Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

[gebhk]

I my opinion finnish is in no way an uralic language.

I am sorry - but how do you explain that in your opinion Finnish is a Fenno-Ugric language but it is not a Uralic language? It's like saying cats are felines but they are not mammals....

[Topspeed]

I my opinion finnish is in no way an uralic language.

I am sorry - but how do you explain that in your opinion Finnish is a Fenno-Ugric language but it is not a Uralic language? It's like saying cats are felines but they are not mammals....

Because it has two languages...finnish and uralic tied up as one.

Fenno-Ugric is the same it has also two languages in it...finnish and ugric.

[gebhk]

Fenno-Ugric is the same it has also two languages in it...finnish and ugric.

I am beginning to see where your misconception lies. Fenno-Ugric is not two languages. It is the name given to one of the two branches (Fenno-Ugric and Samoyedic) of the Uralic language family and contains around 40 living and extinct languages. There is no 'Ugric' language. It is a group of languages. Similarly there is no 'Fennic language'. 'Uralic' also is not a language. It is the name of the entire family of languages which includes both the above branches and therefore, inter alia, Finnish.

The only complication is that a minority of linguists do not agree with the majority view that Samoyedic is a separate branch. They argue that it is, in fact, a later branching off from the Ugric group. Those linguists occassionally use Fenno-Ugric as a synonym (ie a different name for the same thing) of Uralic.

[Topspeed]

Ok.

[George L Gregory]

Topspeed clearly has not bothered to read the rules of this forum.

“Do not post your opinion without supporting it with facts or context.”

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your repeated denial which turns out to be simply your ignorant opinion which is what I suspected anyway.

[Topspeed]

Topspeed clearly has not bothered to read the rules of this forum.

“Do not post your opinion without supporting it with facts or context.”

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your repeated denial which turns out to be simply your ignorant opinion which is what I suspected anyway.

Personal attacks are also not allowed...so watch your language.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Topspeed,

If you won't address GLG's point, he is entitled to draw such a conclusion, however much it may discomfort you.

The best cure for being regarded as ignorant is to produce evidence.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Topspeed]

Hi Topspeed,

If you won't address GLG's point, he is entitled to draw such a conclusion, however much it may discomfort you.

The best cure for being regarded as ignorant is to produce evidence.

Cheers,

Sid.

I cannot provide more evidence...even an ignorant should be content with all that evidence I pointed out.

[Peter89]

I think the problem here is that you can't agree on the method and the questions. What are we trying to do here?

1.) To prove the genetic relationship between Finns and Hungarians?
2.) To prove the historical cultural relationship between Finns and Hungarians?
3.) To prove the linguistic relationship between Finns and Hungarians?
4.) To prove that the Nazi ideology about Aryan genetics, culture and language is correct - or even if it isn't, then how could it be applied to Finns and Hungarians alike?
5.) To prove the extent of the genetical, cultural and language relationship (both Nazi and modern) between Finns and Hungarians?

Ad hominem is one thing, but I don't understand what are we even talking about. We have almost all the answers in this topic, which is one of the most overresearched ones.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peter89,

You say, "We have almost all the answers in this topic".

And they are?

Cheers,

Sid.

[George L Gregory]

Hi Peter89,

You say, "We have almost all the answers in this topic".

And they are?

Cheers,

Sid.

Estonians, Finns and Hungarians speak Uralic languages.

Topspeed doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about and makes absolutely no sense.

[Peter89]

Hi Peter89,

You say, "We have almost all the answers in this topic".

And they are?

Cheers,

Sid.

1. See this study: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com ... 1522-1.pdf

1) the Uralic speakers are genetically most similar to their geographical neighbours; (2) nevertheless, most Uralic speakers along with some of their geographic neighbours share a distinct ancestry component of likely Siberian origin. Furthermore, (3) most geographically distant Uralic speaking populations share more genomic IBD segments with each other than with equidistant populations speaking other languages and (4) there is a positive correlation between linguistic and genetic data of the Uralic speakers.

The point is that the present day Hungarian speakers have little to no genetic commonalities with other Uralic speakers (or with the medieval Hungarians); Estonians share genetic ties with their fellow NorthEast Uralic speakers, but little if any with the Uralic speakers who are living in Siberia.

The Saami stand out from other NE European populations by drawing up to 30% of their autosomal ancestry from Asian genetic components (Fig.3). They also display long-range genetic affinities with both the Uralic- and non-Uralic-speaking Siberians (Figs.4 and5).

