RSS
Anatoly Karlin drew my attention recently to a fascinating new study entitled “The Genetic History of France.” The authors are a collection of French medical researchers hailing from various universities and university hospitals.
The authors write:
The study of the genetic structure of different countries within Europe has provided significant insights into their demographic history and their actual stratification . Although France occupies a particular location at the end of the European peninsula and at the crossroads of migration routes, few population genetic studies have been conducted so far with genome-wide data. In this study, we analyzed SNP-chip genetic data from 2 184 individuals born in France who were enrolled in two independent population cohorts. Using FineStructure, six different genetic clusters of individuals were found that were very consistent between the two cohorts. These clusters match extremely well the geography and overlap with historical and linguistic divisions of France. By modeling the relationship between genetics and geography using EEMS software, we were able to detect gene flow barriers that are similar in the two cohorts and corresponds to major French rivers or mountains. Estimations of effective population sizes using IBDNe program also revealed very similar patterns in both cohorts with a rapid increase of effective population sizes over the last 150 generations similar to what was observed in other European countries. A marked bottleneck is also consistently seen in the two datasets starting in the fourteenth century when the Black Death raged in Europe. In conclusion, by performing the first exhaustive study of the genetic structure of France, we fill a gap in the genetic studies in Europe that would be useful to medical geneticists but also historians and archeologists.
In short, the genetic evidence appears to correlate with much of what we find in the historical record. This sort of study may be a step towards the consilience which sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson has called for between biology and the humanities.
The authors by the way summarize what is more widely known in the field of population genetics:
The study of the genetic structure of human populations is indeed of major interest in many different fields. It informs on the demographic history of populations and how they have formed and expanded in the past with some consequences on the distribution of traits. Genetic differences between populations can give insights on genetic variants likely to play a major role on different phenotypes, including disease phenotypes. . . .In the last decades, several studies were performed using genome-wide SNP data often collected for genome-wide association studies. These studies have first shown that there exist allele frequency differences at all geographic scales and that these differences increase with geographic distances. Indeed, the first studies have shown differences between individuals of different continental origins and then, as more data were collected and marker density increased, these differences were found within continents and especially within Europe. Several studies have also been performed at the scale of a single country and have shown that differences also exist within country. This was for instance observed in Sweden, where Humphreys et al. reported strong differences between the far northern and the remaining counties, partly explained by remote Finnish or Norwegian ancestry. More recent studies have shown structure in the Netherlands, Ireland, UK or Iberian peninsula. Previous studies of population stratification in France have examined only Western France (mainly Pays de le [sic] Loire and Brittany) and detected a strong correlation between genetics and geography. However, no study so far has investigated the fine-scale population structure of the entire France using unbiased samples from individuals with ancestries all over the country.
To translate this highly scientific language into plain English: genetic studies are now able to show genetic variations between populations, the fruit of the expansion, mixing, and/or extermination of particular races and ethnic groups; these genetic differences may correspond to biological differences between populations (most obviously physical and health differences but also, I make explicit, psychological ones); and these studies have been more and more able to identify not only inter-continental (which are the biggest), but also more subtle intra-continental and intra-national differences. Phew!
Interestingly, the authors find a similar pattern as in the rest of Europe, with a well-defined north-south cline of genetic variation: “The major axis of genetic differentiation runs from the south to the north of France.”
Two genomes of two sets of individuals were analyzed. These were found to correspond to 6 or 7 genetic clusters (more details in the article). The authors then showed the proportion of individuals from each cluster in each département.
Pie charts indicating the proportion of individuals from the different “départements” assigned to each cluster. Results are reported for the partition in 6 clusters obtained by running FineSTRUCTURE in the 3C dataset (left) and in SU.VI.MAX (right) independently. Geographic coordinates of three rivers of France are drawn in black: Loire, Garonne and Adour from north to south.
The authors found that geographical barriers limited gene flow and thus encouraged genetic differentiation:
We performed EEMS analysis in order to identify gene flow barriers within France; i.e; areas of low migrations. . . . The plots also reveal a gene flow barrier around Bretagne in the North-West and along the Loire River, which covers the separation of the North cluster. Finally, another barrier is also present on the South-East side that roughly corresponds to the location of the Alp Mountains at the border with Northern Italy.
The DNA of French border regions was found to be closer to that of their respective European neighbors:
As expected, the British heritage was more marked in the north than in the south of France where, instead, the contribution from southern Europe was stronger. . . . In both datasets, SW [Southwest] had the highest proportions of [Iberian DNA]. Part of this [Iberian DNA] could in fact reflect a Basque origin . . . This trend is even more pronounced in the 3C where few individuals are grouped together with Basque individuals in the first three dimensions. This SW region also corresponds to the “Aquitaine” region described by Julius Caesar in his “Commentari de Bello Gallico.”
The French genomes were found to map at their expected position in between Nordic (British and CEU), Italian and Spanish genomes from 1000 genomes project. . . .
This is in line with other studies finding their Europeans in the far south tend to be closer genetically to their North African or Middle-Eastern neighbors.
Furthermore, the DNA of French regions tends to be more differentiated insofar as these regions had distinct linguistic, ethnic, and political identities:
An important division separates Northern from Southern France. It may coincide with the von Wartburg line, which divides France into “Langue d’Oïl” part (influenced by Germanic speaking) and “Langue d’Oc” part (closer to Roman speaking). This border has changed through centuries and our North-South limit is close to the limit as it was estimated in the IXth century. This border also follows the Loire River, which has long been a political and cultural border between kingdoms/counties in the North and in the South.
Regions with strong cultural particularities tend to separate. This is for example the case for Aquitaine in the South-West which duchy has long represented a civilization on its own. The Brittany region is also detected as a separate entity in both datasets. This could be explained both by its position at the end of the continent where it forms a peninsula and, by its history since Brittany has been an independent political entity (Kingdom and, later, duchy of Bretagne), with stable borders, for a long time.
The extreme South-West regions show the highest differentiation to neighbor clusters. . . . This cluster is likely due to a higher proportion of possibly Basque individuals in 3C, which overlap with HGDP Basque defined individuals. . . .
We also observe that the broad-scale genetic structure of France strikingly aligns with two major rivers of France “La Garonne” and “La Loire”. . . .
While historical, cultural and political borders seem to have shaped the genetic structure of modern-days France, exhibiting visible clusters, the population is quite homogeneous with low FST values between-clusters ranging from 2.10-4 up to 3.10-3. We find that each cluster is genetically close to the closest neighbor European country, which is in line with a continuous gene flow at the European level. However, we observe that Brittany is substantially closer to British Isles population than North of France, in spite of both being equally geographically close. Migration of Britons in what was at the time Armorica (and is now Brittany) may explain this closeness. . . .
Interestingly, the scientists found genetic bottlenecks corresponding to historic plague events in the north of the country, but not in the south: “a more spread population in the South (which is in general hilly or mountainous) may explain a lower impact of these dramatic episodes.”
These results are broadly in line with what I would expect to see as an evolutionary historian. France represents one area within the genetic patchwork which is Europe, characterized by gradual change along geographical axes and uneven clumping. Hence, populations on France’s borders tend to be genetically closer to their foreign neighbors (Brits, Germanics, Italians). At the same time, within France, genetic differences appear to correspond to historical regional political entities and ethnic/linguistic groups (Celtic-speaking Bretons, Basques, langues d’Oc).
This is another case of the genetic data validating stereotypes: as is often the case, strong historic ethnic or clan identities do, in fact, correspond to a genetic reality (traditionally called “race”), which may even entail significant phenotypic differences. Other genetic studies have found similar results concerning the genetic/racial reality of Jews, Indo-Europeans/Aryans, and Gypsies.
I cannot say if France’s internal genetic diversity has caused variation in regional performance. My impression is whatever role it plays has been largely overwhelmed by local migratory, urbanization, and (de-)industrialization patterns. Case in point: the very high concentration of wealth in the Paris and Lyon regions, sucking out the brains and talent from the rest of the country. More recently, we see wealthy and entrepreneurial people moving to pleasant sunny regions like the southeast.
As the authors note, genetic differences among indigenous French populations are small, while differences grow with geographical distance, especially between different continents.
These findings make sense. As a rule, languages spread easier than genes and genes are harder to replace (e.g., conquering groups often find it easier to completely replace their subjects linguistically rather than genetically, as with the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Great Britain or the Arab conquests). However, over time, a given local linguistic group is likely to consolidate genetically, as people are more likely to associate with and marry people whom they can communicate easily with, especially as a linguistic community consolidates into its own culture, with its particular habits and norms.
I call “race” the underlying genetic reality, while “ethnicity” is the subjective self-identification of a people along perceived, partially genetically-determined and therefore real, kinship lines. The French are not really a cohesive race relative to other Europeans, but they certainly are an ethnic group, defined especially by a common language. A common language and race (meaning intra-continental genetic proximity) appear to be necessary requirements form a genuine common ethno-national identity to emerge. Hence why multiracial and multiethnic societies do not consolidate into a nation, unlike historic France. By these definitions, White Americans form an ethny of their own, defined by European ancestry and the English language.
