M.R. versus Gromoljut: on Slavism and other issues

[M.R.]

No it's not, I just don't give a damn about being Slavic or not, read some of my posts on this subject and you'll see why. There's a thread about meta-ethnicities somewhere, there are a lot of valid arguments why meta-ethnicities have no real significance. The days of pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism are over and they are never coming back (even though there's a lot of forums on internet which promote those ideologies, which are harmful to real nationalisms of Germanic or Slavic countries).

If Baltic nations would suddenly be considered as Slavic by majority, would I feel more close to them or call them my Slavic brothers? Of course not.

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by M.R.

No it's not, I just don't give a damn about being Slavic or not, read some of my posts on this subject and you'll see why. There's a thread about meta-ethnicities somewhere, there are a lot of valid arguments why meta-ethnicities have no real significance. The days of pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism are over and they are never coming back (even though there's a lot of forums on internet which promote those ideologies, which are harmful to real nationalisms of Germanic or Slavic countries).

If Baltic nations would suddenly be considered as Slavic by majority, would I feel more close to them or call them my Slavic brothers? Of course not.

Yes, it is utter ignorance.
You say that whether or not baltic and slavic languages are related has no meaning whatsoever. That is pure ignorace and there is no milder word for it.
What you are doing is discarding a notion in all it's aspects instead of understanding it's context.
Which is just as shallow as overgeneralising it to all contexts (the two are exact opposites, two extremes of the same principle).
Neither serves to put things in their proper place "historically" and "politically" (the first represents the temporal dimension, the latter the spatial one).

To say that the lingual, and consequently cultural closeness between balts and slavs (in modern and even historic times hidden to the naked layman's eye) is nothing worth "giving a damn about" is ignorant; not only because in a considerable part in history, it had much significance; not only, even, for the fact that the thread starter was, considering her previous posts, obviously asking in terms of linguistics, which have nothing to do with slovenian "nationalism's" yugoslavian hangover; but also for being based on your assumption that everyone who claims balts and slavs, slovenians and czechs, russians and poles to be close must be panslavist, which is, of course, a logical phallacy. Slovenians and bulgarians are similar in terms of culture, but that does not preclude slovenians from sharing 1000 years of history with bavarians - is that anywhere implied? Leaning in either way is overreacting.

Meta-ethnicity, at least in slavic terms, is a very valid concept. It is the same scheme as used in nation or ethnicity, only applied at a larger scale. There are huge differences between people of Goričko and Cerkno, Novo Mesto or Slovenj Gradec, and they possibly wouldn't even understand each other, but that apparently doesn't restrain you from considering them slovenians or being proud of being slovenian instead of ... goriški? goričanski? (what's the adjective? ). These people are obviously worlds apart! Why should you be insulted by someone saying that slovenians and kaszëby are alike? We probably have more deep (or old, if you prefer) cultural connections with them than with the austro-bavarian people, but many tangible facets of life in our part of the world seem to have evolved into a different way and have suffered different influences than theirs. But still, a platypus is a mammal, even if it lays eggs. We can acknowledge that and still understand that it will not act any "nicer" towards its "mammalic brothers" than to the creatures with which it shares its habitat and daily routine, like fish, can't we?

By the way, do you call anyone your slavic brothers? Of course you do not. Why would you do that to a balt, then? That was not much of a point, was it?

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Yes, it is utter ignorance.
You say that whether or not baltic and slavic languages are related has no meaning whatsoever. That is pure ignorace and there is no milder word for it.
What you are doing is discarding a notion in all it's aspects instead of understanding it's context.
Which is just as shallow as overgeneralising it to all contexts (the two are exact opposites, two extremes of the same principle).
Neither serves to put things in their proper place "historically" and "politically" (the first represents the temporal dimension, the latter the spatial one).

I'll repeat it again - because being Slavic has no meaning (or hardly any meaning) and it hardly changes anything if a particular nation is considered Slavic or not. Baltic languages are as far as I know not Slavic, but even if they are or have something in common this is such a useless discussion IMHO - at least in this context where we debate whether they are part of some (imaginary) Slavic identity or not. Of course there are people arguing whether Bulgarians, Macedonians, etc are Slavic or not, but it's a complete waste of time. Just like this thread.

Well I understand if someone is interested in linguistics and debates about the closeness of Baltic and Slavic languages, but here in this context the (alleged) linguistical closeness is only used as a potential argument that Balts are part of (artificial) Slavic indentity.

To say that the lingual, and consequently cultural closeness between balts and slavs (in modern and even historic times hidden to the naked layman's eye) is nothing worth "giving a damn about" is ignorant;

Cultural closeness between Balts and Slavs? There is Slavic culture?

but also for being based on your assumption that everyone who claims balts and slavs, slovenians and czechs, russians and poles to be close must be panslavist, which is, of course, a logical phallacy.

