More myths and misconceptions

I’ve been reading a long thread on a popular blog; among the subjects that came up during the discussion, it seems that certain myths and misconceptions pop up, as so often happens. Will some of these myths never die?

For example: the idea that ‘Germanic’ and ‘German’ are synonymous terms. What I mean is that people insist that peoples broadly described as ‘Germanic’ (that would include the Germans, of course, but also Dutch, Flemish, Austrian, and also the Scandinavians and some — and I emphasize some — of the peoples of the British Isles.

Other myths that make their appearance on the thread: that the English are ‘Germans‘ because they are Anglo-Saxon, and both the Angles and Saxons were from an area that is now part of the (fairly recently formed — in 1815) country called Germany, then the English or British are Germans. And other people insist that because the Windsor royalty who now occupy the throne of Britain were originally part of the House of Hanover or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha families, they themselves are German, even if they concede the British or English people in general are not.

The English people, in that recent DNA testing seems to show a larger percentage of Anglo-Saxon genetics than previously thought, are apparently more Germanic in descent than they are, say, Celtic, though there are those who persist in believing that the English or the ‘British’ are ‘Celtic.’ Why is this so? My guess is that being Celtic is just “in”; people admire the image that popular culture and popular ‘history’ books have presented of Celtic peoples.

The ‘Celts’ in the British Isles are, of course the Irish, the Scots (who, however, have a larger percentage of Scandinavian/Norwegian ancestry,) and the Welsh, who are considered to be descended from the native Britons who were there before the Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans arrived. Some of the Britons, after being supplanted to some extent by the Germanic arrivals (Angles, Saxons, et al) went to what is now Brittany, in France; their Breton language is closely related to Welsh.

British people aren’t ‘Germans’, though they are Germanic. As to the British royalty, it’s true that they are not ‘typical’ British people, but neither are they ‘Germans’, though the Windsors are descendants of the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This article goes into more detail.

In any case, is there any hope of people letting go of their notion that the British royals are ”Germans” just because the House of Hanover was of German origin?

The fact is that European royalty, considering that the various royal houses of Europe generally choose their spouses from within that group, constitutes a sort of ethnicity to itself, being mixtures of various ‘nationalities’ within the smallish circle of European royalty.

And then we come to the popular assertions that marrying within the European royal lines spells ‘I-N-B-R-E-D’, which most Americans consider synonymous with defective, mentally challenged, and “ugly”, as many Americans say. I don’t see that this follows; I think Americans’ obsession with ‘inbred royalty’ is just an excuse to ridicule European royalty. We Americans, with this knee-jerk obsession with ”equality”, somehow find it necessary to ridicule and denounce royalty at every turn. This is something I don’t share with most Americans. I don’t see that our vaunted ”democracy” has served us very well; how could a monarchy be any worse than being represented (in theory, at least) by a lot of duplicitous crypto-globalist politicians? There’s not much to convince us that this is any better than a bad monarchy.

As far as ‘inbreeding’, I don’t know what degree of relationship is considered ‘inbreeding’; I’ve read that Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were something like 6th cousins. This source says they were 5th cousins.

Whichever is true, the media don’t seem to consider the case of the Roosevelts as unhealthy inbreeding, though some royals are related no more closely than that.

I have noticed that the media seem to be pushing the theme of ‘inbreeding’ and trying to sell us on the idea of outmarrying, supposedly because it’s healthier, ”hybrid vigor” and all, new blood added to the stale bloodlines, etc. However ‘hybrid vigor’ does not seem to come into play with most human outmarriages/matings. I suspect the media is trying to push the Kalergist agenda, and they use that theme as a way of inducing people to comply. After all, we have to be equal opportunity spouse-seekers.

But as to the other genetic myths: there’s also the old urban legend about how the ”black Irish”, meaning those Irish-born people with dark hair and dark eyes, are descended from those men who were shipwrecked when the Spanish Armada was defeated by the English in 1588. This article casts doubt on that legend.

Most other sources seem to say the same; the story of Spaniards washing up on the shore of the West of Ireland and somehow fathering progeny there, enough to leave many dark-haired, dark-eyed descendants, just appeals to people who like a ‘romantic’ or spicy story. And the fact is, there are many dark-haired (and some dark-eyed) Irish people in the Western counties, and elsewhere. This seems to be from the predominant Celtic ancestry there, as in Wales, where there are more dark-haired people than fair.

