Talk:Nordic race/Archive 2

Nazism and Nordicism

Removed a section that wasn't valid because Hitler didn't favor Nordic whites over others. According to the concept of sub-races of Whites he was in fact Alpine, not Nordic.Aryan was their synonym for white, not nordic. There were many meditteranean and Slavic whites in the Waffen SS for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.217.170 (talk • contribs).

I went ahead and reverted your edits. The image of the "Nordic poster" from the nazi era is clearly relevant because it was made by the 3rd reich and provides an example of Nazi doctrine concerning race. Moreover your removal of the "Nazi Nordicism" area is unwarranted because it's adequately sourced. If you want to argue about the hypocrisy of the nazi's then this isn't the place to do it. Obviously many nazi's thought that "Nordic" I.E. Scandinavian blondes were superior to all others but many of those who thought this were neither Scandinavian or blond. As you mention, Many Mediterranean or Slavs were in the SS, So what? There are many blond Mediterraneans and Slavs who would fit the bill of the "Nordic" person. There were many obviously "Nordic" people in the SS who had swarthy appearances and dark skin and hair.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't mean that they were hypocritical but rather that the concept of Nordicism was never a pillar of their ideology. From what I've seen they said Nordic Aryan to distinguish European or white Aryans from those in India and Pakistan. I'll re-state that Aryan was their synonym for white. Please give a better rebutal than this or I will erase it again.

They were not hypocritical, but they were full of paradoxes, like many ideologies. "Nordic-Aryan" is one of Rosenberg's terms. If you had actually read his work, or Gunther's, I doubt you would dispute the points made here. I assure you that if you erase fully footnoted and indisputable information you will be reverted. By the way, the writings of both Rosenberg and Gunther can easily be found online. Paul B 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So what this discussion teach us: is anybody talking about Nordic theories bothered by the anthropology of the Nordic race? Obviously not. Rokus01 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In chapter 11 of Mein Kampf Hitler clearly states that he views all Europeans, excluding Jews and dark-skinned people of course, as Aryans. I cannot think of a more important reference to the ideology of Nazism than the words of the one who established the ideology. Rosenberg may have been a Nazi but his views would come secondary to those of Hitler and people like Goebbels who believed that all Europeans should unite against Communism and the Jews.

Excerpt from chapter 11 of Mein Kampf The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external features of the country, which features strike the eye of European observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, of ARYAN PEOPLES.

Since this passage says nothing about Nordics why do you think it is relevant? 'Aryan' and 'Nordic' are not contradictory concepts you know. They overlapped in Nazi ideology, as they did in the work of several other writers at the time. It's the overlap that helped to sustain an ideology that combines virulent anti-Semitism with Germanic racial nationalism. The central point is that Kossinna, Fischer/Lenz, Gunther and other Nordicist theorists of the time argued that they *(Aryans and Nordics) were in origin identical, since they claimed that Corded Ware culture was PIE. Do you understand this point? Paul B 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all it was not Germanic Racial nationalism it was German nationalism and white racial nationalism. I know this is not about Aryan but this article incinuates something which this reference discredits.

Baloney. The reference does not discredit anything. It just so happens that in this chapter Hitler does not use the word 'Nordic'. He does in other texts, and other Nazis do much more. If he loved all whities why was he so nasty to the Poles I wonder? Anyway, you are not addressing the arguments, nor are you producing any Reliable Sources which sustain your view Paul B 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm providing Hitler's own words, you on the other hand haven't produced anything. Maybe this just means that the alleged crimes in Poland and other white countries were fabrications oin an endeavor to villify him.

You want Hitler's own words? No problem: "I shall have no peace of mind until I have planted a seed of Nordic blood wherever the population stand in need of regeneration. If at the time of the migrations (volkerwanderung), while the great racial currents were excercising their influence, our people received so varied a share of attributes, these latter blossomed to their full value only because of the presence of the Nordic racial nucleus", Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-44, 1973 edition, , p. 475 (12 May, 1942) Paul B 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another amusing passage of gibberish in which Adolf explains why blond blue-eyed Jews are not Nordic and goes on to give us the benefit of further insights, such as evidence that southern Austria (Styria) was infused with superior "blood" by migration from the north. He also demonstrates his undying love for all whities, by treating them like horses in need of thoroughbred studs:

Unless one is completely convinced that the foreigners whom one proposes to introduce into the German community will have a beneficial effect, well, I think it better to abstain, however strong the sentimental reasons may be which urge such a course on us. There are plenty of Jews with blue eyes and blond hair, and not a few of them have the appearence which strikingly supports the idea of the Germanisation of their kind. It has however, been indisputably established that in the case of Jews, if the physical characteristics of the race are sometimes absent for a generation or two, they will inevitably appear in the next generation. One thing struck me when when I visited the arsenal at Graz. It is that among the thousand suits of armour there not one could be worn by a present day Styrian. To me it is proof that the repesentatives of the German tribes who settled formerly in Styria not only infused new strength into the indigenous blood-stream, but also, by virtue of their more vigorous blood, imposed their own attributes on the natives, and thus created a new racial type. This encourages me to station troops who are ethnically healthy in those regions where the race is of poor quality, and thus improve the blood stock of the population. (pp.473-4)

Where is this quote from? It's not from Mein Kampf (one can find out in a few seconds). Is that quotation verified?

I want to add again some comments which I made earlier (with a very different IP) with only a few adjustments:

I added McDougall's quote about the Nordic race and somebody introduced it with the words "the concept of a "masterly" Nordic race had become so familiar ... ". I read almost the whole book and McDougall DOES say that the Nordic race is superior to the Alpine and Mediterranean races in SOME respects but INFERIOR in others - he simply says, that they have different qualities. So the introduction is misleading.

[...] Furthermore Gordon Williamson wrote in his book "The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror" that Hitler didn't take Himmler's concept of creating an order of Nordic heroes seriously but let him have his way as long as the SS was completely loyal.

Regards, the Hobbit

PS To provide some further information about the Nazi Aryan-theory here's a definition contained in an encyclopedia produced in the Third Reich – the "Volks-Brockhaus" from 1935: it says Aryans: ... members of those races that have lived in Europe for a long time (nordisch, fälisch, dinarisch, westisch, ostisch, ostbaltisch) especially in contrast to the vorderasiatische and orientalische races. Only Aryans can hold public office and serve in the military and Arbeitsdienst. I think the race names could be translated with - Nordic, Falish, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic – and – Semitic.

217.236.253.225 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the above 'debate', but I thought the following might be worth mentioning:

The article currently states:

Hitler himself was later to downplay the importance of Nordicism in public for this very reason.

I would be interested in seeing a reference for this, but I am more interested in what Hitler had to say in Mein Kampf regarding his views on the racial makeup of the German nation. This is from the Gutenberg online edition (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt):

"Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the REICH itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily. Out of this melting-pot no new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to exist side by side. And the result is that, especially in times of crisis, when the herd usually flocks together, the Germans disperse in all directions. The fundamental racial elements are not only different in different districts, but there are also various elements in the single districts. Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type, beside the Eastern there is the Dinaric, the Western type intermingling with both, and hybrids among them all. That is a grave drawback for us. Through it the Germans lack that strong herd instinct which arises from unity of blood and saves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times; because on such occasions small differences disappear, so that a united herd faces the enemy. What we understand by the word hyper-individualism arises from the fact that our primordial racial elements have existed side by side without ever consolidating. During times of peace such a situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all in all, it has prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world."

I intentionally left the text intact (barring the emphasis) so that future editors could - if deemed noteworthy - select parts as seen fit. I'm not going to fool around with the article myself. Aryaman (☼) 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposing merger

I am proposing that Nordic race be merged into this article. Both articles contain basically the same thing and both fit perfectly together. I would have simply merged them myself but I wanted some input before doing so. The Nordic race article says basically the same thing as this one and it doesn't look like it's going to do much growing in the future. It should be condensed and put into a subsection of this article, probably the top or next to the top. The Nordish race article should also be merged into this one as well for the exact same reasons. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. The Nordic race article is a very new ceation by user:Rokus01, though the page as a redirect has been there for years. See the discussion above in the section Nordic Theory is not the Nordic Race (RFC). I thought I would not object its creation, since there were very few other editors who expressed an interest in the subject, despite my RfC. Those who have seem to agree that it should not be separate. Paul B 14:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Like exposed already before in Talk:Nordic theory#Nordic Theory is not the Nordic Race (RFC), I entirely disagree to a redirect of an anthropological article to an article discussing racial theories, for being confusing to readers soliciting encyclopedic information on anthropology. This is like redirecting God to Nietzsche, redirecting cars to polution or redirecting President Bush to Human Right abuses. I mean, such a link gives an unsolicited moral lesson to those eager to retrieve neutral encyclopedic information on the subject, and thus would express a NPOV political statement. Also, this would treat links to "Alpine race" and "Mediterranian race" differently, what used to be especially bothersome before this article's creationdate while linking from non-political articles. My opinion is not against Nordic theory as an article, to the contrary, I just completely disagree on the argument conveyed with this proposal to merge: "Both articles contain basically the same thing". I think such a merge, in this direction to Nordic theory, would be basically a political statement, without any additional value to the anthropological context.

