Talk:German diaspora/Archive 1

Untitled

For example, the German Alsatians and the German Balts were called "Alsatian Germans" and "Baltic Germans" against their will in Germany's nationalistic phases.

Who added such nonsens (against their will, nationalistic)? Quotes from one magazin (Fact) with obviously a biased political attitude. Alsatians called themselves Alsatians, which can be regarded as equal to Bavarian, Hesse, etc. Baltic Germans were called Balts or Germans, beginning with the late 19th century: Baltic German - or: German-Baltic. Baltic German had soon made it to be the general denomination for a German inhabitant of the Baltics, since German-Baltic would describe someone of German origin, who has been assimilated to a local culture and language. But this has definitly not been the case with the Baltic Germans, since they were the dominant and even ruling group in the Baltics, from the 13th century until at least the beginning of World War I That's why the denomination "German-Baltic" would be definitly mismatching. Since 1919 and 1940, the 700 years old community of the Baltic Germans doesn't exist any more - erased!

Someone please add references for the statements that before WWII, Austrians generally considered themselves ethnic Germans but that since then, only 8% do. It's not that I doubt the statements, but I'm interested in looking into this issue and would appreciate references for where to read more about it. --Angr (t·c) 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Restrictions on the sale of property to foreigners & Polish criticism of German "revisionism"

I edited both of these sections, they were filled with weasel words such as "German politicians attacked and rejected." Also the section about the (Now founded) center for expelees was factually completely incorrect. The center is not focused on German expelees from eastern europe. Rather it focuses on many expulsions, the ethnic German expulsion being one of them. Also the contemporary view which includes Germans as victims does not seek to deny crimes by the Nazis, rather shed light on an otherwise ignored subject.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1799910,00.html

Regarding the polls cited as evidence that Poles feel Germans risk "returning to Haugtiness." Is it actually even relavent to include polls which are sixty years old? If it is truly a widly held belief in Poland that polls regarding German opinion in 1947 are an accurate representation of today's beliefs in Germany, fine. Otherwise this reference should be removed.Hvatum 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, that Poles have never left the path of Haugtiness and aggression. They started expulsion of hundred thousands of Germans and Jews - and murder of thousands of Germans and Ukrainians - after 1918 and during the 1920s and 1930s. In the weeks before and after the German campaign of 1939 began, Poles murdered just another 50,000+ of ethnic Germans! These silenced down facts are one main reason for the aggressive turmoil and of what is described by pathological Poles (and almost their complete country is) as "revisionism". By the way, Polish casualities (Jews not included) during WWII are between 200,000 - 400,000 (not 3 million!) as calculated from population statistics by several public US institutions (universities, etc., as far as I remember) in the late 1940s. Those app. 300,000 include mainly soldiers who were killed in combat, as well as partisans and victims of German retaliation in regard of the 50,000+ that were murdered by Poles. In 1939, app. 1 million Poles were removed from the land that they have robbed from the expelled Germans during the inter-war period (Poland was declared an independent kingdom by Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1916 during WWI - though liberated from Russian and any other foreign rule by Germans!) App. another 1 million Poles - living in Germany before WWI - were also settled out from the former - and then again - German territory (Upper SIlesia, Province of Posen and southern West-Prussia), paying tribute to the fact that Polish expansionism had once to be stopped. (Only about 60% of Polands inter-war population were ethnic Poles!) The vast majority of Poles who had lived in Germany before WWI were 19th century labor migrants from Russian-ruled Congress-Poland, who had found work in Upper Silesia's industry and Posen's farming. Those labor migrants commited the so-called Upper Silesian "uprises" (terror and Korfanty's Insurgency) after 1918. (Think of Hispanic migrants in the southwestern US!) Polish dictator Pilsudsky and his regime never made great secrecy about their efforts to even further expand their country's 1923 borders which included 40% non-Poles. All of these incidents led to the German campaign against Poland of September 1939, which had been nothing less than surprising for the fully activated Polish army (since 26th August), and which some countries also want to see as the start of WWII ! The center you mention above, of course will very naturally focuse on German expelees, because there is nothing comparable to the app. 19 million (includes Russia Germans) Germans who were murdered or tortured, (gang-)raped and expelled from their native (for the very most parts exlusively - not predominatly - German) land. Only about 1.2 million Poles were settled out - and compensated! - from western Ukraine, which chauvinist Poles call "Eastern Poland", as if they had never heard about the "Curzon-Line". Notorious Poles know these facts of course very well. That's the reason for their ongoing diffamation of Germany and manipulation/falsification of historic events and their chronological order.

Americas

I order the part of the L. America, by country, it was a disaster. God! Please don't change it again citing irrelevant facts. There were also parts of the text speaking about Arizona, Louisiana, and New Mexico totally out of place. ANd the text mess all the American coutries together too.

Now it makes sense, doesn't it?.

Please when you add something:

-Explain why you add something.

-write the sources.

-put the text in the right section

-And please read it again before post it.

Here you have the reorganization (by country)

They are a considerable part of the population in Argentina and Brazil:

• Argentina: 400,000 standard German speakers (about 4-5% of the Argentine population) , more Mennonites, German Swiss and Volga Germans. Argentine president Néstor Kirchner is an ethnic German.

• Brazil: Mainly in southern Brazil, there are 6 million single-ancestry ethnic Germans, 3% of the national population; 12 million Brazilians are part German, 7% of the national population. Volga Germans and (Plautdietsch-speaking) Mennonites are some of the more prominent such groups.

Countries with German communities:

• Uruguay: 28,000 standard German, 1,200 Plautdietsch.
• Ecuador: 32,000, counting standard German-speakers only.
• Chile: 35,000, counting standard German-speakers only
• Mexico, Bolivia, and Belize: 40,000, 28,567, and 5,763 Mennonite German speakers respectively, as well as notable (but more assimilated) public figures from various German groups.
• Puerto Rico: 1,453 speakers

Volksdeutsche

Should this article be merged with Volksdeutsche, or should I make a corresponding German article? If so, what should the title be? Adam Mathias 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of words that have historically used to descibe ethinc Germans living in and out of Germany. Wikipedia should include these words, but not necessarily have a separate article for each. As I see it, the german concepts Reichsdeutsche(Imperial Germans)and Volksdeutsche (Imperial Germans living outside Germany) are related concepts that are no longer used in the common vernacular to describe German People. Auslandsdeutsche appears to refer to mostly German expatriots. My impression of the Ethnic German article is that it refers to some sort of diaspora of German-speaking people. For example, (Wolgadeutsche and Deutschbalten (Russian and Baltic Germans and German Americans would be considered Ethnic Germans. My suggestion would be to merge Volksdeutsche and Reichsdeutsche to an article named Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche. MPS 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, these terms are all very loaded. The way I see it (and I've edited accordingly in the past),

:::Reichsdeutsche is completely contrived, political, Nazi-tainted, and was only applied to people living mostly in what is now Czechia, Poland, and Lithuania. Not a chance I would use it for this article.

