|
|
Post by White Cossack on Feb 5, 2008 20:28:12 GMT -5
Oh my, FOR THE LAST TIME, IT IS NOT ABOUT BECOMING CIVILIZED!!! All I am saying is that we have much more ways to express ourselves, to show our very soul, our distinctive spirit, in the manner of a Civilization - or Culture if you will - than we did before, when we were a more simplistic - since you don't like the word barbarians or tribalist people - people. By then there were not many ways to "show others who we are". We weren't that much different from our neighbours.
With a writting system, a music of our own, a literature, etc and etc we were able to fully distinct ourselves from the others, because we can express our uniqueness through our songs, our great writters, our thinkers, etc.
Again, it is not about becoming civilized.
I don't disregard them. I just don't idealize and romanticise them as you do. And if ignorance means being honest - as in opposed to forging BS information - then I am ignorant.
Actually, the Great Migration of Slavs is a theory developed originally in the west, and as such, it should be always looked with some suspicion. Anyway, I don't abide to any theory, so if you want to discuss this, do it elsewhere.
Let's go by parts. For starters, by time of the heroic Hussite resistance, they were NOT protestants, simply because that was previous to the reformation, as I already proved.
Second of all, you are mixing up things. Historically, Hussites rebeled against the Vatican, which is not the same thing as to say they were protestants. That the protestant Reformation might have been influenced, among other things, by the Hussite movement, is another thing.
The "moderate" Hussities were called Utraquists, while the more radical ones were called Taborites. Both of them were against the Vatican, but neither could be called protestant, simply because they came in before the Reformation. That's simply logical. Obviously you can trace paralels between them, in regards to their anti-Catholicism, but they are still different groups.
That was before the Reformation. Since the Reformation things changed. It is true when Marthin Luther appeared, many found similiarities between his proposals and the Hussite movement, and they became protestants. But many of them refused to follow the german reforms, and came back into the Catholic Church. Fact.
As to the 30 Years War, the ammount of protestant Czechs was only marginal. The protestant forces, through out the War, were made of, basically, germans, Swedish, Danes, Dutches and French.
2.5% seems like a non-entity as well for me. Anyway, there are many people who don't call themselves germans, but are still of german origin in Czech Republic - and when I say german origin, I mean with german surnames, which is proof enough.
First of all, don't spew this typical anti-Catholic propaganda about poor protestants being persecuted. Protestants are one of the most belligerent religions there is. They created problems in France, germany, Czech Republic, and not always because they were being persecuted by evil Catholics. Not to mention Great Britain. It shows a lot about their predatory nature.
Second of all, as I said, many Hussities returned to Catholicism as soon as Marthin Luther started his BS. It was a legitimate and non-forceful return.
Anyway, regardless on your interpretation of the religious balance in Czech Republic - and I have to say the picture you portray is entirely biased against Catholics - the fact of the matter is that protestantism is not fundamental to the Czech character. Period. Hussite movement is older than the Reformation, and after the Reformation the assertion that the Hussites simply became protestants is not true either.
That's certainly an interesting opinion. But it is only that, your own opinion.
And here I show your double standards. First you say there was no national awareness previous to the 19th century, and then you say that the Battle of White Mountain was a battle for Czech statehood?!
Regardless, that is utter crap. A big one. This battle was just one of the many of the Thirty Years War, and it was a religious conflict. It had nothing to do with being a Czech, or with "Czech freedom". You also fail to acknowledge there were Czechs of the side of the Catholics as well.
"LOL" Exactly. They are less numerous than fucking immigrants! Twist and turn the way you want it, but they are so marginally small, that they have absolutely no importance. There are also Evangelical Ukes and Russians, but they are so few no one gives a damn, and they don't make Evangelism part of Ukrainian and Russian Culture. At most you can say they exist there, but that does not mean their religion has any bearing on Eastern Slavic Culture, because it does not.
Let's cut the crap. You speak as if being Slavic was a big part of being a Slovene. I am willing to bet few give a damn about being Slavic in Slovenia.
Plus, your comprehension skills are just something. I don't say these protestants are not Slovenes or Slavic. I am saying the fact they exist does not make protestantism a big part of Slavdom. Get this distinction through your tick head. The aforementioned Evangelic Ukrainians and Russians are Slavs nonetheless, but Evangelism is still unSlavic the same way! It is not so much to understand, is it?
The "Slavicness" of protestant Slavs is not in doubt. The "Slavicness" of protestantism in itself is. It fails in my book. I don't care if it passes the test for you.
LOL! Done. What do I do now?
Except that you didn't. I already proved that Hussites is not a synomym to protestant. The only thing you have is some protestant contribution to Slovenia - which is always the example you use. I am sorry, but Slovenia is so tiny that I hardly thinks this proves your point. And that's no offending Slovenia, that's being realistic.
If your point is to assert there have been protestants in the History of a few Slavic Nations, than I might concede you that. But that goes a long way from saying protestantism is as much a part of Slavdom as Catholicism and Orthodoxy. You might histerically disagree as much as you wish, but still that's an opinion most people I have met in this forum agree with - and that myself share.