Here I quote on Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging: There are several good reasons to merge a page:

1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
4. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Not any of this "good reasons" apply. My arguments against the proposed merge could be defined accordingly: 1. The two articles are not duplicates since anthropology and politics are two different things 2. There is not any overlap: in Nordic Theory not one single descriptive word was dedicated to the anthropological features (at the moment of creation). I suspect political activism after a merge would soon result in unworthy edits that mix politics, racism and myth with descriptive and objective features, just like discussed above. Who is going to protect us from this bias within an article on Nordic Theory? What kind of discussion are we going to invite on an anthropological subject, using what political arguments? Will this force into censoring or racial bias? Let us keep this two things separate for once! 3. The article on Nordic race could still be expanded on and still treats the subject in a comprehensive way already. Lots of valuable information on prehistoric Nordic races and archeological findings could be added 4. The article Nordic Race could do perfectly without Nordic Theory to understand the basic features and anthropological concepts. As such, such an argument would rather justify a merge the other way round, Nordic Theory into Nordic Race. If the articles would fit together, I would rather suggest this - for the simple reason that there would be no Nordic theory without a Nordic race. To say otherwise would imply a political denial of the anthropological concept Nordic race, and this could perfectly fit and be discussed in a political article like Nordic theory.

I would add another reason not to merge: 5. Such a merge would raise questions on the political agenda of some. Rokus01 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is no anthropological concept of a Nordic race any more. It is an entirely historical concept. It was meaningful when models were being developed based on cranial morphology and mapped onto prehistorical population movements, but those models no longer have any currency. Paul B 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about validity or having currency, we are talking about independent subjects being encyclopedic. Listen to what you say here: do you consider Nordic theories to be still meaningful instead? You are completely wrong, cranial morphology and physical phenotypes are still used to study prehistorical population movements, and to study local continuïty as well. The Nordic race model might be too coarse and superficial to be valid to modern investigation of prehistoric graves, however, the other article clearly acknowledge a shift of anthropological interest towards corresponding subtypes. Some of these subtypes are clearly related to specific prehistoric cultures, like Brunn (Linear Pottery culture) and Boroby (Beaker culture). To say measurements of physical differences not to matter anymore is merely a political statement. To say such measurements are obsolete to anthropology is utterly untrue. You have to acknowledge the historical context of Nordic race to have both an anthropological side and a political side. Both are encyclopedic. You could merge with Nordish race, since this article also has a political focus. However, the article Nordic race clearly rejects such a political focus. Rokus01 22:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a political statement. I fully accept that cranial morphology is still used in forensics, but in archaeology it has largely been replaced by genetics. Since DNA has been recoverable from ancient teeth, cranial morphology has become largely obsolete as a means to determine ancestry. The fact is that "Nordic race" means almost nothing these days. That does not, of course, mean that the distinctive morphology of Northern Europeans does not exist. Of course it does, and if the skeleton of a murder victim is found the police can use the classic cranial morphology models to determine "Nordic" origins. That's about it though. Paul B 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making up things. DNA investigation to prehistoric skeletons are science fiction in most cases, since it is hard to find sufficient DNA left. Skeletons that turn up in archeological digs are always measured and investigated on phenotype features, and classified according to type. Human osteology, not DNA investigation, is considered the modern practice of regional morphology. An extensive database, built from studies in many countries on museum material and dental models of living patients, is now available, and has yielded broad morphological groupings that can be interpreted in terms of the migrations and ancestry of human populations (Hillson 1996:289). Please verify archeological reports, primary sources and scientific reviews. Rokus01 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the one making things up. Have you never heard of the disputes about the cephalic index? Can you claim that morphology proves the existence of a "nordic race"? The quotation is specifically about dental morphology, which is affected by specific environmental factors. DNA is increasingly being extracted from teeth [1] [2] [3] [4]. It is used along with oxygen isotope analysis. Obviously, it's expensive, however, which limits usefulness. Paul B 02:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not proclaim te existence of the Nordic race. I proclaim the encyclopedic value of this denomination. The Nordic type is still referenced at in serious anthropological papers. I just expanded and sourced the article a bit more to make this clear. If considered more appropiate I would consider a renaming of the other article to "Nordic type". This should be enough for this discussion to be cut short. Rokus01 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, Nearly all of the reasons to merge a page fit this proposed merger. 1. There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject. "Nordic Theory" and "Nordic race" are exactly the same subjects. Nordic theories revolve around the "Nordic race". There is actually no such thing as the "Nordic race" and the Nordic theories article is more encompassing, meaning that the Nordic race article should be merged into this one. 2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. This also fits this scenario. The Nordic race article is an archaic racial term which doesn't deserve it's own article. As a matter of a fact, I would support merging Alpine race and Mediterranean race all into one article possibly called "Historical concepts of Race" since most of the info in this Nordic theory article contains general information about historical concepts of race opposed to "Nordicism" in specifically. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidude, Nordic theory refers to the abuse of racial schemes to political ends, not to what you think is appropiate to be current among anthropologists. In fact, it is Nordic theory being obsolete, not the anthropological base. The Nordic race (or type) denomination is still used, although distinctions on color are not considered relevant to the investigation of prehistoric skeletons. Other denominations coexist. Don't mix things up. Just concentrate yourself on describing these abuses by fascism and don't pretend proper use of science to be responsable to all mischief. Nationality was all what counted and most people killed by Nazi's for "race" would fit the Nordic umbrella "nicely". Don't insist on the lies of fascism to be true and recognize racial theories do not have anything to do with anthropological differences. An article on anthropology does not belong to the Nordic theory views of a couple of racist madmen. Your political agenda to deny some valuable encyclopedic information will not be contented Rokus01 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't just specifically deal with the use of this theory by fascists. I have no political agenda here. This proposed merger has nothing to do with politics. The Nordic theory article has numerous overlapping aspects with the Nordic race article and that's why it should be merged, There is no need for 2 separate articles. Combining and condensing all of the relevant into into a single article makes much more sense from a pragmatic standpoint. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I support merging, but:

Like other historical race definitions who have their own article with an appropriate name, like the Dinaric race, Mediterranean race ... there should be an article "Nordic race" – the concept is much older than the Nazi ideas interwoven into it.

So if there was to be a just treatment of those historical concepts I think the best way is to keep one article for the Nordic race (with a better historical explanation taking into account e.g. Edmond Demolins – who is not even mentioned yet – look at my comment in the Nordic race talk page) and to include the content from this article in a special section.

And again, like I already stated several times, the influence of Günther etc. on the mindset of the Third Reich and even the SS etc. is exaggerated – if you read texts by e.g. Goebbels or Blunck or Frenssen or Johst or ... you will see that it was NOT such a big issue as portrayed today. I think it's like transferring the theories of some picked out thinkers of GOP think tanks to the whole party. There ARE some extreme ideas, but it's not like running into Republicans confronting you with those.

Sincerely, 217.236.233.229 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Nordic theory into Fascism

I figure the Nordic theory acticle reflects the chaotic science and antihumanitarian emphasis of Fascism sufficiently to justify a merger into that other article.

1. Both articles refer to the subject of politically inspired racism.
2. The fascist views on nordic supremacy are completely covered by the article on Nordic theory and Wikipedia is not a dictionary to account to such an degree of overlap
3. The subject of Nordic theory is unlikely to be expanded very much since this topic is not meaningful by itself, ceased to be reinforced by mainstream theorists and lacks currency within legal and recognized politics.
4. The article on Fascism requires the information from Nordic theory to supply the necessary background material and context. The other way round, Nordic theory is incomplete without fullscale reference to its political consequences the world is suffering until today.