2.) To prove the historical cultural relationship between Finns and Hungarians?
Even if there was an undeveloped culture, two factors were key to determine the evolution of the geographically distant and demographically weak Uralic people: ecology and outside cultural influence. Given the fact that the Uralic people lived in wildly different habitats, and that the western groups became culturally assimilated into the Christian, feudal Europe, the most prominent cultural connection is related to outside influence, and not the uncompetitive cultural identity from thousands of years ago.

3.) There are many proven lingustic relationships between the Uralic languages, including the Finno-Ugric languages, including Finnish and Hungarian. The most important evidences (I mirror-translated it from Hungarian, so they might be not correct):
- Regular sound changing (Szabályos hangmegfeleltetés)
- Commonality of the basic vocabulary (Alapszókészlet közös jellege)
- Related words have similar scope of meaning (Rokon szavak jelentéskörének hasonlósága)
- Similar grammatical inventory (A nyelvtani eszközkészlet hasonlósága)

4.) The Nazi ideology about Aryan genetics is questionable, most prominently because before the Age of Discovery, European nations did not have a distinct edge over the rest of the world, and until the Industrial Revolution, the Germanic / Aryan people did not have an edge over the Latin-speaking nations - and based on the Mein Kampf, a language defines "the blood", and blood defines the culture.

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants--who mainly belonged to the Latin races--mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

To answer the racial position of the Finno-Ugric people in Hitler's worldview, he made a distinction between people:

If we divide mankind into three categories--founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture--the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category.

Whether Hungarians or Finns fell into which category exactly, is hard to tell, but neither people spoke a Germanic language, so probably they were considered culture-bearers at best, and the presence of the "Germanic / Aryan blood" was simply an inspiration to them.

Furthermore, Hitler was kind of ambivalent towards Hungarians:

This conglomerate spectacle of heterogeneous races which the capital of the Dual Monarchy presented, this motley of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats, etc., and always that bacillus which is the solvent of human society, the Jew, here and there and everywhere--the whole spectacle was repugnant to me. The gigantic city seemed to be the incarnation of mongrel depravity.

Demographic conditions in Austria were quite the reverse. With the exception of Hungary there was no political tradition, coming down from a great past, in any of the various affiliated countries.

5.) A distinctive genetic relationship is zero, cultural relationship is dominated by outside influences and linguistic relationship is distant.

[Topspeed]

Hi Peter89,

You say, "We have almost all the answers in this topic".

And they are?

Cheers,

Sid.

Estonians, Finns and Hungarians speak Uralic languages.

Topspeed doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about and makes absolutely no sense.

How come no one in Finland knows about it ?

[gebhk]

How come no one in Finland knows about it ?

I can't speak for Finland as a whole. However clearly a very long list of Finnish linguists, some of whom I have quoted, both alive and dead, knew this and know this. As no doubt do the staff and students of the departments of Uralic studies in Helsinki and Turku (part of the wider Copius project), as do my friends in Tampere who are not linguists. So certainly not 'no one'.

Ironically, the only major figure in the Uralic area of linguistics that I know who argues there is no such a thing as the Uralic language family is an.....Italian, Prof Angela Marcantonio.

Given that you have agreed with me that Finnish is a Uralic language in 139 below, why are we coming back to this nonsense de novo - and I would extend this question to everyone from that point onwards.

Perhaps we could return to the actual subject of this thread instead - and thank you Peter89 for a succinct summary. The only thing i would disagree with is that there is no distinctive genetic relationship - Lamnidis et al found that Nganasan-like ancestry is found in many groups of modern, mainly Uralic-speaking populations. There are also genetic markers found with high frequency in modern uralic-speakers than can be described as characteristic. However, I think you may be saying that there is no genetic test that differentiates between a Uralic speaker and non-Uralic speaker and with that i would agree entirely. That is because what we are looking at is a continuum and not a set of pigeon holes.

I think, also, that you hit the nail on the head, when you say the Nazi attitude to the Hungarians was ambivalent. This is an inevitable consequence when policy is driven by blind faith in some ideology rather than by reality. When the reality clashes with the faith, there is inevitable internal conflict, both individually and within the group as a whole.

[gebhk]

While somewhat off the point and, perhaps, it should be separated out, I am fascinated by the apparent fact that the likely Uralic-speaking migrants from the east who came to Finland, although likely small in number, yet their language displaced that of the majority population even though they did not physically displace the people. On the other hand, the subsequent migrants from the South-east did displace the native population northwards, yet adopted, it would seem, the native language. This suggests the Uralic form of language may have been for some reason well-suited to the environment, the question being why?