If an Icelandic couple moves to Africa, learns a Bantu language, and has a child who then also learns the language, is the child then a Bantu?
You can be non-Caucasian and still be German.
A country is the spirit and character of a people. That's what makes a country what it is. Not political boundaries on a map. And groups of people don't just take on a new spirit and character if they move into new political boundaries en masse.
The spirit and character of a people comes from their DNA. And their DNA comes from their environment over many thousands of years.
If the majority of the population in Germany were to be African or Arab, do you really think Germany would retain it's particular character that makes it European and German? No of course not! You would have to be insane to think that it would.
Were that to come to pass, Germany would look a lot more like countries in Africa or the Middle East than a European country.
With the recent migrant madness we are already seeing troubling signs of this, with loads of horrendous crimes hitherto unknown in Europe.
It's not just the excess of crime that doesn't bode well, but that these foreign populations, even into 2nd 3rd generation receive welfare at much higher rates than the general population.
Why would it ever be a good idea to take in loads of immigrants who are a net drain on the economy in multiple ways? Europe can't babysit the world in this way. Not only does make it make no sense, but it is unsustainable, the time at which our welfare states have become totally dismantled from this looting is rapidly approaching.
Many resources are finite. Why should grandparents who spent a life time contributing to the system have their benefits cut, so politicians can try to import future voters in order to extend their reign? It's madness. It is destroying the western world.
So, that's a long-winded way of saying, no a "non-caucasian" or anything else but an ethnic European, ethnic German cannot be a "german." Maybe someone else is a citizen of the Bundesrepublik. But that is just a piece of paper symbolizing an abstract system of agreements. The biological reality of what makes the German people what they are and by extent what Germany is, is another thing entirely.
---
I'm sure all of the Germans of Turkish familial origin
Funny you picked the Turks, who are notoriously unintegrated in Germany. Just like all the muslims across Europe of course, but some of the Turks have been here since the 1970s. So it makes people take notice and say, "uh oh!" In fact, this was more or less the reason for Angela Merkel's dictum years back saying "Multiculturalism has failed."
> The spirit and character of a people comes from their DNA.
Would you then suggest that a country of mixed-nationality immigrants, like Canada, can never have a national identity? Do you believe that the patriotic affinity between Canadians is somehow lesser than that between Germans, because we don't share a well-defined genetic heritage?
You're right, Turks have integrated poorly in Germany. Temporary foreign workers were brought over en masse and ghettoized to fuel the economic rejuvenation of the nation; unsurprisingly, many chose to stay. Too many to integrate properly. The result is a huge chasm between German-born Turks and Germans, with resentment on both sides. But this was the result of a poorly-executed policy, albeit one that may have been necessary at the time; either way, it's not the normal way that immigration happens in Germany or other countries.
I'm not an expert on Canada, I know there was a little bit of tension between the Quebecois and the rest.
because we don't share a well-defined genetic heritage
This is not true. The genetic heritage of both Canada and the USA is European. It is only in recent decades that there has been non-European immigration of any significance.
Therefore the national identity of Canada and the USA is European. After all, they are part of the western world, they have the characteristics that are common to the European/western world.
When I have to explain this stuff, I feel like the world is going crazy. I mean it is so obvious. But it if helps someone, great.
>Do you believe that the patriotic affinity between Canadians is somehow lesser than that between Germans, because we don't share a well-defined genetic heritage?
Lesser patriotic affinity for minorities? Absolutely.
(I am Canadian)
There's even a study[1] showing that with increasing diversity, you get:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
It would be instructive to compare Switzerland here. They are famously made up of German, French and Italian speaking parts. (And a fourth language that nobody cares about. And lots of immigrants these days from all over Europe.)
It's really a shame that it has become so difficult to be have important conversations because people have become so trained to insult people they perceive as uncouth, all the while ignoring all the important substantive matters raised.
"German-ness" is emphatically not genetic.
German-ness comes from ethnic Germans which are a genetic subgroup.
"spirit and character" are not either.
Then where else would it come from? Spirit and character come from people, people are genetic.
---
Just answer this, you don't need to go into too much detail.