Rokus01 01:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are simply being silly. Don't play games. Firstly it's relevant to Nazism, not fascism, as anyone who has the slightest knowledge of fascism should know. How can Nordic theory be merged with a political ideology invented by an Italian? Secondly, it's being expanded and debated all the time, unlike the Nordic race article. Thirdly many proponents (e.g. Calvin Coolidge) were not fascists, so your argument fails on all counts. Paul B 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I oppose such a merger. Fascism has small aspects related to Nordic theory but nowhere near enough for a merger. However see above. I would support a merger of this page as well as other similar pages into a single encompassing page called Historic concepts of race. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain here too. "The" Nordic theory is not so much a theory on "race", but an abuse of contemporary racial anthropology. This abuse was in accordance with fascism's political motives towards expansion and hegemony. Thus, such a racial theory to be specifically "Nordic" is just circumstancial. However, this abuse was certainly common to Fascism and not confined to Nazicism. Italian fascism adopted the ideal of cultural hegemony by themselves and Mussolini was not deterred to introduce the Charter of Race accordingly, here confusing concepts of nationality and race by purpose just like the Nazi's. Correspondingly, Japanese fascism recurred to indoctrination touting Japanese racial superiority - leading to atrocities against the Chinese population and European (ironically, mostly "Nordic") prisoners of war and slave laborers. Also, the appliance of "Nordic Theory" to Nazism did not save the milions of Polish people and Russians from termination by Nazicm, without regard to their true racial features being Nordic or close to Nordic, instead they were labelled Üntermensch" and killed accordingly. This article is clearly within he scope of fascism's total abuse of the concept of race by racial theory. All adherence to racial theories is referred to nowadays as being Fascistic. The article on Nordic Theory could be useful to this end and moved to the Fascistic context, naturally heavily condensed and put in a subsection together with those other "racial theories" inherent to fascism. Rokus01 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"All adherence to racial theories is referred to nowadays as being Fascistic" Perhaps by people who are ignorant, yes. We are not supposed to be speading ignorance, as you seem to be recommending. Paul B 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We certainly disagree here. Fascism without a nationalistic sense of superiority derived from racial theories is just unthinkable. However, this does not mean racial theories have anything to do with a proper understanding of race. You would be spreading ignorance by saying racial theories from fascistic groupings are valuable to the concept of race (or human type) as hold by anthropologists and archeologists. Rokus01 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is unintelligable. "Fascism without a nationalistic sense of superiority derived from racial theories is just unthinkable." Just because you can't think something doesn't make it true. Racial theories barely existed in Italian Fascism under Mussolini, at least not until Adolf starting influencing his pal Benito, and even then it was only anti-Semitic ideology. Race played no role in Franco's ideology either. Paul B 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This article, If everything was to be removed that corresponds to the Nordic race article we would be left with a mere stub of an article which itself should be merged with another more broad article. Which In itself I wouldn't oppose, the main thing you need to focus on here is the clear correspondence between these articles and their feasibility into a single all encompassing article. Most of the information in the Nordic race, Alpine race and Mediterranean race articles correspond to each other and have overlapping information. This is the main reason they all including this one should be merged into a single all encompassing article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think such a stub would perfectly fit into the article on Fascism. Although you are exaggerating by suggesting this article has so much in common with the non-political article on the nordic race, having an anthropological focus instead. The absense of any anthropological information on this article was the very reason to start the other article anyway. There, the main racial theories are just mentioned to make the difference. Rokus01 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Theory has nothing to do with the doctrine of fascism, or of its implementation in Italy and Spain. And who are you to say Nordic Theory is not meaningful in a encyclopedia where every Pokémon has it's own biography? I'd say you're just another person trying to discredit fascism AND trying to increase guilt on the Northern European peoples. 81.157.180.245 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, so the one and only argument against merging Nordic theory into Fascism is that it would discredit Fascism? Didn't Fascism already discredit itself? To my knowledge Fascism is illegal in the civilized world. And what about Nordic theory discrediting anthropology and the concept of Nordic race? I am afraid we have a very serious issue here. Rokus01 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the main argument is that Mussolini, the inventor of Fascism (which is a political ideology), absolutely explicitly rejected Nordicist theory and that it had no relevance to any fascist movement apart from Nazism, but it did have relevance to non-fascist forms of racism in the USA. Paul B 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Restating merger to include numeorus other articles

I've re-stated the merger to include numerous other articles. I propose we change the name of this page to something like Historical definitions of race and merge Nordic race, Nordish race, Alpine race, Mediterranean race, Armenoid, Australoid, Mongoloid race, Noric race as well as a few other articles into one all encompassing article since most of those articles are stubs to begin with and will probably remain so. Input? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The article already exists. It's called Race (historical definitions). We can't just merge all race articles into one. It's impracticable and unhelpful. The resulting article would be way too long and confused. There was an attempt to merge Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid into one article called "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Capoid" or something. It just led to utter chaos. This article is about a specific concept that became intertwined with politics, aesthetics and other issues. It needs its own distinct page to maintain clarity and legibility. Paul B 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with Paul B. The resulting article would be too unwieldy. These articles are ultimately too important on their own to be lumped together.  DangerousNerd  talk 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the initial and prime statement of this article, "Nordic theory (or Nordicism) is a theory of racial supremacy", incompatable to all other articles concerning race. Nordic theory is political and is relevant to fascism. Race should not be subject to political theories. Rokus01 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, it's a theory of racial superiority. It's consistent with any political position - even Communism. Will you please stop talking nonsense about fascism. The theory developed in the late nineteenth century, before fascism existed as a political philosophy, and when even many socialists were influenced by eugencist ideas. One of the countries in which was most influential was America, where it was never associated with fascist political models. Paul B 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Race (historical definitions) article needs to be re-written to begin with and all of the articles I listed for merging are basically stubs or crossovers from other articles with the exact same information. I do believe that it would be possible to merge all of the listed articles into Race (historical definitions) and cut down their redundant content into a fair sized and consistent and quality article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how this looks. Do you have an example of what it would look like anywhere I can view?  DangerousNerd  talk 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nordicism is a specific theory which could never effectively be merged with the historical definitions article because it has its own internal logic and history. It is an important phenomenon in its own right. Merging the other Ripley categories (Alpine/Med) would mean that it would go off on tangents that would lose focus. For example the African-American use of Sergi's theories would be way off topic, but is relevant to the Med race article. Articles should never become diffuse and unwieldy. It makes them difficult to read. Shorter ones are often better. Mere stubs that tell you nothing more than you can get elsewhere are of little use. The Nordish one can be merged here. My objection to the Nordic race article is that it presents largely obsolete theories as though they are current and true, while also padding itself out with a lot of generalised waffle that is isn't even specifically about the so-called Nordic race.

There is no reason, of course, why you can't add to the Historical Definitions article to improve it. Paul B 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From a purely scientific standpoint the "Nordic theories" are also obsolete and historical. Regardless of their "internal logic and history" it should be no more than a sub section of the historic definitions of race. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's a non sequitur. Of course they are obsolete, but that does not mean they do not require a separate article. Phlogiston is obsolete as a theory, but that does not mean it should be merged with "Elements (obsolete)" or some such article. Lots of obsolete theories of hiistorical interest have their own articles, and rightly so: Divine Right of Kings, Baconian theory, Vitalism etc etc Paul B 10:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A few of those articles could be merged into others as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but now you just seem to be preoccupied with merging for the sake of it. Please address substantive issues.Paul B 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we just focus on the merger of the "Nordic theory" and "Nordic race" right now? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot more sense yes. As far as I can see Rokus's claim that this article should be merged with Fascism was just a spanner-in-the-works piece of obfuscation. It has been rejected as absurd by every single editor on the Fascism page and here. Its patent nonsensicality does not seem to have deterred him, because it's really just a distraction from the main issue. IMO, your proliferation of merger tags just helps that process of distraction. Paul B 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the suggestion that they be merged in those other articles for now. Let's juts focus on merging Nordic race into this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul B, I take it very serious you are discrediting a well sourced article here to your political ends. Do you think you can mislead me? Do you intend to deny the anthropological nature of race by way of a new kind of negationism? What does "largely obsolete" mean, if scholars still use the Nordic denomination - as well as other denominations - in their 21th century scientific articles? Opposing science on your own terms is a serious violation of OR policy.