The genetic similarity of indigenous Frenchmen has no doubt facilitated the consolidation the French nation into a unitary linguistic and political community. It’s far easier to assimilate and meld with people who really are already a lot like yourself. However, I can’t help but wonder if the historic difficulties the French State has had with Brittany and the Basque Country have a partially genetic basis, given that these two regions are, in fact, quite genetically distinct. This may be a chicken-and-egg phenomenon: residents of a region with a strong local identity may, in the first place, be less likely to intermarry and genetically mix with the others. However, it may also be that genetic differences lead to real psychological differences, and hence an inability to harmonize with or accept the national culture, determined by a different mentality.
I suspect the failure of Italy and Yugoslavia to consolidate, either fully or at all, as nations may be in part due to their greater regional genetic diversity. More data on this would be welcome.
I am very struck that the authors of this study do not appear to be social scientists or humanities scholars, yet, their work is highly relevant to the latter. In the name of consilience between the soft and hard sciences, we ought to try to combine history and biology more. Disentangling genetic vs. socio-cultural influence in historical development is the difficult, interesting, and fun part, which more of our academics and policymakers should get into.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Great article.
Interesting to see how rivers play such a big role as genetic boundaries.
Perhaps I’d be teaching granny to suck eggs if I recommend you look at Graham Robb’s “The Discovery of France” so I recommend it to your readers instead. Wonderful book.
What a lovely expression! Thank you!
One company does a DNA study and another company does a DNA study and they get different results.
But DNA, like computers or the stock market, are infallible.
Past if past, future will decide.
And this will be the future of France.
Here are a couple intriguing ones for you:
I laugh when the local townfolk call me The American.
What’s odd about that??? Did they study the same group??? Is there a point to your comment???
BTW, this is what you get when a Corsican goes Northern-European Blonde, not that there’s anything wrong with that 😉
Video Link
Strange, that you don’t mention the word Franks once in this article. It’s a well known fact that the Frankish expansion into what is now called France in the period 400-800 didn’t cross the Loire and also was stopped east of greater Brittany, exactly what you see in this picture. What is also interesting that the blue in Alsace is not Frankish, but Allemanic, while the blue around Lyon is Burgundian. The methods used in this context are seemingly unable to pick up the differences between the various Germanic tribes that invaded what is now France.
So the French are a cum cocktail of Germanic, Moore, Semite, Jew, and a pinch of negro slaves?
Imagine my shock.
France: the original le 56% with that familiar liberal democracy bent that seems to go with such miscengination.
Not surprising. The lot of genetic determinists is to “wonder” about such things to the end of days, since no merely cultural explanation will ever satsify them – no matter how compelling these seem to anyone else.
AncestryDna says I am 40% spanish , 30% French , 20% basque and 5 % Italian
23andme says I am 65% Spanish and 15% French and 15%italian and 5% Sardinian
Familytreedna says I am 70% Iberia , 15% British Isles and 15% Southeasr Europe (Italy)
And 23andme details the regions :
For the big Spanish slice, they don’t know yet
For French, it’s Aquitaine and Haut de France
For Italy, it’s Calabria, Sicily and Piedmont
That’s not incoherent given that population and political geography doesn’t match exactly. Buts it’s far from precise .
What bothers me here is the word “failure”. Clearly Yugoslavia was broken apart by Zato.
Italy was consolidated into one country by the Mazzini and the Freemasons, likely so that they could participated in the first world war for Israel, just as Albert Pike wrote in his letter to Mazzini. IMO Italy is far more suited to being a confederation of Italian states than as an Italian Republic or an EU province.
Switzerland, the Helvetic Confederation, was created in 1291 as Confederation of three sovereign communities. As Switzerland managed to defeat the Austrians and the French and grow it ultimately included 26 Cantons with various Christian religions, 4 different language groups, and many strongly different dialects. Somehow they always managed to defend themselves until Napoleon, but one must remember that they were also invaded by Russia and Austria at this time, with the Russians occupying the Gotthard pass. Hitler famously never invaded this crucial and far smaller country, so Switzerland’s strength is possible despite “regional genetic diversity”.
The crucial point here is that it is the ruling elites who try to bind different ethnic groups into one larger nation for their own profit, power and advantage. If there were a true democratic process, I sincerely doubt that Italy, France, Germany or the EU would come about. Certainly not Spain at this point, and likely not Belgium. Czechoslovakia was allowed to split apart, even though their languages are basically 2 slavic dialects.
we ought to try to combine history and biology more.
And finance
I am always amazed at how the flow of money is kept out of the history books.
I mean, how did Napoleon finance his various expeditions – which were ruinous to France. The overthrow of the Bourbons. The “Bolshevik Revolution”. “Mr H”. “France in ’68”. “Hong Kong in 2019”. There is no shortage of examples.
In my current rather cynical mood, I am beginning to think that they were all “color revolutions” that were financed by outsiders.
Just travelling and reading history you see that .
Basques are ibero-ligur-etruscans who were romanized . Ibero ligur etruscans occupied mainly the european southwest , although they extended all over Europe . They came from the east or the middle east , they mixed with the celts creating what the spanish call the Celtiberos , the Celtiberians
South of the Loire is Roman . Occitania was federated with the Crown of Aragòn . East of the Rhone is Roman . Italy , Spain and South and East France are similar , they were the core of the Roman Empire .
North of France was the Belgica , the Franks were germanic barbarians . The germanic Franks invaded the rest of present France , invaded Italy a lot of times , and Spain a few times . Always the greedy germanic barbarians invading Rome , destroying the Roman heritage .
france was dead as a nation in 1940 when they laid over in front of the Germans and spent four and a half years licking the bottom of the German’s boots. Hell, they didn’t even storm the beach on D-Day.
The Garona river is born in Spain , in the spanish Pyrinees .
Video Link
These ever smaller countries will find it hard to protect themselves once the flood of the third world immigrants really starts and grows into a tsunami. So they all want to join the EU but what protection will that give them from the negative impacts of globalism? The EU will just send in the immigrants via the back door. When you’re small and weak in a world such as this full of predators, joining up with some bigger but lesser of two, or several, evils is the only sensible option.
Swiss neutrality was useful to everyone in WWII. Even the Nazis needed somewhere to store their loot and pay for their ratline escape just in case they lost the war.
So what are the marriage/cohabitation/breeding (breeding can include rape) dynamics in France as they relate to the current MENA and sub-Sahara African invasions of huwhite France?
Wrong. France was really destroyed by the Jew World Order after the war. The Germans, had they won, would have continued preserving the French people and culture–just not, of course, their political independence.
All this ebb and flow and insemination occurred before the late twentieth century was raped by the idea that children are a disease. Contraception and abortion are the pure enemies of humanity. Wonder what future studies will show about the brain power of wealthy Europeans who committed cultural suicide through hatred of progeny. This is the great screwjob our generation did on the future.
I mean, how did Napoleon finance his various expeditions
At that time France was probably the richest country in Europe , but France wanted ALL Europe
The napoleonic troops lived off the countries they invaded , robbed food , money and everything , destroyed art , churches , killed civilians . Napoleon put members of his family to rule all the occupied countries to suck their blood . He ruined Europe , and at the end even France herself .
Not everything is 100 % ” color revolutions ” , the french people participated enthousiastically in the napoleonic wars hoping benefit fron the booty .
What is your (known) cultural/familiar/ancestral heritage? Are you of recent Spanish and French descent?
I’ve gotten different results from the various companies over the years, and from my own experience and many others, it appears there is either large overlap between the Celts of the British Isles and Iberia, or they are essentially one in the same, depending on the algorithms used to express clusters.
It seems some research indicates that indeed the modern Celts of BI are from the Celts of what is today northern Spain, Portugal and the Southwestern part of France.
The Sardinian DNA is interesting because it does not seem to be “Italian”, but if anything, more Phoenician/Iberian…curious if anyone has found a close connection between Sardinia and Lebanese since the latter consider themselves the modern descendants of the Phoenicians.
These are interesting charts of the genetic diversity in France over the centuries,
But what is really important is the coming genetic Tsunami from the global south which
Is currently inundating Franc with an hostile and alien population.
As Steve Sailor pointed out in his 2017 articles both in Unz and Taki magazines:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/le-monde-sickle-cell-disease-the-genetic-disease-that-excites-the-extreme-right
https://www.takimag.com/article/le_grand_remplacement_steve_sailer
This map in French, shows that based on the sickle cell anemia map of France that 75% of new borns in Metropolitan Paris were of non European origin
An astonishing figure indeed
Video Link
Neither did murritards, lol. How come the event so hysterially celebrated in murrica was carried by crown subjects?
I would contend that Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia have all warded off the Zio-puppet invaders despite the EU slavishly following the protocols (current chapter = Agenda 2030). Just as with Switzerland in the second world war for a fake jewish holocaust, all it takes is sufficient determination of the local peoples. This is where having nationality = race acts as a strong amplifier of will, and we can see how effectively jews/zionist/israeli’s wield it.