I said that? Where?

Slovenians and bulgarians are similar in terms of culture

They are? Please be specific here.

but that does not preclude slovenians from sharing 1000 years of history with bavarians - is that anywhere implied? Leaning in either way is overreacting.

Not all Slovenians share this much of history with them. We (all Slovenians) are still closer to them culturally and historicaly speaking than to Russians or Ukranians or any other eastern Slavs.

Meta-ethnicity, at least in slavic terms, is a very valid concept. It is the same scheme as used in nation or ethnicity, only applied at a larger scale.

Ok, so it's valid in Slavic terms but not in .. what? Germanic/Romance/Baltic terms? So you do agree that in some cases meta-ethnicity can maybe be an unvalid concept? What makes you think that in case of Slavs it is a valid concept?

Well to answer the question why so many ("Slavic") people think that Slavs are a meta-ethnicity and share some kind of common ethnic identity (after all, this is what meta-ethnicity is supposed to be - "ethnicity" on a "larger scale") is the result of different agendas of major European nations in 19th and 20th century. That's why instead of Slovenian history we learn romantic fairy-tails mixed with lies of pan-Germanic historians (also basis for pan-Slavism).

All this universalist ideas of having some kind of meta-ethnic identity apart from your own (true) ethnic identity is for me hardly any different than ideas of Europeans being a nation or we are all one race?

I wonder why we don't also discuss our meta-meta-ethnic identities than? Maybe in near future someone will come up with than and explain it to us "it's the same scheme as meta-ethnicities, only aplied at larger scale"...

You ever wondered why a Spaniard doesn't consider himself as being descendant of some "ancient Romance nation" and calls Italians and Romanians as his Romance brothers, while here in case of our Slavic nation it somehow makes complete sense to some people that they were once part of same nation together with Russians and other Slavic brothers even though both doesn't make any sense?

There are huge differences between people of Goričko and Cerkno, Novo Mesto or Slovenj Gradec, and they possibly wouldn't even understand each other, but that apparently doesn't restrain you from considering them slovenians or being proud of being slovenian instead of ... goriški? goričanski? (what's the adjective? ).

I'm proud of being Goričanec as I'm being proud of being Slovenian.

Those differences are far from differences between different Slavic nations, after all, I share the same ethnic identity with all of them (Cerkno, NM, SG..). A true ethnic identity, not the same "ethnic identity" as used in defining meta-ethnicities. I share historical bond with them (Carantania, fighting together against Turks, Austria-Hungary, being part of Catholic Europe...), simmilar culture and way of life, same descent (Veneti and/or other tribes living here before Roman Empire)...

The fact that because of it's geographical place and history, Slovenian culture has been influenced by cultures neighbouring nations (Gorensjka and Styria by Germans, Prekmurje by Hungarians, Primorska by Italians, southern Slovenia by Balkanoids) and that's also the reason why we have so many differences between regional identities. Slovenian identity is not a single identity as such (a mistake by many today's Slovenians who consider Slovenian national identity to be bunch of jodlars from Gorenjska playing their harmonika and of course Kekec), but it rather consists of different regional identities (which have simmilarities) and of course the ancient state of all Slovenians - Carantania. This can in no way be compared to Slavic identity which is based on nothing but language which, despite of it's importance, doesn't make an ethnic identity or ethnicity (or in this case meta-ethnicity if you like).

Now what do I have in common with, let's say, eastern Slavs?

Historicaly? Before 19th century I can't even remember any historical connection, in 19th century some people in Slovenia where naive enough to think that their big Slavic brothers Russians will help them preserve their identity instead.. well they f????? us over.

Culturaly? I can hardly think what more cultural simmilarities I have with an Ukranian than I have them with French/Italian. Not to mention central-European "non-Slavic" nations which are much more culturaly closer to me than any eastern European nation will ever be, be it Slavic or not.

Descent? Not even close. Ok maybe if you believe in fairy tales - Slovenians are Slavs who came from swamps in eastern Europe in 6th century (never mind there's no historical proof, after all that's not history but romantic fairy tale they teach Slovenians since the good old days of pan-Slavism and call it 'history'), that mean we're all 100% Slavic (never mind that there were other tribes living in Slovenia before 6th century or that by all logic some Slovenians mixed with other nations/tribes since then) which makes us having same Slavic ancestors like a Russian from Moscow or Ukranian from Kiev.

-

To put it shortly,

Slovenians are Europeans, all other Slavs are too, all Europeans have some simmilarities in culture and at least some common history.

These people are obviously worlds apart!

Yes, sure. No more than few hundred km apart.

Why should you be insulted by someone saying that slovenians and kaszëby are alike?

I'm not. It's still wrong though.

We probably have more deep (or old, if you prefer) cultural connections with them than with the austro-bavarian people, but many tangible facets of life in our part of the world seem to have evolved into a different way and have suffered different influences than theirs.

