Äußerst Bedenkliche Dummheit

I have previously written about the ridiculous idea which is consequently pushed forth by either blind, stupid or biased researchers that – no matter what one finds in the past it must be “Germanic”.  Thus, we have:

Personal names

• Germanic personal name suffixes – mar, mer, mir
  • Slavic?  -mir (maybe! it could be Germanic!)
• Germanic personal name suffixes – muesl
  • Slavic? – mysl (maybe! it could be Germanic!)
• Germanic personal name suffixes – gast, gost, gaist, gaisus
  • Slavic? – gost (maybe! it could be Germanic!)

etc

Funerary rites

• Germanic funerary rites – cremation, inhumation, anything else
  • Slavic funerary rites? – cremation (maybe! it could be Germanic!)

etc

Housing

• Germanic – above the ground houses, in-ground hovels, no house (wanderers)
  • Slavic – in-ground hovels (maybe! they could be Germanic!)

etc

Tribes mentioned in the past

• Germanic – all tribes of Germania – a Rassenpure environment includes Suevi, perhaps also the Veneti – there could be some pieces left that were Celtic
  • Slavic – none

etc

---

However, the most ridiculous suggestion to date has been from an archeologist mascarading as an anthropologist – Elisabeth Anna Kruger a doktorant at the Freie Universitat Berlin.

Her article actually suggests that anthropological data can not be used to tell Germans from Slavs either…

Why? Because, Germanics may not have been “pure” in an anthropological or genetic sense says the author.

She presumes to teach her Polish colleagues that ethnicity is not a function of race suggesting that they “move in an extremely questionable framework which strongly recalls the racial science of past years.”  What she, not so delicately, means is that this is politically incorrect and hence verboten.

(Her uttering this takes some chutzpah obviously.  For a German to lecture a Pole about the dangers of “racial science” requires either a bit of a moral blindspot or a not insignificant level of cynicism.  But, yes, thanks, we get that there could be a problem if things get taken too far. None of which is relevant to the question at hand, however.)

What she says is that all this kind of stuff can prove is that there was a continuity of settlement – not a continuity of ethnic groups.

Ok… let’s go with that, and then let’s review what German science tells us about the prehistory of Germania:

• “Germans” lived like the much later Slavs
• “Germans” were named like the much later Slavs
• “Germans” had funerary rites like the much later Slavs

and now:

• Germans looked like the much later Slavs*

(* note: the Germans that “looked” like Slavs are those from Poland and East Germany – as far as I know, no one has conducted similar studies in West Germany)

Combine this with the fact that there are no (zero, nada) sources suggesting any Slavic migration into Germany.

German conclusion:

• Germania was occupied by Germanics only and Slavs came into Germania much later.

The illogic here is astounding.

I mean, if you really cannot tell a Slav from a German anthropologically, culturally, genetically and so forth, then how can you say that the people who lived in Germania were, what we would today call, German?

She accuses Polish anthropologists of (1) assuming that there can be a racial difference between Germanics and Slavs, (2) of assuming homogeneity of populations and (3) nationalist bias.

As to the first assertion…

But, of course, there can be differences.  In 90% of cases anyone from Europe could tell a Scandinavian from a Slav.  If there might be a confusion between Germans and Slavs, it is only to the extent the former really are the Germanized latter (and just don’t, or don’t want to, know it).

As to the second claim…

Notwithstanding, Tacitus and many other eyewitness accounts she implies that the Germanic population was diverse, almost multiethnic… Of course, Tacitus did differentiate the Suevi from other Germans but that could not have been Slavs we are told.  In fact, she seems to think Germania was home to every type of person (but seemingly didn’t include Slavs… except maybe their biological ancestors… say, what?).

In her worldview, it seems the Germanic label covers everything. At least all “Europid” (as she calls them) cases but, hey, maybe more.

