PDA

View Full Version : Can we define Slavic?



Jack
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 09:50 AM
An intro note:

I don't believe in essentialism, but rather relationism (a better name for 'relativism'). This outlook basically says that something is defined in relation to differences with something else, in short, identity hinges on decision about what a thing is by priveliging some elements over others (which are ignored) and in this sense forming a concept of a thing. This concept can then be further refined by contrasting itself with what it isn't. The highest possibility of contrast is when one thing conflicts with the existence of another. In human terms this means the declaration of war, when the friend is distinguished from the enemy.

No one will deny that the Slavs have had (continue to have?) conflicts with Germanics and Turks, and that for a relatively long period of time Slavic power has been centered in Russia, an Eastern Slavic nation (Poland being a Western Slavic nation, in contrast). However, Prussia, for example, was a nation formed out of two elements: its aristocracy descended from the Teutonic Knights (correct me if I'm wrong, but they were definetly Germanic) and its Slavic populace. The Slavic base for that State were later Germanicised (we can define this once we've reconceptualised what 'Slavic' is) and were expelled from Prussia by the Red Army after World War 2. Why were these originally Slavic Prussians expelled and considered Germans, when compared to the fairly Westernised Catholic Poles (I don't want to get into a Pole-slandering contest here) who remained? Can we defined the ethos or style, so to speak, of the Slavic culture (both east and west) as a whole? What are the core values which enable one to discriminate between a Slavic and a Germanic nation? Or is the idea of 'Slavic' simply a historical construct built out of fairly consistent political alliegences during wars?

I have a feeling this will be a good topic :)

- Jack

bocian
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 12:37 PM
The original Prussians were a Baltic people, not Slavic. Similar to Lithuanians. Balts and Slavs have a lot in common, and are sometimes confused as being one in the same (Balto-Slavic).

Back to the Prussians...they were mostly exterminated by the Germanic Teutonic Knights. The rest were Germanized.

Those areas were also inhabited by Slavs, and the Catholic Poles were also partly responsible for what happened to the Pagan Prussians.

NumberOne
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 11:28 AM
We now know that the Slavs have more of the Eu19 genetic haplogroup type than any other European people. Eu19 has been identified as the marker of the ancient nomadic steppe peoples. We can draw this conclusion because Eu19 is found in Central and Southern Asia as well. The Slavs could be described as the modern descendents of the historical Scytho-Sarmatian peoples.

Awar
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 01:43 PM
IMO if we define meta-ethnicity such as Slavic, Germanic or Celtic by their 'original' DNA only, then there is no such thing as Slavic, Germanic or Celtic.

On the other hand, if the primary definition is by language, there are hundreds of millions of people who speak Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages who are not at all related to the 'original' meta-ethnicity.

I doubt that the modern Celts are closely related to the 'original' Celts... and most of the modern Celts don't even speak a Celtic language.

So, Meta-Ethnicity is very arbitrary.

I think that Macedonians from FYROM are the least genetically Slavic people, but they do speak Slavic, while the genetically Slavic Sorbs or largely 'Balto-Slavic' Prussians
speak only, or predominantly German language.

Draw your own conclusions.

Jack
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 06:52 AM
IMO if we define meta-ethnicity such as Slavic, Germanic or Celtic by their 'original' DNA only, then there is no such thing as Slavic, Germanic or Celtic.

On the other hand, if the primary definition is by language, there are hundreds of millions of people who speak Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages who are not at all related to the 'original' meta-ethnicity.

I doubt that the modern Celts are closely related to the 'original' Celts... and most of the modern Celts don't even speak a Celtic language.

So, Meta-Ethnicity is very arbitrary.

I think that Macedonians from FYROM are the least genetically Slavic people, but they do speak Slavic, while the genetically Slavic Sorbs or largely 'Balto-Slavic' Prussians
speak only, or predominantly German language.