Wikidude, maybe you did not notice my argument against merging: I consider the initial and prime statement of this article, "Nordic theory (or Nordicism) is a theory of racial supremacy", incompatable to the article Nordic race. Nordic theory is political and is relevant to fascism. Race should not be subject to political theories. You still owe me an answer to this. I hope you are able to make the ideological difference between Nordic race and Nordish race, since I gave you my reasons in blessing a merger with Nordish race, remember. However, not to Nordic race, that does not want to be associated with fascistic abuse. Rokus01 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, There's no such thing as the "Nordic race". It's not a scientific classification. The classification of peoples into racial groups is highly controversial and classifying Scandinavians especially blond haired and blue eyed ones into some separate group called "Nordics" is blatantly absurd. There are numerous Scandinavians who have brown eyes and black hair and numerous non-Scandinavians who have blond hair and blue eyes. There's no such racial classification as "Nordic". It's a historical term which was used almost entirely by Nazi's and fascists. It was invented prior to knowledge of DNA and genetics and is currently obsolete. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So Rokus, what are my mysterious "political ends"? Am I a neo-Nazi or a PC leftist? I ask because I have been regulary accused of being both. I try to be a fair-minded historian. As I have already told you, I did not change the title, and no-one other than you has felt "insulted" by it in the last few years. Paul B 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he's going to answer. Do we have a consensus to merge? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidude, even if so, such an insight should be discussed within an anthropological context. Your opinion "there is no such thing as the Nordic race" is both irrelevant and pov pushing, since - I repeat - the Nordic denomination still has currency in scientific publications, especially in the wider sense. You confuse political abuse of an anthropological denomination involving nationality and culture to the mere anthropological concept of a physical type. The scope of this article, racism, is completely different from the scope of the article on Nordic race. I respect your view on races, however, I still take notice of your political motivation to exceed the scope of this article.

Paul, whatever you say you are is irrelevant, to me you are just a few alphabetic characters on a screen producing strings I don't agree with. Worse, those strings don't seem to be intended to achieve some kind of agreement. To me the link between fascism and political abuse of anything that serves the purpose of propagating nationalism, including the abuse and faulty interpretations of anthropological concepts, is obvious. You seem to defend this wrong and racist concept conveyed by fascistic grouping by suggesting such a cultural, suprematist concept of race is inherent to anthropology itself. Your revert proves you are tainted, and proves this became a tainted article that needs to be properly addessed. Rokus01 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is of no interest when it is contradicted by overwhelming evidence and the consensus of all other contributors. You are even adding totally false information to the Nordic race page by mirespresenting genetic research to claim that it supports some fring theory about Neanderthals. Paul B 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to grasp the difference between supplying valuable sourced information and your own kind of original research. You do not even seem to understand the scope of your own article, including even off-topic information of Alpine and Mediterranean race in the WP:Lead! This article does not resolve the superiority concept, and I wonder why such an article was classified as a "good article" to start with. I think maybe this nomination went to your head and now you think you have it all right, while all you fight for is just some lousy POV. Think about it, the scope of this article does not come close to the scope of Nordic Race. This subject has been talked over enough, as far I can see any positive arguments forwarded from your side. Now be off, don't insist on your wrong interpretation of merging subjects having scopes that do not concur - especially when such a merger would require a lot of negiotiating skills people promoting Nordic Theories obviously lack. Rokus01 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The "original research" is in your article which jumps from footnoting Deniker and Ripley to articles from the 2000s about genetics. You are the one merging archaic categories with genetics in a wholly spurious manner. In contrast this article is about the historically specific concept of Nordicism which relies on racial catgories existing in a specific period. If you cannot understand why the Alpine and Med categories are relevant to this article than you really should give up. The Nordic category only has meaning in relation to the other categories existing at the time, so they have to be mentioned to make sense of the debates discussed in the article, in which various Nordicist and anti-Nordicicist theorists are quoted making points about the alleged differences between these racial groups. If you delete that from the lead, then much of the discussion in the rest of the article does not make sense. It is difficult to argue with the sheer stupidity of someone who will delete a passage referring to categories and then leave in the next sentence saying "These categories expanded more ancient..." and all the other references to Med and Alpine groups which would now be unexplained. That's utter incompetence. Paul B

I think it escaped your attention "these categories" were still mentioned in my edit. I could leave my alleged "soapboxing" I intended to resolve the superiority issue for later, and I almost lost my interest in this discussion altogether, however, I think you misunderstood my objection to summing up the racial details of the Alpine and Mediterranean categories. Such details really don't belong in the lead of an article on Nordicism. The lead should define the scope of the article and obviously here something went wrong. Rokus01 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this was your edit. You added a paragraph of semi-intelligable waffle [5] which made no sense of the 'these categories' statement. Paul B 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my point on WP:LEAD. Reverts without arguments while adding irrelevant waffle on Talk about something else, is a better definition of unintelligible. Rokus01 23:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. However, read the policy yourself. e.g. "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." Paul B 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To anonymous pan-Aryanist

Dear Mr anonymous. You are deleting masses of cited material - including an image published by the SS - on the grounds that Hitler doesn't say much about Nordics in Mein Kampf. So what? Are you saying that the SS is not a Nazi organisation? Are you saying the Rosenberg's Mythus is not a major Nazi text? Have you read it? Of course the reality is that there were also competing ideas; some Nazis were not thoroughgoing Nordicists, but these ideas certainly pervaded the culture. Paul B 23:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he will reply. He seems to want to remove any implication that "Nordic theory" had anything to do with Nazism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should NOT be merged with nordish race

The term nordish race was coined by richard mcculloch who is NOT an anthropoligist, he is a WHITE NATIONALIST and a NORDICIST. see his racist and biased website here: http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

He is of british origins and his primary concerns are with denying, covering up and hiding the mediterranean element in the British isles. If we combine this article with nordish race then the british would be seen as 100% nordish which is what richard mccullooch wants everyone to think, when in fact every anthropoligist that has survayed the british isles from john beddoe over 150 years ago to carleton coon to bertil lundman to jseph deniker has noted a significant mediterranean component in the physical makeup in the people of the british isles and a even smaller dinaric and alpine component. The mediterranean component is always noted as being strongest in wales and cornwall where according to most anthropoligists it is in the majority of the population.

see the article on the mediterranean race for evidence of the mediterranean component in the british isles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race

Combining the articles has nothing to do with promoting the dumb theories of McCulloch. As you say he is "a NORDICIST". Type Nordicism and see where you get sent. Paul B 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Talk

The Theory of Superiority - The concept of racial superiority involves a currently obsolete approach to the concept of race, that explicitly includes cognitive abilities to the definition of race. Although not endorsed by modern anthropology, race continued to be a vital concept in the foundations of social psychology as the genetic interpretation of human motivation and performance gave way to an environmental one and only in more recent times, social psychology has begun to lose interest in the concept. As yet, social psychology has failed to present a rounded, integrated view of the complex interactions of individual and normative factors in human behavior.. It was already noted by DuBois that in making the difference between races, it isn’t race that we think about, but culture: “…a common history, common laws and religion, similar habits of thought and a conscious striving together for certain ideals of life” Late nineteenth century nationalists were the first to embrace contemporary discourses on race, ethnicity and survival of the fittest to shape new nationalist doctrines. Ultimately, race came to represent not only the most important traits of the human body, but was also regarded as decisively shaping the character and personality of the nation. According to this view, culture is the physical manifestation created by ethnic groupings, as such fully determined by racial characteristics. Culture and race became considered intertwined and dependent upon each other, sometimes even to the extend of including nationality or language to the set of characteristics of a racial definition. Pureness of race tended to be related to rather superficial characteristics that were easily addressed and advertised, such as blondness. Racial qualities tended to be related to nationality and language rather than the actual geographic distribution of racial characteristics. In the case of Nordicism, the denomination "Germanic" became virtually equivalent to superiory of race. Bolstered by some nationalist and ethnocentric values and achievements of choice, this concept of racial superiority evolved to distinguish from other cultures, that were considered inferior or impure. Until recent history this racial view, itself an abuse of the physical definition of racial type supplied by anthropology, has been politically exploited by groupings commonly deemed racist or fascist, and as such considered illegal in most of the civilized world.