If there was a zero tolerance approach to allowing low IQ genetic bullets into Europe, especially when fired by jews, then this situation never would have arisen. But alas, it was the jews who won WWII and holocausted Germany.
All Europe needs to do is make a show of determination. The burning of all Mosques, Synogogues and Holocaust museums would be a good start.
As far the negative impact of globalism goes, you need to realize that (((globalism))) capitalism.
watt’a dumy – ever hurd of Omaha & Utah beaches???
See Bruno’s comment #12.
Let’s ask 2 questions here…
1. What fuel does the Sun use?
2. What fuel does Politics use?
Read my entry number 15 ,
% are nor very precise . for instance Sardinia was part of Spain from 1326 to 1717 , first of the Crown of Aragòn , and after the Catholic Kings she was inherited by Spain , they still speak some catalan in Alghero , so your 5% sardianian is italian , catalan , aragonese , castillian ???
ibero ligur etruscans ( iberians in Spain , the basques are a remnant of not very well romanized iberians ) extended to great parts of Europe , mixed with the Celts . Probably even the arrogant english have more ibero-ligur-etruscan blood than they would like . After in the Iberian peninsula we had the barbarian invasions , visigohts , vandals , alans , swabians , the arab invasion , european migrations …
During some epochs there was a lot of french emigration to Spain . During the Reconquista they came to colonize lands abandoned by the moors as the Reconquista advanced . And during the 16 and 17 centuries they inmigrated to Spain mainly to work , for economic reasons .
So it is more complex than mere % . Genetics is a tricky discipline .
The Phoenician hypothesis is a strong one because despite being extremely white skin (like a red hair person), my MtDna is Sub-Sahara African L2 and in particular a variety wich is found mostly in Malta and in South West Iberia (Huelva and Algarve) and Celtic Galicia.
My paternal Dna is R1b L-165 in a variety found mostly in Hebrides and Inverness Scotland. My grand-grand mother was a northern Italian maid serving in a (allegedly) very rich family from Lyon at 16 yo. She was inpregnated by the eldest son and dismissed. Her son, my grand father, would be extremely successful in Paris despite his very low background and immigrant status. He was fluent in French because they came from a village at the frontier in Piedmont. My grand mother came from the same village from a farmers family who were better off.
Mr. H?
I think I was out having a smoke when they discussed this period of history in junior high.
Let’s have a breakdown/classification of all those “Americans” in France.
Anyway, every year as I watch the Tour (21 days) and see so many magnificent chateaux, churches, walls, fields, crops, modest houses, & tons of white people (nary a pigmented face), etc., I am aware that sooner than you think it could all be goat & sheep farms and mosks. I hope not, though.
One wonders what kind of “history” you have been reading.
In any case, we live in a fascinating time of constant progress in the field of genetics, which this post is about. You shouldn’t miss the opportunity to keep apace with that progress and better understand what the real historical events meant in terms of actual population dynamics.
V interesting. Gobineau said France was the most diverse European nation, but ofc he had no access to genetic testing and even taxonomy was in its infancy. I thought the Pyrenees and Alps would have been effective barriers to gene flow.
https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Pyrenae/article/viewFile/164895/260050
Do you know about the Botorrita writings ? celtiberian , basque ? did they spoke basque in Zaragoza in Christ time ?
“I suspect the failure of Italy and Yugoslavia to consolidate, either fully or at all, as nations may be in part due to their greater regional genetic diversity. More data on this would be welcome.”
I don’t know of a similar study of the genetic make-up of Italy and the former Yugoslavia as that of France but if the table on this page https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml contains accurate data then while there are notable differences between regions in Italy, Croats and Serbs are much more closely related than Albanians in Kosovo and Albania proper. If the genetic factor were primordial then Yugoslavia would have remained one country but the many non-genetic factors that made it dysfunctional obviously prevailed.
Celtiberian (the Celtic language spoken in Iberia) and Latin.
I’m sure that after I’m dead and buried … and my grave is subsequently desecrated … that the little chapel on my grounds will sprout a minaret.
I’m gradually being swayed to the Scythian/Celtic & Indo/Aryan diaspora model these days. Clearly Thor Heyerdahl was onto something with his Kon Tiki hypothesis of diffusion. Anywhere there is evidence of anomalously advanced civilization there are accounts of either red haired/fair haired people with light complexion – often referred to as “giants”. In the Roman historical accounts of the Celts they would corroborate these descriptions. On a more slanderous note, the Romans considered the Celts to be “smooth talkers,” i.e. “bullshitters”. From this you arrive at the Irish Celt/Gaelic term of “blarney,” i.e. “the gift of gab,” or verbosity to conceal intent.
The Gauls the Iberians and the Irish are all Celts. We are all White, whatever the mosiac of different tribes within the continuum of the Celts/Aryan/Druidic root race goes – we are all kin. Niggers and goat herders from the Sinai Peninsula aren’t us. It would be utterly ridiculous to suggest even a tangential kinship to these groups. As far as human origin legends go, we all know that not every race has its’ genesis in Africa. You could debate haplogroups and genomes all day, but you’d still arrive at the same uncomfortable conclusions. Just because there are niggers in France doesn’t make them French.
I’m an American, who is Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Italian/German/Shawnee. But, as far as the world is concerned – White. Blacks and the rest of the savages of the un-plumbed world are not White. We have our own distinct geographic heritage, entirely separate from those who desperately seek gibs, and (((those who seek to legislate))) away our culture. Fuck niggers and haji scum, but most of all The Eternal Jew. For all your hatred and envy of Whites, your emulation of our culture is clearly indicative of your aspirations. Driving a Mercedes AMG GT-R Pro while bitching about Hitler’s Mercedes 6×6 staff car, choke on your cognitive dissonance Heebs.
—-
P.S. I’m just surprised they didn’t try to insinuate Le noir hommes into French history.
“What, you didn’t know about the black Celts!?”
The French army took 360000 casualties including 80000 KIA in the one month of fighting in 1940. That’s hardly lying down.
I had my DNA analyzed by those three and all concurred.
The object of war is for the other guy to die for his country. H/T General George S. Patton.
Where their brains will turn to mush. We ice people need weather to thrive.
It’s been around a while.
Video Link
So when my mother-in-law’s French-Canadian (i.e., Norman) mother united with her Nordic father, it was not just a union, but a reunion of sorts.
But culture comes into it, too– that marriage didn’t last long. Her first marriage, to someone of her own ethnicity, went for an idyllic decade before his death in an accident.
Patton loved to tell that joke, and spice it up, but it wasn’t original to him. It had already been making the rounds by the time the First World War had started.
Are you sure that she was from Normandie stock and not from the other regions of France from where French-Canadians alight viz. Aunis, Angoumois, Saintonge, Gascogne, i.e south of the von Wartburg line, so rather Gallic or Basque stock? For example, Champlain was from La Rochelle.
People really should learn a little more about history before spouting garbage. The French didn’t lay over, they suffered a crushing military defeat, mainly due to two factors: strategic ineptitude of politicians and generals that made France totally unprepared for war and superior German military tactics that were based on total air superiority and imposed a war of movement for which the French army wasn’t equipped.
In the period between the start of the war on May 10th, and the signing of the French surrender on June 22nd, 1940, between 55000-65000 French solders and ~20000 civilians were killed. The German suffered >60000 dead, >100000 wounded and >18000 MIA. That’s hardly an outcome where one side has laid down arms immediately. Around 1,800,000 French soldiers were taken prisoners. That leaves hardly any men of fighting age to continue resistance. Yet, the French resisted, especially after right-wing patriots were joined by communists when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
France was one of only three countries in Europe occupied by Germany with organised mass resistance, the other two having been Yugoslavia and Greece, when all the rest had only handfuls of partisans that needed to be micro-managed by the British.
French pop music is the worst.
I beg to differ: My life is spread across four cultures at the moment, and French pop is the least annoying.
The greedy Roman elites hired in Germanic barbarians to do the work Romans wouldn’t do. Then, when the greedy Roman elites didn’t want to share the wealth equitably, the Germanic barbarians took by force that which they believed they earned (“They didn’t build that … we did!”). The Germanic tribes didn’t destroy Roman heritage; the Roman elite had already accomplished that a couple centuries earlier.
Pay attention here, because we are the new Romans, and the barbarians we have invited in, or at least suffered as they self-invited themselves in, are coming for our stuff.
That’s a surprisingly low number of Americans living in France.
And a very, very low number of English-speakers. Not too wise of the French, on grounds of economic opportunity at least. (Almost anywhere in the world, I’d learn English and/or Mandarin if I could.)
And we can’t hear BS from the French about not learning English because they guard and cherish their own culture so dearly. They clearly do not care a damn about their culture and people surviving, like the USA, as the massive immigration in both places shows.
Czechoslovakia and Yugoslovakia were 2 artificial nations cobbled together after WW1 by the victorious powers. Did anyone ask the people living in those areas? No. Wilson was all for it because he was a Democrat and there were a lot of Democratic immigrants from former Austrian territories with many ethnic grievances against the Empire.
Worst thing that happened to Europe since the Muslim invasions was the break up of the benign Austrian Empire into little artificial nations powerless against the Beast From The during and after WW2.