Draw your own conclusions.
I would argue that Meta-Ethnicity is not arbitrary - you can't 'pick and choose' - but depends on the power that forms these identities: the power of human interrelationships. Language is used to produce these identities. I don't think one should underestimate the power of education - to teach someone is to create them. If Foucault was right - and I certainly believe he was - what you know defines who you are. Taking a one year old Russian child and raising him/her in a German or Celtic community, putting him through a Germanic/Celtic education system, with all its historical leanings evident throughout, teaching him the Germanic or Celtic language of that community, raising him/her with its mores and customs does for all intents and purposes turn that Russian child into a German or a Celt. For a Government to assert power and render its control acceptable to a community it must inform the community of what it finds acceptable. Through education, religion, history, language, the State - an organisation with the capacity to impose violence over a section of territory - brings a population into line with its laws and in relatively short order can transform that population. It takes roughly three generations for a State to totally convert a population - the first, to indocrtinate the young and control the adults and elders. The second, for the young to educate, with the guidance of State education systems, to educate a fresh generation. Finally the last of the old generations dies out and the population may be considered converted. This is the optimal situation. The reality is that the State is also transformed because its funcationaries are drawn from the ranks of the community it dominates, the elders play an important the education given to their children, and over time - certainly a longer amount of time than the optimal three generations - with the aid of the community from which the State was derived, the population may be considered one with the interests of the State that dominates it. This can quite easily be accelerated when the State calls itself the 'Government of X' where X is the dominated population and both are faced with war, and the State makes the interests of the dominated population and itself identical and then fights. An example of this is Stalin's USSR.

Polak
Saturday, October 9th, 2004, 10:27 AM
IMO the vast majority of people speaking Slavic languages share a hell of a lot in terms of DNA (that includes the whole genome, as well as paternal and maternal ancestry markers) and anthropology.

Slavs share similar features no matter where they come from.

I guess the least Slavic are the Macedonians and the Bulgarians, although they still do have a lot of Slavic blood.

Most of the differences between Slavs have arisen recently, and have been imposed by other cultures (for example, Catholicism in western Slavs by Rome, and Orthodoxy in Russia and Serbia by Byzantium).

So Slavic unity, and the Slavic ethnic group, is not an illusion by any means.

Katera
Sunday, October 17th, 2004, 08:21 PM
I guess the least Slavic are the Macedonians and the Bulgarians, although they still do have a lot of Slavic blood.

Hmmm... Bulgarians have Slavic tongue but I think they do not have a lot of slavic blood 'cause they are proto-slavic and they were on the Balkans long before the Slavs came. They are the descendats of some asian tribe as I can recollect. It doesn't mean that today they are not white/aryan. I'm just guessing. I will dig for sam lit. on the net.

Zrinski
Sunday, October 17th, 2004, 08:56 PM
Hmmm... Bulgarians have Slavic tongue but I think they do not have a lot of slavic blood 'cause they are proto-slavic and they were on the Balkans long before the Slavs came. They are the descendats of some asian tribe as I can recollect. It doesn't mean that today they are not white/aryan. I'm just guessing. I will dig for sam lit. on the net.

Actually Slavs were living there long beore Bulgarians came. Although Bulgarian origins are not slavic they assimilated Slavs and their language and they are definately Slavic.

If we would look at it the way you propose then most of the South Slavic nations wouldn't be slavic...in fact Bulgarians would probably be the most slavic of them all.

Katera
Sunday, October 17th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Erm... I think you're wrong mate. Bulgarians were here first as I can recollect the text I was reading.
And they didn't assimilate the Slavs but Slavs asimillated the Bulgarians.

Zrinski
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 04:47 PM
You are talking nonsense. Slavs were already in Balkans and in the Panonian basin long before Bulgarians started migrating from Volga Bulgaria to today Bulgaria. Also we can talk about two way assimilation, but since their name is "Bulgarians" it is clear who was dominant.

Katera
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:00 PM
EDITED

Katera
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:03 PM
You are talking nonsense. Slavs were already in Balkans and in the Panonian basin long before Bulgarians started migrating from Volga Bulgaria to today Bulgaria. Also we can talk about two way assimilation, but since their name is "Bulgarians" it is clear who was dominant.
:anieyes

Yes! You must be correct! The number of Slavs was lower than the number of Bulgarians that came.
:anieyes

Volga Bulgaria? Do you have a map to show me where that place would be? Black sea?

Zrinski
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:12 PM
:anieyes

Yes! You must be correct! The number of Slavs was lower than the number of Bulgarians that came.
:anieyes

The number os Slavs was greater but they were inferior regarding their fighting abilities. Slavs were agrarian society, non-violent one while Bulgarians were nomad fighters.


Volga Bulgaria? Do you have a map to show me where that place would be? Black sea?