The above passage was added by Rokus, whose motivations are in many ways a mystery to me, though I suspect he's a True Believer in the glories of the "Nordic race" who is desperate to dissociate himself from Nazism and so over-compensates. I've removed it to talk. Despite the (few) footnotes, this seems to me to be essentially a personal essay, full of dogmatic assertions and sweeping statements, along with factual inaccuracies (the notion of "pureness of race" is not "illegal" anywhere). It's also wildly off topic. Personally, I'm not happy about including such general assertions in an article about a specific topic. I think we should stick to facts without too much editorialising. What do other editors think? Paul B 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your suspicions are violating WP:AGF are near to paranoid. I am not talking about notions of "pureness of race" being illegal, I am refering to (unscientific) racial prejudice that indeed has been juridically addressed, for instance in the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1963. You take advantage of modern polemics about the rejection of race. These polemics are not relevant to the definition of racism. I will quote David C. Rowe, 2001: "a racial concept, although sometimes in the guise of another name, will remain in use in biology and in other fields because scientists, as well as lay persons, are fascinated by human diversity, some of which is captured by race." Modern definitions of racism do not draw on biology. According to the current mainstream view "Racism does not originate from the existence of ‘races’. It creates them through a process of social division into categories: anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic, cultural, religious differences." It is a mystery to me why anybody calling himself PC would think this is off-topic. You need better arguing for this. Rokus01 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't even seem to understand your own words: "this concept of racial superiority evolved to distinguish from other cultures, that were considered inferior or impure. Until recent history this racial view, itself an abuse of the physical definition of racial type supplied by anthropology, has been politically exploited by groupings commonly deemed racist or fascist, and as such considered illegal. The sentence clearly says that the concept of inferiority or impuiry is "considered illegal" Paul B 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't exclude the necessity to rephrase and make things intelligible. Rokus01 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, I've given up thinking that's it's possibe to engage in rational debate with you. Your persistence with the misuse of the word "fascist" after every single editor here and on the fascism article has exlained why you are wrong indicates that you are impervious to argument. It's not that much of what is said in this screed is wrong, it's just that it's way off topic. It's not specifically about Nordicism. Maybe it's relevant to the race article or to the Scientific racism article. Paul B 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very open to debate, the only thing you need is giving sourced arguments. Ok, at least now you admit I am not making things up. According to modern definition, racism can exist perfectly without any notion of race, since racism "creates" it's own notion of race. So what exactly do you think is off topic? The first sentence of this article proofs this is not true. I quote: "Nordic theory (or Nordicism) is a theory of racial supremacy" So who is "impervious" to argument, calling a section dedicated to the backgrounds of this theory of racial supremacy, off topic? Or are you so much against my edit only because you prefer to insist fascism does not have anything to do with racism? One reference to fascism and you accuse me of being off topic? Sure, I could erase this single word and pretend this racism (of Nordicism) did not have any political impact on fascism. Sure, I could pretend fascistic groupings are not the most notorious proponents of racism. How far you want to go in keeping this subject out of the article? Sure, to this section it would suffice to say "Until recent history this racist abuse of physical anthropology has been politically exploited." Would this calm you down? However, remember, calling the link between racism, nordicism and fascism off topic at all is not supported by WP:RS, and would make the article subject to WP:NPOV policy. The NPOV tag would need to return and a peer review should reconsider the "good article" status. Just start thinking about it, by now we could keep this subject for later. Rokus01 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are 'making up' is your material on the Nordic race page, which implies that an early 20th century category is supported by recent genetic analysis. Racist thinking was endemic in the early 20th century. One of the countries that was most profoundly affected by racist ideology was the USA, which was never fascist. Likewise Italian fascism was not noticably any more racist than other western countries at the time. And thet's largely true of all other fascist regimes with the exception of Nazism. But no, it's not just the reference to fascism, it's the fact that the whole section is not about Nordicism at all. It's a set of generalised statements about race-theory. Paul B 11:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a good article

This article still needs to be improved in order to deserve the good article status.

Why? This article does not comply to three out of six (50%) fundamental requirements listed at WP:WIAGA.

- It is NOT broad in its coverage. It does not address the major aspects of the topic, in particular the nature of racism, racism in relation to suprematism, the political impact of suprematism on fascism and the political influence of nordicism on fascistic fringe politics. Moreover, the article does not stay focussed on nordicism and diverges on racial issues - even in WP:LEAD.

- It is NOT neutral: the article represents viewpoints of its own and without regard to other viewpoints as represented in 21st century WP:RS. Those viewpoints concern physical concepts of race and denial of racism (at least the modern definition of racism being culturally defined) to be a fundamental characteristic to fascism.

- It is NOT stable: contributions are reverted continuously, discussions are ignored, arguments defiled ad hominem.

Rokus01 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been stable for a long time. The only recent reversions have been because of you, and a banned neo-Nazi vandal. Vandalism does not affect the stability of an article. The "nature of racism" is not the topic of this article. That would be the articles on racism and racialism. We also have scientific racism, race and intelligence, race (historical definitions) and probably others. Paul B 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You complain that the article does not address "the nature of racism" and then say that "the article does not stay focussed on nordicism and diverges on racial issues" You add an entire section that does not even mention Nordicism once and which is entirely a divergence "on racial issues" and then you add this sentence as a criticism! It's this weird capacity for double-think that makes discussion with you so bizarre. Paul B 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You could focus on racial issues if this would broaden the coverage. However, I found an article diverging on racial issues in a very imbalanced way, which is something completely different. You can only broaden the coverage with racial issues as long as this would give more insight to Nordicism, which it didn't because relevant statements on racism, the only link between race and Nordicism, are/were mysteriously missing. I still think the article can be improved on all the above, or else I would strongly suggest an independent review. Rokus01 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As so often., I can't make any sense of what you are saying. The only "divergence" you seemed to object to was two sentences summarising the concept of Med and Alpine races. Since these two sentences summaried the taxonomy that is central to the concept of "Nordic" identity, in this context this is no divergence at all. Your section, in contrast, has no direct relevance to Nordicism at all, unless we want to discuss the whole history of racial theory in this article, which makes no sense. Paul B 11:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Those viewpoints concern physical concepts of race and denial of racism (at least the modern definition of racism being culturally defined) to be a fundamental characteristic to fascism." Show me a scholar who says that racism is fundamental to Fascism (if that's what this strange sentence is actually saying). The fact that activists use the word "fascist" as a slogan for anything vaguely right-wing is not a very good argument. Have you really not taken on board what every single editor on the Fascism page has pointed out to you? 11:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Racism a fundamental characteristic to fascism: I quote Michael Mann of the University of California, Los Angeles (Fascists- Michael Mann, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Pp. x+429. $65.00. ISBN 0-521-83131-8. Except: [6]): "I join those who believe that Nazis were fascists and that fascism can be treated as a more general phenomenon." Racism, of course, is mentioned by him as well as a fundamental characteristic to the Northern European kind of fascism and, more important, as being inherent to nationalism. Still, he considers this merely a matter of emphasis. He gives examples of other fascists that bring up race to the glory of nationalism, like the Romanian fascist leader Codreanu. "Nationalism was more emphasized in Nazism, statism in Italian fascism. But these were variations on common themes." My point of view: I do not mind other (relevant and respected) opinions to be mentioned, as long as these are balanced in a neutral way with other views. This is what I call a broad approach, worthy to a good article.

2. My criticism is directed to leaving the central issue of Nordicism, the racial theory of superiority, unresolved. Describing a few physcial types and then assert this whole thing to be a non-issue "only" because according to some theories there is no race; this just won't do nor convince. First, because other scholarly viewpoints on race are still current and ignoring this fact won't make this argument on Nordicism very credible (if being credible on this would ever be considered an issue to the makers of this article). Second, much more important, political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism what Nordicism is, being strongly tied to the definition of racism itself: ""Racism does not originate from the existence of (physical) ‘races’. It creates them through a process of social division into categories: anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic, cultural, religious differences." Nordicism is a cultural phenomena and its concept of superiority is not related to any scientific approach on race (being very different from scientific validity of the concept of race).

3. I disagree vehemently to your opinion saying the seccion on racism has no relevance to Nordicism. This kind of statements continue to make me suspect to the real intentions of this article. Maybe a whole seccion dedicated to the racist backgrounds of Nordicism is too ambitious, still a clarification on this issue I consider indispensable. Rokus01 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The quotation says that Nazism is a specific type of fascism. Very few people would disagree with that. It says nothing at all about racism being fundamental to fascism.

2. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Why do you keep referring to "political correct (hypocritical) statements on race"? I really have no idea what that means. I don't understand what the relevance of the quotation about racism being created by "social division" is. I'm not disputing it - for example the idea that "hispanics" are somehow a different race from "whites" is a concept that exists in America, because of cultural differences and immigration issues. The notion of racial difference arises from social and ethnic identity in this case. The idea that the Spanish are a different "race" from "whites" would be nonsensical in modern Europe. However I think the article explores how the concept of the Nordic race arose in a way that mixes anthropology with social ideology. Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to separate the two. Is it a coincidence that Sergi, an Italian, is anti-Nordicist and Günther, a German, is pro-Nordicist? Of course not. But they would both claim that their views were the result of objective study of the scientific evidence.