If you don’t mind my asking, are you Swiss or American?
A bit more to it than that.
The Han has built parts of the Great Wall and finally had the population to resist the constant Turkic Mongolia and Central Asian nomads. So those tribes started invading west which drove the Goths Slave Germans Alans Vandals and numerous groups west out of Asia into Western Europe and the Roman territory
Don’t forget that the French communists had been joining the military and government as agents in place since the 1920s. The French Air Force, being new was full of then . Russia and Germany had a non aggression pact at the time. So Russia was allied with the Germans at the time and all the agents in place and communists in every nation were ordered from Moscow to help the Germans.
There were many instances on the front of communist officers and sergeants giving orders to retreat when they could have stood and fought. One famous incident occurred as the Germans advanced. French officers looked at the map and noticed an east west river with only one bridge in a 30 mile stretch.
So they figured blow up the bridge and they could stop the German advance. Local Mayors were communists who were powerful in the coal mines in the area. So the communist civilians had a sit in on the bridge The army backed off. The Germans marched over the bridge.
Another thing that’s widely known to every historian of WW2. The Germans had occupied Poland since September 39 and had already committed some atrocities. The Germans informed the French that if it became a battle to the end they’d treat France the way they were treating Poland
The Europeans joked during both those wars that “ England will fight to the last Frenchman”. And it was true. All Churchill’s war mongering was just blow hard speeches.
The English broke and fled to the port of Dunkirk. Instead of sending the navy to rescue their troops, the English general staff sent the navy to the western edge of the Island, to ports on the Irish Sea. to keep the navy safe.
Most history taught in America until 1970 is just British propaganda, something of which England is the master. Then it became the Jewish communist America is evil hate America Howard Zimm version.
Britain’s strategy was for France to do the fighting against Germany till the British and their stooge Roosevelt could bring America into the war.
Didn’t work. The Brutish army fled to Dunkirk as soon as possible and the French wisely surrendered before more of their men were killed
The British mastery of propaganda was such that they turned the British defeat and retreat into the heroic Dunkirk myth of English civilians of the merchant and fishing fleet and even ferry boats bravely going off to save the heroes of Dunkirk while the navy was safe on the Irish Sea.
The Alps were just an invasion pathway for most of history.
Most large countries are mixtures of different but similar ethnicities.
The British Isles comprise of Anglo-Saxons (Germanic), Irish and Scots (Celtic), Welsh (the Old British – or native inhabitants), Danes (Scandinavians) and Normans (French). The different identities are still there genetically, regionally and in surnames but no one pays much attention.
There is some tribalism among the Welsh and Scots (who lost out badly to the Anglos) but these races are all northern European, and Anglo culture currently treats everyone equally, so it has been in everyone’s interest to get along. Also they have been together for a thousand years. But, if the economic incentives change, the UK could still break up along the remaining fault lines – for example Scottish secession if the Scots see their economic interests seriously threatened by Brexit.
The US is now entirely different.
First of all it’s a recent creation. Until the 1950’s it had a similar racial identity, which was European (North, South, East and West European) with the original Anglo founders being dominant and giving it its language and culture. It had a small African minority that lived apart and came to have equal rights.
Similarly to the UK, US Anglo culture treated everyone equally – although now, the US is made up of a much larger proportion of non-Europeans (mostly South American native Indians) who may integrate and probably want to. The problem is elsewhere, in that the Anglos themselves have been pushed out of power by a small (non-integrationist) Jewish tribal group who are enforcing an entirely different culture.
America’s new Jewish tribalists don’t treat all citizens equally. They prioritize Jewish interests across the board, especially the social and economic destruction of the previous Anglo power holders. They direct US resources towards their true home country (Israel ). This gives the US the status of an Israeli colony, with organized US Jewry being the harsh administrators, controlling the press, finance and politics and rooting out dissent.
The question then becomes the fight for US independence (second time round).
Like Seattle and Portland crazier than San Francisco? Or Harvard Yale Boston and NYC? Or Minnesota which proudly elected Congress critters Omar and Keith Ellison? Or Britain, Germany and the Scandinavians who cheerfully invited WOGS on welfare?
An objective observer would say the Ice People are happily destroying their societies.
So, you’re saying walls do work?
These were the native English speakers now residing in France. The last estimate I saw for English-speaking ability among the French put it at roughly 39%. My practical experience is that many more might have learned some English at some point in life (it is a required topic in schools), but not continued using it much in real life, so you had better be prepared to deal in French in most places outside big cities, and even then ….
Hahahaha , the Ice People .
Well the russians , orthodox , are ice people too and are rebuilding Russia .
The protestant west european Ice People , the sons of Luther , Henty VIII , Kant , Napoleon and Hitler , the protestant and filo protestants euroyankees are the worse weirdos .
The ones we’ve looked up, like the Tremblays (claimed to be the biggest family in North America) tend to come from Normandy. But there are a lot of families to look up– grandma was born in 1922, centuries after their arrival.
I live in France. French pop is terrible, and has always been terrible. Even German pop is better. The 60s stuff is the worst of all. Unlike the US and the UK, in the 50s and 60s France lacked a grass-roots blues/rock n roll/skiffle scene, and when the American and British groups burst onto the scene, the French recording industry decided they needed some “homegrown” acts, which they promptly created out of whole cloth, out of necessity, and who were understandably terrible.
They never understood rock music, and neglected to put rock into their pop.
There are some good French songsters, but for the most part, they’re not pop.
If you think French pop is good, you must have very bad taste.
I’ll leave with with a quote by none other than John Lennon. When touring France in the earlyish days, he was asked by a French journalist what he thought of French rock.
“French rock?” he asked. “Isn’t that rather like English wine?”
Phoenix is decent.
M83 is sublime.
Neither and both. We left the foothills in the late ’80’s. I consider myself and my family to be Allamani.
I would agree that the Austrian Empire was certainly better than what followed, but lets face it, the Habsburg Dynasty does not come out of this with its sterling reputation intact.
I am heading up to an Alp that is run by Sud Tyrolians with a “B” license plate (Bergamo). They too are Allamani and have a beautifully distinct german dialect. The young men can be seen twice daily running up and down the steep hills “juchsing” in the Alps herding the cows down for their milking. They ride down to town in the evening without helmets on an old smokey Vespa. Their Bärg Käse and Alp Butter is excellent.
Are the Sud-Tyronians better off as a part of Italy than as a part of some Empire? Hard to say.
BTW, I enjoy the banter with you. I periodically change my handle, I hope you will recognize me.
Seattle and Portland are pretty warm. Despite Seattle’s record for the northernmost MLB team and winning the first Stanley Cup for the US. (Portland was the first to go to the Finals, the year before.)
What has any warm country ever produced? All the productive people are out playing golf.
It is a wonderful book.
And it most decidedly does not support the Durocherian analysis presented here–nor the premises that Durocher accepts to ground his analysis.
Regardless of what some statisticians of DNA say today, per Robb the history is one of extremely isolated regions and llinguistic traits up until the mid-19th C, a scenario also featuring latent and actual violence against those from elsewhere. There was the fellow from the Isle de France who, innocently, wandered into some village in the Massiv Central or somewhere and was, literally, torn to pieces by the “distrustful” villagers.
Per Robb, the nation of France was not “united,” culturally, until I believe he says the late 19th C.
“What has any warm country ever produced?”
Egypt, Greece, Italy, and Spain have produced far more culture than their fur-clad neighbors to the north. And Mother India beats them all.
Actually, Czech nationalism was a strong movement that got its start in the 19th C, along with a lot of other nationalist movements that emphasized the language and culture of the “indigenous” people (to the extent that there is any such thing anywhere). In the case of CZ it was the native Czechs in the coutnryside rebelling against the Germans/Jews, mainly in the urban areas, who controlled everything. The new nation of Czechoslovakia was cobbled together from two historically “Austrian” (Bohemia and Moravia) and one part historically Hungarian (Slovakia). Things do get complicated in Eastern Europe! But it is wrong to say there was no local drive for independence.
It was inevitable that the Sudeten Germans would be driven out of CZ after WW2. It was they who started the whole thing, or were one of the excuses to start the whole thing. They were certainly in the way of Czech nationalism from the beginning.
Here are some basics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Revival
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_nationalism
You’ve got to be kidding.
I refer you back to my John Lennon quote.
“What has any warm country ever produced?
Uh, the Italian renaissance?
Classical Greek civilization?
The first irrigation systems and astronomy (Mesopotamia)
You get the idea!
Nothing works like tall mountains and deep valleys to foster linguistic and even cultural differences.
http://www.walser-alps.eu/dialect
Also of note is that the Walser settled the Alps during a period of “global warming”.
Phoenix is a decent imitation of standard Anglo modern rock. Nothing exceptional, but acceptable.
M83 (except for their latest album), like Sigur Ros, produces the kind of music that is largely absent in the Anglo world. Moody, deep, melancholy, nostalgic, with an autumnal, yearning for a lost world quality – like a Murakami novel – while also sometimes energetic, this is something largely found in Continental music, and in Japanese music.