Volga Bulgaria would in a area around central Ural in the European part of Russian Federation. The area is commonly known as Kazan and Volga Bulgarians as Tatars. That would quite far from the Black Sea. ;)

Katera
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:13 PM
"The origin and the homeland of the Bulgarian tribes have been an object of both past and present study and research. They have generated and are still generating many hypotheses and violent disputes. This is most likely to continue for a long time to come. The scarcity of clear and reliable sources could hardly be expected to be made up for. There is still one fool-proof fact which is that the Bulgarians' land of origin was in the highland regions of AItai in Siberia. Their language is related to the so-called Turko-Altai group. In other words, the Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars, the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries.

The Bulgarian tribes seem to have been numerous enough, for large congregations of them started drifting towards Europe between the 2nd and the 6th centuries AD. The surges of migration worth noting are three. The Bulgarians were to suffer serious losses during the so-called barbaric raids against the Roman possessions on the Old Continent and in the inter-tribal feuds. Nevertheless,their demographic resources were sufficient to last them out in founding two powerful states, the one near the Volga and the other near the Danube, as well as to inhabit whole areas in other states, too..."


Please read more...
(http://http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/bulg.html)

Awar
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:40 PM
Slavs came in the 5th, 6th and 7th century, Bulgars came in the 9th century.
So, Zriky is correct here.

Katera
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:48 PM
Slavs came in the 5th, 6th and 7th century, Bulgars came in the 9th century.
So, Zriky is correct here. Bulgarians came few times to the Balkans.

Could you find a link to show me the fact that they came in 9th century.
And Z. said Slavs weren't a warrior folk which is a notorius lie! Yes, they were peaceful but when the situation asked for it they were fighters!

There are several know Slav fight tactics!

Awar
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 06:11 PM
:lol, Katera, now that's what I call an independent source :rotfl

I bet I can find a site where it says that all Croats are Serbs, or that
Bulgarians are aliens who built the pyramids.

Zrinski
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 06:36 PM
The link brings me to Microsoft users pages. :rofl

And please tell me which are those "slav fight tactics"? :lol
I just love it when someone who doesn't have a clue about history starts "debating" :D

Awar
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 10:25 PM
Yes, the Bulgarians first came to the Balkans with their spaceships, some 65 million years ago, and they ate all the dinosaurs, later they went through here while carrying the material to build the pyramids. :D

Seriously, Slavs weren't 'peaceful', if they were, they certainly wouldn't be the most widespread and numerous Europeans. ( minus the later colonialism ).
The Bulgars were already a mixed Turkic/Ugric tribe with Iranian and Slavic elements when they came to the Balkans.
Even their numbers from the 9th century are known. There was around 15.000 Bulgars who conquered a teritory with some 2 million Slavicized Thracians, Dacians, Slavs, and some earlier Turkic/Ugric tribes ( Zals, Avars etc. ).

The Huns, Avars and Bulgars are NOT the same people, even though they are more or less related. Just like Serbs and Croats are NOT the same people.

Katera
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 12:32 PM
Yes, the Bulgarians first came to the Balkans with their spaceships, some 65 million years ago, and they ate all the dinosaurs, later they went through here while carrying the material to build the pyramids. :D
OK. I think I get the point. :D :D



Seriously, Slavs weren't 'peaceful', if they were, they certainly wouldn't be the most widespread and numerous Europeans. ( minus the later colonialism ).

So, I believe Zrinski was wrong in his statement...? :D

Zrinski
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 01:28 PM
So, I believe Zrinski was wrong in his statement...? :D

Actually I was, all what I said still stands. Slavs were not fighters...at least not in the begining. They were farmers, but they probably could put a goof fight if they were pressed really hard. That still doesn't mean they were a match for steppe horsemen and nomad fighters such as Sarmatians for example.

Awar
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Not to mention that some think that Sarmatians/Scythians were a warrior class in symbiosis with Slavs.

Anyways, it's like discussing who would beat who, Godzilla vs. King Kong. :D

Prussian
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 02:42 PM
I think concerning the Prussians a lot of components has been left out to create a simpleton's outlook on matter, it would be easy to say that the modern day east/west prussians are no more then Germanised Balts but if this were true that would be the end of the matter, rather this is quite a complicated issue considering the modern Prussians are a mix of predominate Germanic elements (you have franconians, Saxons, Dutch, Brandenburgers, also have a little french, danish & swedish thrown into the mix with so many other germanic peoples) with an original Baltic base being that of the Pruszi tribe, though the Baltic base today is relatively minor the Modern day Prussians do indeed hold any claim to the Prussian territory as they are the holders of what blood is left of the original Pruszi tribe, it runs through our vains just as a predominate base of germanic blood does also, this is the reality of the situation, a complex one but a true one which gives form to the German-Balts.

