Northern Europe, Scandinavia, Nordic countries, Balts, Baltic countries and Finno-Baltic countries
Yet another rant of how difficult simple geography can get. Especially for anthropology enthuasists;
Now the structure of Northern Europe which seems to be incredibly difficult to understand.
Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark
Norway, Denmark, Sweden
Latvis, Estonia, Lithuania
This subjects always seems to to trig some confusion, and seems that countles people have complains of this dynamic.
Finland being Nordic country
Many especially Germanic enthuasists have some complains about this part, since Finland isn't ethnically or linguistically Germanic country, but still geographically is included into Nordic countries, even if Finns have lot similarity in genes and looks with Germanic populations. Finns themselfs aren't bugged by this, while many other people are, many Germanic nationalists just plant claim Finland not being Nordic country, while it's just a fact that Finland beloongs to Nordic countries.
The fact just is that this is how Finland is cathegorized right now. Many people remmber that Finland was once included as Baltic country, and most people outside of Finland who have any opinion of this wish that it should be still that way. That is quite ignorant how ever, Since Finns are possibly even less Baltic like than Nordic like, no matter how much people dislike non-Germanic language- and people being included into Nordic countries. In the ancient past Finns possibly might've had more connections to Baltic tribes than Scandinavian ones and Balts even adapted many things from Baltic-Finnic people, Estonians and Finns.
Another thing that annoyes people is that they associate Nordic countries with Nordid anthropological type. The Nordis type in anthropology is reconstructed by Germanic and especially by North-Germanic language speakers, which Finns are not part of. The thing is that many common Finno-Ugric features such as light pigment and thin hair- and lips etc are included into Nordid type. I myself am not huge fan of anthropology, since the anthropological types designed to match ethnic groups are designed mostly by supporters of Nazi ideologies, which is not exactly very trust worthy science, and many types don't correspond to ethnicities they are designed to represent.
Just like many people see that Finland shouldn't be included into Nordic countries, the term Baltic-Finnic is just as misguiding by associating Finns and Estonian with Balts. However, Baltia and Nordic countries still are Geographical terms.
At the same time many Estonains don't feel like belonging with Baltic countries, since they are ethnically related to Finns and not Balts. Amazingly some people that are against Finland being part of Nordic countries support Estonia being part of Baltic countries, reasoning it with Estonias geographical location, while the main reason for Finland belonging in Nordic countries is the same, and still with that they disagree.
blah, so there the Baltic, Finnic and Germanic Northern Europe, people can always argue how they think things should be, but that ddoesn't chance how things are defined right now, it's just plain stupic to claim ones own opinion as a fact.
Luhta said Finno Ugric nations as countries of Russia also belongs to Nordic nations: ''Мы принадлежам к Северной цивилизации?'' http://uralistica.com/profiles/blogs/my-prinadlezham-k-severnoj