Or just maybe they were already different from begining?

The way I see it all this pan-nationalisms, meta-ethnicities, meta-nations or whatever you want to call it are in many cases welcomed by people who need to feel themselves as being part of something bigger than they actualy are.

[Gromoljut]

Since you have failed to grasp the gist of what I was trying to tell you, let me dumb down my point so as to not entirely repeat myself.

1) There are certain/different contexts to a certain fact/theory/claim/idea. That both slovenes and russians are slavic may much validity in history, archaeology, ethnology, linguistics, ..., but might mean close to zero in modern-day politics. You clearly do not recognize any aspect but your pan-slavic strawman.
The fact that slovenians and bulgarians are culturally similar means just that: they are similar. You can observe that in (other than language, which, most of the time, acts as a container and medium for culture) traditions: festivities, daily routine, patterns in material culture (such as weaving patterns, decorations, culinary traditions, ... ). They are not the same. But they both share a considerable part of their heritage, more so than with some of their neighbours, which is what makes both slavic, turks/bavarians/greeks/italians/... or no. It does not even matter how this similarity came to pass. But it is there. Does that mean we have to form a single state? Nation? You are trying to convince me that is my view simply because I acknowledge the similarity. Yet I do not see the connection between cuisine and politics.

2) Meta-ethnicity is not ethnicity on a larger scale, because that would simply mean that we include more people into the same concept. That is like saying ethnicity is Meta-ethnicity is the same principle as ethnicity, applied to appropriate building blocks. You and your father are part of Goričani, me and my mother are part of Cerkljani. We are both slovenian. Does that mean that you and your father are Cerkljani too? NO!! If both slovenians and lusatians are slavs, does that mean slovenians are lusatians? NOOO!!!!!!!! But, each on the respective scale, the subjects exhibit a certain degree of similarity, which is what grants them inclusion into a scientific category. Does that mean we need to stop trade with austria and hungary, who are not slavs ("damn enemies of my beloved slavia, my pan-slavic homeland!!!1"), and instead buy grain from lusatians ("our slavic blood-brothers, our only true ally in this perun-forsaken germanic wasteland")? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! again.
Nation is to region what meta-ethnicity is to nation. Both super-categories can and do interfere with their respective lower-scale counterparts (slovenian identity has done much harm to individual regional identities!) But that only happens when people have a problem separating one from the other, and by ignoring one completely, you are not helping clear the fog. You are, effectively, encouraging pan-slavists to step up against you by denying their belief instead of putting it into its proper context.

3) The reasonable, rational (and scientific) thing do to is separate influence from heritage. If slovenian a hundred years from now will be composed of 80% english words, will you call it germanic? "European"?
It will have been originally slavic, but heavily influenced by english. It will have more in common with english than with slovak. You see, in the same manner, slovenian and bulgarian culture (not all aspects of it, of course, since we are talking of similarity, not of equality) are similar and alike (or rather - our and their ancestors' cultures were alike), but in the course of many centuries, both of us came into contact with different other peoples, and that is how a large gap came into being between our nations (which formed in the mean time from different tribal and regional identities).

4) If you feel more in common with austrians than you do with ukranians, you will like this story.
I am slovenian. My mother is from Cerkno, my father from Prekmurje. Still, I manage to feel closer to Poles than I do to Goričane. By now, you are surely screaming - "pan-slavist!"
There was a time when I was learning japanese. I felt more related to the japanese than I did to my own neighbours. What was your exclamation this time - "pan....... pan..... pan!!!", or what?
Being in contact with a concept makes you feel related to it, but instead of having it in you heritage, you are under its influence. I am neither polish nor japanese, I am slovenian, and like you, I am proud of that. Acknowledging that japanese are nice people in their own right and that the proud polish nation is a slavic, like mine, one does not interfere with my vision of how slovenia as a political and cultural entity should function. It should have good relations with its neighbours, slavic or not, industrial, cultural, political and other. It should educate its people and allow them to nurture their culture, etc.