The Anglo world, with its superficial earthy optimism, cannot do yearning or nostalgia very well.
Although there are emerging exceptions in American EDM and synthwave, like Porter Robinson – who takes his cultural cues entirely from Japan, and groups like Midnight, Electric Youth, and Wolfclub, who usually have some European members.
I worked for years with a Czech from Prague whose prosperous family had lost all its property after the war. I also worked with a Galician Polach. I respected both of them.
I agree, the Germans could not conceive of how blood thirsty the Czech’s could so easily become. Of course they Czech’s also relied on Tito’s genocidal “partisans” to help with the dirty details of genocide. I think that the pattern we can see through both world wars is that Czechs, like Blacks, Serbs, Poles and Ukrainians loving licking the boots of their favorite jew overlord. That’s why the helped start 2 world wars.
So why are they coming here?
(Oh, yeah… the money.)
Even by the standards of poor countries, India is alarmingly filthy
Though, to be fair, that’s the environment. The people smell great, what with all that powder they wear.
I don’t know about this Robinson, but if it’s nostalgia you want, go with Porter Wagoner:
Video Link
The Renaissance was relatively chilly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Wow, a different time indeed 🙂
“People really should learn a little more about history before spouting garbage.” – Physician heal thyself!
Your glorious Yugoslav partisans killed more Yugoslav citizens than Germans by at least one order of magnitude.
French resistance was a joke.
Actually, I was surprised to discover that during the early 1930s it was sometimes fashionable to regard the French Revolution as being a racial struggle between the Germanic aristocrats and the downtrodden Romano-Gaulic masses. Here’s a related comment of mine from a few years ago:
https://www.unz.com/pfrost/more-on-the-younger-franz-boas/#comment-933082
Almost all French-Canadians came from Normandy. The ‘French’ spoken in Quebec today is called Joual. It is based on an obscure 17th century old Normandy area dialect of French and is very difficult to understand in modern France. A few of the Acadians who live in neighboring New Brunswick came from elsewhere. The Acadians have their own wicked local patois too.
The Austro-Habsburg empire was Europe’s first line of defense against the Muslim Turks for centuries.
Right, and olive trees grew in chilly conditions back then.
Come on, that’s a hilariously bad faith argument: “global warming’s one degree temperature increase shows that Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and Italian peoples were actually ice civilizations.”
Do you refer strictly to French-Canadians as ‘Normans’? An equation of ‘French’ with ‘Normans’ would be highly objectionable on historical grounds. “France” was created by the Gallicized Franks from Isle de France who slowly absorbed the rest of Gallia into the Kingdom of France. But the Franks were not Normans (Scandinavian). There is a question whether the Franks were Germanics at all.
Genetic distances within former Yugoslavia and Italy are very comparable to within France. Slightly lower within former Yugoslavia in fact and slightly higher within italy. Differences in consolidation have to do with historical factors and preservation of smaller ethnic identities, not genetic variation, when we’re speaking about regional groups already so similar to each other. It’s very obvious in this case since out of the three, it’s former Yugoslavia that has the greater amount of strongly expressed ethnic identities, despite being the slightly more genetically homogeneous one.
Mother India is a scam.
What the Brahmens fable, about an universal monarchy, and the celestial glory of this or that pretended hero, can therefore be regarded as no evidence of the facts which they assert. The propensity of the Hindus to exaggeration is every where displayed. “The officers of government here,” says Dr. Buchanan, “had the impudence to inform me, that according to Chica Deva Raya’s valuation of the country which belonged to Nandi Raj, it contained 32,000 villages…..The account here given seems to be one of those gross exaggerations common in India, and is entirely contradicted by the accounts which I received from the revenue office at Seringapatam.” Journey through Mysore, &c. ii. 97. In other places the native officers told him lies, contradicted by the very facts presented to their and his eyes, at the moment of delivering them. “Among the natives, however,” he remarks, “similar departures from the truth are common.” Ibid. p. 136, 137. Vicramaditya is indeed, expressly, at times asserted, not to have been King of all India, but only of a certain portion of it in the west. “The author of the Vicrama-Upac’hyana says, that he was a powerful prince, in the west of India, and possessed of the countries which we find, afterwards, constituting the patrimonial territories of the Balahara, which included Gurjjarasht’ra (or Gujjarat) with some adjacent districts.” Essay on Vicramaditya, &c. by Captain Wilford, Asiat. Res. ix. 149.
Any genetic traces of the Alans; an Iranic people (thought to be related to modern Ossetians) who entered Gaul in the 5th century and were settled around Orleans by Roman general Flavius Aetius to create a buffer against the Huns?
IDK, i’m pretty sure Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps for example, is remembered b/c it was such a rare feat. OTOH the Low Countries are a natural crossing for invasions to or from what’s now France: what’s now Belgium has probably been the site of more battles per square foot/meter than any other country
I’m not sure how true it is, but I’ve heard that inhabitants of a certain area of France where the remnants of the Huns settled still have traces of epicanthal folds
The Guptas, Mauryas, Ashoka, etc.?
When the Brits came to India, we Indians knew nothing about pre Islamic history. They were all researched by officers of the East India Company like Princep and Jones.
Even then, a lot is still unknown about the Hindu period and the thing is we Indians tend to hype up things all the time.
For example Mills writes
It is allowed on all hands that no historical composition existed in the literature of the Hindus; they had not reached that point of intellectual maturity, at which the value of a record of the past for the guidance of the future begins to be understood. “The Hindus,” says that zealous and industrious Sanscrit scholar, Mr. Wilford, “have no ancient civil history.” Remarking a coincidence in this characteristic circumstance between them and another ancient people, he adds, “Nor had the Egyptians any work purely historical.” Major Rennel says, that, founded on Hindu materials, there is no known history of Hindustan, nor any record of the historical events of that country prior to the Mahomedan conquests; and since that period, it is not to Hindu, but Mahomedan pens that we are indebted for all our knowledge of the Mahomedan conquests, and of the events which preceded the passage to India, by the Cape of Good Hope. An inclination at first appeared among [61] the warm admirers of Sanscrit to regard the poems Mahabharat and Ramayan, as a sort of historical records. A more intimate acquaintance with those [62] grotesque productions has demonstrated the impossibility of reconciling them with the order of human affairs, and, as the only expedient to soften the deformities in which they abound, suggested a theory that they are allegorical.
On the geography and chronology, as parts of the literature of the Hindus, I shall express myself in the language of Mr. Wilford. “The Hindus,” says that celebrated Hindu scholar, “have no regular work on the subject of geography, or none at least that ever came to my knowledge.—I was under a necessity of extracting my materials from their historical poems, or, as they may be called more properly, their legendary tales.” In another place he says, “The Hindu systems of geography, chronology, and history, are all equally monstrous and absurd. The circumference of the earth is said to be 500,000,000 yojanas, or 2,456,000,000 British miles: the mountains are asserted to be 100 yojanas, or 491 British miles high. Hence the mountains to the south of Benares are said, in the Puranas, to have kept the holy city in total darkness, till Matra-deva growing angry at their insolence, they humbled themselves to the ground, and their highest peak now is not more than 500 feet high. In the Calica Purana, it is said that the mountains have sunk considerably, so that the highest is not above one yojana, or five miles high.—When the Puranics speak of the kings [66] of ancient times, they are equally extravagant. According to them, King Yudhishthir reigned 27,000 years; King Nanda is said to have possessed in his treasury above 1,584,000,000 pounds sterling in gold coin alone; the value of the silver and copper coin, and jewels, exceeded all calculation: and his army consisted of 100,000,000 men. These accounts, geographical, chronological, and historical, as absurd and inconsistent with reason, must be rejected. This monstrous system seems to derive its origin from the ancient period of 12,000 natural years, which was admitted by the Persians, the Etruscans, and, I believe, also by the Celtic tribes; for we read of a learned nation in Spain, which boasted of having written histories of above six thousand years.”
Whoever, in the present improved state of our knowledge, shall take the trouble to contemplate the proofs which we possess of the state of knowledge and civilization among the Hindus, can form no other conclusion, but that every thing (unless astronomy be an exception) bears clear, concurring, and undeniable testimony to the ignorance of the Hindus, and the low state of civilization in which they remain. That such a people are masters of the science of astronomy to a degree which none but nations highly cultivated have elsewhere ever attained, is certainly [89] not to be credited on any chain of proof that is not entire.
Of the fitness of the proof to maintain any such conclusions as have been founded upon it, an idea may be formed from this; that Mr. Bentley, who has paid great attention to the books of Hindu astronomy, says they are all of modern date, and their pretensions to antiquity founded only on forgery. As his moderate knowledge of mathematics, however, and even the inelegancies of his style, have been sarcastically employed to throw discredit upon his conclusions, it is of importance to add that the two mathematicians whose reputation for profundity seems to exceed that of all their cotemporaries, Laplace, and an eminent ornament of our country, not only reject the inference of the great antiquity and perfection of the Hindu astronomy, but, from the evidence offered, draw a conclusion directly the reverse; viz. that this science is in the very same state of infancy among the Hindus with all the other branches of knowledge. The Surya Sidhanta is the great repository of the astronomical knowledge of the Hindus. It is on the authority of our own countryman I am enabled to declare, that this book is itself the most satisfactory of all proofs of the low state of the science among the Hindus, and the rudeness of the people from whom it proceeds; that its fantastic absurdity is truly Hindu; that all we can learn from it is a few facts, the result [90] of observations which required no skill; that its vague allegories and fanciful reflections prove nothing, or every thing; that a resolute admirer may build upon them all the astronomical science of modern times; but a man who should divest his mind of the recollection of European discoveries, and ask what a people unacquainted with the science could learn from the Surya Sidhanta, would find it next to nothing.