Slavdom. Refer to it as you wish, my point still stands. Furthermore, we don't share much of a cultural origin - at most a very weak one -, according to your assertion that we grew isolated from each other.
No. You said we should preserve our Culture, or did you not? Or maybe you think Culture is not part of what we are?
Regardless, whether it was me who introduced the term to the discussion or not, you were still being contradictory. Fact of the matter is that you could had refuted the idea of Culturally Slavic, but you did not, when you said we should preserve our Culture.
Numbers are quite relevant. When they are so small, they are nothing more than a marginal minority of people. When they are big enough, they might be taken into account in the greater picture.
Listen genious, you are just repeating yourself over and over. Since you brought no new argument, I will just copy and paste something I have said already:
"I can certainly say which ones I will be accepting as my brethren, and I don't accept protestants as my own"
And for the last time, it is not about whether they are Slavs or not. It is about whether protestantism is part of Slavdom or not. I don't think it is, and you will not convince the other way around.
So you are telling me who should I accept and who I should not? You are pathetic. I discriminate as much as I want.
If you say I can't assert they aren't Slavs on the basis of their religion, you might be right, but if you say I can't chose who I welcome as my own and who I don't, then you are just full of shit.
Really? Seems to me you are just speaking on behalf of others, and you have no legitimacy to do so. At least I speak only for myself.
No. You miss the point, for the thousandth time. The absurdity is you saying who I should view as my brethren and who I should not.
Protestants are not part of the Slavdom, as I perceive it. That's the botton line, and that's all there is to it. Like it you or nor. Period.
By the way, your argument is ludicrous. So, what if we find a Czech who says a protestant can be a Czech, and we find one that says he can't? Both are Czechs, so who speaks the truth?
Not that I care anyway, I don't dispute their Slavicness, but I will always dispute the Slavicness of protestantism as a religion.
albanians are not. Anyway, I didn't dispute Norwergians and Pashtuns were Indo-Europeans - I simply said I didn't know the later - so what is your point?
The term I used is not important. The relevant thing is that you tried to outsmart me, but you failed miserably, because I could spot your trick. You didn't stab me, because I didn't let you. Try again.
So far, I see no conclusive proof that there was much of a difference between pagan Slavs, and pagan Germanics. Your little tale on Volodemir provides nothing of the sort.
Yeah, and each developed it's own traits. So, East Slav does not refer only to a geographical position, it has other implications as well. Same goes for Western and Southern Slavs.
Then you should be more especific next time. By the way, it is important because if you said "unified", it would be counter-productive to your argument. Whereas you used the word "unified" before.
In other words, you were playing with words in a conveniently way, but I could notice that.
Because I was trying to convey I point you did not address. Our bigger awareness of today gives us more options, in regards to preserving our unique genetic pool and culture. We know exactly who we are, and how much different we are from the others. That knowledge alone is enough to make us want to keep it like that, and it is our "duty" to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Feb 8, 2008 10:08:37 GMT -5
You are trying to make the rule out of individual examples, and that's pretty retarded. I generaly state a rule and then illustrate it with an example, if you can`t see that then you`re pretty retarded. Bla bla bla. Doesn't matter. We are discussing in English, and the terms used were "ethnicity" and "nation". NOT "narod". You are just being a smartass to jusitify your gross mistake, but whatever you say it, you can't change the fact you created a non-existant definition in the English language, one which was plain ridiculous. If you were talking about "Narod" - in the sense that it is used in Slavic languages - you would had said it expressly. And don't even say that's what you meant, because you have used the word "Narod" before, when you wanted to mean just that, so if you didn't use it now, then it is fair enough to assume that was not what you meant. Bullshit. We are discussing Slavs on a Slavic forum, obviously I am going to mean ethnicity in the Slavic sense. And as far as "my" defintion is concerned it is completly valid as long as we limit ourselves to Ethnic Nationalism which is not limited to Slavs like the term narod is. And you are a clueless moron. In Rzeczpospolita people were clearly defined on a ethnic base, and that's much before the 19th century. Yeah on an ethnic base, not on a national base. The 19th century brought only the national aspect to the balance. In Italy, for example, they started to view themselves all as Italians, but before that they already had an ethnic conscience as Milaneses, Sicilians, etc. Same goes for germans. Italians are not a nation in the same way we are, they are an amalgam and a melting pot. Germans are, but their pre pan-german identities were not based on ethnic distinction, they were based on belonging to different local German states. Two Germans could speak a different dialect but both have the same identity or they could speak the same dialect but have different identities. It wasn`t so much ethnic awarness as a form of state or regional awarness. I said mini. It is you who is degrading South Slavs, pretending they don't have much of a Civilization. Regardless, they have their own cultural aspects which differ from Eastern and Western Slavs, and that's the point. No. You are just trying to climb out of the pile of shit you threw yourself in. First you said there is a unique all-Slavic civilisation, then revised it to say there are three Slavic mini-civilisations to now be talking about "cultural aspects". Yes there are "cultural aspect" that differ from Eastern and Western Slavs, but there are as many cultural aspects that differ from one South Slavic nation to another, but do not differ from one South Slavic nation to one non-Slavic nation. We can not speak of a South Slavic