3. A stuck-on section on racism in general would be off-topic. What needs to be clarified? Paul B 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul:

1. The quotation says something quite different: statism and nationalism are both typical to fascism. Thus, Nazism was as much "a specific type of fascism" as Italian fascism was. Also, it says (fascist) statism and (fascist) nationalism are to be regarded as one and the same phenomenon. One does not exist without a certain dosis of the other. Both political abuses try to single out a model citizen according to certain "common" prejudices. Here, you should not make the mistake this "common prejudices" are equal to a valid definition of race. Moreover, verify the definition of racism and you'll find out racism has to do with characteristics that has been singled out that as often may or may not be related to a certain physical type.

2. Agree, the definition of race for racistic reasons is not objective at all. See also the definition of racism.

3. Outlining the special relation of Nordicism with racism would clarify the folly of relating blond to a masterrace. Notice, blond has been a random political choice. It could have been red, brown or black, tall or short, as much as "race" is represented in the fascist phantasy by a language, maybe even the adherence to a certain religion, etc.

Rokus01 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of your response to point 1. No-one is denying that Nazism is a type of fascism. The rest of your response is difficult to follow. As for your comments on issue 2., the point I was making is that we can't easily separate scientific and "racistic" - as you put it - definitions. Sergi, Gunther and others were legitimate scientists in their day, though to us their views appear to be affected by ethnic bias. 3. No, that's not true. People like Huxley (his 'Xanthochroi' is broadly equivalent to 'Nordic'), Grant and others thought that they were applying the best science of the day, and that their conclusions were supported by detailed evidence. There was nothing random about the claims made on behalf of "Nordics". Paul B 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I am sorry for your continuous bad reading. First you defied me to find a "scholar who says that racism is fundamental to Fascism". In response, I supplied you a credible source that linked nazism and italian-type statism such, that "fascism can be treated as a more general phenomenon" based on this two very pillars. This goes a lot further than saying that Nazism is just "a type" of fascism: it implies that the fundamentals of Nazism can not be separated from the Fascist phenomenon. This source is saying you can not just split off Nazism from fascism, and idealize the particular intentions, views and methods of Fascism being exclusively restricted to statism. To the contrary, racism - as being fundamental to the nationalist fundamentals of the Fascist phenomenon - may be considered equally fundamental to Fascism. Please, be a better loser next time you decide to challenge someone.

By the way, your insisting on the "racism versus fascism" issue in this matter deviates far from the central issues of my criticism: that Nordicism should be described as a fundamentally racistic approach to the concept of race, and that racism does not have anything to do with descriptive anthropology. Rokus01 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very very tedious. Your scholar did not say racism was fundamental to fascism. The best you could come up with was a quotation which linked Nazism to Italian fascism, a link that everyone in the world is aware of. This does not mean that everything Mussolini believed Hitler believed and vice versa. Please stop boring me. Paul B 17:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely I did not engage in this discussion to amuse you. Nor does it amuse me to spell things out. Again you corrupt this statement: Racism is a fundamental characteristic to fascism. According to "my scholar", the link between Nazism and Italian fascism is called Fascism. Let's make it easier and return the question to you: Could you mention one single fascist regime that did not recur to systematic racist advertisement? Maybe I could advance your answer a bit (and cut short some obvious trivial denials) by betting you'll forward external influences that imposed racist laws against the will of Mussolini. This would be a matter of interpretation: most serious, not political motivated historians would agree Mussolini contributed his racist bit - not necessarily by conviction, for fascism is politics employing nationalism. Next, obviously you'll defend Franco and Perron saying they never got involved into "real" racist issues. I understand your problem, since you are not able to distinguish between racism and race: you'll disagree Spanish-Franco racism would be defined by the enforcement of one culture, one language and one people, since the Basque people are not a race. Peron halted Jewish immigration to Argentina. So you deny this to be called racism by definition because Jews are not to be considered a true race? If any fascist movement will come to power nowadays, it won't be because of their colorful uniforms, but because they will thrive on promises to kick out people that are "different", whether or not they are willing to call those differences "race" themselves or not. All your reluctance to face reality on the racist characteristics (according to definition) of fascism comes down to one thing: your ignorance concerning racism being hardly linked to comprehensive objective criteria. I repeat the definition: "Racism does not originate from the existence of (physical) ‘races’. It creates them." And the Nordicism ideas of a masterrace are created equally. Rokus01 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R result

Due to lack of participation, no consensus was the result. No action will be taken. I do, however, recommend that the article be further improved. It can be renominated at GA/R at any time. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is Already an Article on the Nordic Race

Theres is NO need to merge this article with the nordish race as the nordic race article can be seen here: nordic race.

as ive explained above, nordish race is used by a white nationalist called richard mcculloch who is not an anthropoligist and who aims to deny and hide the mediterranid and non nordic elements of the idnigenous british and irish people.

the nordic race has been used by real anthropoligists and is accepted in anthropology so that is the article wit which this one should be merged, if at all merged.

Yes we know it's not used by "real anthropologists". That's not at issue. The question is whether it deserves its own separate article. Paul B 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Should not be merged. The Nordic race and the Nordish race are different concepts. Furthermore, if we include McCullough's stuff here I am afraid that this article will no longer meet the good article criteria.

MoritzB 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Including it is not endorsing it! We include Rosenberg and Blavatsky, after all. Nordic to Nordish is as blond to blondish. Paul B 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Indo-European theories?

What about those Indo-European associations of the Nordic theory immensely popular in German nationalism up to 1945? According to these, the Indo-Europeans had originated as Germanics in either Germany, Scandinavia, or (as in Hitler's private reasoning) Ireland or Iceland, and had spread from there all over Europe and Asia overrunning anything and everything as a superior belligerent master race, thus subsequently becoming Indo-Europeans over time due to their military expansion. Since the German word for Indo-European is of the Indo-Germanic variant, most Germans outside of ethnological or anthropological studies (due to not being familiar with Marija Gimbutas or the Kurgan hypothesis) confuse any mentioning of Indo-European(s) as this 19th century racist and nationalist Nordic theory, and even many modern-day German linguists doubt any pre-historical ethnological roots for linguistic ties ever existed due to the notority of the Nordic theory. --Tlatosmd 10:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing. These points are all covered in the article. Paul B 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I find lacking would be further emphasize that up to 1945, Nordic theory and the Indo-European Urheimat theory (which is now the Kurgan hypothesis) were largely identical in Germany (which is a different concept than that of a "Nordic race" with particular "Nordic qualities" in itself, albeit based on it), and that that's why you hardly hear any Urheimat theories in Germany since 1945 anymore, including Kurgan. --Tlatosmd 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still rather confused. The Kurgan hypothesis is not the same as "the Indo-European urheimat theory". There were several urheimat theories. The Kugan hypothesis is a post-war archaeological development of the earlier Central Asian hypothesis associated with Max Muller and others, who generally consistently rejected Nordicism or any claim that the PIEs were Nordic. The Nordic model is most associated with the idea of a north European urheimat, which emerged with Penka and was mapped onto racial categories developed by Huxley and then Deniker and Ripley. It had its fullest expression in the work of Gustaf Kossinna who put the IE Urheimat in Jutland. Others (not just Hitler, notably Rosenberg) proposed Scandanavia or "Ultima Thule". This is all discussed in the Influence of Aryanism section and the Nazi Nordicism section. As far as I'm aware German linguists have the same general views as non-German ones about urheimat theories - that Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses are the most likely, but no one knows for sure. Paul B 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ancient Romans and Italics in general , were nordic in the repubblican age , many Roman characters of this period were blond like Sulla,Cato etc ,during the Imperial period romans became more short and dark because Italy were invaded by flood of immigrants and slaves from Palestine, Syria, North Africa,Anatolia etc... also original Italic populations were virtualy extinct in 100 b.c. because the wars against Cartagineans, the Italic Civil war ,the war in Hiberia caused a holocaust of the italic-roman population, however in the Imperial period still nordic race was present in Italy because almost all Romans Emperors were blond : Augustus,Nero,Trajan,Caligula,Tiberius,Titus etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.198.148 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Inadequacy of Material