If an Icelandic couple moves to Africa, learns a Bantu language, and has a child who then also learns the language, is the child then a Bantu?
It's really a shame that it has become so difficult to be have important conversations because people have become so trained to insult people they perceive as uncouth, all the while ignoring all the important substantive matters raised.
I'd argue what's far more problematic is the desire to portray oneself as the target of attacks as a method of evading argument, while posing reductio-ad-absurdium trick questions, but we digress…
German-ness comes from ethnic Germans which are a genetic subgroup.
I don't agree that this is the definition of nationality. It seems obviously false, given that at some point fairly recently in evolutionary terms there was no such thing as an "ethnic German" - so where did they come from? Following your argument, the only thing that can produce an "ethnic German" is the process of other "ethnic Germans" having children. I'm sure you see why that's not possible.
Isn't it far more likely that nationality is defined by shared cultural and social context? One becomes "German" by participating in and sharing the experience of other Germans? By its nature, this is going to be a fuzzy concept. One could certainly be forgiven for arguing that a first-generation immigrant who makes no effort to learn the German language or participate in German civil society isn't "German", but even then it's not clear.
Then where else would it come from? Spirit and character come from people, people are genetic.
People are far more cultural and social than they are genetic - that is, social and cultural differences between people are far greater than genetic differences. It would seem ludicrous for example to suggest that a child born in Germany, who speaks German and is an active participant in that society is somehow not German because of both of their parents were from, say, Turkey.
If an Icelandic couple moves to Africa, learns a Bantu language, and has a child who then also learns the language, is the child then a Bantu?
Isn't this exactly an example of where nationality and ethnicity is fuzzy?
If said child grows up in Africa, and the cultural experience of that upbringing is Bantu (the culture rather than the ethnicity) then why would that child not be Bantu? Simply because their genetic history took a detour via Scandinavia? That seems silly to me.
You are trying to dress up your genocidal thoughts of the German people as something politically correct and inclusive.
Try to make the same exercise with the Aboriginal Australians: It doesn't matter if they don't reproduce; there's plenty of whites around to take their place.
I'm confused about your reference to Australian Aboriginals. The majority of them were decimated by disease and out right violent attack from whites... how are either of those scenarios relevant here?
You can be non-Caucasian and still be German.
A country is the spirit and character of a people. That's what makes a country what it is. Not political boundaries on a map. And groups of people don't just take on a new spirit and character if they move into new political boundaries en masse.
The spirit and character of a people comes from their DNA. And their DNA comes from their environment over many thousands of years.
If the majority of the population in Germany were to be African or Arab, do you really think Germany would retain it's particular character that makes it European and German? No of course not! You would have to be insane to think that it would.
Were that to come to pass, Germany would look a lot more like countries in Africa or the Middle East than a European country.
With the recent migrant madness we are already seeing troubling signs of this, with loads of horrendous crimes hitherto unknown in Europe.
It's not just the excess of crime that doesn't bode well, but that these foreign populations, even into 2nd 3rd generation receive welfare at much higher rates than the general population.
Why would it ever be a good idea to take in loads of immigrants who are a net drain on the economy in multiple ways? Europe can't babysit the world in this way. Not only does make it make no sense, but it is unsustainable, the time at which our welfare states have become totally dismantled from this looting is rapidly approaching.
Many resources are finite. Why should grandparents who spent a life time contributing to the system have their benefits cut, so politicians can try to import future voters in order to extend their reign? It's madness. It is destroying the western world.
So, that's a long-winded way of saying, no a "non-caucasian" or anything else but an ethnic European, ethnic German cannot be a "german." Maybe someone else is a citizen of the Bundesrepublik. But that is just a piece of paper symbolizing an abstract system of agreements. The biological reality of what makes the German people what they are and by extent what Germany is, is another thing entirely.
---
I'm sure all of the Germans of Turkish familial origin
Funny you picked the Turks, who are notoriously unintegrated in Germany. Just like all the muslims across Europe of course, but some of the Turks have been here since the 1970s. So it makes people take notice and say, "uh oh!" In fact, this was more or less the reason for Angela Merkel's dictum years back saying "Multiculturalism has failed."