civilisation. Culture varies as much as it is similar through different South Slavic countries. Whatever the civilisation Bulgarians and Slovenes belong to it is not one and the same civilisation and they were not building it together. To imply anything else reveals you as totaly clueless. Of course, if you take Russians and Croats, Czechs and Bulgarians. How about taking two neighboring Slavic countries though? But I fear that wouldn't be good for the point you are trying to make. Why should I? When you claim there existed a single Slavic civilisation and thus also the required good communications between different Slavs, I only need to find one example to the contrary to rubish it. If there was no communication between Czechs and Bulgarians then they could not have possibly build a single civilisation. In my previous post I specifically divided Slavs into 3 groups, each one of them with different traits. It is you who is pretending Slavs are a single monolithic block. Yes in your previous post you had. But in a post before that you claimed just the opposite Don`t think it had escaped me or that I`m going to drop it. muslim and zhids also worship the One-God. What is your point? My point? My point is slavic paganism was a great deal more distinct from germanic paganism than the Catholicism of the Poles is distinct from the Catholicism of the German Catholics. Which makes your use of similarities between slavic and other indo-european paganisms as an example how Slavs were undistinct from German retarded. Same goes for Indo-Europeans. Ever head of the Balto-Slav branch of the Indo-European "family"? Of course the similiarities are smaller, and of course the sense of "community" is even more insignificat, after all, they separated from each other A GREAT DEAL BEFORE. That doesn't give you the right to deny a common, even if far away, common origin. And that's when "drawing the line" is relevant. Still, where you will draw it is still arbitrary. Yeah I`ve heard of Balto-Slavs and it is of no relevance and it has nothing to do with being arbitrary. Any sense of "Balto-Slavic" common origin today needs to be conveyed by linguists and other scientists because it has long exited the consciousnes of the common folk. That is not the case with Slavs. No matter how feeble that consciousnes has been preserved by the people. That was not at all what I said. I was saying the more complex a society is, the more distinct it is from the others. But I won't elaborate on that again. Except that by becoming more complex Slavic societies have also grown more distinct from other Slavic societies. Which means that today more components can be considered culturaly Slavic. Components that aren`t neccesarily exclusive to Slavs at all. Which means that there are more and more aspects which we share with non-Slavs, while sometimes not sharing them with other Slavs. Meaning the definition of Slav (in cultural sense and of Slavs as a whole) is being watered down meaning Slavs as a whole could possibly be seen as less distinct ethnic group or family of nations than they used to be seen. Yes Slavic paganism was not enormously different from German paganism. And yes both Poland and Russia have grown more culturaly complex by adopting Christianity, but at the same time this means some aspects of Polish culture are more similar to aspects of Irish culture than to aspect of Russian culture. While some aspect of Russian culture are more similar to aspect of Armenian culture than to aspects of Polish culture. This is what I am talking about. In 500 AD regardless of how simple the culture of Slavs at the time had been and regardless of how similar it had been to culture of Germanics, there was no example of any Slav sharing anything more closely with any non-Slav than with any Slav. In every aspect of culture all Slavs were more alike between themselves than with any aliens. In every single way they shared more with eachother than with any group of aliens. This is what it means when I say that the alternative view is that the Slavs as a whole have grown less distinct. |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Feb 8, 2008 11:16:28 GMT -5
As to the 30 Years War, the ammount of protestant Czechs was only marginal. The protestant forces, through out the War, were made of, basically, germans, Swedish, Danes, Dutches and French. Everyone at White Mountain on the Protestant side was a Czech. Anyway, there are many people who don't call themselves germans, but are still of german origin in Czech Republic - and when I say german origin, I mean with german surnames, which is proof enough. It is a proof enough of you being clueless about Austria and Czech history. A German surname is no indication of German ethnic origin. First of all Czech speech of the time was littered with German words. Thus if your surname denoted your occupation chances were it was German. Second, Austrian officals would depending on the period "translate" Czech names and surnames into their German counterparts when making an offical record and sometimes they stuck. AFirst of all, don't spew this typical anti-Catholic propaganda about poor protestants being persecuted. Were they persecuted meaning expelled and forcefully converted or were they not? How is stating a fact a propaganda. And I would appreciate it if you didn`t act the Austrian and Habsburg appologist. Hussite movement is older than the Reformation, and after the Reformation the assertion that the Hussites simply became protestants is not true either. After the reformation Hussites remained Hussites but they styled their denomination as a Protestant one. And here I show your double standards. First you say there was no national awareness previous to the 19th century, and then you say that the Battle of White Mountain was a battle for Czech statehood?! Ah, those Western cultural influences kicking in again? Bohemia was a Czech state. The same as Ragusa was a Croat state. That doesn`t mean Ragusa was a nation state, or that Bohemia was a nation state. You can have other forms of statehood besides a nation state. But for a nation state you need the ideology of nationalism and national awarness which did not exist prior to 19th century. Regardless, that is utter crap. A big one. This battle was just one of the many of the Thirty Years War, and it was a religious conflict. It had nothing to do with being a Czech, or with "Czech freedom". Showing your ignorance again. One side at White