What is Slavic?

[Ariets]

Slavic mean cool, we are better than everyone!
We can drink more (our hard heads/HDD), we have good sense of humour (not like germanics), our womens are pretty ([edit by Mynydd: ad gentem and ungentleman ) and many more

[Zrinski]

I used to have Illyrian in my profile as well. Only I have used it as a substitue for South Slavic, it's a 19th century terminology.

'Illyrian' or 'Illyric' used to synomous with 'Croatian' during Renaissance and Enlightment period. During 'Age of Nationalism' it expanded to include all South Slavs.

[svin]

Zrinski, Does any nationalistic movement in Croatia totally reject Slavic heritage of Croats? I know of some Belarusian paganists (Gega Ruch) who, for example, say that Belarusians are Balts, not Slavs. The main goal of such change of identification is to strengthen ties with Europe and to break tie with Russian imperialists who view Belarusians as Russians (although I don't approve point of view of Gega Ruch, I can understand it).

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by svin

Zrinski, Does any nationalistic movement in Croatia totally reject Slavic heritage of Croats?

It's impossible for any Croatian nationalist movement to reject the Slavic heritage because part of our heritage is our language, which is undoubtedly Slavic and there is nothing that could (or should) be done about that.

But every Croatian nationalist movement rejects Panslavism, because it is an ideology that has wrought much misfortune to the Croatian nation in the past.

Originally Posted by svin

I know of some Belarusian paganists (Gega Ruch) who, for example, say that Belarusians are Balts, not Slavs.

Following Romuva? That's strange, but not surprising concerning the very intricate and complicated relationship between Belarus and Lithuania in the past.

At any rate, Belarusian is a Slavic and not a Baltic language.

Whiteruthenian, what do you think about that?

Originally Posted by svin

The main goal of such change of identification is to strengthen ties with Europe and to break tie with Russian imperialists who view Belarusians as Russians (although I don't approve point of view of Gega Ruch, I can understand it).

You think that sound nationalist movement could be based on such constructs? Hmmm...I am not sure...

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by svin

Zrinski, Does any nationalistic movement in Croatia totally reject Slavic heritage of Croats? I know of some Belarusian paganists (Gega Ruch) who, for example, say that Belarusians are Balts, not Slavs. The main goal of such change of identification is to strengthen ties with Europe and to break tie with Russian imperialists who view Belarusians as Russians (although I don't approve point of view of Gega Ruch, I can understand it).

I think Plethon put it quite nicely. Though I would say it is possible some nationalists reject to identify with Slavic people's despite the obvious fact we speak a Slavic language and our history telling us the proto-Croats were definately Slavic. I would say such people are very rare individuals.

Some also tend to get confused with the theories on origin of Croatian name, it is accepted fact now in Croatian historiography that the Croatian name is of non-Slavic, possibly Iranic origin. The genetic data also sometiems brings confusion as it confirmed the largest part of contemporary Croatian population is of autochtonous origin. These are accepted facts but are not enough to claim Croats are not Slavs because what determines this is the language and it is obviously beyond all doubts a Slavic language.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by svin

I know of some Belarusian paganists (Gega Ruch) who, for example, say that Belarusians are Balts, not Slavs.

Originally Posted by Plethon

Following Romuva? That's strange, but not surprising concerning the very intricate and complicated relationship between Belarus and Lithuania in the past.

At any rate, Belarusian is a Slavic and not a Baltic language.

Whiteruthenian, what do you think about that?

It’s explainable that Belarusian nationalists haven’t ever been fond of ideas like pan-Slavism, since they were doomed to fight the cultural influence of the two Slavic neighbours – the Russians and the Poles. I think that it’s true that the Belarusians have some Baltic blood, but for me it doesn’t mean much. So what? Germans have some Baltic blood (inhabitants of Eastern Prussia), some Slavic blood (on their eastern lands), etc. Does it change the fact that they are Germanic? I don’t think so.

I tend to dislike our Baltophiles. They love legends and myths so much that from time to time they forget that they live in the real world. I do believe that in our times when Europe stands in front of abyss, to theorize, for example, where was the island Thule is a peak of idiotism. And I notice that this idiotism of theirs puts me off and makes me more and more Slavophilic. I’ll try to get here (on Stirpes) some of those passengers.

But many of them do a lot for collecting and saving our heritage. So they are rather a positive phenomenon.

As for the question “What is Slavic?” the answer is obvious – the Slavs are Europeans of different descent who speak Slavic languages and have some common ancestors (Ur-Slavs from whom the modern Slavs took their languages).

