Jump to content

Talk:Blood and soil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

the "origin" section of this article begins with "Existing in the region long before Hitler..." but what region is this? it is never mentioned. If the region is Germany, it should be stated something like "this phrase existed in Germany long before Hitler". I am assuming that that was not the only area though, I bet Molobo or Halibutt will have something about it being used in Poland as well. --Jadger 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete the article?

This article is really amateurish, and probably should be considered for deletion. It is really, in my opinion, abusing Plato and his philosophy, a total "high school" attempt to take account of his work. I added the tags in hopes, at least for the people who think this article is valid, they can offer sources, properly sourced, and categories. --Mikerussell 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We need an article on this topic (79,200 Google hits for this phrase), but the current article is pretty weak. I'm going to try to add some content from German Wikipedia -- Writtenonsand 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm stuck. Can anybody come up with some cites?

I'm not finding cites for this. Argh. Anybody? -- Writtenonsand 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you check scholar.google.com ? It comes up with a plethora of possible references, though some may require a bit of effort to fully read. FrozenPurpleCube 04:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved text re Plato to Talk: Need cite.

Moved this from main article space because uncited and I can't find a cite online. --

"Blood and Soil is a phrase first popularized by the Greek philosopher Plato that denotes a traditional concept of nationhood.[citation needed]
Plato, as far as we know, invented the phrase "blood and soil" to indicate that the Athenians were the original inhabitants of Athens because they quite literally grew from the soil.[citation needed] "

-- http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-09/atlantis.html says on this:
"Plato writes, prefacing the "Myth of Blood and Soil," [Republic: 414 b-c] 'Now I wonder if we could contrive one of those convenient stories ... '"
- however this article doesn't mention "Blood and/or Soil" specifically, nor do either the Project Gutenberg text (tr Jowett) or Perseus Project text (tr Paul Shorey) of The Republic.
"The Myth of Blood and Soil" is apparently a name given to this passage by Plato scholars, but I don't have a cite for this. If anybody can track this down, please re-add to the article. -- Writtenonsand 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really taking Plato's Republic out of context. Socrates is fashioning a myth to make a point about justice, and tries to build a "city-in-speech" to show justice within a political context. It seems that the actual phrase is not as important as the idea that people in this city would be told a myth that they were born from the soil and of three classes- bronze, silver and gold. The critical word here is myth, Socrates calls it a "noble lie" to get his companions to accept the obvious flasehood, and in fact the issue of the entire Republic, in some sense, is get the reader to evaluate whether Socarets "just-city-in-speech" is (i) possible, and (ii) desirable even if it was possible to abolish all families in the Guardian class and force out all people over the age of 10 into the fields, or kill them if they would not go willingly, and start with these myths from inhabitants ten years old and younger. Yes- that's philosophy, so you can see it really is a complicated thing to try to really link Plato to this phrase. At most, I think one might want to simply mention that in the Republic the discussion of the city-in-speech includes a myth about all citizens being born from mother earth. But the phrase "blood and soil" is definitely not Platonic in my opinion. --Mikerussell 03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as we know, Plato first mentions the phrase "blood and soil." But it was a very popular concept among the Greeks. See Plato, Complete Works, by John M. Cooper.
HIstorians regularly call the ancient Greeks "blood and soil people." The early Romans as well thought like this. Just see the Roman concept 'mos maiorum'.
At best, Hitler and the Nazis should be a footnote to this article. Blood and soil has existed in many cultures at many times. It doesn't even really have anything to do with the Nazis. --HowardJ87 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed the intro to: "Blood and Soil is a phrase first recorded by the Greek philosopher Plato that denotes a traditional concept of nationhood and indicates that the Athenians were the original inhabitants of Athens because they quite literally grew from the soil. This concept was very popular among the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans. The popularity of the concept continued in most European countries up until the beginning of the 20th century." --HowardJ87 13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edits. Your statement is very odd- "As far as we know, Plato first mentions the phrase "blood and soil." Who exactly is we? You have taken waaaay too much liberty with your sources here, if I was in my old job as marker of university papers I would write a more cautionary note in your margin about how you can get into great trouble in upper years with your slack citation style for possible plagerism, even when you do not mean to mislead, laziness in quoting sources can be interpreted as plagerism. The edit you put in the article was not even cited, if you have a source that supports your conetntion then dig it out, simply saying John Cooper uses it in the Complete Works means nothing, especially when it is on the talk page. If you say Plato originated the phrase, then find the quote, or don't cloud the article with your personal opinion. If "HIstorians regularly call the ancient Greeks" then by all means offer us an example or two, that's all it takes to make an article valid. Moreover, if it is so common, why is it so hard to find sources? There should be a bunch available, and readily accessible to include in the article, no? I still kind of think this article should be nominated for deletion, it has an overt propanganda type flavour to it, and wikipedia should not be used to further rather simplistic political agendas, but whatever my personal opinion, it certain is a very weak article now, and needs much morer sourcing to have much use and value.--Mikerussell 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Blood and soil is an ancient concept. To focus the article on Hitler is dishonest. I suspect that a neonazi wrote the original article. They often try to take credit for this concept, although it is much older, going all the way at least back to Plato.
Blood and Soil is a concept popularized by the Greek philosopher Plato that denotes a traditional concept of nationhood and indicates that the Athenians were the original inhabitants of Athens because they quite literally grew from the soil. Plato's most popular passage on blood and soil is (Republic, III, 414B):
I'll tell it, then, though I don't know where I'll get the audacity or even what words I'll use. I'll first try to persuade the rulers and the soldiers and then the rest of the city that the upbringing and the education we gave them, and the experiences that went with them, were a sort of dream, that in fact they themselves, their weapons, and other craftsmen's tools were at that time really being fashioned and nurtured inside the earth, and that when the work was completed, the earth, who is their mother, delivered all of them up into the world. Therefore, if anyone attacks the land in which they live, they must plan on its behalf and defend it as their mother and nurse and think of the other citizens as their earthborn brothers."
..."All of you in the city are brothers," we'll say to them in telling our story.
This concept is widespread in the ancient world and modern world, which later tends to mean something more like common ancestry, and is akin to other concepts like "kith and kin," "mos maiorum" (the tradition of one's ancestors; Latin), and rodoljublje (love of kith and kin; Serbian).
--Thomas Fleming, The Morality of Everyday Life, pg. 58
As propaganda, the Atlantis myth is more about Athens than a sunken civilization. The tale places Athens's history deep into the past, making the Athenians a people sprung from the soil, and portrays its citizens in a heroic battle against the menacing power of Atlantean foes. In the Timaeus, Critias answers Socrates request to "accurately describe my city [Athens] fighting a war worthy of her": http://skeptically.org/skepticism/id4.html
According to Popper, [Plato] "was the first to glorify propaganda lies, whose invention he described in forceful verses eulogizing the wise and cunning man who fabricated religion . . ." (1962, p. 142). - http://skeptically.org/skepticism/id4.html --HowardJ87 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash - tk 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NeoNazis