Mountain were Czech Crown Lands and the other side was the Holly Roman Empire of the German People. Bohemian defeat at White Mountain meant Bohemia lost it`s de facto status of a seperate Kingdom only in personal union with Austria. It meant German was introduced as a 2nd language. And it meant the rebellious Czech nobility was replaced by non-Czech avanturists that had helped the Habsburgs in the war. They were all of exotic and non-Czech backgrounds. A couple were actually Scottish. The victory of Bohemia in the war would mean their King would cease to be a Habsburg and they would be completly seperated from Austrian realm. Yes it was a religious conflict. The same way WWII was an ideological conflict. So? Does it mean WWII had nothing to do with Slavs? You also fail to acknowledge there were Czechs of the side of the Catholics as well. There were also Russians on the side of nazis at Stalingrad. Meaning what? Let's cut the crap. You speak as if being Slavic was a big part of being a Slovene. I am willing to bet few give a damn about being Slavic in Slovenia. Regardles. They are aware of it and define themselves as a Slavic nation. Every description of them in Slovene always starts with "Slovenci so slovanski narod....". Plus, your comprehension skills are just something. I don't say these protestants are not Slovenes or Slavic. I am saying the fact they exist does not make protestantism a big part of Slavdom. You`re just trying to wiggle out of it. Your exact words were: Protestant are Slavic by blood only. I don't see them as part of Slavdom, from a Civilizational standpoint. You said Protestants are not culturaly Slavic which amounts to saying they are not fully and trully Slavic. Get this distinction through your tick head. You have a thicker head and you also in additon fuck pigs. The only thing you have is some protestant contribution to Slovenia - which is always the example you use. I am sorry, but Slovenia is so tiny that I hardly thinks this proves your point. And that's no offending Slovenia, that's being realistic. Why don`t you go back and read some of your crap, you wrote Protestants had no bearing on culture of any Slavic nation whatsoever. Even wrote it in caps lock and all. Therefore I just needed to prove you wrong in regard to one Slavic nation and it is enough to show your statement was incorrect and that you are ignorant and talking out of your arse. Protestants had a bearing on culture of Slovenia which is a Slavic nation, meaning your statemen was incorrect and you are ignorant as fuck. Get it now? Just how few Slovenes there are has no bearing on the matter. Fact of the matter is that you could had refuted the idea of Culturally Slavic, but you did not, when you said we should preserve our Culture. What are you talking about? This shit is so self apparent I find myself writting anything on it a huge fucking waste. Everything we do is culture. But obviously some of it is important and some is not, and some of it is even retarded or decadent and shouldn`t be preserved at all. On top of it all there are aspects of our culture I care nothing about. Numbers are quite relevant. When they are so small, they are nothing more than a marginal minority of people. When they are big enough, they might be taken into account in the greater picture. Sweet. So we can count on you to start reffering to 2 million of Bosnian Moslems as Moslem Serbs? BTW, numbers matter is bullshit. It is being unprincipled. So you are telling me who should I accept and who I should not? You are pathetic. I discriminate as much as I want. If you say I can't assert they aren't Slavs on the basis of their religion, you might be right, but if you say I can't chose who I welcome as my own and who I don't, then you are just full of shit. You truly are an idiot if you can`t see my point. If Czechs consider Protestants as fully Czech (which they do, Frantisek fucking Palacky the central person of Czech national awakening, the father of Czech nation was a protestant and attended a Lutheran school). Then they will be appaulled by you saying you only recognise Catholic and non-religious Czechs as Slavs. If this is how you intend to go around promoting Slavic solidarity it isn`t going to work. albanians are not. Anyway, I didn't dispute Norwergians and Pashtuns were Indo-Europeans - I simply said I didn't know the later - so what is your point? Why don`t you remember your own crap? I grow tired of constantly having to remind you what you wrote. You said old Slavic customs circa 500 AD were identical to old Indo-European customs. I pointed out they were not. Otherwise there would be preserved old Slavic customs among Norwegians, Pashtuns and Albanians. And yes Albanians are Indo-European. Is this making you uncomfortable? Do you need to deny it to feel good about yourself? Yeah, and each developed it's own traits. So, East Slav does not refer only to a geographical position, it has other implications as well. Same goes for Western and Southern Slavs. Indeed. But they moving into seperate directions that was always going to happen. It doesn`t imply cultural differences between pre-migration Slavs. |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Feb 8, 2008 18:42:36 GMT -5
If by rule you mean biased opinion, then yes. Furthermore, your examples are always about some obscure minority of the already tiny Slovenia. That can hardly reinforce a general rule. That won't do it dude. We can't have you acting like a histerical teenager girl everytime someone can't agree with your incredible logical perspective of things. I have received quite a few complaints about your behaviour, so I advice you to mind your tone. "Obviously" is a strong word. You can't use a term in English and pretend you meant something that exists only in Slavic languages, when you did not gave the slightest hint of doing so. Whatever else you say is just an excuse to justify your mistake. Period. Wait, what about the "Narod" which should mean the exact same thing?  