Completely nonsense statement, since "Reichsdeutsche" was exclusively non-politically used to describe citizen of Germany, not those of Austria-Hungary or the "diaspora".

"Spaetaussiedler" is too euphamistic and likewise very narrow by definition anyways.

Auslandsdeutsche is the least loaded (and not coincidentally the newest), and therefore most appropriate for use by Germans from/within Germany. It definitely does not include Austrians or Swiss or things like that. The problem is, as you say, that to some people or most people in the Bundesrepublik it means what you said.

Volksdeutsche has been used by the Nazis, but then again, they breathed air too and we still do that. What I see happening on this term is that Germans in Germany are not keen on using it, but the "Vertriebenen", such as those from East Prussia who are fairly bold, and especially those who were far away from Germany and justifiably feel no guilt at all regarding the II. World War have no better way to describe themselves. I like Volksdeutsche because it denotes "persons living abroad without German citizenship but defining themselves as Germans (culturally or ethnically speaking)", though problematically this would omit those in East Prussia, but they are strong enough on Wikipedia and elsewhere and we could state their status explicitly in the article.

Nonsense II: "Volksdeutsche has been used by the Nazis". If you talk about National Socialists, you have to know, that the expression was used generally during lots of political periods

In some ways, I guess it makes life easier that we can just right an English-titled article "Ethnic German" without worrying, but maybe "German diaspora" would more accurately describe what this is. In any case, it's still mildly disturbing that right now, the article has no true German equivalent, since Volksdeutsche already corresponds to Volksdeutsche. But basically what I'm considering is merging Volksdeutsche and Ethnic German (it is the literal translation after all, but then again "Orient" and "East" have 2 articles (I assume)).

In any case, thanks much for your thoughts! Let me know what you think - Adam Mathias 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

African Americans

Given that most African Americans have some European ancestry, it is interesting that we talk only about the percentage of white Americans who have some German ancestry. Does anyone have any statistics on what percentage of African Americans have some German ancestry? - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's gotta be something, since they are some of the largest groups, but on the other hand, Germans outside of Europe have tended to shy away from slave labor, were (relatively speaking) rarely very rich or underachievers, and settled isolated farming communities. Very, very few "black" Americans have German last names (I say "black" since a person who is 1/2 European 1/2 African is usually considered "black"). Latinos (being no race in the first place) present another interesting case, since we see there are many Germans south of the border, and many people from south of the border coming north of the border. Thanks for the careful eye. In general I think it's no good if one person rights an article, there will be some inherent deficencies, especially if someone's who's ethnic German writes the article ethnic German. Adam Mathias 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the percentage of German ancestry among African Americans would be proportionately lower (even compared to European ancestry in general) than among White Americans. And I don't necessarily tend to know the European components of the ancestry of most of my Black friends: indeed, insofar as that ancestry dates from slavery times, they don't necessarily have much idea themselves. (For that matter, I know nothing about my own ancestors more than a century or so before my birth; they were Jews from around the Baltic, but that's about all I know past great grandparents.) Still, I personally know at least half a dozen people who would be classified by most Americans as "Black" or "African American" but have some German ancestry (in several cases I'm thinking of, at least as much German ancestry as African). As I believe I've had occasion to mention elsewhere (maybe Talk:African American? I can't remember for sure) I know two brothers one of whom considers himself African American while the other considers himself German; their ancestry is half German and probably a quarter or so African. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I'd be happy if we just took out the word "white". It's quite a odd lens to see the world through anyway, I halfway suspect that somebody just threw it into the original article I took it from just to be smart. The effect of omitting it would only be to make the number slightly lower (since the percentage would remain), and given how Americanized most "Germans" in the US are, it wouldn't be unfair! A funny thing recently, on the site Germans a vandal split the population numbers into East and West Germany and that had the effect of putting the US first in the list. So according to the figures advocated by some German American groups, in 1989 there were more Germans in the US than in the Fed Rep of Germany - yes but no. Adam Mathias 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in 1989 for sure there were living more people in the USA with German ancestry than in Eastern Germany (which was NOT the Federal Republic of Germany but WAS the German Democratic Republic) as there were about 17 millions people living in Eastern Germany. But you are right that it is non-sense to split up the numbers of Germans in East or West Germany and then compare this figure with e.g. US data. :-) Otherwise one could take the number of inhabitants of the federal state "Free Hanseatic City of Bremen", which is about 630.000, and compare this.

Editing

I dont want to edit now while you're editing, but basically this is a reminder to myself that I should maybe use 4 equals signs to make the Eastern Europe subsections subsections, and also I should change the name of Eastern Europe to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union or something that also encompasses Kazakhstan, Uzbekistant, etc. Also, Kazakhstan should be mentioned in the intro par of that section. Adam Mathias 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maps, Images

When I was listing the groups, sub-groups aside, it's difficult to use a list or tree to present something that's not at all linear. I'm thinking of creating a giant map with a numbered key, which would be everywhere there's been significant presence, so basically 1912 overlaid on 1940 overlaid on 1988. Also, maybe we could have some sort of non-map image or group of images to represent the diversity of the group: Swabian farmers, Mennonites, Germans in Brazil, Germans in Russia (I've got a hard-copy picture of some in a camel-drawn wagon), maybe some images of migration, or some famous representatives. Adam Mathias 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Poland, Czechia, and Baltic Area

Maybe somebody who knows more about these areas could add something. Also, maybe some information on Germans in Scandinavia (I kind of have the feeling there were some in Sweden). Adam Mathias 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jews

Maybe somebody could add something about why Jews, despite having often been in the Yiddish/German cultural sphere and having contributed to a huge amount of German language art and culture in Germany as well as in Eastern Europe and the Americas, are not considered ethnic Germans even when they were more German than many of those who are. etc. A good model of this explanation could maybe be the one for why Yiddish is a language, not a dialect of German. Adam Mathias 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish is a language, not a dialect of German: A claim that is hard to be proven! Lots of German dialects vary very much from "High German". So much, you would hardly expect. Some Germans are able to understand most of Yiddish, because app. 70% of it derives from an old form of German (middle ages)

