Let's Discuss Poland

[Tortilla Boy]

The thing wrong about it is that the perspective espoused here is far narrower, no doubt owing to a much thinner historical understanding and basis. learning how to view history from those who know history for thousands of years longer than your own people would be a good start.

The thing wrong about "land" definition is that "location" (called Poland) is part of culture. You try to prove that culture is location-related having defined this location on cultural basis. That's vicious circle logical fault.
"Poland" is not some sort of self-defined piece of matter. It's location. Locations are defined.
If it's only about location, not even time, then I'm German, I'm Russian, I'm Hun, I'm Martian. I'm no one in reality - I'm not bound, because of milions of location's names. This is Zen. It has nothing to do with logic.

That you are trying to say you don't use either is false because it *must* be either history of the people now inhabiting Poland or the history of the land known today as Poland.

Race is a trait. Language is a trait. Why I *must* rely to "race"? After all everything is arbitrary - places, languages, locations. That's that flaw which produces all other flaws in all definitions. To define is to go through cultural process.

Either way, the latter definition (...) leaves much more room for ambiguity than having history of a piece of land X, bound by geographical features A,B,C,D.

It didn't bound itself. For me it could be Poland stretching from Atlantic to Pacific Ocean. That also leaves lots of space for ambiguity.

You don't understand each other because:
a) Hungarians are not Huns

Hungarians actually are - in terms of language - descendants of Ugric people

Why stay post-Glacial North if you could bask in the sun of Mediterranean and there's no passport control? That was a place to be. Not some forests with bear, wolves and all nasty stuff.

I don't get what you are trying to say here. Besides, history shows us that Romans & Greeks didn't take it too kindly when 'barbarians from the north' tried to barge in to the 'sunny mediterranean'.

That it's possible that there was almost no one here 8000 years ago.

 

[0R4NG3]

Okay, i've hit a wall it'd seem. I am going to stop now, because discussion is now pointless, you clearly refuse to see logic.
So much so that you care calling ME a racist for pointing out that YOUR definition of a culture/civilization is racist and completely subjective of a specific period of history being considered.
How ironic, indeed.

Not true, as I have agreed that it is possible that your theory is correct. You however have made a point which clearly states that Asian perspective is superior to European because it is older, which you must agree is a mistake on your part.

Any genetic analysis that claims that is worth throwing in the dustbin for it is clearly the product of a flawed/agenda-driven thinking.
You cannot say Etruscans and Italians/Romans were very different from each other because we humans are all 99.6% alike or so. Secondly, there is NO gene-marker said to be Etruscan. Which was the Roman period used to contrast the 'Etruscans' with ? Was it some Roman from 400 AD ? well that'd make it 800-900 years of evolution & intermingling with other people and can easily explain the difference.
You cannot make the claim that Romans & Etruscans were different people unless you can identify any gene marker that is unique to the groups and missing from one group. If you simply contrast difference in genetics, it proves squat- as i said, an Etruscan marrying a Greek would present a genetic change, same with Etruscan marrying Pheonician. You have no basis in claiming whether this happened or not and as such, you cannot rule it out. Therefore, your comment that 'Etruscan blood is absent' is mere speculation.

I'm not making any claims, I understand your arguments and I admit that the study is not trustworthy, but what if it is? Will you be able to admit that you were wrong?

It is not a question of different happenings- its simply a question of certain Asiatic cultures ( predominantly India & China) retaining a historical perspective/record that dates from 7000-8000 years ago and thus shows how mixed people get in time-frame spanning 300-400 generations.

All i am saying is this : It is an established FACT that Huns lived in the region of Poland/Eastern Europe when Atilla was around. Their eventual fate (and the origins of the slavs) are unknown as of now, so therefore, Huns *must* be considered part of Polish history, until it can be proved that their people did not mix with the ancestors of 'Slavic Poles' today and therefore, represent a different ethnic identity that did not diffuse into modern day Poland.
Unless you can provide evidence for that, there is simply no basis in discarding Hunnic period of Poland's history.
For all we know, half of Poland today could be mixed descendants of Huns.
Until you can safely rule that out, there is no basis in disassociating history of Poland from one group of people who inhabited it at time X with another.

What about my Scythian argument? Will you explain it the same way you explained Etruscans? What about Celts? What about Khazars?

To conclude all I can say is that I don't know where Slavs came from, maybe they are related to Huns maybe they're not, it is however clear that all the modern Slavic countries are related and none of them relate themselves to Huns strangely enough.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Unless you can provide evidence for that Huns did not diffuse into modern day Poland, there is simply no basis in discarding Hunnic period of Poland's history.