NeoNazis typically want to hang this concept on Hitler. I suspect that some neonazis first wrote this article.

Blood and soil is a very old concept, first popularized by the ancient Greeks. At best, the Nazis should only be a footnote to this article, not the main emphasis.

Any good article on blood and soil should begin with the Greeks and Plato's discussion, discuss the Romans and Medieval Europe, and then discuss its modern implications. --HowardJ87 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ok, I'm going to say this page needs to be rewritten from the top. I can find sources for this term as regarding Blood and Soil as a Nazi doctrine, but I can't find anything to support most of the article as it's written now. Anybody particularly disagree? FrozenPurpleCube 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote an added two sections: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY (to deal with the term as it is in Plato and political thought) and another section GERMANY and kept the other description.

To focus solely on the Nazis is purely wrong. I suspect that the original author was a neonazi. In my opinion, Nazism should NOT be mentioned at all in this entry, or at most as a footnote. But I compromised and made two sections. (The Nazis did borrow this concept from Plato and Aristotle, but many feel that they misused it.) --HowardJ87 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But I don't see any sources, so I've removed it again. Please find some reliable sources that actually discuss that as specifically referring to it with regards to Plato. Quoting from the Republic is probably not a good idea, as that's more what a secondary source does than a tertiary one like Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, your opinion of the original editor is irrelevant, you shouldn't focus on that, but instead focus on what existing reliable sources have said about this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Blood and Soil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Blood and Soil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

All I'd like to see is the word "racist" added to the description of the "blood and soil" "ideology. For heaven's sake, if "blood and soil" is not a racist phrase, then I don't know what is. Don't whitewash this. 160.94.243.139 (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There have been articles where a consensus has been reached for whether that word is appropriate to use for a situation. Some editors will oppose this edit for its wording. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Please read Jd22292's response before continuing. nihlus kryik (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I did read it. Where can I see discussion about when "racist" is appropriate? This seems like a clear-cut case where it is, but I'm told that there are places where I can read what Wikipedia's stance is. Where?