The material on pseudoaristotle, polemon and aristotle is original research and not backed up by scholarly authoirities. Benjamin Isaac (invention of racism in classical antiquity) gives very very different treatments of aristotle, pseudoaristotle and polemon, not attriubting to these authors any supposed anti-northern prejudice, but isaac presents data that support the very opposite conclusion. citing bare sources is good, but there needs to be reference to secondary scholarly authorities who know what they are talking about. the source material is so confusing and possibly inconsistent that we cannot simply present the sources without further critical scholasticism. what do qualified, non-biased scholars say about the perceptions of northern races and northern traits in antiquity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.58.71 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've now looked at Isaac, who says nothing that contradicts what the article currently says about the classical authors. He cites Polemon as saying exactly the same thing as pseudo-Aristotle - that Greeks are perfect ('the most beautiful people in the world') because they are "medium" in tone. He also says in the chapter on Germans that they are considered to be innately "wild and savage" (p.157), which is exactly what the article says, so where is the non neutrality? What POV exactly is being communicated? In fact Isaac is clear that Greeks and Romans are full of "anti northern prejudice". He says so explicitly and repeatedly. Paul B 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it to the facts: - what have people said in the past about the subject - which material does exists at this moment on racial differences (genes) around the globe and in this case more specifically in Europe - which cultural commonalities and differences may exist due to environmental or historical circumstances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.21.142 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

I see no point in simply reverting, but "Mr White Christmas" has only materialised today to edit this article and is clearly identical to the previous editors who have made the same reversions and also edited the British National Party article. It seems highly likely that he is a long-banned neo-Nazi user. However, I'll explain why his edits are wrong.

1. The word "Caucasian" is replaced by "The Races of Europe", which is the title of a book (or strictly, two books) to which the link goes, whereas the meaningful concept here is the racial term - Caucasian.
2. In describing the Mediterranean race, the words "southern/eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa" are replaced by "southern Europe", despite the fact that the maps reproduced in this very article clearly include the middle east and north Africa (South Asia too as a matter of fact). Sergi, Ripley and the others all include north Africans and the others in this category.
3. The other major omission is the elimination of references to India further down as "Aryan cultures", despite the fact that the word Aryan (Arya) is Sanskrit!

--Paul B 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're going by the Maps???

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_2.jpg

I see. it shows Nords in Northern Europe as well Northernwestern Asia (Russia) and some parts of middle and Central Asia, It shows Alpines in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, as well as parts of the middle east (Iran). and It shows Meds as part of the Middle East (Iran and North India) and North Africa, Also on the outskirts of Asia Minor.

Either we keep it the way I have it (as in what it is really meant to be, "the Races of Europe") or the intro needs much revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr White Christmas (talk • contribs)

I can't really make much sense of what you are saying here. The sole purpose of your edits seems to be to eliminate references to non-Europeans from these racial categories, despite the fact that that the people who invented these categories clearly included non-Europeans. I am assuming that this is beause you have a "white nationalist" political ideology. Sergi invented the concept of the "Mediterranean race". If you read his book you will see that he argues that it originated in Africa. The precursor of this category was Huxley's concept of "Melanocroi", which also included Africa. Ripley and Grant both argue that the Meds extended as far as India, a theory that was widely accepted in the period in which these models of race held sway. Thomas Hodson and Carleton Coon also argued this. See Coon's book The Races of Europe. So I really have no idea what you mean by "what it is really meant to be". It is meant to be what the theorists who wrote about this say it meant. Paul B (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WHEN WILL HUMANITY GROW UP?

It is humorous to look back on history and see that rascism against the Nords eventually caused the rascism of Hitler the discrimination of one people was linked to the destruction of another, its also funny that the nords were basically as primitive as their counterparts in the congo or any other groupings of abroiginal peoples of the world until the influence of the mediterranian cultures "civilized" them today we are told the blonde blue eyed person is ideal 2000 yrs ago it was marks of weakness where do these ideas of rascism come from how can it influence so many of us so negativly and when will the human race mature enough to see we are simply diffrent colors because of our ancestors environments when will humanity grow up ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.45.163 (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• the Romans weren't mediterraneans!!!!!!!!!!! they came from central europe like many italic-indoeuropeans tribes (samnites,sabines,umbrians,volscians etc..) Urnfield Culture .

Have a look these descriptions of Roman Emperors by Suetonius,Pliny,Malalas . Learn history before talk!

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/40103/2003824465129417098_rs.jpg

Fair use rationale for Image:Nordic race.jpg

Image:Nordic race.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline of Nordicism

Someone has erased information,suspiciously,leaving only cherry picked information,in the Decline of Nordicism section. Sorry if I could not keep other updates in the process. People should watch out because this article is often the target of manipulation and propaganda rather than objective information. Chloe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you could keep other updates in the pocess, but you didn't even try. Do not make blanket reverts. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article should rather be called Nordic race with Nordic supremacy theory as a sub-section of it. Likewise, white supremacy would be a sub-section of a white people article, not the other way around. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funkynusayri, I misunderstood your edit summary. If you want to redirect the Nordic supremacy article here, and move the content, that would be ok. Addhoc (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that can only be done by an admin (if we're talking about moving this article to "Nordic race"). Funkynusayri (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an administrator needs to move the page, but that should require only a little effort (to archive the Talk Page of the old Nordic race article somewhere.) The controversies with User:Rokus01 are obvious on both talk pages, but the talk page of the old Nordic race article appears to be worse and we don't need to shock other editors with this. Also, it was a lot simpler to merge the short article in the long one. Zara1709 (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was originally called Nordic race. See the earliest discussions. Personally I don't believe that there is any point in separating the race theory from the political uses to which it has been put, mainly because they were always interlinked, but also because it is ultimately impossible to distinguish 'science' from 'ideology' in this context. The legitimate arguments used in favour of the concept of a Nordic 'type' should be fairly presented, but as part of an article that discusses all aspects of the subject. Whether the article is called Nordic race, Nordic theory or Nordicism is not so very important, IMO. Paul B (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is important for the sake of consistency, as we have articles called Alpine race, Mediterranean race, Dinaric race, and so on. The term "Nordic race" itself was a pretty widely used term back then, much more so than the term "Nordic theory". Funkynusayri (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. Why does the notion "Nordic race" have less legitimacy than the notions "Mediterranean race" or "Dinaric race"?

That is exactly the impression that such a designation would evoke.

Why would somebody want that? Is this concept more theoretical than the idea of a Mediterranean race? Or should we rename the other articles, too?

There should be an article "Nordic race" including the information of this one.

Any arguments why not?

Sincerely, 217.236.247.11 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Mr Mysterious IP Address. There are numerous arguments that have been rehearsed on this page for at least a year, and the only person opposing merger was one "Rokus01". The merger has been repeatedly proposed by many different individuals and repeatedly agreed with by all but said "Rokus01". Paul B (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious? I hope you don't want to insinuate that I'm Rokus01.

...the only person - just move your eyeball a little bit and you see Funkynusayri – why doesn't he count?

Why does a mysterious IP not count? Is this about arguments or names?

Please answer the argument itself - should be easy and quickly and convincingly done.

Again, I propose merging too, but why give e.g. "Dinaric race" indirect quasi-racialist preference? Why support inconsistency? (like Funkynusayri said)

Sincerely, Mr. Mystery 217.236.237.81 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS If you believe McDougall there at least was a historical consensus regarding a "Nordic race" - seemingly even more so than Mediterranean etc. Thus labeling this one "theory" but not the others is definitely a distortion. Don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.236.237.81 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this section Funkynusayri said "this article should rather be called Nordic race with Nordic supremacy theory as a sub-section of it". That's not an objection to merging, it's an argument in favour of merging, with one aspect contained within another in the same article. We all know that there was historical concept of a 'Nordic race'. No-one disputes that. The question is whether there is any point having a separate article about it, distinct from the cultural and ideological uses to which it has been put. If both can managably be contained in the same article, then they should be. The Mediterranean race article contains both aspects, and so should this one. The title is rather a separate question. Nordic theory is a name that was created by user:fastfission to merge the term Nordic race with the idea that the concept became historically significant because there were specific theories about it. After all, that's what makes this page different from the others. This topic has a long, sometimes acrimonious, Talk page. If you look up Mediterranean race there is far less discussion, and there is almost none on Alpine race or Dinaric race. I don't mind what the title is, but the difference in title does reflect the reality that theories about this issue have been historically and ideologically significant, while theories about other European "sub-races" have been purely academic. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the very last remark I wrote that I proposed merging, so mentioning Funkynusayri was absolutely straightforward. (I simply favour merging Nordic theory into Nordic race or dropping Nordic race if and only if this one is renamed).

