Talk:Nordic race

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nordic race/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article fails criterias:

• 1a the article is written in choppy prose, no coherence between most of the sentence or between sections.
• 1b - the Lead is not an accurate summary of the article contents.
• 3a - it does not adequately describe the current scientific consensus about the nature of race. It does not describe the most relevant criticisms of the notions of Nordic race theory (generally considered pseudo-scientific racism). Several sections simply summarise specific Nordic theories without providing information about the criticisms levelled against it.
• 3b it goes into lots of undue detail in the sections about specific subdivisions and definitions of the Nordic race e.g. in the section about Coon (which is a completely discredited theory)
• 4. It is not neutral in that it does not adequately present the fact that the theory holds no scientific credibility in current scholarship, it leaves out many of the most vocal critics (the criticism section mentions only Arnold Toynbee and Benito Mussolini!), and it doesn't put the nordicism into its historical context of race based genocide. It refers to Nazi Hans F. K. Günther as a "shining light of nordicism" (no attribution). ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

..........

You are right but in case you have not noticed this article is dominated by a very suspicious bunch. Look luck. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No response. I am delisting.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, some of your comments are valid criticisms of the way this article have been messed up, but I must object to the last statement, which outright misrepresents the article. It says that the Nazis considered Gunther to be a shining light of Nordiciam, not that he was, as a point of fact. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rereading the statemnent about Günther I can see that you are right, although I still think the phrasing invites doubt about the actual sender of the message. "Such views were extreme, but more mainstream Nordic theory was institutionalized. Hans F. K. Günther, who joined the Nazi Party in 1932, was praised as a pioneer in racial thinking, a shining light of Nordic theory." (no source is given) - the point about no crticism other than mussolini and Toynbee also still stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete statements (21st century)

"The emergence of population genetics further undermined the categorisation of Europeans into clearly defined racial groups. A 2007 study using samples exclusively from Europe found an unusually high degree of European homogeneity: "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world."

This is just incorrect. Despite the low interpopulation differences, clustering within Europe can be clearly documented. You can start e.g. here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758442 Centrum99 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I second this, Northern European (Nordic) particularism can be clearly seen through the recent mapping of genome in Europe. This sould be refleced in the article. Heinkhel (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I added citation needed to the first sentence (although this edit was already reversed):

The emergence of population genetics further undermined the categorisation of Europeans into clearly defined racial groups.

My reasoning for doing so: the sources in the following sentences demonstrate quite the contrary, i.e., that far from previous theories being "further undermined", population genetics has, if anything, revived and further refined the crude—albeit often sophisticated and geographically precise—human classifications of the early 20th century. Where racial researchers once spoke of the "Nordic race," modern genomics now speaks of the "I1 haplogroup." The two overlap almost perfectly. Furthermore, the cited sources at the end of the paragraph present haplogroup maps which appear to confirm Hans F. K. Günther's European race map (1922). Considering both the 1922 map and a newer haplogroup map are featured in this article, the opening sentence of this section (quoted above) is a contradiction of the information that is presented both in this article and in the provided references. The "21st century" section could use a major overhaul to reflect the current state of population genetics. The NCBI article linked above is an excellent starting point. The excerpt below adds additional support to the idea that genomics and more specifically population genetics is a natural progression from the race theories of the past:

"True, genetics has led to real breakthroughs in medicine, but it is also the latest in a centuries-long effort to understand biological differences. “In a sense, genetics is a modern version of what early scientists were doing in terms of their studies of skulls or blood type,” says Ann Morning, a sociologist at New York University."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/genetics-race-ancestry-tests/510962/

Additional references below which appear to contradict the current population genetics paragraph in this article:

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&

BDS2006 (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite this discussion being old and not followed up upon, I'm glad that the above criticism has not been taken seriously. I find it astounding how so many lay-people seem to cling on to these outdated race concepts as if these were actual facts. For a moment I feared that the entire pseudoscientific contents of humanphenotypes.net, theapricityforums or worse, would be emptied out here on wikipedia. Whatever a singular scientist may have stated in an interview to some local newspaper, it's beyond discussion what the overwhelming consensus is among experts in the field. Amphioxys (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Comments about this article: "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758442"

With all my respect but I think that this article is clearly manipulated and it´s absolutely wrong. You only need to see that the map divisions correspond to real countries not to genetic studies, countries division can't be considered as an equivalent to genetic ethnicity. For example: a real person, me, I'm a red hair and my parents looks like what anyone could call Mediterranean race "by the way that is an invented race" and many people like me are red hair in the south of Europe, (I took a genetic test and it proves me that my biological parents are my parents, and the doctors said that this is only an example that in Europe we are very mixed from the north to the south, they included me in a genetic project proving that I'm related with Scandinavian people and other Celtics tribes, it was amazing considering that all of my family ancestors were from Spain). comment added by (David) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (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)

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.