5) LAST: Christabel, who started this thread, is, which is evident from her other posts, obviously doing work related to some paper about slavic tongues. The question that sparked our discussion, which, in your opinion, is useless, clearly aimed at the linguistic aspect of baltic and slavic - why are they considered separate?
To answer this question without further delay:
Slavic and baltic are two language families which show a greater degree of similarity between each other than they do to other language families. This allowed for two different theories about the origin of this situation:
a) Slavs and balts branched off their ancestor language in union, which would make their evolution look like this:
(protolanguage) => balto-slavic => (1)baltic, (2)slavic => (1)old prussian, latvian, ..., (2)old east slavic, old west slavic, ....
b) Slavs and balts branched off separately (still, out of geographic reasons, being extremely similar), and aquired many of their common features through influencing each other. Their evolution in this case:
(protolanguage) => (1)prebaltic ~ (2)preslavic => (1)protobaltic, (2)protoslavic => (1)old prussian, latvian, ..., (2)old east slavic, old west slavic, ....
The language families in question are extremely similar in vocabulary. Most divergence of the modern word inventory of languages of both families is easily explained by as few as 5 or 6 phonetic proceses : palatalisation, nasalisation, iotation, monophtongisation - occured in slavic, but not in baltic, satemisation - results of the satemisation show a contrast of slavic : latvian : lithuanian, but they most probably went through a common stage (I know nothing of the extinct baltic tongues, sorry), the ruki sound law (a contrast of slavic : baltic). There is a considerable overlap in accentology of the two families; the morphology differs more between both families, but less compared to other families.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Since you have failed to grasp the gist of what I was trying to tell you, let me dumb down my point so as to not entirely repeat myself.

Well unfortunately you did just that - repeated yourself.

I don't need to answer the same points all over again, since you are repeating yourself, just read my post again and feel free to answer it whenever you want. Few advices how to do it: I recomend you to use quote function.

Some lesson from primary school: Inhabitant of Goričko = Goričanec, plural = Goričanci adj. = gorički

+ think before you write "Meta-ethnicity is not ethnicity on a larger scale," when you said the opposite 1 post ago ("It [meta-ethnicity] is the same scheme as used in nation or ethnicity, only applied at a larger scale")

Take time, think over what you will write, my post is waiting. Have fun.

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Well unfortunately you did just that - repeated yourself.

I don't need to answer the same points all over again, since you are repeating yourself, just read my post again and feel free to answer it whenever you want. Few advices how to do it: I recomend you to use quote function.

Some lesson from primary school: Inhabitant of Goričko = Goričanec, plural = Goričanci adj. = gorički

+ think before you write "Meta-ethnicity is not ethnicity on a larger scale," when you said the opposite 1 post ago ("It [meta-ethnicity] is the same scheme as used in nation or ethnicity, only applied at a larger scale")

Take time, think over what you will write, my post is waiting. Have fun.

I refrained before, with great effort, from insulting you, and I will do so again. But I will not try answering any of the words you are putting in my mouth.

I did not use the quote function because this is no dissection. This is a general debate and things need to be understood in a wide context as they are not isolated phenomena.

Since you are so keen on primary school - what is the inhabitant of Krško? Of Trst? Dat. sing. of gospa? Which is correct - zaželen or zaželjen? Prinesen or prinešen? Láhek or lahák (tének or tenák)? Zvonenje or zvonjenje? What is the comparative of globok? I could think of many more, and I honestly expect you will answer at least half of these.

I took my time twice already, but it did not seem worth the effort. Reading does not mean understanding - you may have read my post, but this:

Originally Posted by M.R.

+ think before you write "Meta-ethnicity is not ethnicity on a larger scale," when you said the opposite 1 post ago ("It [meta-ethnicity] is the same scheme as used in nation or ethnicity, only applied at a larger scale")

clearly shows you are too eager to prove me wrong to try to comprehend what I explained using different wordings. Thus effectively repeating my point, yes, but put differently, which usually helps, if people are willing to discuss and not just write their opinion and then say "good night and good luck". I do not seek your "conversion" or whatever perverted image it is you have conjured in your mind, but the very least you can do is try to understand what I am telling you without some preconception like "slavic=panslavism", which is only the most blatant one.

I will kick-start you with this explanation: meta-ethnicity is the same basic scheme (layout, pattern, design) as nationality, but applied to a larger scale.
Ever heard of fractals? Micro- and macro-cosmos? Family-trees? Gravity is the same basic principle (force, interaction) as between particles, but applied at a planetary scale. Does that mean all particles are part of one solar system? Whales and dogs are both mammals. They are distinct, but the pattern of relation is the same, applied at a different scale and to a different degree. A german shepherd can't play Free Willy and a sperm whale can't be trained to bring you the newspaper. Does that preclude science from considering them related? You can call it (mammals) "class", you can also call it "meta-order" (since order is the next lowest scale, roughly speaking). That doesn't change the concept, though. As you move into larger scales, the degree of relatedness starts declining rapidly. Yes, we are related to negroes. Yes, we have more in common with other europids than with negroes. Where you draw the line of how much of this "relation" is "important" for what purpose is a matter of politics and ideology, which is not being discussed here, but whether or not they are related (or rather, how they are related) is a matter of science, and you just keep mixing the two.