I get the sense that if she were to find a black guy from the Roman times in Nurnberg, she’d either claim that you can’t ever tell between blacks and whites and Asians or, better yet, that Germanics included Slavs, blacks, Asians, etc – we are human after all – or, more properly, Germanic, so that kind of makes sense.  And haven’t the Germans been to Africa? (after all they might have to address those Namibian reparations)  Greeks? Germanic. Romans? Germanic.  Romulans? No problem – Germanic.

As to the third accusation…

She accuses Polish anthropologists of having a nationalist bias… all the while implying that Germania in its totality was occupied by Germanics only (including Germanics who looked like Slavs but never you mind that).

We can deal with dumb people.  We can deal with arrogant people.  But dumb and arrogant people no one should have to suffer.

You have to ask yourself, what if they found evidence of Roman era Slavic language in Germany?

Would that change her mind?  My guess is absolutely not – it would just prove that Germanic tribes spoke Germanic dialects but also spoke Slavic.  (It’s not just muscles that an Uebermensch make). After all, don’t most Indians and Europeans speak an Indo-Germanic language?  Well, the Indians speak Indian languages and the Europeans speak Germanic variants so there you have it.

The most irksome assertion of hers, however, is that Polish anthropologists are falling into Rassenkunde theories.  One wonders what exactly is the problem here?  That, what, WWII happened?  Yes, thanks a lot for that.  All that proves is the well-known German tendency to take things to an extreme usually results in shit happening.

In other words, just because some German took a knife and went around stabbing Slavs, does not mean that from now on Slavs are obligated to ban all knives and try to slice their kielbasa with a chopsticks She might soon even ask us to ban kielbasa altogether – or at least replace it with the politically safer “wurst” (notwithstanding that kielbasa is actually not a Slavic word).

Kruger appears to be a product of this weird amalgam of political correctness combined with a German sense of superiority.  The people who delivered the “best” Christians, the “best” Romantics, the “best” nationalists, the “best” fascists, the “best” Communists are now delivering the “best” democrats and multiculturalists.  The ideologies change like wind but the demeanor is constant.

This is also exhibited by her noting how backward Polish archeological discourse is – the Germans no longer derive themselves from Germanic tribes so Slavs should not either – it’s so passé.  But here is the thing: Germans are partly derived from those Germanic (as in Nordic) tribes. The only thing is they’ve been forbidden to actually think that (or at least say that) because people familiar with where that thinking goes did not want German egos to get overinflated for obvious reasons to which Kruger alludes herself.

No matter what you would like to believe, ideas do not seem to be abused the same way when spouted by other peoples.  Don’t know why* that is but German culture seems to be special that way – and no amount of self-therapy along the lines of believing that “other people can fall for these demons too” will make that go away. There is only one way to address the underlying problem – don’t try to be the most extreme in whatever the “in” thing currently is… (The pessimist in me has a feeling though that Germans could cloak even “moderation” in an extremist shroud).

[* note: I blame the post-WWII occupiers and “supervisors” of Germany since they fell for the trap of using the easy path to school Germans, that is to use their own cultural desire to excel to repurpose them towards democracy and then towards political correctness. That a different path was possible you can see in the Germans of the United States whose thinking is the same as that of the average American; unsurprisingly, this perfectionist trait is cultural not biological].

To be perfectly honest, I could not care less where Slavs came from (if they came from anywhere), but the logic-imperviousnes demonstrated by some people is an indicator either of stupidity or of ideological zealotry.  We owe more to our ancestors than to acquiesce in that.

P.S. Kruger is hardly alone among Germans who promote similar transparently politically-motivated views.  Just look at the moronic statements of other political archeo-historians (one example is Walter Pohl – a man whose biggest claim to fame is fingering his chin (deep in thought) in every known public photo).  People like that prostitute the past of our ancestors to fit current political needs.  A century ago, their political need was Germanic expansionism.  Today they serve the interests of European statism/universalism.  But wie es eigentlich gewesen war, is to them, now as before, scheißegal.

If you want to take a step in the right direction, ask yourself first what do you think happened to the Suevi whose peoples covered most of Germania?

Copyright ©2017 jassa.org All Rights Reserved