Let's Discuss Poland

[hoopsnerd]

Wow, are people still on this thread? I unsubscribed like a week ago and I've got to say life has never been better. Give it up!

 

[Angst]

So Poland magically rose out of the seas when the first Slav bothered to cast a 'reclaim land' spell ?
I don't see any basis in claiming that there is no cultural continuity between Huns and Slavs, given that Huns and Slavs are closely related, lived along the same expanse, had similar culture & trinkets.



But you *ARE* defining history with race- you are saying Poland didn't exist before Slavs came, when it is a fact that wheat cultivating cultures had existed in Poland since 2000 BCE. This is a highly flawed perspective and as i said, Hunnic Poland is just as much of Polish history as Slavic Poland.
I am an Indo-Canadian if you missed that in my previous post.You are associating slavs as the only Poles, which i pointed out is highly ironic because it is all a function of which timescale you look to 'chose' from. For you some reason ( i am tempted to guess though) anything about Poland's history before 1200-1300 years is irrelevant and to yet you took a swipe at the 'germans' for defining your history from 1300-1400 AD onwards ( that whole Gdansk/Danzig example of yours). Both of them are just as bad/flawed as each other and its a pity you cannot see that.

I don't say Poland started when the Slavs entered the region, I said that Poland wasn't there when the Huns controlled it. And race and ethnical group are two completely different terms. You make it sound like I'm a Nazi. Heck, I'm not even from Poland for crying out loud

Denmark fx (Where I'm from) didn't start when some stupid North Germanic/Scandinavic nomads settled in a junkyard beside a wood, hunting some wolves, Denmark started with Harald (or Gorm), when the country was unified.

And again, WHERE are you from?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

I said that Poland wasn't there when the Huns controlled it.

So it was a big huge lake/part of the Baltic sea when the huns controlled it, no doubt living in house-boats ? You use a weird benchmark that makes no sense. You are implying that a region becomes a civilization/culture when they form their first political entity that you can remember. That is just plain absurd. Give me a reason for the difference between your German gripe and your Hunnic position. To me, there is none- you are berating Germans for picking Polish history only from 1300AD onwards and conviniently ignoring the previous, when infact you are doing exactly the same, ignoring Polish history before 700/800 AD.

And race and ethnical group are two completely different terms.

You will find that it is not the case.

didn't start when some stupid North Germanic/Scandinavic nomads settled in a junkyard beside a wood, hunting some wolves, Denmark started with Harald (or Gorm), when the country was unified.

Denmark as a political entity might've started with this Harald dude, just like Poland as a political entity might've started with whatever Polish/Slavic tribal king you wish to identify with. But the culture/history of poland is far older and every bit as relevant to Polish history as after this 'king' you identify with came along.

And again, WHERE are you from?

For the third time, I am Indo-Canadian. As in Indian guy who is Canadian. Indian as in the real India, not lost European sailors mistaking America for India and naming their people as such.

 

[Arlborn]

Ehh, first no offense, but why are you changing our names? Especially mine, I never play as Joao xD

Good idea tbh but still

...

And please make a countercomment instead of talking about animals to the quoting on me you did. Tell us why Poland wasn't powerful in the early and high medieval era.

I must say that, AFAIDK, MC are not biased and completely on-topic, specially when the Mars goes to third house while we are cleaning Amazon, just like Poland. IFKDSL.

 

[Angst]

So it was a big huge lake/part of the Baltic sea when the huns controlled it, no doubt living in house-boats ?

Poland didn't exist back then... You could say the same about France, once being controlled by Rome. No, France was not controlled, but the area was. France didn't exist.

You will find that it is not the case.

So I'm a different race from Italians? Don't think so.
There are a few races:

Caucasian
Asiatic (Or Mongol, I'm not sure)
Negroid
Inuit (Or whatever you call native American/Greenland people, sorry)
Aboriginal

...and NO Slavic, Celtic, Caribbian or Hun or whatever you'd find elsewhere. They are ethnically diverse groups. You can't hate Slavs and then be a racist, then you're just weird.

PS: Oh and btw I'm not trying to state you hate Slavs, I say hypothetically...

Denmark as a political entity might've started with this Harald dude, just like Poland as a political entity might've started with whatever Polish/Slavic tribal king you wish to identify with. But the culture/history of poland is far older and every bit as relevant to Polish history as after this 'king' you identify with came along.