But people do like these ‘colorful’ and fanciful stories. Maybe this is because people weaned on movies, TV, and fiction novels prefer stories to boring old facts.

Not that facts need be boring; I find reality interesting enough, and I read mostly non-fiction, though some think that preference is odd.

Another belief: those in the British Isles or America who have ‘Scandinavian’ origins as shown in DNA tests are descended from ‘Vikings.’ True, or not?

The fact is that the term ‘Viking’ is not an ethnic description as many Americans use it. Often the term is used interchangeably with ‘Norsemen’ or ‘Scandinavians’, at least those who lived in a certain era. ‘Viking’ was a term describing what these people did, not their ethnic origin or identity. Not every Scandinavian in the 8th-12th centuries was a ‘Viking’, though that seems to be assumed today. Still, the Scandinavians or Norsemen who became ancestors of people in the British Isles were probably seafarers/explorers/pirates, (Vikings) though this isn’t necessarily a given.

It’s tempting to think of our ancestors as ‘warriors’, adventurous, impressive people, and this may also explain the sudden popularity of the idea of Scottish or Celtic ancestry following the success of the Braveheart movie. It’s bad history, but apparently the image was something that people liked to identify with.

Again, this reminds me, too, of the sudden popularity of the ‘Celtic South’, the insistence, thanks to several popular books and a TV documentary, that the South was settled by, and mostly made up of, Scots-Irish people. Up until a couple of decades ago, Anglo-Saxons were considered to be the original colonists of the South, and the people who left their stamp on that region. But suddenly it was the Celts who made the South; they were the ‘real’ South, while the English settlers were downplayed. But some of our greatest heroes were of English descent: General Lee for example. General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was half-English but is claimed by the Celtic South promoters as ‘Scots-Irish.’

But even the name ‘Scots-Irish’ is based on a misconception. The people described by that term are not ‘Irish’ as in Celtic Irish, usually Catholic Irish, but Protestants with no actual Irish origins; they came from Scotland, or England, usually the border counties — to the six county province of Ulster, Northern Ireland. These are the people who for so long were in conflict with the Catholic (Celtic) Irish in Northern Ireland. They are ‘Ulster folk’ and they are also called ‘borderers’.

Still the misunderstanding of ‘Scots-Irish’ persists.

There are so many of these myths and misconceptions, and they seem impervious to being debunked or corrected. They seem to be passed around the Internet by word-of-mouth, or maybe people are all getting these ideas from certain sources. In this respect the Internet has seemed to be a very efficient way of passing along many misconceptions and falsehoods. And that’s in addition to being the most efficient source of propaganda ever.

#britain, #england, #ethnicity, #genetics, #hbd, #royalty, #vikings

The Germans and the English: closely related?

The common wisdom is that the English (or more broadly speaking, the British) are very closely related, genetically as well as linguistically.  EvolutionistX examines the relationships amongst the various European ethnicities, with some interesting findings. In response to a question he compares German and Polish genetics, specifically, and then compares the various European peoples.

“Obviously German is here referring to one of the Germanic peoples who occupy the modern nation of Germany and speak a Germanic language. But as noted before, just because people speak a common language doesn’t necessarily mean they have a common genetic origin. Germans and English both speak Germanic languages , but Germans could easily share more DNA with their Slavic-language speaking neighbors in Poland than with the English.

According to Wikipedia, the modern Germanic peoples include Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Norwegians, and Swedes.”

I’m no scholar on the subject of HBD, though I have a curiosity about it and an interest in it. But I admit I was surprised to read the last sentence in that first paragraph above — the statement that Germans might have closer genetic ties with the Polish people than with the English. This is because, just as I said, the popular belief is that the English and the Germans are very close cousins. I suppose we all tend to take that for granted, having heard it so often.

In discussions of history and politics on right-wing blogs, many people bitterly condemn the two world wars involving the English and the Germans, on the grounds that ‘it was cousin against cousin‘ or sometimes ‘brother against brother‘, with the implication that the two peoples should never have fought each other.

However history shows us that oftentimes more closely-related peoples are at odds with each other, rather than allies and good neighbors.

There’s a great deal more information in the article about the various European peoples, including some useful genetic maps. Of one of the maps, EvolutionistX says:

“Note, though, that this map has some amusing results; clearly it’s a more Nordic distribution than specifically German, with “Celtic” Ireland just as Nordic as much of England and Germany.”

