>>10576
Well yeah, I'm in no way arguing the liberal bullshit that the celts are "indigenous europeans", or are some oppressed race or any such nonsense. How about I field what I feel is probably the likely anthropology and you tell me where you agree or disagree:
In approx. 10,000BC the first great migration of metal-wielding, horse-riding aryans started to butt up against the definitely (sub)stone age natives of europe (who were likely not homo sapiens sapiens as we understand it, hence all the legends of beating back the savage beastmen that exists in many myths amongst the celts and greeks). Upon reaching the border of caucasia and europe this first push had three geographic options; northward into continental europe and southward into anatolia/the balkans/the aegean (not yet separated due to lower sea level).
Those who went south became the hittites/minoans, who would eventually become mycene, who would eventually become the greco-romans ("mediterraneans"). From these you would find sites like gobekli tepe, minos, etc.
Those who went north were the early continental celts, including alpine celts, ibero-celts and the britano-doggerland northern celts. From these we find the doggerland ruins, likely the early works of "stone age britons" (probably more likely bronze-using aryans) and so on.
This is why these two groups are quite unique, the first to separate and the two with the longest running genetic-drift clocks from the original stock (also inhabiting isolated areas that the sea and/or mountain ranges isolated into island(like)-breeding conditions).
The absence of these large pushes leaving caucasia/the volga region left a vaccuum with which the remaining tribes could have better hunting and space to themselves grow. Approximately 1-2,000bc this great push began and would create what we could come to know as the "true germanics": the goths, nordics, et al. who first settled in scandinavia before the proto-goths moved southward in the first century and began what would be known to the romans as the "migration period". It is also from this push your angles, jutes, vandals, et al. spring from (who ARE merely semantic germanics)
The third and final "push", if it can be properly called that, would be the early slavs who comparatively didn't move that much due to the compact nature of a europe already filled with aryan migrants but still managed to get as far as some parts of eastern-central europe.
So, with that in mind neither the mediterraneans or the celts can be said to be "pure germanic". Brother races born of the same people, most definitely and unquestionably, but who have themselves being one of the first and most isolated pushes have had their own genetic drift. I very carefully use the word "sub-ethnicity" for both of them, they're all indo-european caucasians (aryans) but are still distinct elements of each. To say there is no blood-difference between the man in Derry and Dresden, Belfast and Berlin, is ridiculous. Island populations more than any other have a propensity to rapid genetic drift.
The celts are the celts, who are themselves aryan. The germanics are the germanics, who are themselves also aryan. The celts are not germanics in any true sense as the push of aryans that would become germanics are not in any way properly celtic (barring alpinics who can debateably be said to be first-push celts mixed with second-push germanics). Germanic does not mean "aryan" full-stop regardless of what any small-mustachioed gentlemen had to say on the matter.
It's not mere semantics, the ramifications are very important to understanding who and what we are and how we all relate to each other.