Oh, boy. We go around that one in so many articles. See, for example, the exchange about a month ago at Talk:Jew#Jew_and_German (hope that link is useful: that talk moves fast and it may be archived soon). Certainly the Czechs thought of the Jews as a Germanizing influence. It gets very complicated very fast. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's damn complicated, since before the Holocaust lots of Jews considered themselves culturally German, and afterwards not, and one can easily respect that. But instead of repeating that debate here, I'm wondering if there's a could article we could link too, since I'm trying to keep this article from repeating all the debates at various other pages, and instead let it be an overview of something that there wasn't an overview of before. Maybe Who is a Jew - I'm not too familiar with it - like I say, I'm more knowledgeable in the Balkan area. With Germans and Poles it also gets complicated - when I was in high school in Germany, I had 2 inarguably German teachers with names ending in -ski, and my 2 Polish friends who had grown up in Germany but whose parents were inarguably Polish had German last names. Half the place names in East Germany end with -au. I guess my idea for the article is not to give an answer, since POV and this is wikipedia, but to point out that its not simple, debates exist, and here's a link. But there's no reason why my particular view on what this article should be should rule. I basically just think that in the case of every subgroup, there can be an article written with the specifics of the history, else it'll just get way too long here.Adam Mathias 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Half the place names in East Germany end with -au: The oldest pan-slavist claims! All of what is now Poland had been East-Germanic in the old days, that's why lots of place names there derives from germanic, had therefore been slavicisized - not the other way around! -au/-ow is a german term, -ov (spoken: -off) is slavic. -au/-ow means floodplain or mead-ow (!) Singular: Au(e) Plural: Auen/Owen. Stettin includes the term Stett- from which Stätt(e) (Plural: Stätten) and Stadt (site, state(?) and town) derives from. Dansk/Danzig: Dansk means "Danish" in Danish (Germanic!). Danish Vikings/Normans settled in this area, which today is a generally accepted fact. But hysterically denied by pan-slavist historians in the past. There are the wildest speculations about the ethymological derivation of Wratizlau/Breslau and Wistul(a)/Weichsel. The endings -nitz, -litz/-lice and -witz/-wice both also seem to derive from germanic: -witz/-wice meaning Wied and Wies(e) in modern German - place of a (dry) meadow.

It is even more complicated if you take into account history and who takes the look. In Czech lands during 19th century/first half of 20th century Jews here were typically German speaking. Because of lack of today's sophistication the Czech nationalists saw them just as another Germans (read: enemies of our nation, don't buy from them, supporters of Habsburg rule, we must unite, etc ...) and this view stuck. I am not aware that this had radically changed after establishing of Czechoslovakia. After WWII it happened, on occasions that Jews, (by religion) were expelled as Germans since they claimed themselves to be Germans in statistics before the war. Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What Czech lands?? There are historically only Bohemian or Bohemian-Moravian lands, which were definitly not slavic before 700 BC, but Frankish vassalls from their earliest "slavic" beginnings shortly after. From the 10th century German re-settlement of those lands sets in. The broad peripherian belt of the Bohemian bassin was exclusivly settled by Germans until the 19th century, as well as all of the urban areas of all of Bohemia. An exception might have been the capital Prague, which might only have been predominantly settled by Germans. This state of things was first shattered to a certain extend during the "30 Years War" of the 17th century, but "started off" not before the first half of the 19th century, when pan-slavist ideology and a significant higher birth rate among Czech led to a first "breeding out" of German Bohemians, pushing back the exclusivly German settled territories of Bohemia, shifting to a ratio 2:3 of German against Czech by the midth of the 19th century and a ratio of 1:2 by 1939. For example Prague, Pilsen and Budweis transformed from German cities to predominantly Czech cities during the 19th century, leading to great hatred against the Habsburg monarchy (and wishes to join Bismarcks new German Empire) among German Austrians (which included Bohemia at that time).

Numbers

Lots of numbers; they all look about right to me, but citation is needed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Used other wiki articles, but ended up on ethnologue.com - their numbers are very extensive, but, I suspect in the case of Eastern Europe and CIS, quite inflated (on account of being 5 or 10 years old). I'm pretty shaky on citations in Wiki, I'll just put what I said in the notes. - Adam Mathias 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A shame too about their being lots, I was hoping to make it more of a group focused article, and let the numbers people hang out at German language. I guess that's what the groups list is. Adam Mathias 06:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Quality of the article

The article has a lot of room for improvement:

• some terms and descriptions are rather funny to read.
• history of Germans outside today's Germany is limited to few events.
• the article should be more consistently structured and provide easy way to compare different areas.
• there are already quite a few articles covering Germans in other countries, usually with more details.
• the other articles contain lot of duplicated information but do not provide means to navigate from one to another.

To answer expected suggestion just to fix it: the topic requires cooperation of several people (or someone really dedicated and with lot of time). Pavel Vozenilek 15:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea is that the other articles are more specific, this one should be the all-encompassing one to get the big picture. As far as structure, I'm going to do a map I think. I don't really want to do a table with numbers, because the numbers have changed, are innacurate, vary depending on who you count, etc. I'm basically just working on getting articles translated from German (like Germans in the Czech Republic), so that everything listed here is here. By the way, when Deutsche in Tschechien is translated, do you think it should be Germans in the Czech Republic or Germans in Czechia? Adam Mathias 17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Czechia hasn't been accepted into common usage in English yet, so it's better to use Czech Republic (see previous discussion at Talk:Czech Republic). Olessi 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Quite a mess. Adam Mathias 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

About Czech lands: there's article Sudetenland (average quality, more fitting name would be better) as well as Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938) (slightly better quality). Older history of Germans in Czech lands is not documented anywhere, AFAIK - obviously it is not contentious enough for warriors to some. An extremely bad article Expulsion of Germans after World War II has some bits (someone (a student of history from California) volunteered to rewrite it, so we'll see).

What Czech lands?? See above! Czechoslovakia was a highly artifical construction by the victors of WWI, intended to weaken and insistate Germany and the new Austria - and to slowly erase culturally and linguistically the German Bohemians. (It re-seperated in 1990) So is Czech Republic, which can be seen in the fact, that there is no historic name for the country other than Czech Republic. A "Czechia" doesn't exist, it would be just another new "brand" name for the product of genocide, disposession and continued perversion of basic human rights.

For Slovakia there's article Carpathian Germans with some overlap (the Czechoslovakian article doesn't mention these at all). Generally these articles are edited w/o knowledge of other existing ones. Pavel Vozenilek 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, getting a unified overview is really what I'm all about. For one thing, this one article would get more people to read those articles which are otherwise nearly orphaned, and then they will be improved.

Poland Germans

Poland Germans?? Never heard about that. Ok there were small "islands" of Germans all over the country, especially Voyvodina-Germans. But I think you mean East-Germany, one third of Germany which was occupied and eventually annexed (remains unclear) by Poland. But this population was almost completely murdered and expelled.