But seriously how would we define slavic? well I would tend to say a cultural & linguistic base that gives form to the slavic ethnicity that is made up of various sub-racial components just as the same applies for the Germanic grouping.

Katera
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 03:50 PM
Actually I was, all what I said still stands. Slavs were not fighters...at least not in the begining. They were farmers, but they probably could put a goof fight if they were pressed really hard. That still doesn't mean they were a match for steppe horsemen and nomad fighters such as Sarmatians for example.
They were a match definetly. But as Awar said it is a discussion who is stronger, Godzilla or King-kong... This discussion has no future. :D

Zrinski
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Not to mention that some think that Sarmatians/Scythians were a warrior class in symbiosis with Slavs.

Thats why I mentioned them. I am one of those people. ;)


Anyways, it's like discussing who would beat who, Godzilla vs. King Kong. :D

I don't know about that. It's more like a comparison between a between golden retriver and pit bull. :D

Vojvoda
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Peasants/farmers were always the backbone of Slav armies,even during the Balkan wars.Blood and Soil! :D

Katera
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Peasants/farmers were always the backbone of Slav armies,even during the Balkan wars.Blood and Soil! :D
You think like it is today in Cro. and Ser.? There are professionals and the regular army that is called in neccessity?

Bulair
Sunday, November 7th, 2004, 01:36 PM
The bulgars came in this region in the 7th century and established their state in 681.In my opinion they weren't that numerous as described by many.They are believed to be a small, mobile nomadic tribe of warriors.When they reached the Danube, they had to ally themselves with the local slavic tribes in order to break the roman wall of fortresses around the river.Eventually they succeeded and cleared the way for the slavic tribes to settle around the balkans.I believe that the bulk of the bulgarian population was consisted of the pre-slavic and pre-bulgar inhabitants of the region.The turanian element in Bulgaria is probably due to the later nomadic invasions of the Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols etc.

Jack
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004, 01:10 PM
...the Modern day Prussians do indeed hold any claim to the Prussian territory as they are the holders of what blood is left of the original Pruszi tribe, it runs through our vains just as a predominate base of germanic blood does also, this is the reality of the situation, a complex one but a true one which gives form to the German-Balts.
I do not believe in the 'rights' myth. Rights are rhetorical tools used to solidify power. I suppose 98% of modern Europeans should leave and go back to central Asia, and drive the Turks back even further, so we can leave the Basques and what remains of the Etruscans to repopulate Europe, because Indo-Europeans/'Aryans' do not have 'blood claim' to Europe - they did after all, invade, conquer, assimilate and annihilate for most of the part the very being of non-IE tribes in Europe.


But seriously how would we define slavic? well I would tend to say a cultural & linguistic base that gives form to the slavic ethnicity that is made up of various sub-racial components just as the same applies for the Germanic grouping.
Are these subracial components Slav-specific? If not, then we should say that culture and language are the formative elements of the metaethnicity 'Slav' given we're dealing in terms of what's socially accepted as 'white'. Supposing we agree on that, what defines this identity of 'Slav' in relation to non-Slavs (e.g. Turkics, Germanics)? What makes 'Slav' different (and it has to be different in some way, otherwise there would be no 'Slav' identity)? What makes a Slav Slavic? Orthodoxy? The exception is Poland, a Catholic Slav country. Blood? The Bulgars were a Turkic tribe (http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/5.htm) before they became culturally Slavs. Culture? But then how many Celts and Germanics like Tchaikovsky, drink vodka, read Dostoyevsky - and yet remain 'Westerners'? Well, I do :P

Prussian
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004, 01:26 PM
I do not believe in the 'rights' myth.......good for you, no one stated you ever had too, right this moment I could'nt careless.

Zrinski
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004, 05:19 PM
What makes a Slav Slavic? Orthodoxy? The exception is Poland, a Catholic Slav country. Blood?

Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovens, Wends and some Ukrainians are also Catholic.
Unless you don't consider them to be Slavic... (:o