Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Voltron]

[QUOTE]

You have demonstrated nothing thus far that would suggest the Poles are 'pure Slavs', whatever that is supposed to mean. Your examples relating to architecture remain weak and inconclusive, as does your overall argument concerning this topic.

Where did I say pure ? In several posts I clarified what I meant.
What is this agenda to minimise and sideline anything Slavic in this world. So no architecture, no culture, no nothing. Just a mysterious linguistic people of no national affiliation penetrating half of Europe and disappearing into smitherines. Im still interested to hear from your side what country you feel best fits the Slavic ethnos.

How?

I gave a few examples, but it was considered weak.

The same thing we would have said 100 years ago. In Macedonia there is a Macedonian majority and a number of minorities. We certainly won't be claiming Roma and Albanians as our 'ethnic' Macedonian forefathers the way you claim Vlachs and Albanians as your 'ethnic' Greek forefathers.

Again a simple word that nobody uses around here. Its called assmillation not claiming. Is Tose Proevski considered Macedonian SOM ?

That says as much about the individual in question as it does about the fluid American (and Greek, for that matter) identity, which is not based on a common ancestral and ethno-linguistic heritage. Go to Macedonia or Croatia and see if you can Clark Kent your way into their identities like you would in Greece.

So your saying that Greek is not based on a common ancestral ethno linguistic heritage ?

A simple example is the native language used among family and friends by your ancestors, as opposed to the one used in Patriarchist schools and churches, or the urban marketplace.

Same thing with English. We speak it worldwide yet that doesnt mean there are no English people.

What if those people actually fought to establish that state which you now call your 'own', like the Albanians - don't they have the right to retain and further develop their own language and culture, with the support of the state which they helped create? What about indigenous Macedonians that were already in those regions before Greece expanded its borders, don't they have the same right? If there is good governance and policies to ensure the preservation of both the standard official language and of minority languages on a regional level, what is the problem?

There were no Albanians in an ethnic sense back then. They were Arvanites, it would help if you use the correct terminology. It would make things much easier to understand. No, they do not have that right. It may sound harsh but its the truth. It is up to their family and friends to teach them their native language. You even mention this on your above response.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Where did I say pure ? In several posts I clarified what I meant. What is this agenda to minimise and sideline anything Slavic in this world.

You said they were the least compromised. You were presented with examples of how they have been as 'compromised' as anybody else, and then you moved to architecture, which was exposed as a weak argument shortly afterward by Zrinski. There is no "agenda" to sideline anything 'Slavic' on our part so long as it is within the realm of logic.

So no architecture, no culture, no nothing. Just a mysterious linguistic people of no national affiliation penetrating half of Europe and disappearing into smitherines.

That is your problem right there. You feel the need to connect 'Slavic' to a specific architechture or culture that mysteriously arose out of thin air, rather than accepting that it derived from existing cultures.

Im still interested to hear from your side what country you feel best fits the Slavic ethnos.

None of them, because there is no Slavic 'ethnos', there are only tribes which formed a common 'dialect' that subsequently spread and absorbed related languages.

I gave a few examples, but it was considered weak.

If that is all you have, then it is.

Again a simple word that nobody uses around here. Its called assmillation not claiming.

So you don't claim all of the Vlachs and Arvanites as 'ethnic' Greeks in the 19th century? When did you assimilate them?

Is Tose Proevski considered Macedonian SOM ?

He is Macedonian because he was a citizen of the Macedonian state. Although he is Vlach and not Macedonian by ethnicity, he embraced Macedonian culture and never felt his native Vlach culture to be under threat. You see, Voltron, Macedonia treats the Vlach language and culture with respect, nobody has a tantrum about their individual identity. Your links to grkoman Vlach organisations from a country that doesn't even allow the Vlach ethnicity and language to be recognised in an official capacity pales in comparison. There is a difference between (1) national identity in terms of ethnicity, (2) national identity in terms of citizenship, and (3) regional identity in terms of geography.