Anyway, in Rzeczpospolita Ukes were defined as Ukrainian, Polacks as Polish, krats as germans, jews as zhids and on and on. That's a national definition, considering all of those groups are national ones. Unless you can prove the term "Ukrainians" refered to something else than what we know as Ukrainian Nation nowadays - same applies for other groups. That's your own biased view on things. Didn't you say before Balkans Slavs have absorved native Balkanic blood? Does it make you just a "melting pot" devoid of a national identity? I don't think so. Even if Italians are more diverse than Slavic Nations, it is not our place to tell them who they are; much less say they don't have a "true" national identity. That's basically what I have said. They were all germans even prior to the 19th century. All of them could speak german - despite the existence of dialects - and ethnically they were the "same". They identitfied themselves with their own different states. The 19th century brought the idea of a single and national germany. Why? Well, that's a different matter altogether, but it was mostly about creating a powerful political entity- that was the guiding force of most unification movements: to create a stronger state. Still, the national question was introduced into the german states in the 19th century. It is not my problem your interpretation skill sucks. All "changes" that you refer to were mere attempts to make you understand a pretty simple point. I still stand to the idea of Slavdom. I don't know where have you spent all of these years, but there is a generally accepted idea in the west - and I am including Slavs here in a broader definition - that there is something called a "Western Civilization". This "western civilization" encompass west and east Europe alike - although some think it should encompass less than that - and it refers to some general traits all of "us" share. Still, no one would be dumb enough to think there is a single western civilization that unifies, in a uniformly manner, culturally all of Europe. A simple look into all the many different nations of this continent should be enough to make one think again. Nonetheless, the defition of western civilization still stands, and it is agreed upon by basically all of the intellectuals - I have yet to find a historian who doesn't refer himself to the West, as a single political/cultural entity (albeit heterogenous). So, considering the idea of a "western civilization" is much more abstract and broader than the idea of Slavdom, and it is still used by everyone who counts, then why can't I speak about a "Slavic Civilization"? Obviously that shouldn't mean Slavs are a 100% homogeneous cultural block, just like the "West" is not, but the later still exists as an abstract cultural and political identity.So it is a pity you can't uderstand such a pitifully simple idea. Unfortunately you took things by the book - which necessarily means you must take the idea of a western civilization literally as well - so I had to further explain to you that the idea of a Slavdom is not opposite to the idea of cultural differences between different Slavic groups/nations. Thus "mini Slavic Civilization", which mean only that: distinctiveness between Slavic groups that make each other somewhat apart from each other, despite being connected by a broader and more abstract definition of Slavdom. It is the EXACT same rationality that binds the notion of a western civilization - and let me antecipate myself and say that whether you agree with the idea of a "West" or not means jack, because that won't make it fade away. There was no "revision" on my part. That was just me explaining to you that Slavdom still admits the idea of "sub branches", just like the idea of "West" permits the existence of germanic, Latin, Cetic, Slavic groups; Catholic and protestant, etc. All are "western" alike, and all are binded by something greater. Like a teacher explaining to his pupil with more detail a simple idea that the later couldn't understand the first time it was said.Refer to above. My detailed explanation refutes in totum your argument. Refer to above. My detailed explanation refutes in totum your argument. That's utter crap. But I see you are one of those who romanticize and idealise our pagan ancestors - and paganism itself - so there is no point in wasting my time with you on this matter. I know a lot of Slavs who either: 1) don't really view themselves as part of a single and common origin that is shared by all Slavs. They view themselves as Ukrainians or Polacks - almost all Slavs I know are one of the two, so I won't speak for others. Sure, some see themselves related to each other, and some Ukes I know see themselves related to Russians, but when it comes down to, say, Croats, they will say "who?". 2) Think that the racial subgroups they belong to - say Nordic or Dinaric - is of greater importance than being Slav. Of course I am not being entirely honest, and I should say I know none of these wackos personally, except for a really marginal minority in some internet forums. Insignificant or not, they still exist, and they add up to the point I am trying to convey. Apart from these two groups, of course there are still Slavs who believe into some greater European family, and there are still people like you and me who believe in Slavic unity, solely. So yeah, it all comes down to how you identify yourself. If you think - and I don't mean "you" especifically" - you are part of a greater Balto-Slavic group, you don't need any scientist to tell you anything, because it is a known fact there is a relation (albeit a far one), and if you recognize this relation as a relevant one, that's all that matters. You can draw this line elsewhere though. Only amongst Slavs, only among Eastern Slavs, or even only among your own Nation. So yeah, it's all pretty arbitrary, depending on which kind of relation you want to think as relevant, because in the end of the day, we are all related to each other, and it is up to you to decide where you should draw the line and say "ok, this common origin is relevant to me, that one is not". No. You should stop using syllogisms as if they could explain everything. For starters, to say that more originally unSlavic components can be considered now culturally Slavic, you have to define what is considered Slavic in the first place. Your problem is that you view some pagan and mostly barbaric tribes as the epitome of Slavic identity. In that sense, obviously everything that furthers itself from this "original cradle" is less or non Slavic to you. However, and I made my point clear before, I think that there wasn't much of a Slavic culture to speak of 2.000 years ago - and I won't dwelve into the discussion, yet again, of the starting point of our culture, because I developed this idea extensevely in my previous post. So, the way I see it, most of these traits we developed during