One example I can give you is the JonTron scandal at Yooka-Laylee. On that article's Talk page, editors agreed that "racist" was appropriately used due to the nature of what was said by Jon. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
IP user: "Wikipedia's stance" is based on its core content policies, which include verifiability and no original research. Please provide reliable sources for your requested change. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in looking at the article on the German Wikipedia on this topic, the German word rassistischen, racist, is used in the lead. I have just finished adopting the lead from the German article into English for this article, which had been tagged as having a lead that was too short (and was pretty inadequate). My sense is that the German Wikipedia probably has a better idea of the meaning of this phrase than we are likely to come up with on our own here, and I have also included mention of modern neo-nazi group use of the phrase (which then is discussed later in the article). Others are welcome to revert these edits, of course, but consider looking at the German Wikipedia before you do— the Germans are notorious for their standards of inclusion, and if it stands on the German Wikipedia, I see no reason why it should not stand here as well, including the word "racist". KDS4444 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Some clarification?

It might just be me, but the following phrase in the lead seems bit vague:
"By it, rural and farm life forms are not only idealized as a counterweight to urban ones, but are also combined with racist and anti-Semitic ideas of a sedentary Germanic-Nordic peasantry as opposed to (specifically Jewish) nomadism."
Since this is the second phrase of the article and the subject has not yet been properly explained, it feels a bit too in-depth and hard to understand for people unfamiliar with it. The follow-up sentence about lebensraum and the belief that race and land are tied is a lot more clear than this theory of rural/city and nomad/sedentary distinction. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Glaring omission: modern use of the phrase by neo-Nazi, white supremacist, white nationalist, and "alt-right" groups

I came to this page via a Google search for the phrase after watching clips of neo-Nazi/white supremacist/white nationalist/so-called "alt-right" protesters chanting it during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, USA on August 11 and 12, 2017. I was quite surprised and rather dismayed to find that the page made absolutely no mention at all of the phrase's use by these groups after World War II. Ideally, many parts of the article should be better-written and better-sourced, as mentioned above, but it should certainly include a significant section on modern use, including:

  • information about its spread from neo-Nazi to other racist organizations
  • if/how its meaning has changed over time (maybe it hasn't, I'm not an expert in this area)
  • quick rundown of white superiority and anti-multiculturalism/anti-diversity hate groups post-WWII (or even just in the internet era), both in America and globally, with links to more in-depth articles
  • preferably discussion of its use in Trump era, especially in contexts such as the Charlottesville protests where some portion of the participants may have chanted it without being (completely) aware of its significance.

DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"The page," writes a dismayed User:DadOfBeanAndBug, "made absolutely no mention at all of the phrase's use by these groups after World War II." In fact, the lead concludes: "Because of its connections to German nationalism, the phrase has been taken up by twenty-first-century neo-nazi and white supremacist groups in North America as a rallying cry." KalHolmann (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
KalHolmann, you are correct in indicating that the lede contained that particular sentence at the time I wrote my initial comment; thank you for pointing that out. There are a few issues, though, the primary one being that the statement contains nothing that I didn't know before. Its Germanic origin is mentioned in the first sentence, and the whole reason I came here looking for more information was because the phrase was used by a white supremacist crowd of protesters during a recent (i.e., 21st century) event in North America. Another, wider issue is related to my original complaint above that there is nothing in the article itself covering anything beyond WWII. Information in the lede is supposed to summarize the article's contents, not contain isolated factoids that are not discussed in greater depth farther down. Finally, if you look at the page's revision history, you'll see that the sentence and its citation were added by User:Prinsgezinde on 18 August 2017 (with a completely insufficient edit summary and inappropriate minor edit flag), but removed by an anonymous user on 22 August 2017, citing the poor quality of the citation (which I agree with). However, going farther back down the rabbit hole, an edit war seems (predictably) to have taken place in the hours and days after the events in Charlottesville, where it seems there was a section, however small, on modern usage that was questionably removed on 17 August 2017 by an anonymous user claiming "irrelevance." It clearly is not irrelevant, as chants of the slogan were widely covered by journalists and shared on social media. I have created a "Modern use" section using edited and expanded content from the old one. Should an edit war commence, it will be dealt with in the usual manner. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
True, it should not have been marked as minor. I'd marked it and written the summary before finding that source that mentioned white supremacism, so at that point all I had done was add a wikilink and moved a sentence. Still, I had not expected there to be any controversy. Here's the thing: this sort of stuff should always be on a talk page. I, like most other users, won't go through years of every of every article I edit to find out if my edit has been addressed before. I'll do it if I'm unsure, of course. But mostly I'll look on the talk page and if (like here) I see nothing on the talk page in the last 10 years (ignoring that "add racist" edit request), I'll assume it's not going to be a hotbed of discussion. Perhaps the white nationalism angle stems too much from one event, and perhaps only time can tell if it sticks. But about your lead comment, quoting MOS:INTRO:
"According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. ... This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article."
While the phrase is somewhat well known it has seen little use outside of neo-Nazi circles in recent times. This would make it undue to not mention it in the lead. A separate section was indeed warranted, if possible, but not a requirement for inclusion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and relation to Völkisch movement

I have minimal knowledge on this topic, but it looks to me like Blood and Soil ideology is derived fairly directly from the Völkisch movement, which is here relegated to the see also list. It seems to me that the Völkisch movement article is a more sympathetic view of this ideology, whereas this article views it suspiciously and seems to only offer vague descriptions. Perhaps we could include some of blood and soil's background in Völkisch movement, where it diverged or took on differences, and more elaboration of the views of blood and soil's proponents. Daask (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is rough consensus that the lowercase is slightly preferred in reliable sources. There is little support for "Blut und Boden". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Blood and Soil → Blood and soil – Per title capitalisation guidelines and capitalisation in reliable sources. Examples of news media using non-capitalised version include: 1 and 2. Nouns are capitalised in German but the majority of the English sources do not capitalise "soil". This had been the title up until 2013, at which point it was moved without discussion. SITH (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

But why not go with Blut und Boden? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm neutral with respect to the German name for the time being, but I would support the uncapitalized title over the status quo. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: Two reasons for relisting. One is I think IIO's alternative deserves discussion. The other is, there has been at least one previous undiscussed move by the look of it. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - User:In ictu oculi has it right: Blut und Boden is a better title for this article as it is a more recognisable expression in English than Blood & Soil. Ingratis (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't address the proposed title's merits or lack thereof vis-à-vis the existing title. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, Yaksar and 142.160.89.97. Sources are split, but the majority of reliable ones seem to favor lowercase "s" and, when the phrase is quoted in the middle of a sentence, lowercase "b". Unlike "blood and soil" or, among German phrases, the previously-mentioned notorious "Arbeit macht frei", the form "Blut und Boden", does not appear to have been a major factor in English phraseology and, when quoted, is only used as an illustration of 'blood and soil"'s original form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)#
  • Comment - I can't agree with that, I'm afraid. "Blut und Boden" refers v clearly to the place and period of its origin, but the phrase blood and soil, without something like italics, capitals or inverted commas to set it off, doesn't surely have much resonance in English, although in the light of the above I'm wondering whether there is a difference in usage between the two sides of the Atlantic. Ingratis (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Italics or quotation marks are indeed warranted when "blood and soil" is mentioned in its neo-Nazi context or even harkening all the way back to Plato (the two links provided in the nomination depict the phrase in quotes). However, neo-Nazis in the English-speaking world are not making use of the German "Blut und Boden", but the English-language form which is also the form that should constitute the article's main title header in English Wikipedia, except that the use of italics or quotation marks should not extend to the main header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Specifically oppose "Blut und Boden" as the phrase has history in many languages, and the German version isn't the most common usage in English. Safrolic (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited comments

It appears an anon added uncited comments to cited materials. Please discuss if you disagree with my eliminating them.-- Work permit (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, here is the edit where unsourced statements were added, sometimes interspersed within sourced statements. [1]. I’ve cleaned this up as best I could. -- Work permit (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_and_soil/Archive_1&oldid=1209154152"