How can the very significance of one of several theories, the fact that this theory had more proponents make it more appropriate to signal that is was in fact a theory? To say the other theoretical concepts had less proponents so we don't need to emphasize that they were theoretical sounds illogical.

The fact that the concept of a Nordic race influenced political decision does also not make it more or less theoretical - it simply has nothing do with that concern.

The very fact that these articles share the category "historical definition" already shows that they are not considered scientifically valid today.

I'm glad to hear that you don't mind what the title is, but I wonder whether it will meet resistance to rename it.217.236.237.81 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Should we maybe have a vote on whether this article should be renamed to "Nordic race" or not? I'm for a renaming. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the title – but User:Cygnis insignis immediately reversed it. So now there is an inconsistent naming of the different racial historical concepts which in fact is insinuating that the idea of the e.g. Mediterranean race is less theoretical than the idea of a Nordic race. Congrats. 217.236.243.89 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is currently an inconsistent naming, and the consensus here is MOVE anyway, but we can't do that with cut&paste because the edit history and the talk page need to be preserved. Please have a little patience here, an administrator should move the page in a few days. Zara1709 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• As Zara said, cut and paste is not how you rename articles. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Mea culpa. 217.236.244.179 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Beaker "problem"

The merger has created a total mess. The section on the so-called "Beaker problem" seems to be glued on meaninglessly, and the general flow of the article has been severely compromised. This section is a typical piece of Rokus synthesis. Of the articles that can be read online, there is no connection being made between supposed "Nordic" racial identity and the Beaker culture. The first article refers to the standard problem of whether ancient cultural changes corresponded to population replacements, but never mentions anything about a Nordic race. Other articles are about how tall the Dutch and Americans were in modern times as compared to the Middle Ages. What on earth does this have to do with Beaker culture? Then we have an article that mentions Beakers twice and the word "Nordic" once, but makes no connection between them, only mentioning the term Nordic in passing, later in the article, with reference to Celts. This is all nothing more than Rokus's usual special pleading and Netherlands-centred obsessions. It has no meaningful place here. If it is to be anywhere, it should be in the Beaker culture article, not this one, since it has b-all to do with the concept of the Nordic race. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree - I've removed the section. Addhoc (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

After the merged I had kept that section because I had the intention to take a closer look at it and probably rewrite it. When searching about this topic, I had found this pdf [7]:

"In the 1950s and 1960s the academic discourse in Denmark dealt only sparingly with Beakers – then classified as Bell Beakers– no doubt due to the small number of finds. Quite typical of the times, it was asked whether or not the presence of these 'Bell Beakers' meant the existence of a proper culture equivalent to a specific ethnic group of people."

It appears as if in the 50s and 60s some authors had linked that Beaker culture with a specific ethnicity. If someone has linked them specifically with a "Nordic race", this would be relevant here. Zara1709 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nordish merge

• Shouldn't the "Nordish race" be merged into this one as a sub-section? I know it has been discussed before, but that was in relation to the Nordic race article. Now when this article is about both the race and the affiliated supremacy theory, shouldn't the Nordish article be incorporated as well, as that article is pretty tiny anyway? Funkynusayri (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Without having taken a look at that topic in detail, I would say that is not connected enough. Nordic though in Germany and Nordicism in USA were, at that time, considered scientific. I don't think that the Nordish race stuff nowadays is. Zara1709 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, "Nordish" is based on the old Nordic idea, and I don't think it is notable enough for its own article. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded bias

This article is very racist, and most of the claims that Nordicists suppsoedly make have been fabriated out of thin air. Likewise using "" as in "European" "race" is also bias. Just for the record, I myself am Mediterranean, and find Nordicism absurd. But why fabricate lies, when the real deal is flawed? Nordicism exists(and existed) separately from Nazism. Likewise, true fascism is the polar opposite of Nordicism. As many people here have noted, the "ideal" Nazi was Nordic, but Germany was predominantly Alpine. Thus claiming Nazi=Nordicism is a twisted version of reality. The other major issue here is this article mocks the very existence of a Nordic race. Acknowledging the existence of a Nordic race does not in any way shape or form equate to believing in Nordic superiority. Likewsie while some of Grant's writings are clearly inaccurate, much of what he says is true, and to dismiss everything just because parts may be wrong in very narrowminded. The purpose of wikipedia should be to educate, not to mock and attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK,

1. If there are specific statements that are "fabricated out of thin air" say what they are.

2. I have no idea what the statement 'using "" as in "European" "race" is also bias' means. Can you clarify?

3. The article never says that "true fascism" was nordicist. In fact it goes out of its way to point out that the theory was rejected by Mussolini and had little impact in Italy.

4. "claiming Nazi=Nordicism is a twisted version of reality". Nowhere does it say that Nazism=Nordicism, just that the theory was very influential within Nazism, as is universally accepted by historians. It also points out in great detail that "Nordicism exists(and existed) separately from Nazism."

5. "Acknowledging the existence of a Nordic race does not in any way shape or form equate to believing in Nordic superiority." Yes, that's true, but the article never says that. As for the 'existence' of the Nordic race, if you can find significant use of the concept in modern anthropology, then we can add that material.

6. "while some of Grant's writings are clearly inaccurate, much of what he says is true". That's pure opinion. Anyway, the article nowhere instructs the reader that Grant was wrong, it just describes the views that were expressed by him and also adds cited criticisms by contemporaries and later writers. Show me where it says he was wrong. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. The article gives the impression that races themselves are non-existent and thus the uses of parentheses are used as in "race" rather than race show a ridiculous concept. Modern anthropology is based more upon social and political than realist ideas and designs.Note that modern "anthropologists" (not the usage of "") talk about "biological groupings" and "DNA clusters", but never races. All these "DNA clusters" or whatever correspond to the "outdated" racial classifications, but nobody would dare admit it. Well no anthropologist that is. The article clearly suggests an undeniable connection between Nazism and fascism. "True fascism" was indeed inaccurate. It is impossible to be a Nazi and a Fascist at the same time. The theory was not at all influential within Nazism. That is another Big Lie. The Germans believed in the inherent distinctiveness of ALL "white" people (not a real race). Also "superiority" is wrong. The Germans wanted a non-white free Europe. That doesn't have anything to do with superiority and inferiority. Again the very tone of the article is demeaning to anyone who believes Grant, and the tags under the maps alone point to mockery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Many people argue that race is non existent, hence the inverted commas are sometimes used. "Modern anthropology is based more upon social and political than realist ideas and designs". Oh I see, modern anthropology is wrong, and you know The Truth, do you? Well, that's not how Wikipedia works. Hence the rules WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS etc. There is an undeniable connection between Nazism and Fascism, but Nordicism was not - for obvious reasons - one them. "The theory was not at all influential within Nazism. That is another Big Lie." Have you read any books? Try The Myth of the Master Race: Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi Ideology, or Blood and Soil for example. "The Germans wanted a non-white free Europe." What a glorious vision. So why did they concentrate their attacks on Jews, Poles and Russians, all of whom are white? The tags under the maps are totally neutral: "Expansion of the Pre-Teutonic Nordics" — From Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis of European History (1916); Grant's conception of Nordic influence spreading over Europe in ancient times." and "Madison Grant's map, from 1916, charting the "present distribution" of the "European races", with the Nordic race shown in bright red; green indicates the Alpine race; yellow, the Mediterranean race." I fail to see any mockery here. The quotation marks are because his exact words are being quoted. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I dare say that a book called "the Myth of the Master Race" may not be entirely impartial. This is not the place to get into discussions about Nazi ideals and visions. The point here is that your Experts are correct, and anyone who states otherwise is wrong. I merely states that much of what passes for anthropology has a clear motive behind it. AN obvious unrelated example being the "Study" which showed Greeks to be predominantly sub-Saharan. The same study showed Japanese and Nigerians to be identical! That is however not related to Nordicism. The fact that you can see no mockery, not just in the picture tags, but in the article as a whole, says all that is really needed to be said. I shall not post any further points here as it is clear that you have your mind made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rosenberg called it a 'myth' himself (the "Myth of the 20th Century"). However, you can tell us the experts are all wrong till you're blue in the face. It's pointless debating with someone who thinks everyone with any expertise on the topic is wrong. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)