You know, the easiest way to refute something is not actually arguing, but sabotaging it, for example, using false generalisations, which is what you are doing. I have never said that being of the same meta-ethnicity means having the exact same ancestors. It could mean that we simply have more common ancestors with the slovak people than we do with the italians, or it could mean that poles have more common ancestors with russians than with balts, but it could also not.* Being of the same nationality does not mean having the same ancestors either. These are abstractions we are talking about, a skeleton, so to speak, and as long as you take them as such, you have no trouble understanding that each man/family/tribe/region/nation/meta-ethnicity has a very complex genesis, just as there are different and/or similar muscles jointed onto the same bone.
The point is that all evidence shows that there is a layer of culture common to all "slavic" nations (yes, there is a slavic culture, even if there was never a slavic nation), and hardly any credible scientific analysis of the ethnologic material can conclude that this layer is as young as the 19th century (yes, the term slavic was coined at that time, since that was when serious research into that matter was beginning. the term evolution also didn't exist while apes were still scratching each others behind and happily peeling bananas, but we still descend from different kinds of apes' heritage and their environments effect on them - most likely, that is.)

*Why we are so similar to austrians is another interesting point, though - arguably at least a quarter of austria is composed of germanicised populace. About 60% minimum of hungarians are also slavs, originally. So it's really them who fucked us over, since there would be propably a lot, lot more slovenians now if they haven't.

By the way, the ethnic identity you share with Portorožani was also conceived in the 19th century. You propably have more in common with hungarians that you do with the people of Portorož or Trst, just like we are tied more to austria than to russia. And it is wrong to assume culture in the context of ethnology means merely catholicism, politics and recent history. Culture, as I use the term here, means inherited culture - heritage, not borrowed culture. Had the (original) magyars stayed in the steppes, you wouldn't have a single sentence to fill with your cultural similarities. Russians, on the other hand, even if they lived in Vladivostok, wore garments woven in the exact same way as the ones found in slovenian slavic graves.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

I did not use the quote function because this is no dissection.

I recomended you to use quote function since you are loosing yourself in a post full of stupid comparisons and aren't adressing any of my points but you're just repeating yourself. More than once I asked you to be more specific and provide arguments for your statements, of course the easiest way to avoid this questions is to re-write what you posted already without using quote function.

Since you are so keen on primary school - what is the inhabitant of Krško? Of Trst? Dat. sing. of gospa? Which is correct - zaželen or zaželjen? Prinesen or prinešen? Láhek or lahák (tének or tenák)? Zvonenje or zvonjenje? What is the comparative of globok? I could think of many more, and I honestly expect you will answer at least half of these.

Are you serious or what? I just reminded you of your mistake, now don't be a child and get over it, everyone makes mistakes.

And yes I can answer each one of this, but this is not what we're debating here.

I took my time twice already, but it did not seem worth the effort.

That's because you're not puting enough effort in it, or enough time. Or both. Not my problem.

Reading does not mean understanding - you may have read my post, but this:

clearly shows you are too eager to prove me wrong to try to comprehend what I explained using different wordings.

Haha, trying to proove you wrong? Come on? I was joking, I didn't need to answer anything you write because I already did, it was just funny to me.

if people are willing to discuss and not just write their opinion and then say "good night and good luck".

Yes which is exactly the same thing you did. Wrote your opinion, but not willing to discuss it, you just re-wrote it. And discussing the opinion where quote comes in, or at least you answer the points or questions other member has made.

I do not seek your "conversion" or whatever perverted image it is you have conjured in your mind, but the very least you can do is try to understand what I am telling you without some preconception like "slavic=panslavism", which is only the most blatant one.

I will kick-start you with this explanation: meta-ethnicity is the same basic scheme (layout, pattern, design) as nationality, but applied to a larger scale.
Ever heard of fractals? Micro- and macro-cosmos? Family-trees? Gravity is the same basic principle (force, interaction) as between particles, but applied at a planetary scale. Does that mean all particles are part of one solar system? Whales and dogs are both mammals. They are distinct, but the pattern of relation is the same, applied at a different scale and to a different degree. A german shepherd can't play Free Willy and a sperm whale can't be trained to bring you the newspaper. Does that preclude science from considering them related? You can call it (mammals) "class", you can also call it "meta-order" (since order is the next lowest scale, roughly speaking). That doesn't change the concept, though. As you move into larger scales, the degree of relatedness starts declining rapidly. Yes, we are related to negroes. Yes, we have more in common with other europids than with negroes. Where you draw the line of how much of this "relation" is "important" for what purpose is a matter of politics and ideology, which is not being discussed here, but whether or not they are related (or rather, how they are related) is a matter of science, and you just keep mixing the two.

See my other post in this thread.

You know, the easiest way to refute something is not actually arguing, but sabotaging it, for example, using false generalisations, which is what you are doing.

Oh yeah, where? Examples please..

Ah why I'm a writting this as I'll never get an answer anyway, just like before. The easiest way to refute something is to accuse someone that he is this and that or that he uses this and that, without actually backing up your statements with examples from his posts (because usualy there aren't any, just like here).

I have never said that being of the same meta-ethnicity means having the exact same ancestors.