these centuries are Slavic in the first place. Sharing traits with non-Slavs is just natural. As humans, most of our needs are the same, so we will end up sharing them. The most relevant point is, as I have being saying this from the beginning, that we have now much more ways to express ourselves, our unique soul, spirit and worldview. From a cultural standpoint, it is just obvious that a literal or musical work is a much more advanced, and it denotes a much higher sense of identity, than say, sacrificing a human or animal being to appease the gods. I am sorry, but no. Russians and Armenians are Orthodox alike, but Russians are culturally a lot more similar to Polacks than they are to Armenians. That's the point, even by sharing some cultural aspects with non-Slavs, Slavic Nations are culturally a lot more similar to each other than to non-Slavic ones, and that is an AMAZING feat, and that's what I have been saying. I am sorry, but are you serious? That's beyond nitpicking. So you are saying that just because there is example of any Slav sharing anything more closely with any non-Slav than with any Slav, than we are less distinct, just because allegedly in 500 AD we, "in all aspects", shared more with each other than with another Slav? Again, you chose the wrong word. If you had said "homogeneous", then I couldn't possibly argue with you, but there is, even if subtle, a different between being homogeneous and being distinct. You are trying to use a purely logical and rational argument, but I am sure you are aware that a logically constructed syllogism - don't mind my redundance - is not necessarily a reasoning free of faults. I will answer your other post later. |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Feb 9, 2008 6:04:19 GMT -5
That won't do it dude. We can't have you acting like a histerical teenager girl everytime someone can't agree with your incredible logical perspective of things. I have received quite a few complaints about your behaviour, so I advice you to mind your tone. Don`t play the holly man. It was you who introduced the ridicule and the namecalling. You were an idiot if you thought I`m going to quietly take it and not going to retalliate in kind and escalate it further. Next time don`t personalise the debate. Any Hysterical girl? Are you kidding me? I refered to you as a moron while perfectly cool which was apparent from the lack of exclamation marks and in retalliation for the "clueless" namecalling of yours. Also why don`t you read your own posts a little closer, it was you who introduced the term "retarded" into the exchange. Seems you can dish it out, but can`t take it yourself. Very poor sport. |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Feb 10, 2008 15:02:55 GMT -5
20.000 people... Plus, how do you know 100% of them were Czechs? I am sure most of them were, but everyone? They might as well all be "Czech citizens", but as for ethnicity, I have my doubts. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is a different thing to "germanize" a name to make it sound german. Another entirely is a "pure" german name - the root and everything else. I am talking about typical german names, not germanized surnames. They - protestants - did the same, but they didn't have the upper hand in the end of it. That's all. You see, that's the same case with the Calvinists in England. They run to the USA, but not because they were persecuted. More like they weren't allowed to persecute others like they wished to back in England. Thus, they went to the US, where they could put their religious prejudice and intolerance into practice, and at will. I am not a Habsburg appologist. I am not even a Catholic, so that puts your argument down the drain. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Hussitian movement is older than the Reformation, and their links to the protestants was merely a formal one. Meaning they were not really protestants, just Christians who were not content with the Vatican; some started to call themselves protestant out of spite for the Catholic Church. By the way, as I said, after the Reformation many even returned to Catholicism. You completely missed the point. The Thirthy Years War was NOT a conflict for Czech statehood or Nation - in whichever sense you want talk about these terms, "western" or "Slavic" alike. It was a religious conflict, which took place almost 100% in the territory of germany. So if anything, it was a conflict for german nation and statehood - and even that is a wrong assertion. It was not a War involving Nations, but rather religions, and many sides took part in it - and some groups were represented on both sides (the Czechs themselves, for instance). The idea that the Thirty Years War was a conflict for Czech statehood and Nation is a novel one. But not all that ir original is necessarily worthy of attention. Except that they were Czechs in the other side as well. Regardless, as I said above, the Hussites were "protestants" only formally - yourself admited so, saying they merely changed their denomination after the Reformation. That some were fighting in the side of protestants does not mean that they were truly protestant themselves, but rather that they were against the Catholics. So, to sum it up, you are clearly twisting historical facts to suit your agenda. Basically, you are saying that because historically some Czechs fought against Catholics, that means protestantism is part of Slavdom, and that is a long shot from what actually is. That these conflicts happened in the past mean only that some Czechs haven been against the Vatican somewhere in the past. No more than that. Want to play with words? Ok then. The fact millions of Slavs fought in the side of commies in the WWII doesn't mean that communism, as a ideology, is part of Slavdom, because it is NOT. I hope you can get the analogy to the Czechs and the protestant religion. Almost none, compared to millions who fought against nazis. You fail to acknowledge that it was an even distribution on both sides in the Thirty Years War - probably even more Czechs were on the side of Catholics. But since you despise "numbers", that must mean zero to you. Yeah, they are ethnically Slavs. I never disputed this fact. Actually, I still think the same. I can't dispute anyone's blood, which is a matter of factual truth. I will keep denying that protestantism is part of Slavdom though, and you couldn't convince me of otherwise. Now you sound like a 