So your saying that Greek is not based on a common ancestral ethno linguistic heritage ?

Many people from Greece and the Greek diaspora do not have a common ancestral and ethno-linguistic heritage linked to those who have spoken Greek as a native language for centuries. The numerical status of the latter is questionable, because a number of them descend from people who only started becoming 'ethnic' Greeks a few generations ago, and many of their children don't even speak Greek (but do speak Macedonian, Vlach, Albanian, etc).

There were no Albanians in an ethnic sense back then. They were Arvanites, it would help if you use the correct terminology. It would make things much easier to understand.

The Albanians may not have had a collective movement, but prior to independence, those in Greece weren't differentiated from their ethno-linguistic brethren in Albania with whom they shared a common heritage.

No, they do not have that right. It may sound harsh but its the truth. It is up to their family and friends to teach them their native language.

They did much of the fighting to liberate those territories from the Ottomans. They earned the right to have the state they significantly helped create give them at least some assistance to preserve their language and culture. At least most normal people would think so.

[slovenec zrinski]

That is your problem right there. You feel the need to connect 'Slavic' to a specific architechture or culture that mysteriously arose out of thin air, rather than accepting that it derived from existing cultures.

None of them, because there is no Slavic 'ethnos', there are only tribes which formed a common 'dialect' that subsequently spread and absorbed related languages.

Thank u. I have been pondering how to phrase this but this is perfctly put. Voltron is looking for something that isn´t.

[Pelister]

Artemi the greeks are just as slavic as the macedonians as the slavs came to greece as well.The facts are there they came to your hellas as well.

I think that you have been reading too much of SoMs misinformation here.

No body knows 'Who' invaded the territory in the 6th century. SoM would have you believe they were called 'Slavs'. What is a 'Slav'?

The Macedonians are Macedonians. We are not 'Slavs' because no such thing exists (except as a highly theoretical, abstract concept like 'Oriental' and 'Hellene', which is why it makes great propaganda!) particularly if you consider that the term was first coined sometime in the 11th century, and probably meant something entirely different to how SoM is using it. While the Macedonians have been on their traditional lands much longer than that. I mean can you believe someone, who is intentionally ignoring that the Macedonian meaning of the term is something else entirely?

SoM, you doing a good job of pushing the 'Slav hypothsis' I'll give you that much. Now you have George believing we are Slavs.

[Pelister]

That is your problem right there. You feel the need to connect 'Slavic' to a specific architechture or culture that mysteriously arose out of thin air, rather than accepting that it derived from existing cultures.

That is the point.

That's the problem with abstract and vague notions like 'Slav'. The nerve and the gawl to take a distinctive identity, or a variety of entirely unique and different cultural characteristics, and suddenly make it 'Slav'!

Its the same with the term 'Orient' as a place, 'Oriental' as a cultural and as a people. This is how people in the West made sense of their surroundings - looking for what they perceived to look and sound similar and finding terms to conceptual the very general, and the very vague and the very abstract. The critique of the superimposing Western concepts of 'Others' including 'Hellene' and including 'Slav' and of course the 'Oriental' has already been done. You should read Edward Said's 'Orientalism' which is essentially about Western concepts of the Orient that have little or nothing to do with the reality. I would say that rather than trying to 'connect' it to people, places and cultures, I would say they are trying to 'graft it' on .

[Pelister]

I think this belongs here.