That last point, about ‘Celtic’ Ireland being just as Nordic as much of England and Germany, is also counter to the popular beliefs, especially those of Americans of Scots or Irish descent, who remain adamant that their ancestors were Celts, not Nordic or Germanic. So much of the inter-group squabbling and grievance-nursing could be eliminated if only ethnic partisans would accept this information as true. Unfortunately people will often believe what they choose to believe and reject any information that challenges their belief system. Politics too often colors people’s openness to new information.

“In 2003 a paper was published by Christian Capelli and colleagues which supported, but modified, the conclusions of Weale and colleagues.[14] This paper, which sampled Great Britain and Ireland on a grid, found a smaller difference between Welsh and English samples, with a gradual decrease in Haplogroup I frequency moving westwards in southern Great Britain. The results suggested to the authors that Norwegian Vikings invaders had heavily influenced the northern area of the British Isles, but that both English and mainland Scottish samples all have German/Danish influence.”

Maybe, as I think I mentioned in an earlier post on this subject, there is a closer kinship amongst the various peoples of the British Isles than between the supposedly close kindred, the English and the Germans. And that seems only common sense, to me.

Is it just my perception, or have intra-European grudges and animosities increased somewhat in the last few decades? In the face of the common threat to all the European peoples, these kinds of rivalries and grievances should diminish. At the same time, though, I don’t think any kind of amalgamation of the various peoples should be the goal; each people is unique; all have their strengths and their weaknesses. Europeans are not all the same. And good fences make good neighbors.

Alliances, yes, but no forced unions, whether EU-style or other such pan-European schemes.

 

 

 

 

Is Britain a ‘mongrel’ nation?

The phrase ‘mongrel nation’ is often bandied about in describing Britain, and/ or England, especially by the multiculturalists, who seem to delight in saying that there are no ‘races’ but the human race, and that we are all a mixture of many different peoples.

For example, today this comment was posted on a “conservative” forum in regard to an article about the discovery of Anglo-Saxon ruins in Scotland.

“England has to be about the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth.

The source of dozens of cultural conquests, reconquests, genocide, and subjugation over it’s documented 2500 year history. That might also be why it’s culture and society is one of the best in the world – if not the best.”

Obviously this ‘conservative’ is nevertheless a big fan of the idea that ‘bastardization’ as he calls it is a good thing, a desirable thing. He probably also says similar things about the U.S.: “our diversity is our strength”, in other words.

But is it factually true that England is ‘the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth’, or that it is a ‘mongrel island’ as the BBC/Guardian crowd like to say?

Biologist T.H. Huxley said:

“The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new physical element. Therefore we should not talk any more of Celts and Saxons, for they are all one. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races”. – from Racial Origins

Freeman, in Origin of the English Nation:

“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.

British archeologist David Miles asserts that there is little change in the genetic makeup of British people for the last 12,000 years, based on recent genetic and archeological evidence.

“In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

[…]”There’s been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it’s now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons’ genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age,” Miles said.

[…]Population estimates based on the size and density of settlements put Britain’s population at about 3.5 million by the time Romans invaded in A.D. 43.

Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.

The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.

“The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model,” James writes in an article for the website BBC History.”

One of the worst things about the Internet is the way in which some of these careless statements (about ‘mongrel England, for example) and outright lies can spread so quickly. So many unfounded assertions are thrown around in the average Internet discussion that they become accepted ‘knowledge’ by a great many people who don’t bother to question what they read, let alone consult valid sources to verify anything. I’ve often said that we live in the Age of the Lie, and the Internet acts as a source of infection in communicating false ‘facts’ to people.

Maybe the forum comment I quoted at the beginning of this post was made in good faith by someone who actually believed what he wrote, or maybe he is someone who knowingly spreads false information in order to push the multicult point of view. Whether or not the latter is true, the result is the same. The comment will be quoted by others somewhere, or paraphrased, and the idea spreads. Anglophobics (and they are legion, on the Internet) will seize on it as a justification for mass immigration to Britain , because after all the English are all mongrels anyway — so why not flood the island with ever more exotic ‘diversity’?

And we here, in the States, see that line used frequently when our immigration crisis is under discussion: ‘this is a nation of immigrants. America was always multiracial and multicultural.’ And that is not even true of this country, despite the fact that there were European colonists who were not British or English. But Britain is even less deserving of having this ‘mongrel island’ label used to destroy the ethnic and cultural integrity of that country.