The part added about poland to an already long sentence was very much a run-on sentence - interested readers can click on the Selbsschutz link (I for one did). That said, I notice that the coverage of the Selbschutz (the 10% number) is not mentioned in the Selbstschutz article - you should definitely add it there. In general, I very much see the truth in these edits but I think they belong on articles like "German exodus from eastern europe", etc (not sure if they're already there) - the links given in the article. I gave the links so that the Eastern Europe sections wouldn't get too long, since it's already much longer. I'll try and shorten the Yugoslavia bit, but notice that it was "such as Y". Adam Mathias 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

About "Warschau", I'm interested to know why you don't consider it the historic German name. I looked around but couldn't find the etymology of the name on the Warsaw site. Don't take offense to the mistake, because I simply copied and pasted the map and the comment. Adam Mathias 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The usage of "historic German name" may imply the origins or ethnic rights to the city in some cases and I would like to avoid that.German names is adequate especially when related to cities which had their names Germanised such as Poznań or Gdańsk. --Molobo 15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC) --Molobo 15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. For centuries there have been two versions of names like "Poznan/Posen" or "Gdansk/Danzig". I think both versions are fine. In the case of "Danzig/Gdansk" the German name seems even more appropriate, when talking about the past, since the city had been a predominantly German city for many centuries. - Luke in CA

I see what you mean. I think it was intended to mean that the names were in many cases outdated (most Germans don't say Hermannstadt for Sibiu, because they've never heard of either), but Warschau is still used currently. Most people recognize that names ending in '-au' are originally Slavic. - Adam Mathias 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Of, course in German Warzawa will always be Warschau. The former is just too hard to pronounce for Germans. I don´t want to even mention Sczcin. You see, no German can even write it correctly, much less pronounce it. Don´t think that Englishman will be any better in that. Regarding Hermannstadt and Sibiu it not so hard for a German speaker to pronounce it, so there is less reason to not adopt a new name. It isn´t alway because of historic reasons, just simple laziness. But the French for that matter have the same problem. For instance, the battle of Königgrätz is called Battle of Sadowa in French. The former is just almost impossible to pronounce for a French. --Lucius1976 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

People's mouths are inherently "lazy" - every group has their own take on every toponym (and every other name), because they can't say certain things (for example, Italians have basically no words ending in consonants, and unless I'm mistaken, Polish has no ü). It's part of the fun! Now about Sczcin, I assume you meant Sczcecin? Just because I'm a linguaphile, using English orthography it's Shtechin, using German it's Schtetschin? I do like your pronunciation theory though - I hadn't really thought about it like that, and I was indeed wondering why certain ones were retained, since ones like Sibiu/Hermannstadt are definitely equally easy to say, but it seemed to me like it was just a matter of size (like Warsaw and Moscow), and proximity or notoriety, ie. basically how much it comes up. For the some reason London in Polish is Londyn, but Somestupidvillagenearnewcastle is still Somestupidvillagenearnewcastle. As far as Germans in the Romania and Yugoslavia etc, they can't even pronounce German right, so it wouldn't surprise me if the Prussians had trouble with Polish ;) Adam Mathias 22:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All of what is now Poland had been East-Germanic in the old days, that's why lots of place names there derives from germanic, had therefore been slavicisized - not the other way around! -au/-ow is a german term, -ov (spoken: -off) is slavic. -au/-ow means floodplain or mead-ow (!) Singular: Au(e) Plural: Auen/Owen. Stettin includes the term Stett- from which Stätt(e) (Plural: Stätten) and Stadt (site, state(?) and town) derives from. Dansk/Danzig: Dansk means "Danish" in Danish (Germanic!). Danish Vikings/Normans settled in this area, which today is a generally accepted fact. But hysterically denied by pan-slavist historians in the past. There are the wildest speculations about the ethymological derivation of Wratizlau/Breslau and Wistul(a)/Weichsel. The endings -nitz, -litz/-lice and -witz/-wice both also seem to derive from germanic: -witz/-wice meaning Wied and Wies(e) in modern German - place of a (dry) meadow.

Revert?

Recent edit, mostly a removal, looks like a liability to me, but I'm not particularly working on this article. I recommend a revert, but I'll leave it to someone active in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There may be corrections of numbers; if so, fine, keep them; but most of this feels to me like The War on Prose. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin America

Again could you please stop editing with no reason

All this text is very general and is full of non relevant facts, I have to read four times to understand it, that's why I removed, you can talk about a huge country in general.

""Latin America is home to considerably-sized and fairly well-known German groups, mostly originating from Eastern Europe and Austria, who came either before World War II for religious or economic reasons, or who came as refugees following the war.""

This is not relevant and every single country has Germans of different origin.

""but very often ethnic Germans in Latin America have their own fairly independent communities often designed to look like traditional German villages in all their various forms, and prosper by raising wheat or dairy cattle, often without the native manual labor ubiquitous among the more affluent classes in Latin America.""

there are more German towns in Brazil and Argentina but they are dispersed everywhere and in every sdingle class, so again, it's not good this generalization. {{Subst:unsigned|200.126.218.25]]

It is better to refine and improve than to remove. The original author was trying to say something which may not be well written but there is probably a kernel of truth in what he/she was trying to say. If you think it is too general, then make it more specific.

For example, I believe that it is true that there were at least two major waves of migration from Germany/Austria to Latin America. The first wave being pre-WWII and the other being after WWII. I would expect that there are differences between the people who came in each wave, their economic conditions, their attitudes and the reception that they received when they got to Latin America. I say "I expect this...". I don't know anything about it. I would hope that this article could fill in the gap in my knowledge. So, please don't remove the deficient text, improve it by making more complete and more accurate.

--Richard 17:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Toward the beginning of the article we read that some 60 million Americans claim German ancestry and then further down we read that most German settlement took place in Eastern Europe. Surely there aren't and indeed never were as many German descendants in Eastern Europe as there are in America? Or am I missing the point in that American Germans don't count since they have been assimilated into American society in a way that Germans in Eastern Europe never were? Perhaps this should be clarified by saying that the greatest Exodus of Germans abroad was to the USA.--62.158.92.251 14:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it is the assimilation issue. Many Germans in Eastern Europe remained distinct, largely marrying within the group and usually continuing to speak German and to retain significant aspects of specifically German culture. An enormous number of Americans have some German ancestry, but quite few of these are of unmixed German ancestry, and even fewer speak more than a smattering of German. I'm not quite sure how to handle this in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bambrzy

We list the Bambrzy under "Germans of Poland" but then write "(notice, that Bambrzy are not part of German minority)". So which is it? - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbers: Chile

The number of "standard German-speakers" in Chile was recently modified from 35,000 to 250,000 with no citation provided. Does someone have something citable? - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche (redux)

I'm moving for replacement of this terms, which is no longer in popular use in German speaking countries. I'd suggest a research or a poll for a more representative term. There are passages in this article that read like excerpts from a Nazi pamphlet. 192.150.10.200 05:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm moving for you and Epf to reach some kind of consensus and stop this ridiculous edit war. — Mütze 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But of course. However, I do not see him reading or contributing to this page. Do you? Judging his sometimes month-long edit warring on other ethnic articles, he might prove to be more of a pain than a blessing.