The representation of the Macedonians in Western thought has changed over the centuries. Clearly, the Macedonian in renaissance historical thought were represented as 'ancient Macedonians' and as 'Slavs'. By the time of the enlightenment, the term 'Macedonian' in Western historical thought began to change. It was being associated more and more with 'ancient Greece' and with 'ancient Greeks' and gradually by extension the modern Greeks. By the 19th century, when Western European heard the term 'Macedonians' they generally associated it with the ancient Macedonians as 'Greeks' who had spead 'Hellenic' culture (thanks to Droysden), even though this characterisation and representation could only have been possible by ignoring or distorting all of the ancient sources. A representation (in the West) doesn't have to be truthful, or honest of even pretend to be. Describing the Macedonians (in any age) as 'Slavs' and as 'Hellenes' has nothing to do with the actual state of things on the ground, or with how Macedonian peasants thought of themselves. In the same way that the West characterised the Near East and Middle East as the 'Orient'. It was being used, it was being applied 'scientifically', it was being narrated and people were being called 'Orientals' even though the use of the term in any way, shape of form was sharply at odds with the state of things on the ground. As Edward Said has demonstrated in his landmark book, 'Orientalism' some people in the East even began describing themselves as 'Orientals'! Are we 'Slavs' because people in the West say we are, or because a few Macedonian intellectuals have adopted this Western 'knowledge'? What is this slavish devotion you have to foriegn concepts of ourselves? The use of these (foreign) characterisations and (foreign)representations of Macedonia (the country) and the Macedonians (the people) [of 'Hellas' and of the 'Orient' as well] has to do with knowledge and power, not truth. All three labels (Hellene, Slav, Oriental) are part of the same Western culture, the same 'scientific' reasoning and the same oppressive system. All are bogus. It doesn't matter if whole institutions have been built up around each term, legitimizing it. We are desperately trying to extricate ourselves from the term 'Slav' and what are you doing? Using it to characterize us. And why, because you have a ridiculous theory that the ancient balkan people were 'Slavs' which you don't know how to approach without perverting the abstract term 'Slav' even further, and then applying to us? There is no such thing as a 'Slav' and there never was - its an abstract concept. I can tell you honestly that what you have been narrating here is sharply at odds with how the Macedonians see themselves, what they thought of themselves, and what they even mean by the term 'Slav'. I mean if you applied a Macedonian meaning of the term I could accept that. In Macedonian it means Orthodox/Christian.

[George S.]

Pelister there's been heaps of books written about the slavs how they came through macedonia & all the other balkan countries in the 6/7 centuries.All i know is that we have had some sort of slavic influence but not enough to change our identity.We have some slav in us but not to say we are just slav.We are overall macedonian.The slav element to me is irrellevant & only comes accross when people try to smear us that we are all slavs that is not true.We are just MACEDONIAN.Where did i say we are just SLAVS.We are just MACEDONIAN.WE do ourselves great disevice to ask questions about slavs,why because over the years we have had so many invasions of macedonia celts,romans,slavs etc.Ddid they alter the identity of the MACEDONIAN people no.Did they become anymore macedonian NO .they are still Macedonian.Were they influnced yes they were the mingling of diffrnt cutures etc did it good.Pelister we are not SLAVS we are MACEDONIAN.
repeat after me.

[George S.]

Pelister i merely said to artemis lets say we are for argument sake slavs if the slavs also went to greece & turkey etc by greek standards they should also be classed as slavs.
What i was saying in reverse logic just because someone says we are slav doesn't make it so.The only slavic we have is like any other invasion be they roman .celts etcDid they alter the macedonian identity no they are still macedonian.The slav bit is a smear campaign by our enemies to make us look like we are less than macedonian hence forwarding everything from antiquity to greece.My point is despite the past we are & declare ourselves as macedonian.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I think that you have been reading too much of SoMs misinformation here.

Pelister, don't present your own ignorance as misinformation on my part.

No body knows 'Who' invaded the territory in the 6th century.

There were thousands of new toponyms, hydronyms, etc in the Balkans after the 6th century invasions. Can you explain them and where the language came from?

......particularly if you consider that the term was first coined sometime in the 11th century, and probably meant something entirely different to how SoM is using it.

The 11th century? Don't be ridiculous. What you're doing is akin to suggesting that the terms 'Macedonia' and 'Makedonija' are unrelated. It is an amateurish argument.