[Gemars]

Slav? or slave? in history is it the same. First name of Slavs Sjeuoján [Syewoyan] or Sěloján [Syeloyan] means two words Sělo = sow, já -n = beginner,start, by z-já-čati, CZ:začínat, počínat (start, begin). It is first agriculturist. in 10000 b.c. by the river (n)Amu/darja (CZ: nám darující) = to us giving.

[Ariets]

Originally Posted by Gemars

Slav? or slave? in history is it the same. First name of Slavs Sjeuoján [Syewoyan] or Sěloján [Syeloyan] means two words Sělo = sow, já -n = beginner,start, by z-já-čati, CZ:začínat, počínat (start, begin). It is first agriculturist. in 10000 b.c. by the river (n)Amu/darja (CZ: nám darující) = to us giving.

not really there are many theories and isnt so easy.

THE ORIGIN of the name Slav, Protoslavic Slovenin”, has never been entirely satisfactorily explained.

And name Slav was using also as people who take (import) slaves (in bizantium).

For example read:
B.P. Lozinski - The name SLAV

[tankistabg]

Some people just connect slavs with the R1A haplogroup. This is the international genetic meaning on slavs. By genetics the biggest slavs are the Poles and Sorbians and the least slavs from the "slavic nations" are Bulgaria and FYROM".

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

Some people just connect slavs with the R1A haplogroup. This is the international genetic meaning on slavs. By genetics the biggest slavs are the Poles and Sorbians and the least slavs from the "slavic nations" are Bulgaria and FYROM".

Slavs are a linguistic group, not a genetic one. But it obvious that some Slavic peoples are genetically closer to original Slavs, than others.

[Ostrogorski]

Unlike others here, I wouldn't banalize Slavic at a level of just a language group - there are people who speak some Slavic language from the day they were born, like certain Gypsies, Armenians, Uyghurs, Kazakhs etc, but that still does not make them Slavs.

What makes us Slavs is something that is inside of us, something that is much older than nations and nation-states - an ethno-psychic constant, it's something that can't be taught, it can't be explained, it can only be felt.

It materializes itself in numerous ways - it's the tune that shepherds play under the Carpathian, or in the Dinaric mountains, or by the shore of Volga river, it's the dance of the girls on Ohrid lake, Wisla river, streets of Kiev, it's the same pattern that 2 women sew, one in Novgorod and other one in Niš, it's the symbol cut in the tree in Bulgaria, and the stone at the Baltic coast...

We don't have to be of the same anthropological type to be the same. Two members of the same nation don't have to be of the same type to feel the same way, why should then it be any different to meta-ethnicity?

Why should we take that typical shallow materialistic Anglo-Saxon view?

R1a my arse... Pakis have 40% of population with R1a group, more than all of southern Slavs... does that make them Slavs???

Slavic is meta-ethnicity, that's only thing that is important, and no thing can change that, no racial theories or genetic researches, no brachycephaly or dolichocephaly, blond or brown hair, Baltic, Siberia or the Balkans, absolutely nothing can change that.

Because at the end it's only the heart and soul that matters, and it's Slavic!

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Unlike others here, I wouldn't banalize Slavic at a level of just a language group - there are people who speak some Slavic language from the day they were born, like certain Gypsies, Armenians, Uyghurs, Kazakhs etc, but that still does not make them Slavs.

People in this thread who said that Slavs are those who speak Slavic languages meant population groups, ethnicities, nations, larger collectivities. They did not want to say that any individual who learns a Slavic language (for example, a Chinaman living in Slovakia) as a foreign language automatically becomes a Slav.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

What makes us Slavs is something that is inside of us, something that is much older than nations and nation-states - an ethno-psychic constant, it's something that can't be taught, it can't be explained, it can only be felt.

I personally don't feel any such thing. I feel though some vague feeeling of sympathy whenever I find myself in Prague, Krakow and Sofia or when I meet Czech and Polish tourists in Croatia and become - on the spot - aware of this linguistic affinity which in some cases (maybe?) can engender some deeper affection and/or feeling of community. I say, it can, it could, it is possible, I don't say it is inevitable. The very close linguistic affinity between Croats and Serbs has not prevented conflicts.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

It materializes itself in numerous ways - it's the tune that shepherds play under the Carpathian, or in the Dinaric mountains, or by the shore of Volga river, it's the dance of the girls on Ohrid lake, Wisla river, streets of Kiev, it's the same pattern that 2 women sew, one in Novgorod and other one in Niš, it's the symbol cut in the tree in Bulgaria, and the stone at the Baltic coast...

Are you sure of these folkloristic coincidences? Isn't anything Dinaric more closely related to the palaeo-Balkanic substratum, rather than to the Slavdom?