Back to my original question; I don't believe that calling the Liechtensteiners, Swiss or Austrians "Volksdeutsche" is contemporary. My feeling is that the term has fallen into disuse, and is currently only applied to ethnic Germans repatriating from the countries of the former USSR. If I recall correctly, the usage of this term is tied to some older laws applicable to people wishing to resettle on German territory. What is your take on that? 71.198.59.81 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment on the "Volksdeutsche" part, because, frankly I have never heard that word used anywhere but in a 3rd Reich context, but just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it is not used differently. What I can tell you is that I can easily understand anybody from any southern German state, Switzerland and Austria, because their dialects really aren't that much of a deviation from "Standard German" which is pretty much what people speak round where I live (Lippe, NRW). I can tell you with some certainty that most people who have grown up speaking German will understand any southern dialect with comparative ease, so claiming that they are basically "incomprehensible" would definitely be too much of a stretch and the article really should not be saying that. I realize that this constitutes OR, but it does that either way, and this way you can at least have it from the horse's mouth. — Mütze 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer -- I don't have much time right now and will respond later today, if possible. Although I did not write this sentence, my claim is based on my own experience in the mid 80s. I had very hard time getting to understand Bavarian and was quite surprised to see our German teacher some years later having very similar trouble. She was from a region merely 200 or so miles away and had to ask my bench neighbor and buddy from Berchtesgaden to speak more clearly and to use Hochdeutsch virtually every day. She was new to the area and the fact that she studied German and was a licensed German teacher and still had trouble was pretty interesting. You wouldn't happen to know what "schierch" and "oiwai" means, would you? They are, at least were, very commonplace back then and gave a few people a splitting headache. Call it original research or not. 71.198.59.81 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, maybe you're right. I'm not a linguist, and I guess neither are you. I have never much thought about this, all I can tell you is that I can get along in Bavaria and Austria, but naturally there are gradients. The point is, I don't care very much, but the two of you obviously do. That's why I wish you hadn't again re-added the sentence. As I said before: Can't you try to reach a consensus before one of you makes any more edit on this either way? Since this is obviously important to you, I suggest you do a little more research for some better sources on the issue so that the end-result will be more than just the compromise of your two opinions. Again: Stop this edit war. Please. — Mütze 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I don't care about this sentence being there or not, I did not add it. I believe Rex did. What I do care about is a 20+ year-old North American with no knowlegde of German, German dialetcs or moden German-speaking countries for that matter, stomping all over these articles and rewriting them as he sees fit. If I see him saying that "very few who would call Swiss, Austrians, or Liechtensteiners merely Volksdeutsche", I'll really whip out my stick on that arrogant bastard. Greater idiocy has yet to be written. 216.104.211.5 03:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible merge

This title originally came about because at the time there was question about Germans as an article title (because of its possible ambiguity as to nationhood vs. citizenship). We have now had the Germans article for more than a year; similar titles now exist for the peoples closely associated with most of the nation states of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Romanians, Poles). So is there any remaining reason not to merge these articles? - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Marek Edelmanns citation offends me

Hi all, as being a german born in 1980, neither me nor my direct ancestors are in any form responsible nor feel responsible for what happened during Second World War in Nazi time. I personally feel offended by this citation of Marek Edelman and think that many others would feel offended, too.

Is this citation really needed? The majority of the people in Eastern Prussia and other eastern regions which had to flee in the Winter of 44/45 do not deserve this - despite what happened during the war in nazi germany. (though I have no account in english wikipedia, you may contact me as "Thorongil" in the german one) --84.163.55.116 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say (and, by the way, I'm a Jew) this article does not seem the place for the Edelmann quote. I think it belongs in Wikipedia, probably in an article about the Holocaust, or about the Jews in Poland, but normally we do not put such disparaging remarks in an article about an ethnic group. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I find the statement "as being a german born in 1980, neither me nor my direct ancestors are in any form responsible nor feel responsible for what happened during Second World War in Nazi time" disturbing to say the least. I, as a 1971 born Luxembourger feel responsible for many of the crimes performed during WWII (including by one of my grand fathers (duly sentenced after the war). Any and all who profitted from the war, even several generations remote, have a responsibility, and if it's only to remember and learn from these events. If German citizens today have forgotten or are forgetting about this responsibility I find this quite distressing. The only ones who can argue that they have no responsibility are those who did everything possible to fight nazism (people like Brandt, Heim, the Scholl siblings..., people such as Canaris or Stauffenberg who first supported the movement and then did all in their power to topple the regime (and in these two (three) cases paid with their lives) can also be partially absolved of responsibility. But late birth ("Gnade der späten Geburt") does not provide one with a blanket absolution, and certainly not one's ancestors.--Caranorn 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, I just read the quote in question. I find it to be appropriate and important. One should not underestimate the suffering and resulting bitterness of victims of the 3rd Reich. I have heard similar witnesses repeatedly from Luxembourgers (the strongest from one Jewish concentration camp inmate who lost his entire family, but also from people of "less" persecuted groups) deported or incarcerated during WWII, usually from those who had to suffer the most. Considering my date of birth you will understand how deep seated this fear and suffering is that the victims would still hold such strong opinions, 40 and more years after the crimes.--Caranorn 12:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a German, I do feel responsible for what happened in Poland and other countries during German occupation, but still I do feel offended by what Edelman says. "They don't deserve mercy, they deserve penance. And that for many generations, because otherwise their arrogance and haughtiness shall return" - that's exactly what the Nazis said about the Jews. I can understand that he does not like Germans but still to say that ethnocide should be answered with another ethnocide goes too far.Unoffensive text or character 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Edelmann is correct or incorrect, but whether or not his opinions are suitable for this article. I agree with Jmabel that the quote would be more fitting elsewhere, such as German minority in Poland or History of Jews in Poland. Olessi 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, right, Olessi. I find the quote inappropriate as it would not be difficult to find similar "opinions" on everything and everybody. He basically says, all Germans he knew were Nazis and therefore all Germans deserve punishment. This is unbelievably stupid and should disqualify itself without further explanation. It would very well fit in an article on racism or hate, next to quotes from Nazis about Jews or from fanatic Muslims about Americans.Unoffensive text or character 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue whether the quote belongs to this particular article. but I'd like to note that it should not be seen outside context. As I already said, I've heard the same ammount of "hatred" from a number of victims of the third Reich and that much later then this quote. It is in my opinion a mirror of the suffering of these people that they still hold such strong feelings. While I'd not agree with them, we have no right to condemn them (criticize probably).--Caranorn 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean, "much later than this quote". If I have not overlooked something, the quote is from 2003. While I admit that I can understand that many individuals still hate Germans and Germany - they have got every reason to do so - I do not think that anybody with a sense of responsibility should speak out such thoughts. And I cannot see the relevance of this quote in the context of the article.Unoffensive text or character 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, somehow I'd read an earlier date into the quote (I was assuming late 1940's). Anyhow, the paragraphs before this quote treat expulsion of Germans from various countries after the war, the quote in particular refers to a current issue between the German and Polish states as well as claims of certain German organisations... In that respect the quote seems relevant. By the way, not speaking up about these issues would be at least as wrong as saying too much (which we could assume here). If the few remaining victims don't speak up to explain their suffering (then and now) we of younger generations might forget. The very fact that 50-60 years after the crime these people still harbour such strong feelings tells a lot about the crime.--Caranorn 13:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

With the same right you could look up statements by Germans who had to flee from Silesia or Pommerania and put them in the article on Polish history. Many of those people harbour feelings that are just as strong and most of them were not guilty of any crimes against Poles or Jews. The only reason to let this quote stand is to show how hateful and revengeful many people in Poland still are and how hard it is for Germans to get to any sort of civilized dialogue with them. Interesting enough, Edelman is a Jew living in Poland and antisemitism is a good deal stronger in Poland than it is in Germany where tens of thousands of Jews have been immigrating over the last decade or so.