That's the problem with abstract and vague notions like 'Slav'. The nerve and the gawl to take a distinctive identity, or a variety of entirely unique and different cultural characteristics, and suddenly make it 'Slav'!

How do you think it came about that all Slavic-speaking countries in this world recognise the linguistic group to which their language belongs as Slavic? Were they all brainwashed by westerners?

What is this slavish devotion you have to foriegn concepts of ourselves?

There is no such devotion. You're being delusional and creating fictional garbage as you go along.

We are desperately trying to extricate ourselves from the term 'Slav' and what are you doing? Using it to characterize us. And why, because you have a ridiculous theory that the ancient balkan people were 'Slavs' which you don't know how to approach without perverting the abstract term 'Slav' even further, and then applying to us?

I am not using it to characterise any one single nation, but a collection of nations who speak related languages. Normally, I welcome criticism by people who are sensible, but you're attitude is borderline lunacy and can't be taken seriously.

I mean if you applied a Macedonian meaning of the term I could accept that. In Macedonian it means Orthodox/Christian.

The term was used before and after the East-West schism.

SoM, you doing a good job of pushing the 'Slav hypothsis' I'll give you that much. Now you have George believing we are Slavs.

Honestly, those are idiotic assertions. But, you have little credibility where it concerns this topic, so they are also irrelevant assertions.

[Pelister]

When you take a sentence out of its context, you distort the meaning of it.

I suggest you read 'Orientalism' to get an understanding of how Western 'science' (including linguistics) and literature is able to classify foriegn people and places (and be totally wrong!) It has nothing to do with how the people that have been objectified self identify. Your mysterious "Slavs", "Orientals", "Hellenes"....etc, they are all part of the same Western tradition. If you can't see that then you are blind. We have never self identified as 'Slavs' SoM. If you look at the results of the 1920 in Greece, you willl see that our language is - Macedonian, NOT 'Slav' and not 'Slav Macedonian' or 'Macedonian Slav'. Every time you call our langauge 'Slav' you are objectifying us and distorting our identity. Your are champion of the 'Slav hypothesis' without having read a single original source about the 6th century invaders! Who would have thought you would turn into a propagandist. You need 'Slavs' to make your theory of 'Slav continuity' stick - but you have no clue who or what your talking about.

Do you know who first coined the term 'Slav' and what they meant by it? Isn't that important to know, before you start objectifying the Macedonians with your propaganda about 'Slav continuity'? I hate the way your objectifying the Macedonians, and characteristics of our cultural heritage. We are fighting hard not to be called 'Slavs' and what are you doing?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Who would have thought you would turn into a propagandist.

Although you've become very good at it, you need to stop behaving like an idiot. There has been so much information produced on this thread that it has obviously overwhelmed a simpleton like yourself. Here is a point you have avoided countless times:

There were thousands of new toponyms, hydronyms, etc in the Balkans after the 6th century invasions.

In your expert opinion, how did the above come about?

[Onur]

Voltron, i wasn't hanging out around here for about 4 months but i see that you are not even changed a bit, still blabbering stupid stuff.

The architecture style with onion shaped domes as you deemed as "slavic" is copied by Russians from Volga Bulgars, Tatars in Crimea and Turkic cultures, peoples of central Asia. There are buildings with union shaped domes from 10th century and onwards all over central Asia to India. I have to remind you that in 10th century, there was even no culture or a state named "Russia", let alone their architecture. In 14-15th century, there was several tombs, mosques with onion shaped domes from Timur/Tamarlane era too. Also when Timur`s grandson Babur created his state in northern India, he built these type of buildings in there too. Thats why one of the most beautiful building in the world, Taj Mahal mosque has onion shape dome too. Now what? You gonna claim that the people who built Taj Mahal mosque copied it`s style from Russians or Poles in 16th century?

I also saw few mosques and tombs built during Seljuk era in 12-13th century in central and eastern Anatolia, having same architecture. But this central Asian style later abandoned by the Ottomans, they influenced from eastern Roman architecture style instead.