Did I say you said that you said that?

I was making a point, since meta-ethnicity is supposed to be (and widely understood) as an ethnicity on a larger scale. Ethnic identity includes having same descent. You obviously have your own logic and definition.

It could mean that we simply have more common ancestors with the slovak people than we do with the italians, or it could mean that poles have more common ancestors with russians than with balts, but it could also not.

I actualy agree here in a way.

I'm Slavic (as considered by majority of people). For someone that doesn't know I'm Slovenian, this COULD mean that I'm Catholic living in Alps. But it COULD also mean I'm an Orthodox living in some swamps in eastern Europe. It COULD mean I'm a sub-Nordic Slovenian but it COULD Baltid Russian. It could mean I'm a Slovenian and that my culture is close to other central European nations, but it could also mean that I'm a Belarussian with a completly different culture and identity. I could mean a lot of things. You know why? Because it's artificial identity constructed somewhere in 19th century.

It means even less than being American, since beside language Americans share their "American way of life".

Being of the same nationality does not mean having the same ancestors either.

Actualy it does. Descent is one of many things of which national identity is composed.

The point is that all evidence shows that there is a layer of culture common to all "slavic" nations (yes, there is a slavic culture, even if there was never a slavic nation), and hardly any credible scientific analysis of the ethnologic material can conclude that this layer is as young as the 19th century (yes, the term slavic was coined at that time, since that was when serious research into that matter was beginning.

All evidence? Where are all this evidences? You mind showing me those evidences?

From what I read here that wouldn't be a hard job, since there must be TONS of that evidences.

*Why we are so similar to austrians is another interesting point, though - arguably at least a quarter of austria is composed of germanicised populace. About 60% minimum of hungarians are also slavs, originally. So it's really them who fucked us over, since there would be propably a lot, lot more slovenians now if they haven't.

Replace that Slavs with Slovenian or Slovenic population and your statement suddenly makes sense.

By the way, the ethnic identity you share with Portorožani was also conceived in the 19th century. You propably have more in common with hungarians that you do with the people of Portorož or Trst, just like we are tied more to austria than to russia. And it is wrong to assume culture in the context of ethnology means merely catholicism, politics and recent history. Culture, as I use the term here, means inherited culture - heritage, not borrowed culture. Had the (original) magyars stayed in the steppes, you wouldn't have a single sentence to fill with your cultural similarities.

Wrong. I already explained it in other post however, I don't need to repeat myself here.

-

Anyway I'm looking forward to your new posts. It has become quite fun now. Also don't remember you have post #3 to answer.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

While I personally have no feeling of meta-ethnic belonging, as I already stated in another thread, I am not a priori inimical to the very idea and concept. As regards Slavs, their most obvious common denominator, which would "qualify" them as meta-ethinicity, is language. Other factors are quite vague and controversial.

This is an interesting discussion anyway.

[Gromoljut]

That is your main problem, you know? You can't read a post as a whole and then try to make a system in your head, you are binary and need to process quote after quote in isolation from the rest. I have an ever greater doubt that you will ever understand what I am trying to say, though I am somewhat calmed by the fact that there will be others reading this.

Very well, I can simplify it even further.

Famous post #3:

Originally Posted by M.R.

I'll repeat it again - because being Slavic has no meaning (or hardly any meaning) and it hardly changes anything if a particular nation is considered Slavic or not. Baltic languages are as far as I know not Slavic, but even if they are or have something in common this is such a useless discussion IMHO - at least in this context where we debate whether they are part of some (imaginary) Slavic identity or not. Of course there are people arguing whether Bulgarians, Macedonians, etc are Slavic or not, but it's a complete waste of time. Just like this thread.

We never debated a slavic identity - cultures and languages can be related (by heritage!, not by proximity) without having a common identity (Austria and Germany, Ireland and Northern Ireland), or they can have a common identity without being closely related (England and Northern Ireland). Identity, in contrast to science, is short-sighted, and it should not be the sole base for science.
What you failed to understand time and time again is that I am talking about certain cultural traits Slavic countries share without having had close relations in the last 1000 years and which thus cannot be explained by 19th century romanticism, catholicism or "Europe" (which is quite new as a concept), and I am mentioning them without ever attaching them any political meaning, since they are nothing more then scientific descriptions. You, on the other hand, insist that they are inherently political:

Originally Posted by M.R.

There's a thread about meta-ethnicities somewhere, there are a lot of valid arguments why meta-ethnicities have no real significance. The days of pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism are over [...]

Originally Posted by M.R.

The way I see it all this pan-nationalisms, meta-ethnicities, meta-nations or whatever you want to call it are in many cases welcomed by people who need to feel themselves as being part of something bigger than they actualy are.