The progress of knowledge, and the force of observation, demonstrated the necessity of regarding the actual state of the Hindus as little removed from that of half-civilised nations. The saving hypothesis, however, was immediately adopted, that the situation in which the Hindus are now beheld is a state of degradation; that formerly they were in a state of high civilization; from which they had fallen through the miseries of foreign conquest, and subjugation.
This was a theory invented to preserve as much as actual observation would allow to be preserved, of a pre-established and favourite creed. It was not an inference from what was already known. It was a gratuitous assumption. It preceded inquiry, and no inquiry was welcome, but that which yielded matter for its support.
To this purpose were adapted the pretensions of [145] the Brahmens, who spoke of an antecedent period, when the sovereigns of Hindustan were masters of great power and great magnificence. It was of importance to weigh these pretensions; because the rude writers of rude nations have almost always spoken of antecedent times as deserving all the praise with which their powers of rhetoric or song could exalt them. If the descriptions of antiquity presented by the Brahmens bore the consistent marks of truth and reality, a degree of intrinsic evidence would be attached to them. If these descriptions flew wide of all resemblance to human affairs, and were nothing but wild unnatural fictions, they would be so far from proving an antecedent state of knowledge and civilization, that they would prove the reverse. And, had the Hindus remained fixed from the earliest ages in the semibarbarous state, it is most certain that the Brahmens would have given to us just such accounts of antiquity as those we have actually received at their hands.
As the Hindus have enlightened us by no record of antecedent events, and we thus have no immediate proof of their state of civilization, in the times that are past, the only sure ground of inference is the laws and institutions which they framed, the manners they adopted, and the arts and sciences to which they attended. If these great circumstances were at variance with the existing state of society, but adapted to one more advanced, the inference would certainly be a probable one, that to a period when society was in that improved condition, they really owed their birth. But in regard to the Hindus, their laws and institutions are adapted to the very state of society which those who visit them now behold. They are laws and institutions which, so far from importing any more perfect state of society, seem entirely inconsistent [146] with it; such as could neither begin, nor exist, under any other than one of the rudest and weakest states of the human mind. As the manners, the arts and sciences of the ancient Hindus are entirely correspondent with the state of their laws and institutions, every thing we know of the ancient state of Hindustan conspires to prove that it was rude.
What the Brahmens fable, about an universal monarchy, and the celestial glory of this or that pretended hero, can therefore be regarded as no evidence of the facts which they assert. The propensity of the Hindus to exaggeration is every where displayed. “The officers of government here,” says Dr. Buchanan, “had the impudence to inform me, that according to Chica Deva Raya’s valuation of the country which belonged to Nandi Raj, it contained 32,000 villages…..The account here given seems to be one of those gross exaggerations common in India, and is entirely contradicted by the accounts which I received from the revenue office at Seringapatam.” Journey through Mysore, &c. ii. 97. In other places the native officers told him lies, contradicted by the very facts presented to their and his eyes, at the moment of delivering them. “Among the natives, however,” he remarks, “similar departures from the truth are common.” Ibid. p. 136, 137. Vicramaditya is indeed, expressly, at times asserted, not to have been King of all India, but only of a certain portion of it in the west. “The author of the Vicrama-Upac’hyana says, that he was a powerful prince, in the west of India, and possessed of the countries which we find, afterwards, constituting the patrimonial territories of the Balahara, which included Gurjjarasht’ra (or Gujjarat) with some adjacent districts.” Essay on Vicramaditya, &c. by Captain Wilford, Asiat. Res. ix. 14
Dr. Buchunan found the propensity general, to deceive him in their accounts both of their religion and history. See Journey through Mysore, &c. ii. 76, 79, 80. “The Brahmens,” he says, “when asked for dates, or authority, say that they must consult their books, which may be readily done; but when I send my interpreter, who is also a Brahmen, to copy the dates, they pretend that their books are lost.” Ibid. i. 335. All information, he says, from the Brahmens, usually differs most essentially as derived from different individuals. Ibid. ii.
Further
“That no Hindu nation, but the Cashmirians, have left us regular histories,” says Sir W. Jones, “in their ancient language, we must ever lament.” Asiat. Res. iv. xvii. What he meant by excepting the Cashmirians, we know not. No history of them has ever been seen. “Although we have had recourse,” says Dr. Tennant, “to the Sanscrit records at Benares for several years, no history of the country has been found, which is the composition of a native.” Ind. Rec. i. 10. “Their poets,” says Mr. W. Chambers, “seem to have been their only historians as well as divines; and whatever they relate is wrapped up in this burlesque garb, set off, by way of ornament, with circumstances highly incredible and absurd, and all this without any date, and in no order or method, than such as the poet’s fancy suggested and found most convenient. Asiat. Res. i. 157. Such is the character of the Puranas, from which Mr. Wilford has exerted himself with such a waste of labour and credulity to extract some scattered fragments of history; or rather something, it is difficult to say what, on which some few historical inferences might be founded. “The department of ancient history in the East is so deformed by fable and anachronism, that it may be considered an absolute blank in Indian literature.” Wilks’s Mysore, Pref. p. xv. Mr. Dow’s prejudices went far: “We must not,” says he, (Preface to his Hist. of Hindostan) “with Ferishta, consider the Hindoos as destitute of genuine domestic annals, or that those voluminous records they possess are mere legends framed by the Bramins.” Yet it has been found that all which Ferishta said was true, and all that Col. Dow believed was false.—”Seriously speaking, the turn and bent of the imagination of the people of India are such, that they can in no wise be excited but by what is monstrous. Ordinary occurrences make no impression upon them at all. Their attention cannot be gained without the introduction of giants and pygmies. The Brahmans, therefore, having studied this propensity, availed themselves of it to invent a religious worship, which they artfully interwove with their own private interests.—This passion of the Hindus for the extraordinary and the wonderful must have been remarked by every one who has ever so little studied their character. It continually leads to the observation I have so frequently repeated, that as often as it was necessary to move their gross imagination, some circumstance, altogether extravagant, but coloured with the hue of truth, was required to be added to the simplicity of narrative or fact. To give them any idea of the marvellous, something must be invented that will overturn, or at least alter the whole order of nature. The miracles of the Christian religion, however extraordinary they must appear to a common understanding, are by no means so to the Hindus. Upon them they have no effect. The exploits of Joshua and his army, and the prodigies they effected by the interposition of God, in the conquest of the land of Canaan, seem to them unworthy of notice, when compared with the achievements of their own Rama, and the miracles which attended his progress when he subjected Ceylon to his yoke. The mighty strength of Samson dwindles into nothing, when opposed to the overwhelming energy of Bali, of Ravana, and the giants. The resurrection of Lazarus itself is, in their eyes, an ordinary event, of which they see frequent examples, in the Vishnu ceremonies of the Paheahdam.—I particularize these examples, because they have been actually opposed to me more than once by Brahmans, in my disputations with them on religion.” Abbé Dubois, p. 421.
Even Mr. Maurice, whose appetite for Hindu miracles is not easily overcome, could not digest the beauties of their historic muse. After an exhibition of some of these specimens in his history, he says, “I know not whether some of my readers may not be so insensible to the charms of the Indian historic muse as to rejoice that the Ramayan (only passages of it were then in an English dress) has not been translated; for certainly inflated accounts of the combats of giants, hurling rocks, and darting serpents at one another, and of monsters whose blood, spouting forth in torrents, is formed into considerable rivers, are not very consistent with the sober and dignified page of history.” Maurice, Hist. of Hindustan, ii. 100. “To the above list of absurdities we may add monsters with ten heads and a hundred hands, which continue to fight after all their heads are cut off, and mow down whole battalions.” Ibid. p. 248. “The minute accounts of incantations and combats of giants, that fill the Indian legends, however they may astonish the oriental literati, have no charm for the polished scholar of western climes, and are justly consigned to puerile reading.” Ibid. p. 251. Yet Sir William Jones could say, “The first poet of the Hindus was the great Valmic; and his Ramayan is an epic poem on the story of Rama (or rather of the three Ramas,) which in unity of action, magnificence of imagery, and elegance of style, far surpasses the learned and elaborate work of Nonnus.” See Asiat. Res. i. 258. We strongly suspect that Sir William Jones never read the poem; or more of it than scraps.