Polish history is not the same as Polish national identification. Fx the Celts are a part of English history, but they're not English. England's based on a Germanic tribe.

(Regarding the ETHNICAL (not racial) view of European people in Europe, it is logical, because ethnical groups exists in Europe. They also do in other areas, but European education centers on the terms of ethnical groups in Europe and not elsewhere.
Oh, and in America, fx., many people might find that confusing, but I think Americans regard themselves more as American rather than Slavic, Scandinavian or Germanic.

For the third time, I am Indo-Canadian. As in Indian guy who is Canadian. Indian as in the real India, not lost European sailors mistaking America for India and naming their people as such.

Ok. Just to ask, do you have anything against European people? no offence but it sounds like you have a big wound in your soul or something...

 

[Angst]

I must say that, AFAIDK, MC are not biased and completely on-topic, specially when the Mars goes to third house while we are cleaning Amazon, just like Poland. IFKDSL.

Ahh, you're talking dirty then? Please touch the chairman of my firm, leaving none left except for mixups of hexes or curses (regarding GW or anything else) by multiplying something you don't like in any way and I MEAN IT, it really tastes bad sometimes.

 

[Arlborn]

Ahh, you're talking dirty then? Please touch the chairman of my firm, leaving none left except for mixups of hexes or curses (regarding GW or anything else) by multiplying something you don't like in any way and I MEAN IT, it really tastes bad sometimes.

Oh, TFTS?? IDK that! Good you could answer me how to finish the equation of Chinese Motto! But, FIDT, where does Poland go in??

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Poland didn't exist back then... You could say the same about France, once being controlled by Rome. No, France was not controlled, but the area was. France didn't exist.

Political entity is NOT the same as civilization/culture. You are on the wrong forum then.

Caucasian
Asiatic (Or Mongol, I'm not sure)
Negroid
Inuit (Or whatever you call native American/Greenland people, sorry)
Aboriginal

...and NO Slavic, Celtic, Caribbian or Hun or whatever you'd find elsewhere. They are ethnically diverse groups.

Tell us precisely why slavs/cents/caribbean are ethnicities, not race, while white, black,aboriginal etc are races and not ethnicities. You will find that ethnicity and race are both pretty fuzzy definitions, often over-lapping and in reality being completely devoid of any scientific backing to lend themselves credibility. What you percieve as race/ethnicity is nothing more than a cultural flavour, thats all. And you are picking/choosing which cultural period is relevant purely arbitarily.

Polish history is not the same as Polish national identification. Fx the Celts are a part of English history, but they're not English. England's based on a Germanic tribe.

Celts are a part of British history for the Celts who lived in britain.
Polish history is the same as Polish national identification because Polish history is the history of the land that is now known as Poland. Nothing more, nothing less. Your division of polish history into slavic/hunnic is nothing more than a purely racially derived perspective on history, which is false. For all intents and purposes, it is also hypocritical, since you have no idea about which ethnicity your ancestors hail from. Otherwise, i'd like you to recollect the past 20 generations in your family tree and assure us that you indeed are 100% Polish/Slavic and not even one Hunnic/Germainic/non-slavic connection.
Failure to do so would imply that you yourself have no idea about your personal heritage and therefore your pronouncements as to what is/what is not Polish history based on racial/ethnic lines is devoid of any reason.

no offence but it sounds like you have a big wound in your soul or something...

So pointing out the logical fallacies committed by your culture sphere is having an axe to grind ?
You do realize that it is a FACT that Europe re-wrote its history in 1700s & 1800s because they were very hardcore racists back then and felt the need to make their history 'white', don't you ?
You do realize that your ' poland= slavic, hunnic history of poland = irrelevant ' perspective is drawing directly from this racist mentality towards history that is 200-300 yrs old in Eurosphere, don't you ?

 

[Angst]

Political entity is NOT the same as civilization/culture. You are on the wrong forum then.

Not at all. Poland, as a inclusion, should be included as Poland, not at loose tribes scattered around a land areal on the size of Germany.

Tell us precisely why slavs/cents/caribbean are ethnicities, not race, while white, black,aboriginal etc are races and not ethnicities. You will find that ethnicity and race are both pretty fuzzy definitions, often over-lapping and in reality being completely devoid of any scientific backing to lend themselves credibility. What you percieve as race/ethnicity is nothing more than a cultural flavour, thats all. And you are picking/choosing which cultural period is relevant purely arbitarily.