Your claim of Poles being the pures slavs is stupid too. Polish people settled there during the reign of the Avar state in 6th century but their ethnic composition changed a lot laters. Poland is one of the most invaded, colonized place on earth. Russians, Germans, Hungarians colonized and changed their ethnic composition of Poland several times. On top of that, Germans committed genocide in there, altering the ethnic composition again by killing millions of Polish speaking Jews and letting other catholic Poles to die from war and hunger. As a result of all these events, i can say that Poles are just a mix of Russians, Germans, Tatars, Hungarians and Poles speaking polish but having influenced from all these cultures.

[Voltron]

The architecture style with onion shaped domes as you deemed as "slavic" is copied by Russians from Volga Bulgars, Tatars in Crimea and Turkic cultures, peoples of central Asia. There are buildings with union shaped domes from 10th century and onwards all over central Asia to India. I have to remind you that in 10th century, there was even no culture or a state named "Russia", let alone their architecture. In 14-15th century, there was several tombs, mosques with onion shaped domes from Timur/Tamarlane era too. Also when Timur`s grandson Babur created his state in northern India, he built these type of buildings in there too. Thats why one of the most beautiful building in the world, Taj Mahal mosque has onion shape dome too. Now what? You gonna claim that the people who built Taj Mahal mosque copied it`s style from Russians or Poles in 16th century?

The onion shaped is more predominant in Russia than Poland and that was the last picture I posted. I dont see how nomads that lived in tents be architectural designers but il give that the benfit of the doubt.
Slavs are said to originate from that general area as well (Eurasia, Caucus)

I also saw few mosques and tombs built during Seljuk era in 12-13th century in central and eastern Anatolia, having same architecture. But this central Asian style later abandoned by the Ottomans, they influenced from eastern Roman architecture style instead.

Influenced, key word there. Just because the onion shaped domes may have influence some countries does not mean its not distinct in their own way. Just like Ottoman architecture has its own flavor compared to Byzantine.

Your claim of Poles being the pures slavs is stupid too. Polish people settled there during the reign of the Avar state in 6th century but their ethnic composition changed a lot laters. Poland is one of the most invaded, colonized place on earth. Russians, Germans, Hungarians colonized and changed their ethnic composition of Poland several times. On top of that, Germans committed genocide in there, altering the ethnic composition again by killing millions of Polish speaking Jews and letting other catholic Poles to die from war and hunger. As a result of all these events, i can say that Poles are just a mix of Russians, Germans, Tatars, Hungarians and Poles speaking polish but having influenced from all these cultures.

Here we go again, pure slavs in the most flexible way. I said they best hold that description as an ethnos. I cant see how else someone would define them. You make a lot of allegations from Avars, Hungarians, Germans ect. You also said that Poles settled in Avar land ? You have evidence for this ? Even if this is so, didnt the Slavs travel with the Avars ? They did when they made incursions into the Balkans. Not everything in this world is related to Turks or Tatars Onur. Although you may like to believe so.

Thanks for your vote of confidence though lol.

[DraganOfStip]

Where does the word "Slav" come from anyway?Some say it comes from the slavic word SLOVO,meaning WORD in a great number of slavic languages (Slavs refer to them as "Sloveni").Meaning something like "people who speak same language" or "who understand each other".Others say that the name of Dniepr river in Ukraine was once Slavuta,an East Slavic name for it,and ergo meaning "people who live along the Slavuta river".I even came across that other nations named them after being slaves once (which I seriously doubt,since almost nothing is known about them prior to their 6th century expansion,just a speculation I believe).Any thoughts about this?

[Voltron]

I dont buy the "slaves" theory one bit. I also heard from the word "Slava" celebrated or glorious ones ? I dont know, it was probably used very looslely to classify a cluster of people in Eastern Europe that were not entirely known before. Well I found a map that shows them coming from this area.