Your equate meta-ethnicity with pan-nationalism, constantly, despite my best efforts to convince that there is no inherent connection between the two; one aspect is political/ideological, the other one is linguistic/ethnologic/historical/cultural - they can be connected (thus, mixed up), which is what both you and pan-slavists are doing, one to denounce and the other to promote them both in one go; but that is far from anything I did. Since you so much cry for quotes and backing up arguments - find me a passage that I wrote which conveys the idea of "we are all slavs, that makes us one happy ancient nation, there are no differences between us, we are blood brothers, we should forfeit 1000 years of history and mingle with eastern slavs, <insert further pan-slavic ideas here>".
Those "stupid examples", by the way, are there for people like you, who do not demonstrate the capability of thinking in principles and abstractions, but work merely in specific terms (they can recognize no pattern or structure - "There are no colors! There is only red, and then there is blue, and green, and yellow, ...").

Originally Posted by M.R.

Well I understand if someone is interested in linguistics and debates about the closeness of Baltic and Slavic languages, but here in this context the (alleged) linguistical closeness is only used as a potential argument that Balts are part of (artificial) Slavic indentity.

The context of this thread, as I have underlined before, was strictly linguistic, since the starter of the thread from which our posts were moved was, considering her other posts about polish, slovak and czech, obviously doing a paper about slavic tongues.
To a linguistic question, you replied with a political opinion (somewhat primitive, but still) - "who gives a damn?" Or, to use the monkey's favorite function, quote:

Originally Posted by M.R.

Even if they were - who gives a damn?

Well, they are, as I have explained before. I can't imagine what it was in that one line that seemed constructive enough to you so as to post it as an answer to someone's honest scientific question. I reasoned you sought some close-quarter combat and, since I am a helpful lad, here I am

Originally Posted by M.R.

Cultural closeness between Balts and Slavs? There is Slavic culture?

Closeness, of course, is relative, according to scale (which can also mean time). From the standpoint of all life on earth, humans and apes are the same. From the standpoint of mammals, they aren't. From the standpoint of humans, those are two completely different things. (Read on to find out about "closeness")
Among the culture of every one specific "slavic" nation or even region, there is a certain layer of culture (more prominent here, less important there) which one might call "slavic". That is because there are strings of similarities between (not always including all) slavic nations that cannot be attributed to anything but a once common culture, regardless of who, how, why, from where and how many spread it. It might have been Veneti, it might have been Slavs - those are both fairy-tales to answer the questions who, how, why, from where and how many, not if.
Since we, from my previous post (which you probably never read), now know that

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

[...] it is wrong to assume culture in the context of ethnology /and archaeology/ means merely catholicism, politics and recent history. Culture, as I use the term here, means inherited culture /the part of a given people's culture that is not borrowed from neighbours, but acquired from ancestors/ - heritage, not borrowed culture

(later additions in slashes - //), we can say that archealogical, ethnological and linguistic material suggests there was both a baltic and a slavic culture. At the time of their existence, there was none that was closer to any of them than they were to each other.

Here, of course, there is a lot of room for argument since there is never a pure culture. We are not talking of purity - slavs, balts, germans, ... - these are abstractions, these people never walked the earth and never spoke protoslavic, what science reconstructs is merely the common point from which all successing cultures started to build upon their inheritance, the basis which they sometimes replaced or a part of which they never acquired in the first place.
I understand your thirst for quotes from credible sources that would back any of my statements about ethnology and archaeology up. But, in all honesty, you know as well as I do that there is not a single man under this sun whom you would trust if he were telling you the same as I am. Still, I will try my best.
Matters of linguistics I can mostly debate from memory. Concerning ethnology and archaeology (or any discipline of cultural anthropology, really), I can remember one book title, but this one draws on A LOT of sources, and it actually notes whether the source is a romantic pan-slavist (! - it discards a host of russian sources for that very reason) or a collector of ethnologic material (such as Emil Korytko in Slovenia). It is the work of Damjan J. Ovsec: Slovanska mitologija in verovanje.

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Slovenians and Bulgarians are similar in terms of culture

Originally Posted by M.R.

They are? Please be specific here.

I am no expert on Bulgarian folklore (I chose Bulgaria at random anyway - had I said Moravia, I would have more to talk about now ) and of course I can't quote any book since I don't keep a library at home, so I can't really be as specific as you would want me to be. Of course, "culture" here means exactly what it means in the previous paragraph - heritage, not influence (of greeks, turks, italians, etc).
I can tell you two things, though. I attend lectures of Bulgarian at the faculty and our lecturer is Bulgarian. It goes without saying he has extensively travelled all countries of ex-Yugoslavia, but he cannot keep commenting how Slovenia much more reminds him of Bulgaria than do either Croatia or Serbia. Which is strange, but he keeps mentioning little details of convergence that grabbed his attention. This, of course, serves as little proof, but I thought I'd share it anyway.
The other one is wikipedia, which is another thing you don't like (I'll join you on this one), but it has a good side - it is multilingual and it tends to cite its sources, which means you get thousands of sources. The bulgarian and polish article on slavic mythology are particularly extensive with their bibliography (and they are much better than the english page). The cited books, of course, deal not only with mythology.