The blacksmith goes from place to place carrying his tools with him. Beside his forge and his little furnace, a stone serves for an anvil, and his whole apparatus consists of a pair of pincers, a hammer, a mallet, and a file. They have not attained the art of polishing gold and silver, or of working gold in different colours. The goldsmith goes about with his tools, like the blacksmith. Sonnerat, Voy. hv. iii. chap. viii. The workmen in gold and silver are frequently only little boys, who sit every day in the bazaar or market waiting till they are called, when they go to your house, with their implements in a little basket, consisting of a very small anvil, a hammer, a pair of bellows, a few files, and a pair of pincers; a chaffing dish, or pan of embers, is then given to him with a model of what is to be made, and the material. He then sets about his work in the open air, and performs it with dispatch and ingenuity. Other tradesmen go to your home in the same manner, the shoemaker and tailor. Stavorinus, Voy. p. 412. It is remarkable how exactly this description of the state of the arts among the Hindus tallies with that among the Persians. Chardin informs us that every where in Persia, the artisans of all descriptions go to work in the houses of those who employ them—that they perform their work with the poorest apparatus, and, comparing the tools with the work, to a surprising degree of perfection. Chardin, Voy. en Perse, iii. 98.
Sonnerat, Voy. liv. iii. chap. viii. “The Indian carpenter knows no other tools than the plane, the chisel, the wimple, a hammer, and a kind of hatchet. The earth serves him for a bench, and his foot for a holdfast. He is a month in performing what our workman will do in three days. Even after instruction he will not adopt our method of sawing. Placing his wood between two beams fixed in the ground, and sitting on a bench, a man employs three days, with one saw, to make a plank, which would cost our people an hour’s work.” Ibid. Among the Birmans/Burmans the state of the more necessary and useful arts seems to be fully as much advanced as among the Hindus of India: in not a few cases more so. (See Mr. Syme’s Embassy to Ava.) The waggons more neat and commodious than the clumsy gauries or carts of India.
“No art in Hindustan is carried to the same degree of perfection as in Europe, except some articles in which the cheapness of labour gives them an advantage, as in the case of the fine muslins at Dacca.” Tennant’s Indian Recreations, i. 104. The people are in a state of gross rudeness, Buchanan informs us, “in every part of Bengal, where arts have not been introduced by foreigners; the only one that has been carried to tolerable perfection is that of weaving.” Journey through Mysore, &c. ii. 285.
The good sense of Colonel Wilks has made that instructive writer use the following terms: “The golden age of India, like that of other regions, belongs exclusively to the poet. In the sober investigation of facts, this imaginary era recedes still farther and farther at every stage of the inquiry; and all that we find is still the empty praise of the ages which have passed…..If the comparative happiness of mankind in different ages be measured by its only true and rational standard, namely, the degree of peace and security which they shall be found collectively and individually to possess, we shall certainly discover, in every successive step towards remote antiquity, a larger share of wretchedness to have been the portion of the human race…..The force of these observations, general in their nature, is perhaps more strongly marked in the history of India than of any other region of the earth. At periods long antecedent to the Mohammedan invasion, wars, revolutions, and conquests, seem to have followed each other, in a succession more strangely complex, rapid, and destructive, as the events more deeply recede into the gloom of antiquity. The rude valour, which had achieved a conquest, was seldom combined with the sagacity requisite for interior rule; and the fabric of the conquered state, shaken by the rupture of its ancient bonds, and the substitution of instruments, clumsy, unapt, and misapplied, either fell to sudden ruin, or gradually dissolved.” Historical Sketches of the South of India, by Lieut. Col. Mark Wilks, p. 1, 2.
You’re right, because Indians placed a low value on recording history compared to Greco-Romans, Mideastern civilizations and the Chinese or because of Muslim destruction, we have to get most of our information from Greco-Roman or Iranian Islamic scholars. I had a hearty laugh at this one Indian intellectual proclaiming the superiority of their civilization while relying on to Megasthenes to make his point.
“The golden age of India, like that of other regions, belongs exclusively to the poet. In the sober investigation of facts, this imaginary era recedes still farther and farther at every stage of the inquiry; and all that we find is still the empty praise of the ages which have passed
IDK, Alberuni said that the Muslims couldn’t couldn’t fathom how the Indians built their temples and then proceeded to tear them down to their foundations.
Don’t worry, the archaeogeneticist crowd are all over this paper like a tramp on chips
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17885-The-Genetic-History-of-France-(preprint)&p=587334&viewfull=1#post587334
Oh yeah, the Muslims did destroy a lot of Temples and killed millions of idol worshipers. No doubt about that. There was a lot of Islamic brutality on non Muslims but Hindu India before that was no paradise. And lets not forget Hindu brutality on Buddhists in India before the Muslims barged in and returned the karma on us Hindus.
But weren’t Ashoka the Buddhist and the Buddhist Kushans brutal as well? In any case Indian history was full of cataclysm and violent upheaval even before the Muslims, much less the British, though. Stability of British rule gave India time to recuperate and its population soared (maybe too much, as seen in the famines).
Emperor Ashoka was brutal before he turned Buddhist. Except that I agree with what you say.
Many french people participated with enthusiasm (not in Vendée…) in the revolution wars as France was attacked by the whole of Europe. The first “napoleonic wars” were actually revolutionary wars (Italy campaigns). After Napoleon became Consul and then Emperor, the french had no say.
Those wars were mainly financed by the Banque de France set by Napoleon (private Banque already), and by some other private bankers (Rotschild & Co).
Regarding breeding, statistical datas related to birth medical follow-up, showed that in 2015, 40% of the newborn were tested for depranocythosis, a pathology specific to newborns whose parents are from African ascent. The % was increasing 1% per year in the 2005-2015 period. It means that no more later than in 2025, there should be more babies with african parents than with white parents.
I suggest that Breton genetics may descend from an Atlantic population also found in Britain as much as recent (post Roman) immigration. The test would be comparison with Galicians.
Apparently the ‘detail’ that it was France which declared war on 20 April 1792 on Austria, thus initiating the continuous ‘revolutionary war’ which ended in 1815, escaped the attention of those still intoxicated by ‘La Marseillaise’. It started as a ‘preventive war’ (trope that would have a great career in Germany) and led gradually to the invasion of Russia by the whole of ‘revolutionary’ Europe, a fact further obscured by the apparent ‘counter-revolution’ of the ‘son of the revolution’ Napoleon.
The question was: were the french at that time “participating enthusiastically in the napoleonic wars hoping benefit fron the booty”. I dare say no for most of them (read stories about conscription at that time, and you will see many french quickly had enough).
You have a point about the war beginning in 1792 (approved by the still alive King) against the austrian empire, but from 1793 UK never stopped financing continental coalitions against France, up to 1815. It lasted so long because the french army under Napoleon kept winning till Russia.
No intoxication, I’m fine, thanks.
Isn’t Bergamo in Italy? They’re mostly German looking north of Venice and Milan. N Italy was better off when it was part of Austrian Empire.
I greatly admire the Austrian Empire. Except for Charles 5 ‘s 1527? atrocities and occupation of Rome. Lasted almost as long as Rome, but under the same family and much more peaceful internally.
The Empire never cared about Switzerland. Subsistence farming, not enough cash crops to make the taxes worth setting up a feudal tax system. All 4 grand parents of the most beautiful woman I ever met were Swiss German immigrants. She was a Nordic goddess.
France wasn’t attacked by the whole of Europe. The 93 94,5,6 revolutionaries were always claiming the the French refugees in S Germany were conspiring with the Germans to invade and attack France. It never happened. The French invaded and attacked S Germany a few years before Napoleon attacked Italy.
The Gauls crossed the Alps centuries before Hannibal and conquered and looted Rome 300 something BC. They looted and went home. Then the Romans crossed the Alps to conquer Iberia and what’s now Austria France and parts of Germany. They first crossed the Alps and marched through France to invade England Then the Gauls, Goths Huns and others crossed the Alps and conquered Rome. The Goths then went north and again crossed the Alps to conquer Spain
All through the Middle Ages Renaissance and early modern times French Spanish Austrian and German armies crossed the Alps to invade Italy.
When the French army were on the highest peak and could see the wealthy plains of Italy. Napoleon spoke to his troops. “Before you lies your pay. Go and take it.
I wonder why the Romans & Goths didn’t invade Iberia from the sea instead of on land across the Alps. Charles 5 of the Austrian Empire Who was also Charles 1 King of Spain S America and Mexico crossed the Alps with his German and Spanish troops to conquer Rome in 1527. Charles occupied Rome for years.
It’s a wonder anything is left of Italy, it’s been invaded so many times Muslims invaded by sea and rivers, Europeans andCentral Asians across the Alps. Hannibal was just one of thousands. What’s memorable about his invasion was the elephants, not crossing the Alps as has been done thousands of times .
French Revolution like ours and the 1820s S American and Mexican revolutions against Spain were run by Masons.
The Latin American revolutions were funded and organized by English Masons operating from a base on the island it Tortuga.
Motive: When Britain lost the 13 colonies it lost the colonial trading advantages and the penal colony for its convicts. So Britain invaded Australia for a convict settlement. When the US was 13 British colonies, only Britain was allowed to trade with us. When Latin America was Spanish colonies, only Spain could trade with them.
