "Nordic race" exists (as a type) and by believers in its supposed superior merits. Of course there were also other views: it came from Atlantis, or from the frozen Arctic etc. But we can't go into all these different theories, some very fringe, in the lede. I find this whole paragraph chaotic and confused. It's not clear what it is trying to assert. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am saying that depigmentation theory is a criticism of Nordicism. Nordicists commonly claim that darker-skinned people are "degenerate", while light-skinned blonde-haired people are "pure". It is well known that Nordic peoples descended from darker-skinned people.--R-41 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's well known. It was well known to Nordicists too. Yes, the idea that Mediterranean peoples were "mixed" also existed, along with the view that they were a distinct racial category. It's one of the paradoxes of these theories that they exist in many different and often inconsistent versions. Huxley's Xanthochroid / Melanochroid model does indeed imply that Meds were "mixed" to begin with. But Ripley's model does not. Even proto-Nazi writers like Fritz Lenz assumed that Nordics evolved from non-Nordic earlier peoples, who, obviously, were darker. I don't think we can make generalisations in the lede that don't match the content. I'm afraid I can't see how your argument that "depigmentation" theory is a 'criticism' of Nordicism adds up. How do you think Nordicists imagined that their super-race came into existence unless it was from some earlier stock? Out of thin air? Paul B (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nordicists' super race concept involves the claim that Nordics are the purest Aryans (Indo-Europeans) and that the darker-skinned Mediterraneans in Europe are "degenerate" people who used to have Nordic traits of light-skin but their skin darkened from racial intermixing with darker-skinned peoples. Nordicists have commonly claimed that the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans at their peak of power were racially Nordic but degenerated and lost power; and afterwards Nordic people were largely in northern Europe, hence the name. Depigmentation theory demonstrates that that Nordicist claim is false because it states that Nordics descend from darker-skinned people. Nordics are "mixed" to begin with as well, as are every human in existence, unless you do not believe the commonly-accepted theory that all peoples derive from ancient Africa. Are you saying that Nordicists accept depigmentation theory? What evidence is there that this Fritz Lenz "obviously" assumed non-Nordic earlier people were darker?--R-41 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating yourself. I don't know what to say other than it's just not true and that you should read the literature. Yes, the idea that non-Nordics are "degenerate" is one argument put forward by some Nordicists. Others are completely different. Hans Gunther's Racial Elements, for example, simply says that Europe can be divided into various racial groups that have distinct physical and mental characteristics. He never says that Meds or 'Dinarics' or 'Alpines' are degenerate, just that they are different types. Of course he thinks that the Nordics are the best. That's why he's a Nordicist! Baur, Fischer and Lenz have similar arguments, as does Grant. They say that the Nordic race arose from migrants who evolved into this distinct "race" after contending with the harsh climate. This evolution included physical characteristics (hair colour etc) and mental ones (resilience etc). Obviously "depigmentation" occured during this process. It's inevitable. Any Nordicisist who believes in evolution either believes that the whole human race originated in Northern Europe, or believes that the Nordics evolved from non-Nordic, presumably darker people. In fact that view is part of the whole white supremacist model of the era, which states that whites emerge from more primitive peoples. Other races are stuck at earlier stages of development. Nordics are the most white of the white. You can argue that Meds are 'mixed' or that they are less 'purified' by evolutionary forces. Both are possible positions within Nordicism and both exist. I'm sorry, but your last sentence is just nonsense. Virtually all Nordicists believed that Nordics descended from darker skinned people. Please provide some evidence otherwise. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The 'last sentence' I was referring to was "Depigmentation theory demonstrates that that Nordicist claim is false because it states that Nordics descend from darker-skinned people." You have since added a couple of other sentences that confuse the matter further. Firstly, at the time (c1900-1940) it was not established that humans originated in Africa. It was sometimes argued that Asia was the site of human evolution. However there was an assumption that the supposedly 'lower races' looked more like earlier forms of humanity. Look at textbook pictures of Neanderthals in books of this era. So unless a Nordicist believed that they evolved from even whiter and blonder people, then it inevitably follows that they believed they evolved from darker ones. That's part of the white = superior myth, which is of course linked to the symbolic idea that whiteness is linked to purification, refinement etc (and blonde = gold the 'purest' metal in symbolic terms, into which 'base metals' were to be transmuted by alchemy). Paul B (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please present thorough evidence from reliable scholarly sources that demonstrate that virtually all Nordicists believed that Nordics descend from dark-skinned people.--R-41 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Of course not [in reference to the question you have deleted], but I have just written an academic article about the topic, to be published in June! (buy the book! Southern Horrors: The Dark Side of the Mediterranean World seen from Northern Europe and America (1453-1939)), so I'm rather saturated with thias stuff at the moment. Quote from Grant: "in the crossing of the blond and dark elements of a population, the more deeply rooted and dark traits are prepotent and dominant". I love that line, because it epitomises the mix of quasi-scientific lingo with mythic and symbolic language about darkness, inherited from Christian ideas of original sin. Race becomes a kind of 'original impurity' lurking even the whitest and blondest bodies - an atavistic force of darkness emerging from our 'dark' ancestors. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt I can easily come up with a single quotation from a book that says exactly what you demand. But since its irrelevant to the content of the article I don't need to. What is important is that the assertion that "depigmenation" is an argument against Nordicism has no basis. It's easy to come up with quotations from Nordicists stating that the Nordic and Med races had a common origin. Here's Hans Gunther: "Owing to the characteristics common to the Nordic and the Mediterranean races, we are led to postulate a common origin for these races in a palaeolithic group." (Racial Elements). Paul B (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well I am removing much of that material. But I am retaining the anthropological statements on depigmentation theory in the intro on the Nordic race in general.--R-41 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course I could have written a line about dark Nordic ancestors into my article... and then cite it in a few months time! But I never thought I'd need to prove that. Damn. Paul B (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion on here what Nordicists actually thought and think, they never say that people of the Mediterranean race are of non-white/European ancestry and in fact Hitler who's regime were strong followers of Nordicism admired some stuff done by people that were Mediterranean, i.e the Italians, Portuguese, Spanish and so on. In the Races of Europe I fail to see anything said bad about them, the only person who was saying they mixed was the French Arthur de Gobineau.

Anthropologist Carleton S. Coon in his work The races of Europe (1939) subscribed to depigmentation theory that claimed that Nordic race's light-coloured skin was the result of depigmentation from their ancestors of the Mediterranean race.[1] In modern anthropology, Ulrich Mueller claims that depigmentation of Nordic peoples around the Baltic Sea likely occurred due to vitamin D deficiency amongst peoples living there 10,000-30,000 years ago whom had a lack of access to vitamin D foods such as dairy products at the time, depigmentation allowed greater amount of ultraviolet B light to be absorbed through the skin to synthesize to produce vitamin D.

This is much better. ^^--English Patriot Man (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Huxley says that Meds (Melanochroi in his lingo) are mixed - Xanthochroi + Australoids, apparently. The idea that the population movement around the Mediterranean was a cause of racial mixture was quite commonplace. This is often intertwined with ideas about cultural mixture, linked to older arguments emerging from the Reformation, according to which Protestantism is a "purer" form of Christianity than Catholicism, which is "mixed" with pagan ideas. Thus the northerners carry different types of "purity", which become conflated with racial claims - but this is probably too tangental to go in the article. Paul B (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)