Please do not misunderstand me, I can very well understand if Poles, Jews or people from other nations hate Germans and wish them to be punished even today. I can understand hate, but that does not make it morally right.

What happens in Germany these days is just what you said: The few remaining victims of expulsion speak up to explain their sufferings. And they usually do so without hatred and without lust for revenge. I hope that most Poles or Jews that have suvived the last 60 years do the same: Remember the sufferings, name the crimes and the criminals, but without unreflected hatred directed against a whole people. Unoffensive text or character 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that we have at least near-consensus to move the Edelmann remark elsewhere. It is rather integrated with other material, so this may be a bit tricky. Does someone volunteer to take the bull by the horns? - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying the quote here for now as I'm not sure Richardshusr moved it elsewhere instead of just deleting it from this article. That way it's less likely to get lost.

One Jewish survivor, Marek Edelman, mirroring the feelings of older poles said

"They say there were evil and good Germans. But why didn't I have the luck during this whole time of finding a good one? I didn't meet a single good German, only those who hit me in the face. Yes I am sorry for the girl that died during expulsions. But I have no pity for the Germans as a nation. They put Hitler in power. German society lived for five years from occupied Europe; lived from me, and my friends. To me they gave two slices of bread, while Germans ate as much as they wanted. That is why it is important that they continue penance. Let them cry for long, long time - maybe then they will finally realise that to Europe they were the executioner[...] They don't deserve mercy, they deserve penance. And that for many generations, because otherwise their arrogance and haughtiness shall return

--Caranorn 12:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I also copied it to Talk:Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers, which seems as likely a place as any for someone to know where to find a home for it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans and citizenship

I've reverted the first sentence back to "Ethnic Germans are those who are considered, by themselves or others, to be ethnically German, but do not live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany or hold its citizenship." The definition of ethnic Germans as being those who "do not live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany" but "do hold its citizenship" is erroneous. As the main entry on Germans outlines, the term Ethnic German is used to denote those people of German descent living as minorities in other countries. It states: "In English usage, but less often in German, Ethnic Germans may be used for assimilated descendents of German emigrants." Considering German citizenship is automatically lost when a German citizen acquires the citizenship of another country, it seems fair to assume that the majority of ethnic Germans resident in the countries listed in this article do not hold citizenship of the Federal Republic. Otherwise, for example, an estimated 9% of Canada's population would be entitled to a German passport. Therefore, it is important that we clarify the difference between ethnicity and nationality. ZwickauDeluxe 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alpine Germans?

What about the so-called "alpine Germans" of southern Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, an ethnic group that seems in many ways distinctly different from the Prussian Germans of the North. Not to stereotype, but they tend to be Catholic rather than Protestant, shorter and stockier in build (as compared to the tall and thin Prussians), and overall have darker (Slavic?) features when compared with the lighter Scandinavian/Nordic Germans. Am I making too much of stereotypes, or is there some truth in this? I'm sure that I've read about "alpine Germans" somewhere or another. Plus, it just seems quite obvious that there is quite an ethnic difference (that may be subtle, or it may not) between the Alpine German from Southeastern Austria and the Prussian that hails from Northern Schleswig-Holstein; it is this ethnic difference which I am trying to gather information on. --Pseudothyrum 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny that those "alpine germans" (south German or Allemanic might be more appropriate if at all) and overall have darker (Slavic) features when compared with the lighter Scandinavian/Nordic Germans when it's indeed the northern Germans who are partially descended from slavic populations. In any case, this doesn't sound all that scientific.--Caranorn 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and "race" isn't science in the least; it's a method of categorization and isn't strictly empirical as true science is (despite burgeoning DNA technology). There does seem to be a definite difference in the "ethnic makeup" of Austrian Germans vs. Prussian Germans; I suppose this is what this individual is trying to pin down. --172.166.83.17 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd mostly look at it from a historic perspective. There is an obvious difference in settlement history between southern and northern Germany. In the historic period strong Celtic settlements (over prehistoric settlements of other cultures/ethnicities) in the south, followed by Germanic immigration (as well as obvious ethnic additions from other areas of the Roman Empire), the entire South was also under strong Roman influence while the North was much less so. For the south Slavic influence (other then possible mixed Germanic-Slavic groups around the fall of the Roman Empire) was minimal for a very long time (obviously Austria-Hungary and to a certain degree it's predecessor state was at least in part Slavic and accordingly at least individual migration east to west existed). In the north on the other hand there was no Celtic base population, only Germanic and Slavic... Of course ethnic mixes in Europe (and I expect any other continent) are never homogenous. To complicate matters we have the separation of Germanic tribes/nations into various modern ethnicities including German and then again as illustrated regional differences within those modern ethnicities.--Caranorn 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the darker complexion of Alpine Germans has nothing to do with slavic influences, but with Raetian and other Pre-Indogermanic ones. In fact, Slavic people tend to be lighter, not darker, than others. There certainly are more blondes in Poland than in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.44.142 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Traditional English language practice

I have changed the phrase "The traditional English language" to "The traditional American English language practice" because I have never heard of anyone in England call Robert Graves a Geman-English or a English-German, There are currently hundreds of thousands of Germans in Britain. They are either "(expat) Germans", or English (The kids of an Anglo-German marrige would usually be either German or English depending where they spent most of their childhood (as was the case with Robert Graves) BTW I have looked at the article German-Briton and noted Talk:German-Briton#Point of article --Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation request

The following assertion has been challenged on History of German settlement in Eastern Europe

The great bulk of ethnic Germans outside of the German-speaking countries have historically been concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe

Well, my source was this article and since Wikipedia is not a valid reliable source, my only recourse is to repeat the citation request here. The challenge to this assertion was raised by User:Philip Baird Shearer and the argument seems to be that there have been many German emigrants to the U.S., Australia and Africa.

--Richard 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be around the definition of "ethnic German". The lead paragraph of this article states:

Ethnic Germans – often simply called Germans – are those who are considered, by themselves or others, to be ethnically German but do not live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany, nor necessarily hold its citizenship. In English usage, but less often in German, the term may be used for assimilated descendants of German emigrants.