Originally Posted by M.R.

Not all Slovenians share this much of history with them. We (all Slovenians) are still closer to them culturally and historicaly speaking than to Russians or Ukranians or any other eastern Slavs.

Two points here.
1) I already explained my view of culture. Actually, I see this leads to too much confusion, and I propose this: what I called "culture" (under my own definition, as written above) until now, I shall hereupon call "heritage". So yes, we have more in common with bavarian culture than with the russian one. But we have more in common with russian heritage than with the bavarian one.
2) A considerable part of Slovenians is much closer to Croats than it is to Bavarians (I hope we both include Austrians in this category?).[/quote]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Ok, so it's valid in Slavic terms but not in .. what? Germanic/Romance/Baltic terms? So you do agree that in some cases meta-ethnicity can maybe be an unvalid concept? What makes you think that in case of Slavs it is a valid concept?

Meta-ethnicity becomes invalid when you apply it to something which it wasn't meant to be applied to (like the Romanians - read on for more). Why it is valid in the case of Slavs, I have already tried to explain. The common layer of culture found in all slavic countries.

Originally Posted by M.R.

Well to answer the question why so many ("Slavic") people think that Slavs are a meta-ethnicity and share some kind of common ethnic identity (after all, this is what meta-ethnicity is supposed to be - "ethnicity" on a "larger scale") is the result of different agendas of major European nations in 19th and 20th century. That's why instead of Slovenian history we learn romantic fairy-tails mixed with lies of pan-Germanic historians (also basis for pan-Slavism).

Except for you standard blending of meta-ethnicity with pan-nationalism, you make one more typical mistake. You again assume that belonging to a meta-ethnicity means having exactly the same identity as the other members of the meta-ethnicity. While meta-ethnicity could loosely be interpreted as common denominator in the identities of several ethnicities, that does not mean separate ethnicities have only the common identity. Cerkljani and Goričanci each have their own identity, but where they meet is the Slovenian identity, a construct of the 19th century (you refuted this, but with a bare denial - what, then, is your view of the history of forming the modern slovenian nation?)

Originally Posted by M.R.

All this universalist ideas of having some kind of meta-ethnic identity apart from your own (true) ethnic identity is for me hardly any different than ideas of Europeans being a nation or we are all one race?

Europeans are not a nation, neither are modern slavic nations. You are the only one speaking in such terms, I never mentioned anything of the kind. Also, is having a national identity beside your regional one not contradictive to you, if you see so much contradiction between ethnicity and meta-ethnicity (those terms are honestly not contradictory, you know)? How can one be Belokranjec and Slovenec, but not Belokranjec, Slovenec and Slovan? I will tell you the answer. Like I said, identity is short-sighted, and it functions only to a certain scale. Beyond that, it sees everything it can't identify with as equally foreign. Science need not imitate this bad habit. Pan-slavism would indeed exchange Slovenian for Slavic because it seems there are only two levels on which people understand their identity. What we are talking here about, however, is not people or politics, but science, which permits a more complex tree. So, while for the people of Slovenia and their daily and political affairs, there is no use for the term "Slavic", this does not make it invalid.

Originally Posted by M.R.

I wonder why we don't also discuss our meta-meta-ethnic identities than? Maybe in near future someone will come up with than and explain it to us "it's the same scheme as meta-ethnicities, only aplied at larger scale"...

We are only human. There is not nearly enough recorded history and too much time has passed. A category such as meta-meta-ethnicity, however you call, might be valid, but it is even more abstract and speculative than meta-ethnicity and has, of course, even less significance for politics. Though meta-meta-ethnicity in this thread's case is probably the point of convergence of baltic and slavic culture.

Originally Posted by M.R.

You ever wondered why a Spaniard doesn't consider himself as being descendant of some "ancient Romance nation" and calls Italians and Romanians as his Romance brothers, while here in case of our Slavic nation it somehow makes complete sense to some people that they were once part of same nation together with Russians and other Slavic brothers even though both doesn't make any sense?

Well, you wave about with "nation" and "brother" as if that were anything I have used extensively in reference to meta-ethnicity. Neither, of course, makes much sense.
But I must point out here, since you are mentioning the romance people, that their supposed meta-ethnicity suddenly makes much more sense if you consider the huge germanic influence on the french people and the fact that romanians only speak a romance language (with min. 40% slavic loanwords), while their heritage is largely actually slavic and supposedly "indigenous" ( - thracian, dacian and other cultures are mentioned). So latin culture as such only persists in Italy, Spain, Occitania and Portugal (I will not pretend to be an expert here - these are just rough frames).