Slavic Nationalisms hostile to each other

[Leland Gaunt]

This thread makes me grin.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by Lisowczyk

it is my understanding that after the union of lublin the grand duchy was not a twin nation joined to Poland but it became a province like the other provinces of poland, such as Wilekopolaksa, malopolska etc. an exmple of this is Mickiewicz in his poem Pan tadeusz he start with Lithuania my father land... this is to be understood that Mickiewicz was a polish poet and patriot but having been born in lithuania, it is only a part of the whole nation thta was poland.
Tadeusz kosciuszko when calling the lithuanians to fight for poland says,
"Lithuania! my fellow- countrymen and compatriots! I was born on your soil, and in the midst of righteous zeal for my country more especial affection is called forth in me for those among whom i began life.... Look at the rest of the nation of which you are a part... Look at those volunteers, alreadya ssembling in each province of all Poland.

Sorry for keeping silence so long - I rarely visit the internet these days.

You know, may be my data are wrong, but as far as I know the two states, 'Rzecz Pospolita obojga narodów' consisted of, initially used to have:

- separate state administrations;
- separate armies
- separate treasuries
- rights to mint separate coins
- separate administrative and judicial systems
- separate customs systems (before 1766)

But may be Pomorze and Wielkopolska had such attributes of sovereignty too? Not sure. As far as I know Rzecz Pospolita became a unitary state only after accepting the constitution of 3 May.

Mickiewicz and Kościuszko's authority isn't helpful in these questions because it should be taken into account that at the end of the XVII century Polish culture totally dominated on Lithuanian and Belarusian lands and these comrades (I'm not going to argue who they were by blood) were already ideologically and culturally polonized.

[Belarus]

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

By weirdo "Belarusian historians", may be. But not by the scholarly community.



Never heard of him. Anyway, the most authoritative examination of the available linguistic evidence is A.A. Zaliznyak. Drevnenovgorodskiy Dialect. M., 1995. It's a boring serious work, but it is scholarly, and it uses hundreds of birch bark documents from the 11th to 15th centuries, which were not known to your Jan Stankevich.



No serious linguist has ever claimed and will ever claim that the Pskov dialect of the Russian language is Byelorussian. It is more reasonable to say that the North Byelorussian dialect is a derivative of the North Great Russian dialect, with some Baltic substratum and Southern Slavic influence. Here is a quotation from Valentin Sedov's Drevnerusskaya Narodnost':





There were some differences, liguistic, cultural and other, between the Pskov Krivichians, the original ones, and their descendants in the Smolensk and Polotsk lands.



All of the Krivichians' descendants are either Russians (absolute majority) or Byelorussified quite evident from a map of the Old Russian tribes:



So it's natural to call the Krivichians a Russian tribe, which they indeed were.



It does. They came from Russia and were Russian.



In my interpretation, yes.



Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



As I have already said, A.A. Zaliznyak is the most authoritative scholar on the matter.



What has always been considered the model of the development of the Russian statehood from the beginnings of the Russian historiography in the 11th century: Ladoga - Novgorod - Kiev - Vladimir - Moscow - St. Petersburg - Moscow.



You have a very quaint sort of logic. One would rather say in this situation, Es lebe grossrussischer Drang nach Sued-Westen!

[svin]

Слышь ты, завтра с утра пораньше напрягись и осиль. Русскоязычных тут нет - тут Русские. Запомнил?

Почему нет? Здесь есть белорусы, которые говорят по-русски. Откуда такая агрессивность?

Stirpes > Slavija > East --- в этом разделе общаются украинцы, русские и белорусы.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by svin

Why is that? What makes Lithuanians Finno-Ugrians?

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

40% of TAT-C.

Originally Posted by svin

How many TAT-C have Belarusians?

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

Possibly, about 10% (as much as Russians). Plus, 8% of Byelorussia's hydronyms are Finno-Ugrian (Êàòîíîâà Å.Ì.,Äàííûå ãèäðîíèìèè î áàëòî-ñëàâÿíñêèõ êîíòàêòàõ íà ñåâåðå Áåëîðóññèè // Êîíôåðåíöèÿ. Ýòíîëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèå áàëòî-ñëàâÿíñêèå êîíòàêòû â íàñòîÿùåì è ïðîøëîì. - Ì., 1978, ñ. 85, 86.)

More precise data:

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/tatc.html

47 % Lithuanians
14 % Russians
2 % Belarusians

Mysticism… I’ve no idea how it can be interpreted. May be in the way that physical anthropology and genetics have nothing to do with each other?

Austrvegr?...

[svin]

This is kind of biased source. Racial reality, I mean.

[Dexter]

I've never meet one russian nationalist that was hostile to the Ukranian, Belorussian or any slavic nation at all. But Russophobic feelings are quite common among western ukranians as well as poles.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Dexter

I've never meet one russian nationalist

Could be because you live on the other side of the planet, yes?

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by Ljubomir

Could be because you live on the other side of the planet, yes?

So you're saying that there are no russians in the US ? And btw i currently dont reside there and i wasnt born there as well.

[Marka Ragnos]

Originally Posted by Sokol

You thank each evening of communists what they have presented Finns independence?

"Actually Russia is a too big country to be one-nationed."
Do not speak such nonsense very much frequently, and that to dream you today at night, that Russian national socialists (after a victory) have wanted to expand Russia to borders of 1913

Well, lenin and trotski gave independence officially to Finland 1917, but their plan was made communist revolution in Finland with rusian troops and Finnish red guard, but they failed. Commies made similar tactic in Caucasus and Turkestan.

[Tuurikerttu]

Originally Posted by Marka Ragnos

Well, lenin and trotski gave independence officially to Finland 1917, but their plan was made communist revolution in Finland with rusian troops and Finnish red guard, but they failed. Commies made similar tactic in Caucasus and Turkestan.

Yes. Basically there is no need thanking Lenin for anything. Like Lenin said few weeks after Finland declared independence, "What else can I do but recognize something that already exists?"

During the whole time Finland existed as a Grand Duchy, everything worked independently and separated from Russia proper. Even taxes never crossed the border between Russia and Finland. Russia simply had no resources to connect Finland to Russia (as there were problems elsewhere in the large empire, in Poland for example where constant uprises had to crushed), so basically Finland was run like before, the only exception was that administration was settled in Helsinki and not Stockholm and the 108 years can be regarded as a sort of training period for full independence. And when there were few "Russification" attempts in late 19th and early 20th century, it only managed to alienate Finland from Russia even further.

So weeping of some Russian chauvinists after Finland has no grounds whatsoever.