I don't deny though the possibility and reality of the similarity of some customs, dress or music and that it might have some palaeo-Slavic roots. Because, in order for all these languages to be spread, there had to be some people who spread them and, although that people got mixed with other population groups, it is very highly probably that it left some mark. Besides, similarity of languages makes similarity in music, especially in singing, more probable.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

We don't have to be of the same anthropological type to be the same.

What does this last same mean? (I must stress that I am light years far from being even the slight fetishist of anthropological types or races)

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Two members of the same nation don't have to be of the same type to feel the same way, why should then it be any different to meta-ethnicity?

The very concept of meta-ethnicity is problematic in itself.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Why should we take that typical shallow materialistic Anglo-Saxon view?

Yes, why should we? If anything, I am opposed to the vulgar materialism (the American racialism being one of the most notable representatives thereof). It is not solely confined to Anglo-Saxons though.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

R1a my arse... Pakis have 40% of population with R1a group, more than all of southern Slavs... does that make them Slavs???

R1a does not make anyone anything, nor does any other of these indicators. They can be just a tool to understand some events from history, but they do not determine any (meta)-ethnicity.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Slavic is meta-ethnicity,

Whatever meta-ethnicity means...

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

that's only thing that is important, and no thing can change that, no racial theories or genetic researches, no brachycephaly or dolichocephaly, blond or brown hair, Baltic, Siberia or the Balkans, absolutely nothing can change that.

All the enumerated things cannot change: 1) the definition of any nation or ethnic group (because it is matter of the feeling of mutual belonging and not of any supposedly "objective" criteria); 2) the fact of the linguistic affinity of the Slavic peoples.

It cannot change the meta-ethnicity either, the notion being quite an arbitrary one. So arbitrary that I wonder if anything can either change it, demolish it, or confirm it, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Because at the end it's only the heart and soul that matters, and it's Slavic!

Heart and soul? I guess you metaphorically wanted to say by these two words: feeling of mutual belonging. But does it really exist among Slavic peoples?

[Ostrogorski]

You didn't have to comment almost every line, it's juts an opinion based on my personal impression and feelings.

Also, I chose to respond you here, rather than in that thread of yours about meta-ethnicity, for simple reason - others have their own impressions and opinions about meta-ethnicity based on their own historical experience, and somehow their experiences have nothing to do with us Slavs, so I really don't expect of them to have the same view as us and to understand us, simply because most of Slavic nations had totally different ethnogenesis than the rest of European nations or ethnicities.

So, basically different nations and ethnicities are different and they all had different ethnogensis ( yeah I'm a genius, am I? ), because of this no strict definition about the term nation, ethnicity, meta-ethnicity can be applied to all nations etc. and at all times.

One nation - one definition of nation, with an approval of course that some cases of etnogenesis can be similar.


You're a well educated man, interested in various things at least, so etymology of Greek word Meta-Ethnos shouldn't be very hard for you, right?

Meta-Ethnos = beyond the ethnicity, therefore Meta-ethnic identity is certain affinity that put our ethnicity into larger group of mutually related ethnicities. That's the general definition, based on etymology, but each nation has it's own reasons and circumstances to feel or don't feel the affinity toward certain meta-identity.

Like I said Slavs are meta-ethnicity because they have common Slavic ethnic root, and it's not just language that connects them, otherwise certain folklore and other ethno-psychic constant patterns, no matter if they're music, dance, legends, myths, various symbols ( Kolovrat f.e.), clothings, paintings, sculptures, customs, beliefs etc, wouldn't repeat in each of ethnicities that show the meta-ethnic affinity. Of course, there are always differences - local and temporal, but also religious and civilizational. But in general, ethnicities that show meta-ethnic affinity are more similar to each other (in the terms of basic ethnic traits) than to others.

For example, we Serbs share the same religious and cultural-civilizational affinity with the Greeks, but when it comes to the basic ethnic traits, we simply fall into two totally different categories - Serbs being Slavic, Greeks being Hellenic.

Sometimes, even local differences inside one ethnicity can be bigger than the differences between the two ethnicities inside meta-ethnicity.


And one more thing, I'm not forcing any of you to feel the same way as I do, it's the individual thing and the matter of heart and soul. Perhaps Slavic ethno-psychic constant is notably weak or absent in you, for various reasons, one including not being Slav at all, the other one the result of auto-censure. I can't say, that's up to you to find out... if you're interested at all, that is...

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

You didn't have to comment almost every line, it's juts an opinion based on my personal impression and feelings.

My comments were not meant as an attacks though...I was just expressing my profound doubts as to the tenability of the very notion of meta-ethnicity in general and in the Slavic case in particular.