8 years old. Are you going to say that my mama is ugly as well? It seems I am talking to a wall. In Russian History there have been people from different religions other than Orthodoxy who have, in a way or other, contributed to Russia. Still, neither these people nor their religions are part of Russia, or Slavdom. I think it is pretty obvious, indeed. You said what makes us ultimately Slavs is solely our common origin and blood, and that we should preserve that alone. That kind of thought gives birth to absurd possibilities such as being ok with the fact that we might adopt MTV non-Culture, as long as we keep our boarders wide shut and clean. That's an utterly moronic scenario. Later you revised your opinion and said culture is part of the balance as well. I am glad you did, because your previous assertion is unacceptable, from any point of view. I won't even get into the discussion of how much Slavic they are by blood. But regardless, nothing can be further from Slavdom than mudslamism. I will never accept any of this filthy carpet whores as part of anything that connects to me. In this case, and this one especifically, it is not about numbers, but the fact this devilish religion has always been in the side of the enemy and is very alien to the Slavic Soul. Your problem is that you are always trying to prove a point by giving individual examples. Tomáš Masaryk was also one the "fathers of Czech Nation" and still he was born into a Catholic family. So? It's easy to give especific examples and pretend you are amazing at winning an argument, but that means shit. That's like saying that because Chopin - a great Polish man - was half French, then France is part of Polish narod. Pushkin had 1/16 arabian blood. What does that prove? When you stop pretending that mentioning great individuals who have happened to have been of protestant religion - or simply a Hussite wrongly mistaken by a protestant - is proving that protestantism is part of Slavdom, then I might start to take you seriously. Just because someone of great importance belonged to any given group, that doesn't mean that group is part of a greater whole. And I told you that you don't know enough about Norwegians to assert something like that. Maybe you would do well and start to remind the whole of my own crap. Haha, I guess my previous remark about you needing to feel good about yourself got into your senses, so you are trying to pull that on me now. It won't work though. And no, albanians are not Indo-Europeans. They are dirty turkish whores. Look somewhere in the forum for your answers, it has been proved that here already. I never said it does. It implies - and explains -our differences now. Man, that one hurt my eyes. Saying you are clueless about something is not an offense. It was in the same level of your own words. Calling me a moron is not to be accepted. I never called you a retarded. I said something is retarded. It is different. You called me idiot a few times before that as well. Oh, I see now. You didn't use "exclamation marks". I stand corrected. Anyway, it is not about this post especifically. I received complaints about you, and I asked you to measure your tone a little better. I am not acting like a holy man. I am doing my job as a moderator. |
|
emil
Mladshiy Serdzhant
Posts: 11
|
Post by emil on Feb 16, 2008 13:21:18 GMT -5
My friens, please try to be civilised, to use bad language is always bad but to say things like: Frantisek fucking Palacky is terrible. Next point: there is a SLOVANSKA (Slavonic civilization) civilizace, otherwise there would be no point to have this forum. It exists, 100%, trust me. Its crucial to exchange our views and to discuss things but one should always be SLUSNY(=a gentleman). Now in the CR we have quite a few protestants ( I cannot quote the right number) and I NEVER come across anyone who would consider them less Czech or Slavonic. But when it comes to Christianity, I do not understand, what it has to do with Slavonic person in the first place- why should any SLOVAN worship a Jewish king (now I AGREE Christ was extraordinary personality, do not get me wrong!) when we have our own GODS, rodnou viru, bohyni Ladu etc. NOW I do not want to heart anyone’s feeling- orthodox, catholic or protestant, this is just my own personal point of view. Plus we only accepted Christianity with sword, it is nicely depicted in a movie of Andrei Tarkovski, I think it is called Andrei Rublov and one can see Kupala celebration there as well (maybe someone can confirm :-)) Back to the CR history: With Bila hora we lost very good people (like J.A.Komensky), because cesti bratri (naslednici husitu) lost the battle with catholics and had to move out of the country- mainly to Poland (which is quite funny, as now one thinks of Poland as a catholic country), some to N European protestant countries- Holland, N Germany. Than lots of foreign catholic (mainly Germanic) aristocrats moved to what was then called Bohemia. Then we nearly lost the language, but the wave of intelligentsia of 18.century managed to save the language (with the help of Russian, Sanskrit and perhaps other Slavonic languages) and the nation. 1945 the Georgian demon done one good thing in his life: he sends Germans home, because that was their desire anyway and hardly anyGermans where left behind. The bad thing was that we in 1948 when comies took over, lost lots of educated, wealthy people (Czechs), running from communism, just like educated people had to leave Russia in 1918. Than we lost some in 1968 but you know what, there is more Slavonic awareness now back home than say 2 years ago: www.slovanstvo.wz.cz/odkazy.htmWhat I see as the greatest problem with all Slavonic tribes and the same is true for all Indo-European is that we do not reproduce fast enough, so we are in the danger of being seriously outnumbered by the evil muslim. I know, we like quality but there is a numbers game going on. Having say that maybe a next step to human in the Lord’s evolution is new world order AI (artificial intelligence). Слованскему роду нема переводу. |
|
|
|
Post by vjacheslav on Feb 18, 2008 16:49:10 GMT -5
I think that this research was ordered from the West on the wave of European integration.
|
|
joko
Mladshiy Leytenant
Posts: 205
|
Post by joko on Apr 2, 2008 16:30:57 GMT -5
"And no, albanians are not Indo-Europeans. They are dirty turkish whores. Look somewhere in the forum for your answers, it has been proved that here already."
