Sure. No argument there.
Nope, they were Germanic. They spoke a Germanic language.
Nope, also Germanic. Gothic is definitely a Germanic language not a Slavic one.
Nope. While Slavic-adjacent, Baltics like the Prussians were not Slavs and can’t remotely be considered “Serbs” even if the Sorbs can.
Kinda, but not really. At least not in English, or German.
Cite? This being Factual Questions and all.
And I have no idea what a gallery of pictures of a museum are supposed to prove?
If you have an open mind, you can continue studying. If not, then there’s no need to waste your (and my) time. There is a whole series of falsifications in your answer that you downloaded from wikipedia. Or maybe you believe that history is not falsified? Here are just a few things to think about. The Romans called Goths - Dacians. They have completely different genetics than the Germans. Chodex is a forgery, it was written using the technology of the 16th century. The Gothic language from that counterfeit bible is a forgery. When was the German language created and when was English? Who are the natives of Europe? I guess you know that Germans are Asian people? Who were the Roman emperors Constantine, Diocletian, Galerius, Maximinus, Justinian, etc.? When did Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians appear in history? When did the name ‘Slavs’ come about? Where were they before that and what were their names? What was the official title of the kings of Denmark and Sweden until 1973? When did the Germans come to today’s Germany, and especially when did they come to Eastern Germany? There were no East Germanic tribes. Who founded and named Berlin, Dresden, Brandenburg, Leipzig, etc.? East German tribes? Nop. I think you have enough material for thinking, happy to answer any genuine question.
Cheers!
Genetics and ethnicity are separate things. The rest of your post is meaningless without citations.
[Moderating]
This is an official Warning for personal attacks. Personal attacks are not allowed in any forum on this board, aside from the one titled “The BBQ Pit”. If you intend to remain active on this board, you will need to familiarize yourself with our rules.
You’ve made a bunch of claims. Cite your sources. If you have a trouble with specific claims of previous posters you should ask for additional cites for those. Blanket claims of “history is falsified” will just make people put you in the “not serious - just ignore” category.
It used to be standard that when joining a (Catholic) religious order, the candidate chose a new name along with their vows. This was a form of putting the past behind, starting a new life, etc. Not sure about generic parish priests, but the members of assorted orders that I encountered decades ago - nuns, brothers, priests - all had names they picked on joining.
As part of the modernization of the church (Vatican II?) they seem to have departed from this centuries-old tradition, and many go with their real name. (Kings of England do it too now.) Popes, so far - not.
Really? Germans have Asian genetics, Goths have European genetics. What is ethnicity?
Can you find from your citations when Germans came to Europe? Where from?
When (and where) Germans (who gave them this name?) met Goths? Who gave whom the language?
Or, for example, when Greeks came to Europe? And where from?
Or, who were Aryans? Who created Rg Veda? Which modern language is the closest to Sanskrit?
Consider at least one answer on previous questions as qualifying for the continuation of conversation.
I don’t mind if you ignore my comments. I don’t mind if you think that history was not falsified. I am happy to have genuine conversation about some questions. It is so naïve to ask about (wiki?) citations.
Choose one topic from my list. If you find one mistake you can crash my credibility for all other topics.
Maybe, you can answer any of my questions in my previous reply.
My questions are eye-openings, if someone is interested we can continue discussions about specific topics.
So, can you check your citations and tell us when Germans came to Europe and met Goths?
Cite?
Nm.…….
Actually, if you want to have a discussion, then what you need to do is answer your own questions and support your answers with evidence. If you’re going to make claims like the Codex Argentus was a forgery and that the Gothic language in the Codex was fabricated, then you are the one that has the burden of supporting your claim.
Posing ominous questions and alluding to knowledge that only you seem to have is not how fighting ignorance works. That’s how CT hoaxes operate.
Even if it were a forgery, it’s not like it’s the only original Gothic text we have. Some of which are the underlayers of palimpsests.
I don’t think that it’s ever been standard for ordinary parish priests to choose new names. But so far as I know, it’s still the norm for monastics, at least in most orders, to choose new names.
It’s not “naive”. It’s standard for discussing anything. You made statements. I find them dubious. You get a chance to provide citations.
Asking people to research your topics without you providing cites might work for you elsewhere, but it’s not how we do it around here.
I haven’t made any claims about history. You have. Let’s see some cites.
Happy New Year, 2023, to all.
The questions I asked only illustrate how pointless it is to believe blindly in so-called quotes. I knew that no one could answer a question or find a reference because they were so toxic. Citing some references from Wikipedia is not academic. The only way is to start from something beyond doubt and then use logic. For example - Does anyone disagree that Germans have Asian ancestry (and Asian genetics)? Do you need references?
On the other hand, the Goths have genetics confirmed to be the only European genetics. (Whoever needs references can look at a genetic map of Europe, there are many of them). So, Goths and Germans are different entities, and even now, ethnic Germans do not have genes of European origin. (Reference - see where the genes that Germans have originated and where the genes that Goths have originated).
Lovers of quotes could tell us who the European natives are. I guess, it should be easy to find. Are citations needed that Australian aborigines are indigenous? So, the claim that the Germans were Goths is a falsification of gigantic proportions. Can anyone guess what the reason for this is?
The German historical school is known for countless forgeries. For example, we even had the construct of ‘Indo-Germanic’ languages for a long time, which preceded the equally meaningless construct of ‘Indo-European’ languages.
Here, I will finish if no one can answer any of the previous questions or at least say they don’t know the answers.
Yes please.
I’m glad you are enjoying your theory.
Ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon. If a Goth raises a baby birthed by a German couple, or a Chinese couple, or whatever, that child grows up ethnically Gothic. Language usually tracks ethnicity. Genetics often does, but much less clearly, and with more admixture over time.
Neither ethnic Goths nor ethnic Germans were isolated, so neither group was genetically pure.
There are languages called “Gothic” and “German” which are indisputably related. It’s possible that the language group and some of the groups labelled “Goths” are distinct, though.
It’s so easy for people to switch cultures. There are millions of Americans of Asian and African ancestry whose first language is English. Ethnically, they are American, and their linguistic ancestors were Germanic—but not their literal ones.
Race, of course, also has nothing to do with culture, except that racism is a cultural phenomenon.
So even if you’re right about the genetics, it means nothing about the languages or cultures.
Still a better cite than a picture gallery of a museum…
Not that I’ve cited Wikipedia at all, mind you.
What do you even mean by “Asian genetics”?
And I think you’ll find that actually, Germans ultimately have African ancestry.
Yes.
A cite for this would be nice, too.
This is not how cites work - you provide the map.
Sure.
One is a historic group, the other is a modern nationality that encompasses every ethnic origin under the sun. Including some of that Goth DNA. Different entities, yes.
Or did you mean something else by “Germans”?
That’s not a reference, that’s an unsupported set of statements.
Tell us again about what is and isn’t academic, please?
Neanderthals?
…a claim no-one has made. You have the two mixed up. Goths were Germanic.
No, please do tell us.
Well, nothing in small doses for you, I see…
What does this even mean?
Moderator Action
You were advised by @Chronos to avoid attacking other users in this forum, and to familiarize yourself with the rules before continuing to post. As you blatantly ignored the moderation, you are hereby suspended until the staff has a chance to review your posting privileges.