A human race is a term defining a specialization within the Homo Sapiens specie: Fx the Negroid race has a slightly roughly build nose to protect against sandy winds fx, while the Caucasian race has finer nostrils to protect against cold. Ethnically diversed groups may differ slightly in looks, but their specializations are based on the basic racial groups. Definitions of ethnical groups focuses on culture instead (Slavic, German here)

(Blah blah lots of nonsense)

i give in doesn't matter.. Poland was a power factor in the HIGH MEDIEVAL ages, not when the Huns ran around razing cities. Your argument that the biggest empire Poland was ever part of may be true, but not in counterparts to the actual discussion, where we talk about the later medieval europe.


So pointing out the logical fallacies committed by your culture sphere is having an axe to grind ?
You do realize that it is a FACT that Europe re-wrote its history in 1700s & 1800s because they were very hardcore racists back then and felt the need to make their history 'white', don't you ?
You do realize that your ' poland= slavic, hunnic history of poland = irrelevant ' perspective is drawing directly from this racist mentality towards history that is 200-300 yrs old in Eurosphere, don't you ?

It's your language, your writing style... I'm almost about to report you to an operator. I find myself being offended, and that by purpose, of you.

and 10chars

 

[cybrxkhan]

hey, i'd like to join in the discussion, whats this quote wars about?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Not at all. Poland, as a inclusion, should be included as Poland, not at loose tribes scattered around a land areal on the size of Germany.

There is no reason for this. national entity and civilization are two DIFFERENT things. One is purely a function of historic period, other is purely a function of entire history. Using entire history as a perspective when talking about history makes a lot more sense than using an arbitary historic period which has little or no relevance to the coversation.

A human race is a term defining a specialization within the Homo Sapiens specie: Fx the Negroid race has a slightly roughly build nose to protect against sandy winds fx, while the Caucasian race has finer nostrils to protect against cold. Ethnically diversed groups may differ slightly in looks, but their specializations are based on the basic racial groups. Definitions of ethnical groups focuses on culture instead (Slavic, German here)

Your attempt at explaining race from a scientific perspective is false. There is no speciation within the homo sapiens species. There is only minor genetic difference, that is hard even to quantify. For eg, human genome project has categorically proved that there exists more genetic diversity inside a specific ethnicity than within different 'races'. It might come as a shock to you but if you are Danish, the Danish couple next door to you can easily show a bigger genetic difference from you than an Ethiopian couple in Addis Abbaba. And yes, it is a fact that i can corroborrate easily, given that it lies very much within my understanding & grasp on sciences.
As per your ethnic definition, you will find that Finns and Latvians are a lot closer related genetically to Hungarians and Kyrghyz (spelling?) people than to Poles or Russians. Yet they are considered ethnically Europeans. Fact is, any ethnic/racial definition doesnt have any place in a serious conversation, since those definitions are completely arbitary and flawed at that.
When discussing history, the focus is on a culture sphere, not on arbitary race/ethnicity. I seriously don't get your idea of tying history with race or your attempt at differentiating history as an ethnicity(which you again tie in with race). As i said, perhaps if you were aware of your history for the last 7000-8000 years, even patchily, as some cultures are, you'd then realize just how 'mixed' you are and any attempt at differentiating history on the basis of race/ethnicity is largely irrelevant.

Poland was a power factor in the HIGH MEDIEVAL ages, not when the Huns ran around razing cities. Your argument that the biggest empire Poland was ever part of may be true, but not in counterparts to the actual discussion, where we talk about the later medieval europe.

But that is no reason to exclude Hunnic history ( btw, you will find that the actual actions of the Huns wernt much different than Slavs or Germainic tribes of those days and many centuries later, which were quite barbaric by humane standards. But i don't see why that period of history should not be a part of the equation, since it is every bit as much polish history as slavic history is.

I find myself being offended, and that by purpose, of you.

My intention is not to offend. Perhaps if you are being offended by me discussing some facts ( facts i can easily back up if required to) then the problem lies with you and not me. Just a suggestion.
However, i apologize, since my intention is not to offend but expand my(and our collective) knowledge. Can you please point out what exactly you found offensive and false in my post ? Perhaps if you can show me the specific sentences which you think are false/far from truth, i can get on my ways towards correcting that.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

hey, i'd like to join in the discussion, whats this quote wars about?

