How European are the colonies ?

[Insuperable]

I disagree with you. A European is one with direct ancestry to a European country. Colonials are just that: colonials. They are white but they are not from here. A third or fifth generation Dutchman (that's actually not even really Dutch as only his greatgreatgreathgreatgreatgrandparents were Dutch) growing up in England that doesn't speak a word of Dutch is no Dutchman either.

IMO someone who is native to Europe or of native European descent (so it includes Colonials Tuan! ).
Native European ~ White.

Thunor disagrees.
..unless you think white in perverted ethnic cultural sense....

[Albion]

I disagree with you. A European is one with direct ancestry to a European country. Colonials are just that: colonials. They are white but they are not from here. A third or fifth generation Dutchman (that's actually not even really Dutch as only his greatgreatgreathgreatgreatgrandparents were Dutch) growing up in England that doesn't speak a word of Dutch is no Dutchman either.

Sure, they certainly don't belong to any country here but I see them as European nations because they belong to our race and civilisation.
Think of it this way - if America was geographically part of Europe then they'd be European like the rest of us. This whole thing about the colonials not being European plays a lot on geography when blood and culture are the only things that matter.

The colonies created lebensraum, the Anglos and the Europeans that followed them filled it better than most Europeans. Only the Spanish in the Southern cone came close, French and Dutch attempts were important in their two areas (Quebec and SA) but didn't go much beyond that.

To tell you the truth I think the argument against Colonials being European is really just a façade for Anti-Americanism and sometimes even "Anti-Angloism". I don't think you're anti-Anglo yourself, just Anti-American.
But to expand further on the issue - Australia and NZ cannot be treated in the same way as North America. They're much younger and still essentially British whereas America and Canada have developed away from us to a much greater extent since they've been colonised much earlier.

Geography is just a technicality.

[Thunor]

@Albion: I wasn't saying that Russians/Ukrainians/Poles are "non-white", I certainly view them as white. My post was more about how the Third Reich perceived these people.

I disagree with you. A European is one with direct ancestry to a European country. Colonials are just that: colonials. They are white but they are not from here.

I agree that colonials are not "European" in the geographical sense, only ethnically. How close the colonials are to any given European nation...well, it depends on the ethnic origin of those colonials. I mean, an American person of Northwest European descent will have a much easier time assimilating into the Netherlands than, say, a Brazilian will.

(Of course, a first-generation newcomer will always be an immigrant. But in the case of the US, the Dutch or German people who migrated here were basically Anglo-Americans by the second generation.)

[Albion]

Thunor disagrees.
..unless you think white in perverted ethnic sense....

Just a generic term for "European" to avoid the confusion created if people think of it in a geographical sense.
It's not ethnic, there's not one all-encompassing European ethnicity.

[The Lawspeaker]

Sure, they certainly don't belong to any country here but I see them as European nations because they belong to our race and civilisation.
Think of it this way - if America was geographically part of Europe then they'd be European like the rest of us. This whole thing about the colonials not being European plays a lot on geography when blood and culture are the only things that matter.

The colonies created lebensraum, the Anglos and the Europeans that followed them filled it better than most Europeans. Only the Spanish in the Southern cone came close, French and Dutch attempts were important in their two areas (Quebec and SA) but didn't go much beyond that.

To tell you the truth I think the argument against Colonials being European is really just a façade for Anti-Americanism and sometimes even "Anti-Angloism". I don't think you're anti-Anglo yourself, just Anti-American.
But to expand further on the issue - Australia and NZ cannot be treated in the same way as North America. They're much younger and still essentially British whereas America and Canada have developed away from us to a much greater extent since they've been colonised much earlier.

Geography is just a technicality.

Maybe also the fact that we Dutch don't have a version of the United States or Canada plays in. Apart from South Africa (which you bastards nicked from us, you landgrabbing scum ! ) there are no major Dutch-speaking white settlements and between Afrikaners and Dutch (eventhough we can understand each other when speaking to each other) there are still some linguistic and profound cultural differences. So an Afrikaner is not a Dutchman and he is not a European and for what I know: they don't consider themselves to be either. They consider themselves to be White Africans.

I don't think that America or Canada or Australia or South Africa (even if devoid of all the blacks) if it would be geographically could be considered culturally European in the classic sense. There are so many differences between us and them in the way we view life, in the way we do business, in the way we talk, in the way we present ourselves, in the way we view religion that it would be very difficult to speak about a European commonality with the colonies.

While it would also be difficult that there is a single European commonality.. it would still be fair to say that most of Western Europe culturally has much more in common with each other than it has with the United States or Canada or Australia and that's even after decades or American cultural influence.

Yes, we share the skin colour, yes we share some basic believes (democracy, having a constitution, freedom of the press, religion etc, we share Christianity but not even in the strict sense that we believe the same things, yes they speak English and most of Western Europe doesn't but even their English is very different from British English) but to claim that there is a commonality is far-fetched. If there is one: I don't see it.

[Thunor]

I don't think that America or Canada or Australia or South Africa (even if devoid of all the blacks) if it would be geographically could be considered culturally European in the classic sense. There are so many differences between us and them in the way we view life, in the way we do business, in the way we talk, in the way we present ourselves, in the way we view religion that it would be very difficult to speak about a European commonality with the colonies.

Again, that really depends on what you call "European". Obviously, there's several cultural differences between the Anglo colonies and the Netherlands that are very noticeable - but again, there's more difference in "way of life" between a Dutchman and a Portuguese than a Dutchman and an Anglo-American (not to mention a Dutchman and an Afrikaner). There is no single "European culture".

[The Lawspeaker]

Again, that really depends on what you call "European". Obviously, there's several cultural differences between the Anglo colonies and the Netherlands that are very noticeable - but again, there's more difference in "way of life" between a Dutchman and a Portuguese than a Dutchman and an Anglo-American (not to mention a Dutchman and an Afrikaner). There is no single "European culture".

That's right. There is no single European culture but even when we are looking at (well America supposedly has Anglo roots.. also not entirely because the French, the Dutch, the Germans, the Italians, the Irish, the Scots, the Poles all left their marks) at the Northern European/ Germanic/Celto-Germanic factor I see very little that binds us.

Also the Afrikaners and the Dutch don't share all that much culturally apart from the language and maybe, in part, the way in which we both view religion although the Afrikaans mentality would have been the Dutch mentality of 80 years ago. We can be very straight-forward about it. We both went different ways because of geography and time passing by. The Afrikaners also got a fair bite of Anglo-influence which of course changed them while we focussed first on France, then on Germany and than on Britain and the United States.

[Insuperable]

Just a generic term for "European" to avoid the confusion created if people think of it in a geographical sense.
It's not ethnic, there's not one all-encompassing European ethnicity.

I was just reflecting on some posts written by Thunors earlier.
I can not find them.

But I agree with him.

[The Lawspeaker]

My advise for those colonials thinking that there is a real commonality I would really advise them to go to Western Europe to Britain, the Netherlands or Germany and live with the locals themselves and observe their ways for let's say half a year and see whether you find that we have something in common. I doubt it.. I really do.

[Insuperable]

I was just reflecting on some posts written by Thunors earlier.
I can not find them.

But I agree with him.

found it
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...527#post868527

or I misunderstood that...?