That was the standard arrangement all through the colonial period right up to African independence in the 1960s ,
Masons caused all three of those revolutions for financial benefit, not independence, liberty equality and the right to happiness.
American and French revolutions the victorious revolutionaries confiscated the property of those they deemed counter revolutionary or neutral.
Same thing probably happened in Latin America but I haven’t studied the aftermath of those revolutions much.
Alain Alan is one of the most common French male names.
Britain remained at war with France until 1802 (actually it was France who declared war against Britain in 1793). It is ironic of course, in hindsight, that Britain resumed hostilities the following year because of Napoleon’s “determination to exclude Britain from the Continent” (the King of England was still a European sovereign, Prince Elector of Hanover, then King until 1837), when Britain had not invented Brexit.
My Seattle relatives and the niece who went to college near Portland do not agree that Portland and Seattle are pretty warm. It snows every winter in both places. Summers are chilly. No need for shorts and sun dresses in Seattle.
Of course it’s warmer than Alaska and North Dakota I suppose.
The Scandinavians and Finns never created much of a civilization compared to Southern Europeans.
Right up to 1900 there were 2 court reporters in every French courtroom and usually in depositions 1 recorded standard French 1 recorded the local language. For most of French history, any military recruit who spoke standard French was automatically made a sergeant or the navy equivalent.
The sovereigns and church respected the local cultures. The revolutionary government and 19th century Masons who ruled behind every government despised and did their best to destroy local culture and language.
It seems like people in Germany, and especially the Netherlands and Scandinavia, readily switch to English and like to practice and show off. The French, not so much. Which I can respect too.
There is not a month where Seattle has an average high temp below 45, or an average low temperature below 36.
That’s not just warmer than ND and AK, it is just not very cold at all, whatever the residents claim.
I’m so happy to find your page, because it’s was the study I wished so much! There is few studies about the French dna. I’m french canadian and I did 2 dna tests. One with Geno 2.0 and another with 23andme.
The Provinces of origin of the french canadians are in order of importance:
1. Basse-Normandy
2. Paris, Ile de France
3. Poitou-Charente (Larochelle, Saintonge, Vienne)
Also Loire, L’Orne, Britanny, Aquitaine, Haut-de-France and others in the North.
This is my results on 23andme, which are typical of a french canadian who live in the Province of Quebec, and settled in the Vallée du St-Laurent. The french canadians score higher in « French & German » than the average modern frenchs results I saw in the web. We are from an old stock of northern frenchs of the 17th century who spoke the Oil language.
Approximately:
90% North Western European:
French and German 47% (Ile-de-France, Haut-de-France. They don’t identified Normandy, my most important Province)
British and Irish 25% (Glasgow, London, Cork)
17% Broadly North Western European
0.2% Scandinavian
Southern European 7%
2% Iberian
5% Broadly southern European
Etc.
Geno 2.0
99% Central and Western European
Ethnicity « Dutch »
This is not so far than my results in 23andme (Haut-de-France), which correspond to the blue zone on the map of this study. I’m very intrigued by the effect of the Plague on our population. As I understand, our roots are in the most affected area of the Plague, so the ancient french canadians could had a greater genetic homogeneity in the 16th Century modern frenchs. Paris was still a small (and very dirty) medieval city.
Provinces of origin of the first french settlers in New France, St-Lawrence River Valley:
https://images.app.goo.gl/myPdkj1CciCHSDpZ7
The Acadians have different genetic origin and they are more iberians than the quebecois. (Acadians: French canadians who settled outside of Quebec in the Maritimes Provinces of Canada and live today in New Scottland, New Brunswick, East of Quebec (Gaspésie) Louisiane in the US. They have a different accent than the quebecois because they were not as Normans and Northern frenches. Many have black hairs and they believe that they have native indian blood, but they are just southern frenchs:
https://images.app.goo.gl/rkbLEDrgQRKNgwRb7
love the americans coming in to tell us how to run our country.
> And a very, very low number of English-speakers.
so? We speak ten times better English than you do literally any other language.
> Not too wise of the French, on grounds of economic opportunity at least.
Get off your high horse. We are doing fine, we are the second most economically powerful country in Europe. The UK, a country that speaks your dear old language, just fell behind us because of Brexit. (Nothing against the brits, sad to see them go, but americans like you can go fuck themselves)
>Almost anywhere in the world, I’d learn English and/or Mandarin if I could.
Wow aren’t you clever, did you come up with that yourself? What foresight and economical genius you have there.
>And we can’t hear BS from the French about not learning English because they guard and cherish their own culture so dearly. They clearly do not care a damn about their culture and people surviving, like the USA, as the massive immigration in both places shows.
Hahahah. what do you know about our country ? Our culture is doing fine on its own thank you very much. Literally no one respects you since you elected a reality-tv star for president. Enjoy your wall.
If learning mandarin is so obvious that you mock me for suggesting it, have your children done it? (If you’re too old for that question to be a fair one, substitute “grandchildren.”)
How about young French people generally, are they learning Mandarin in large numbers? Awaiting your answers breathlessly.
As for France “doing just fine”, sure, keep telling yourself that. And have your wife adjust that burka.
Both our countries are clearly on the way down.
I’m honest about the trajectory of my country.
You can keep living in happy dreamworld, though, if it makes you feel better.
Lastly, if advice and observations constitute “telling you how to run your country”, maybe you should lighten the fuck up.
I’m rooting for both my country and yours.
If you are too bitter or nasty to reciprocate, that’s unfortunate. And shortsighted.
I know enough about your country to know that it won’t be yours much longer.
I also know that my wife and I would not subject our family to a vacation in Paris or any other Islamic and African city in the making. We know and have talked at length to people recently and frequently visiting France, for tourism and for business, and that is part of the basis for our assessment.
To be fair — something you may not be familiar with — we increasingly hesitate to visit, let alone live in, a growing number of our own neighborhoods and cities here in the US, too.
As stated in the other comment, both our countries are going down. But France in particular has nothing to brag or lecture about in this regard, on balance. You’re right behind Sweden, and Germany is right behind you, heading to a very undesirable demographic, cultural, and political destination.
PS I am fairly confident that I am as proficient in German as you are in English.
My wife speaks three languages fluently and will be learning a fourth. Moreover, her native languages (plural) are entirely dissimilar to English, yet her English is even better than yours (which is indeed excellent).
Our children are en route to being more proficient and natural in Mandarin and German/Russian than either you or I is in any foreign language.
“in the revolution wars as France was attacked by the whole of Europe”: so I used to believe. But Simon Schama’s “Citizens” explained that the wars were started by the revolutionary French government not by the reactionary foreign regimes.
“An important division separates Northern from Southern France. It may coincide with the von Wartburg line, which divides France into “Langue d’Oïl” part (influenced by Germanic speaking) and “Langue d’Oc” part (closer to Roman speaking).”
Interesting, the French from north of the Wartburg line appear to have predominantly blue pie charts, in particular those from Lorraine and Alsace, which were annexed in 1648 and remained German speaking for centuries.
Thus, the northern French peoples and the Germans have more in common – genetically – than the French from southern France. This appears to be a valid conclusion.
There is a major difference between Brythonic Celts, and Goidelic Celts. Goidelic are Scottish and Irish, Brythonic are Welsh and Breton. French Celts are not the same as Irish Celts.
It’s a wet cold, like Britain and Ireland. I think it’s perfectly comfortable, but my wife is from northern Europe where it gets much colder by the mercury and still she complains about the damp chill in the Pac NW. Humidity makes a big difference. When it’s 40 degrees and humid it feels as cold as 25 degrees and dry.
Try for example getting out of the shower when it’s 57 degrees in the bathroom, which is where my parents set the thermostat every night. That lifestyle prepared me well for a visit to the British Isles, but a lot of Americans think it’s brutal.
Dry cold is easy to deal with. You just wear more clothes. When it’s moist it’s always a tricky balance. Too many clothes and you get sweaty with exertion and then cold when you slow down. Too few and the moisture just sucks the heat right out of you. When I was young and active I always preferred too few. Cold? Just keep moving!
Now that I’m middle aged, I have come to appreciate breathable fabrics like wool. Nothing like a button-up wool flannel to adjust to the conditions in a cool, wet place.
Learning Mandarin is a waste of time unless you want to live in China.
It won’t do you a bit of good in the West because there is such a horde of native Mandarin speakers throughout our universities, institutions and corporations and they are racially exclusive. It’s like being a gentile who speaks Hebrew. See how far that gets you without becoming a Jew. Maybe you can teach at some seminary, but that’s about the sum of it.
However, if for whatever reason you want to live in the hellscape of the PRC, go right ahead. It will help you there. If I could have suspended my sense of morality, I could have made a killing in China on the black market by acting as a go-between for all the rich foreigners there who wouldn’t trust a yellow face as much as a white one.
Alas, I had standards, and I couldn’t bring myself to be such a scumbag.
Forget Mandarin. It isn’t an international language — it’s Chinese. Spanish, French and German are better choices. Even Dutch is more worthwhile. Russian is kind of in between.