Nutshell:

Me : Considers 'history of Poland' to be history of the land that is known as Poland today and all the people who've lived in it or live in it. Therefore, when talking about Poland as a civilization, Huns/Germans/Slavic periods etc. are just as relevant as each other.

Joakim: Considers 'history of Poland' to be a history of:
a) Slavic Poland (his historical time reference starts with Slavs in Poland, Huns in Poland or Gemainic tribes promptly ignored)
b) From when Poland first set itself up as an independent nation(that we know about). So history of Poland before kingdom of Poland does not exist/matter.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^hmm... my view:

History of Poland as a Geographic Unit (i.e., the forests, rivers, and etc. that are in and around Poland): include every single darn human that ever walked there

History of the Polish People: about every single darn Pole that ever walked the earth

 

[Ahimsadharma]

History of the Polish People: about every single darn Pole that ever walked the earth

Who is a pole ? Is a pole a slav ( from historical context) or is a Pole a native inhabitant of Poland at any given time ?
Circa 400 AD, was a Hun not a Pole ?

To draw on our recent conversation, do you consider Vietnam's history to include history of Champa or only that of Dai Viet ? Ie, when you talk about Vietnam's history and vietnamese of the past, does Champa figure or is Champa irrelevant and only Die Viet history matters ?

 

[cybrxkhan]

^only includes Vietnam, for me, yea, as in Dai Viet.

and for Pole, i mean a slav.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

^only includes Vietnam, for me, yea, as in Dai Viet.

and for Pole, i mean a slav.

Then you too, like joakim, is essentially viewing history through the prism of race and ethnicity,which itself are debatable ( prove to me that Slavs do NOT have Hun ancestry) and not the entire known history of a place when talking about civilization.Simpe fact of the matter is, a Hun guy 1500 years ago deserves to be called a 'Pole' as much as a slav guy today or 500 years ago deserves the title of 'Pole'.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^a "Pole" didn't exist back then when the Huns were running around. if Huns started calling themselves "Poles", and then they went to Poland, stayed for a few centuries, yea, then they could be "Poles".

Chinese, on the other hand, have always been "Chinese" or "Zhongguoren" or whatever they called themselves, even if the word changed, because they have been one continous cultural, political, and economical unit since c. 2500 BCE.

if the Huns had kept very similar cultural, political, economical, etc. etc. systems as the later Poles, and they later got assimilated into the Poles on a goodly-sized scale, then i could consider them Poles.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

if Huns started calling themselves "Poles", and then they went to Poland, stayed for a few centuries, yea, then they could be "Poles".

irrelevant, since languages change. I am pretty sure that the first kingdom of POland didnt call themselves poles either.

if the Huns had kept very similar cultural, political, economical, etc. etc. systems as the later Poles, and they later got assimilated into the Poles on a goodly-sized scale, then i could consider them Poles.

And this is precisely why i ask for Hunnic inclusion in polish history. History seems to indicate that this is what happened and not some bunch of slavic blokes slaughtering away the huns down to the last man.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Nutshell:

Me : Considers 'history of Poland' to be history of the land that is known as Poland today and all the people who've lived in it or live in it. Therefore, when talking about Poland as a civilization, Huns/Germans/Slavic periods etc. are just as relevant as each other.

Joakim: Considers 'history of Poland' to be a history of:
a) Slavic Poland (his historical time reference starts with Slavs in Poland, Huns in Poland or Gemainic tribes promptly ignored)
b) From when Poland first set itself up as an independent nation(that we know about). So history of Poland before kingdom of Poland does not exist/matter.

There can't be a "history of Poland" before there were any Poles. There can be a history of the area which later became Poland but was, before Slavic tribes migrated there, not Poland in any sense of the word; it was merely the area which later became Poland. Likewise, there can be no "history of Sweden" before there were any Swedes. One can talk of a "prehistory", of course, but that's not the same thing at all. Give up, already.

And I'm out of this thread again. It's getting sillier all the time.

 

[cybrxkhan]

History seems to indicate that this is what happened and not some bunch of slavic blokes slaughtering away the huns down to the last man.

from what i know, the Byzantines paid the Avars (i think, could be some other nomadic peoples) to wipe out the renmants of the Huns, who were pretty much nothing by then. records of "Slavs" (mostly by Byzantine and Muslim historians) appear around that time, and the Slavs were actually not too close to the Hun's powerbase 2 centuries previously anyhow.

and anyhow, Huns -/-> Poles. Huns -~-> Hungarians!!!