Albanian is the only Indo European language that has preserved the archaic structure of proto Aryan language. Albanian adjectives and ordinals come after the stressed nouns.
The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language.
This isn't meant to be controverisal..but considering the following Albanians IS an Indo-European language. Turkish is more related to Hungarian rather than Albanian.
|
|
petr
Ryadovoy
Posts: 1
|
Post by petr on Apr 7, 2008 1:49:38 GMT -5
Very nice reading. I have one question: If this is Slavic forum, why don' t you speak here Russian? I think, after Russian occupation of whole Slavic Europe + eastern Germany, everybody must know Russian.
And I completely don't understand, why should we feel Slavic after all that bullshits in '68.
Now, when we are talking about American radar here. I turn on TV and see Gorbačov threatens If we build this radar here, we will move to 1st place in Russian tactical list. So what should we think about our Slavic brothers? I'm nationalist and I tell you, if I see any fuckin' bastard with gun in my homeland, whatever if he is Slav or American, I will try to eliminate him as soon as possible.
|
|
TheGoddess
Podpolkovnik
One day you shall awake.
Posts: 870
|
Post by TheGoddess on Apr 7, 2008 7:23:27 GMT -5
There have been many more like you, asking the same thing. While I understand the frustration over speaking English with Slavs (I myself try not to), there are a few expatriates here who grew up abroad and unfortunately do not speak a Slavic language. As for Russian, I am 25 and belong to the earliest examples of a generation that did not get to learn Russian any more. However, I'm working on it.  Hehe, Moravák jak poleno. U nás zase Slovák jak repa. |
|
|
|
Post by vjacheslav on Apr 10, 2008 9:25:02 GMT -5
Petr, I would also prefer if we all spoke Russian or everyone his/her own language, moreover I do not consider my English perfect.
I 'll tell you truth about what I think of your post:
1. Everyone has it's own truth, and may be you're also right from your part. Two things are obvious around you
- you despise the idea of Slav unity;
- you are nationalist of only your country and other Slavs do not bother you if these questions do not touch your country.
Well, it is your right of choice.
2. But... it is also obvious from your post that you are brainwashed by the West propoganda of the communist enemy. Communists have already gone, but this propaganda lives even nowadays. And people who believe in it are the same archaism as the communism for me.
3. Nevertheless, this propaganda became modified. It is advantageous for West to create the same image of Russia. That's why West politic technologists created the myth that the USSR and Russia are the same countries and we have to blame Russia or the idea of Slav unity in all terrors and other bs happened at that times. And the people eat and eat these delusions...
They do not know about Jewish people, Georgians, Tatars etc. who leaded the Government in USSR and the communists at different periods.
4. You wrote about '69. Are you sure that most of them were Slavs?? Why do not you blame Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Tatarstan, Lithuania, Estonia, Azerbayjan, Georgia? I'm sure that their representatives were also there.
5. The only thing which West was afraid that after the USSR Slavs will unite and that's why they created their bs-propoganda about the image of USSR as the country which united Slavs, "the homeland of Slavs". So why Jews governed this "Slav country"? Is not it strange?
6. //////we will move to 1st place in Russian tactical list. /////// This is also part of propoganda, how don't you see it?? Be quite, your country will not be on that place, because Russians have much more serious strategic problems and enemies...
7. Nevertheless, what did you expect of this situation?? That Russians would be greatful of something like that?? They also think of their national security.
8. If your neighbour who is your native uncle would say you that he wishes to fire your house, where all your family is situated and bring the firewood to your fence, then pour them with petrol and swicth on the match, would not you take gun and take aim at him?? I would...
|
|
emil
Mladshiy Serdzhant
Posts: 11
|
Post by emil on Apr 15, 2008 14:53:27 GMT -5
pro Petra
1968 uz jsem jim davno prominul a napisu ti to i rusky:
РОССИЯ МАТЬ ПОРЯДКУ !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dusan Markovich on Apr 27, 2008 8:20:29 GMT -5
Czechs are Slavs!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by slavicwarrior13 on Jul 5, 2008 22:12:17 GMT -5
This was a nasty topic, as I myself claim Czech Ancestry... The germans did horrific things to the Czech people during World War 2... Some of you guys saying "Czechs are germans" should read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" where Hitler/Goebbels make sense of "What to do with the Czech People"... Obviously not germans like them... Think about it....
|
|