The key distinction here is whether to use the German definition which is less likely to include "assimilated descendants of German emigrants" or the English usage which would. I think the sentence in question is defensible if you use the German sense of the word (German speaking people who exhibit German culture). If, on the other hand, you wish to construe "ethnic German" to mean anybody who has any German ancestry whatsoever, then the sentence in question is more easily challenged.

--Richard 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, just re-reading this article has shown the problem with the sentence in question. Consider the lead sentence from the "North America" section.

There are over 60 million Americans of German ancestry in the United States. Of these, 23 million are of German ancestry alone ("single ancestry"), and another 40 million are of partial German ancestry. Of those who claim partial ancestry, 22 million identify their primary ancestry ("first ancestry") as German.

Well, we know that something like 80% of Volksdeutsche in Central and Eastern Europe were expelled and the number expelled was estimated as 12.5 million in 1945. We can easily see that there must have been more than 12.5 million German Americans in the U.S. in 1945 (both "single" and "partial" ancestry). Even looking at "single" ancestry alone, there had to be several million such German Americans in 1945 thus suggesting that the original sentence in question is not quite accurate.

I thought about changing the sentence to read

Until the 19th century, the great bulk of ethnic Germans outside of the German-speaking countries had historically been concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe.

However, there are a few problems with this revision. First of all, how do when German immigration to other areas outside Central and Eastern Europe outnumbered the population of ethnic Germans in those areas? Second, there were no "German-speaking countries" before 1871 and so the sentence becomes internally inconsistent.

We need to rewrite this sentence. I think the big problem is the definition of "ethnic German". If we are talking about "Volksdeutsche" (those exhibiting German culture and not assimilating), the sentence is OK. Maybe we need to make that distinction more explicit in the sentence.

Or, we could just give up on saying anything along these lines and delete the sentence.

--Richard 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what you have to do is define what is an "ethnic German". It seems such a silly term to me. It's like arguing that there is such a thing as an "ethnic Englishman" or an ethnic Britain(!), an "expatriate German" seems like a far better term. However leaving asside the modern definition, where I have a problem with the term is using it to define cultural groups in the past. For example the English are decended from German tribes (and later immigrants) who did not culturaly assimulate with the local British inhabitants. If one assumes that there was such a thing as a German (as opposed to tribes with some common traits) at the time the English invaded Britain, then when did they stop being "ethnic Germans" and start being English? (After all the Socts still refer to the English as "Sasanachs") --Philip Baird Shearer 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, no. I don't think you want to go down this road. I understand your point but I think you are imposing a particular perspective which goes against the grain of a common concept (perhaps a misguided concept but a common one nonetheless).

1. Quebecois can be considered to be "ethnic French". They have French names, they speak French, they eat French food (kind of) and they haven't assimilated or intermarried much.

   Cajuns in Louisiana are also arguably "ethnic French"

   Overseas Chinese are "ethnic Chinese" (have Chinese names, speak Chinese, eat Chinese food, don't intermarry much)

   The whole concept of "Hispanic" is arguing that there are people who are "ethnically Hispanic"

   Who is a Jew? Is Judaism a religion or an ethnicity? Many Jews would say it's an ethnicity.

There are many examples of ethnic exclaves where one ethnic group leaves their "homeland" and settles in another area but preserves the bulk (whatever that means) of their ethnic identity.

To answer your question: the English stopped being "ethnic Germans" when they stopped speaking German. Now you can argue that English is a dialect of German but that would be a difficult argument to make.

Anyway, if you really hate the phrase "ethnic German" as a concept, put this article up for AFD and see what happens. I didn't create or contribute substantially to this article so I think you will get plenty of discussion from other editors.

I agree that this article would be a lot more pure if it focused exclusively on "Volksdeutsche" but there already is an article on that subject.

--Richard 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"English invaded Britain, then when did they stop being "ethnic Germans" and start being English?" ahm, well, it was the Anglo Saxons who invaded Britain. They did not speak German, but an old-Saxon dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.212.220 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could someone explain what this means please:

"Although due to Englands status as a nation comprising a major world power the fact that the English are not a distinct race is often overlooked."

Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbear (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

OK I removed this:

"Although not considered 'German' it is known that the English are descendants of the German Anglo-saxon and Jute tribes that emigrated from Germany and Denmark in the 5th century AD. Although due to Englands status as a nation comprising a major world power the fact that the English are not a distinct race is often overlooked."

Many peoples in Europe are descended from Germanic tribes if you go back far enough- the Italians from the Lombards, the Spanish from the Visigoths, the French from the Franks. The idea that people automatically become Ethnic Germans by being descended from these tribes is silly. Forbear 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. --Richard 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

@Forbear: The Italians do of course not descend from the Lombards; neither do the Spanish descend from the Visigoths or the French from the Franks. You would not win many friends in those countries by propagating these views. Those tribes were relatively small and got quickly assimilated in the surrounding population, whereas the Anglo-Saxons did not get assimilated by the Celts. Nevertheless, the notion of the British really being ethnic Germans, is utter nonsense. Unoffensive text or character 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion although it is starting to get off-topic. I will point out that this is discussed in the "Assimilation" section of the Germanic tribes#Assimilation article. Specifically, the article says...

England is similarly considered an example of assimilation, where elements of the culture of the migrating Angles, Saxons and Jutes merged with that of the indigenous Celtic speaking Britons, resulting in an English identity for the inhabitants of that land.

The article goes on to point out that some Frenchmen are descended from Franks, some Spaniards are descended from Visigoths and some Italians are descended from Lombards (the ones in Lombardy, naturally).

To my mind, the real question is what does "ethnic German" mean? I think it means "exhibiting not only the racial characteristics but also the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the ethnic group". Can you be an ethnic German if you don't speak German? Does English qualify as being German or just a language that has Germanic roots with strong influences from other languages?

If you want to discuss what an "ethnic German" is, feel free to continue the discussion here. If you want to dispute whether or not the English were or were not assimilated by the Celts, that discussion belongs elsewhere e.g. in Talk:Germanic tribes. If you wish to discuss what an "ethnic group" is, that discussion belongs on Talk:Ethnic group. I will note that the Ethnic group article needs help. In particular, it focuses only on the U.S., U.K. and China.

--Richard 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of this discussion (and that in the previous section) may belong at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups, where similar issues have been raised.

Ethnicity is a mix of factors—ancestry, language, customs, religious beliefs and practices, and simply identity—and the lines around a given ethnicity are seldom, if ever, sharply drawn. - Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaints about the U.S. map

Copied the following text over from the article...

IN acurate that map says is in vaild by allot texas is not mainly mexican it is about 84. percent white but counting mexicans that be of 35 percent mexican and whites at around the 60 and african americans asians and other races population stay the same the two biggest race are of whites and mexicans though there tends to be more white mix with mexicans then the other way around thus giving the map invalid counclusion.

that map is invaild because it shows that blacks dominate in majority all the way to the city of houston which isnt write because by reading other u.s. cenus records u will see that most city are mainly white and houston does have a large black population of about 35 percent while most citys have it 35 percent mexican

i just wanted to straghten this out because if u know ur stuff u will know that by looking at that crappy map the it is full of lies

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.63.209 (talk • contribs)

move?

should this article be moved to German diaspora?

• pro: more unambiguous term, compatible with our other Category:Diasporas articles
• con: 'Ethnic German' happens to be the term in common usage. 'German diaspora' appears to be less widespread by at least a factor of 10 (based on google scholar).

Applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names):

Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.

I can see arguments going in both directions, and I suppose it is arguable to move it just as it is arguable not to. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should. It would also avoid mix ups with Germans, which is also about ethnic Germans, but those who live in Germany.Rex 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

well, Ethnic Germans would still be a redirect to German diaspora, of course, and we'll need to keep the disambiguation notice either way. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and moved the page, for the sake of consistency and clarity. The apparent prevalence of "Ethnic German" vs. "diaspora" comes from the fact that it is necessary to stress that someone is an ethnic German only if he's discussed in context of a foreign country. However, "ethnic Germans" is clearly synonymous with Germans out of such context. If anyone has a strong objection, we can perform a proper RM. Duja► 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

the move is fine. but I insist that "ethnic German" exclusively has the meaning "of German ancestry, but settling abroad", even with no context given, the term is not used synonymously with "Germans". --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move to diaspora which is defined as "scattering", and referring "to any people or ethnic population who are forced or induced to leave their traditional homelands". Diaspora is used when a number of citizens of State A meet in State B, mainly to work or look for work, e.g. wanna-be actors in Hollywood. The various situations of Ethnic Germans are more complicated as many of them did not "scatter" and leave their traditional homeland e.g. when new states and borders were created after WW1, like in South Tyrol. Look at List of diasporas, the German entry is larger than any other. How many nations have lost two world wars, and in case of the GDR, even the cold war, too? Germans, Hungarians, Bulgarians? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed, and German POV in the article.

Since DBachmann has grown a liking to calling my edits trolling, let me explain all the cite taggs, you see, I was under the impression that they spoke for themselves. Here they are:

• In English usage, but less often in German, the term may be used for assimilated descendants of German emigrants

1. No proof of that statement, this article may be written mainly by Germans this doesn't mean they can speak about German(y) without providing references.

• However, the modern trend is to emphasize the status as citizens of the new country and to invert the order of the compound expression.

1. A claim on trends in English naming, but no sources.

• For example, the German Alsatians and the German Balts (who also called themselves that way) were called "Alsatian Germans" and "Baltic Germans" against their will in Germany's nationalistic phases.

1. Where is the proof on how they called themselves?
2. Where is the proof on them being 'renamed' against their will?

• Many German-speaking Austrians used to consider themselves as ethnic Germans until after the First World War

1. No proof, this claim has popped up virutally everywhere on wikipedia, Austria, Germans, Austrians etc, but never with a reference or source.

• Ethnic Germans are an important minority group in many countries

1. German POV, no proof and how does one define important?

• German (Americans) has been the largest ethnic-origin group in the United States for almost its entire historyincluding before independence

1. Apart from the obvious spelling mistake, how can you proof this monsterous claim?

• Brazil: Mainly in Southern Brazil and São Paulo, there are 6 million single-ancestry ethnic Germans, 3% of the national population; 12 million Brazilians are part German, 6% of the national population

1. No references.

• Chile: During the middle 19th century 70,000 Germans emigrated to the south of Chile; almost 450,000 direct descendants of that people now live in the country: 245,000 counting standard German-speakers only, formed in several German schools among the country

1. No references.

• Ecuador: 32,000, counting standard German-speakers only.

1. No references.

• Mexico, Bolivia, and Belize: 40,000, 28,567, and 5,763 Mennonite German speakers respectively, as well as notable (but more assimilated) public figures from various German groups

1. No references.

• Puerto Rico: 1,453 speakers

1. No references.

• Peru: The communities of Oxapampa and Pozuzo in the high jungles of the Peruvian Amazon basin were settled in the middle of the XIX century by Austrian and Prussian immigrants. Many of its present day inhabitants speak German. The government of Germany currently provides different forms of economic and educational aid to these communities.

1. No references.

• Colombia: 20,000 Germans + * Colombia: 20,000 Germans

1. No references.

• Uruguay: 28,000 standard German, 1,200 Plattdietsch.

1. No references.

• Dominican Republic : There is a colony of around 25,000 Germans who have settled in the country, mostly on the northern coast's Puerto Plata, as well as a colony of the descendants of German and Austrian Jewish refugees in Sosua.

1. No references.

• In Italy there are two main groups, the main one being at least 290,774 [1] or 69% ethnic Germans

1. So while the Swiss and Austrians 'aren't' Germans 'anymore', the German speakers in Italy are? Where's the proof for that statement?

• Germanophone Swiss vs. German Swiss.

1. Here German POV becomes very clear... because suddenly the German speaking Swiss are Germans.

• The German-speaking population is estimated at 1,500,000, plus another 40,000 for ethnic Luxembourgers.

1. No proof of the 1,5 million number, and since when can one ethnic group be a part of another one? "Ethnic Luxembourgers" are also "Ethnic Germans". References anyone?

So here you are Dbachman, all my worries with this article on talk. All pretty obvious. Now stop removing POV and cite taggs without providing references and refrain from calling me troll or I will report you for personal attacks.Rex 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My take

Hi, admin here. I added some of the {{fact}} tags back in, in places where the article really could use sourcing. There are some references (just not enough), so the {{unreferenced}} tag isn't really appropriate. Please add specific sources for numbers of ethnic Germans in various countries, etc. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora??

The opening sentence and the content of the article do not support each another. How can "Ethnic German" and "German diaspora" be the same thing? Yet, there is an article called "Germans" which somehow is different from "Ethnic Germans"?? The term diaspora refers to a forced or induced move from traditional homelands. This definitely applies to German immigration to the US, Argentina, etc.... but the majority of ethnic Germans in Switzerland, Italy and much of eastern Europe are not part of a German diaspora. In most cases they have lived there for centuries. Mariokempes (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

The title "German diaspora" would seem to be more appropriate for the bulk of the content of this article. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with perhaps the bits about "Ethnic Germans" merged with Germans or separated to a new article if the meaning is different. Mariokempes (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

you may want to read the discussion above, especially Matthead's comment, and perhaps also the article itself. We state that "Ethnic Germans" are "those who are considered, by themselves or others, to be of German origin ethnically, not born nor live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany, nor necessarily hold its citizenship nor speak the German language". This manifestly excludes Bundesdeutsche as well as Swiss or Austrians. The term "Ethnic Germans" is synonymous with "German diaspora". dab (𒁳) 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:German diaspora/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Note that this is an article on the term, not on the people who the term refers to. Why have the German speakers of Alsace-Lorraine been ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.39.113 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Substituted at 06:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)