Unless you can provide evidence for that Martians did not diffuse into modern day Poland, there is simply no basis for discarding Martian period of Poland's history.

For all we know, half of Poland today could be mixed descendants of Huns.

As well as Martians. You are making statment that *clearly* there *was* Hunnic period in Polish history, and want *us* to prove that it was reverse. That's not even weak induction. That's eristic.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

You however have made a point which clearly states that Asian perspective is superior to European because it is older, which you must agree is a mistake on your part.

How is it a mistake ? You are essentially saying that a historical perspective based on 6000-7000 years of knowledge is 'no better' than historical perspective that at best is 2000-2500 years old. I find that laughable, really.
I am not saying that Asian history is any superior, just that their understanding of history is a bit more evolved from simplistic (and often utterly ridiculous/unsubstantiated) notions of tying history with race/ethnicity.

but what if it is? Will you be able to admit that you were wrong?

obviously i will .

To conclude all I can say is that I don't know where Slavs came from, maybe they are related to Huns maybe they're not, it is however clear that all the modern Slavic countries are related and none of them relate themselves to Huns strangely enough.

That none of them relate to the Huns have a lot to do with their own historical perspective, choices made in history along racial, religious, etc. lines.
Does not mean that they are not related, particularly since there is no clear evidence of a great Hun vs Slav fight where the slavs butchered the Huns to the last man.
As far as history tells us, circa 400-500 AD, Huns were Polish people. Circa 700-800 AD, Polish people were called Slavs. Since there is no evidence- historical or legendary- of a Slavic genocide of huns, the default position must be that Huns & Slavs mixed to create the modern day state/nation of Polish people. If you can find any evidence that suggests otherwise, it certainly should be entertained but this is what the logical default position should be before any evidence is brought to light.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

You try to prove that culture is location-related having defined this location on cultural basis. That's vicious circle logical fault.

eh ? I don't have to prove that culture is location related. Jared Diamond in the book 'Guns, Germs & Steel' does a very good job of proving that culture is location related and culture is a fundamental function of real-estate.
It is no coincidence that in ancient times (before the rise of dogmatic religions), most tropical people were half naked and sexual taboo was far less pronounced. It is also no coincidence that in ancient times, northern people were plentifully dressed from head to toe and their culture reflects far more uptight and conservative approach to sexuality. And the only reason behind this is location/real estate- early proto-tropical cultures developed along lines of requiring minimal clothing, due to weather and exactly opposite in northern climes. This translates over time into social taboo/norms etc.
Again, GGS makes a far better and cogent understanding- it proves without a shadow of doubt that culture is a function of real-estate and resources available at hand.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Unless you can provide evidence for that Martians did not diffuse into modern day Poland, there is simply no basis for discarding Martian period of Poland's history.

This is now getting stupid from your part. Is there clear, categoric evidence that Martians inhabited parts of Poland in ancient times ? There is clear & categoric evidence that Huns did.

You are making statment that *clearly* there *was* Hunnic period in Polish history, and want *us* to prove that it was reverse. That's not even weak induction. That's eristic.

No, that is not weak induction or 'eristic' - it is simply saying that 'this is the default position due to facts/evidenc at hand and the onus lies on the challenger (you) to prove otherwise'.
The fact that Huns lived in modern day area of Poland is indisputable. Therefore, the onus is on to you to prove that the Huns somehow magically didnt breed with /into the slavs and instead somehow Poland's history gets a complete new cast 1300-1400 years ago.

Race is a trait. Language is a trait. Why I *must* rely to "race"? After all everything is arbitrary - places, languages, locations. That's that flaw which produces all other flaws in all definitions. To define is to go through cultural process.

Eh ? All i am saying is, there are only two ways of recording history- history of a culture and history of people. History of a culture is strictly geographical in nature, not ethnic, history of a people is strictly genetic, not cultural. And history of a people is far harder to establish with certainty beyond the last few 100 years, therefore cultural benchmark is the one that makes most sense.
That you are saying 'i don't use land or people to define a culture' is a non-sequitur, since you must define a culture as one or the other, with no third option available.
For eg, you can define Roman civilization ONLY AND ONLY as either a) civilization of Italy/mediterranean for that time period or b) Civilization of a particular group of people called 'Romans'. That you are saying you use neither is illogical, for there is no other way of defining 'Roman civilization' once you take both land AND people out of the equation !!

That it's possible that there was almost no one here 8000 years ago.

False. Evidence of humanoid presence in what is modern day poland goes back to 6000 BC or so. Clearly, the area was inhabited and from the looks of it, a hybrid of caveman/early foraging & cultivating clans/groups.

 

[0R4NG3]

How is it a mistake ? You are essentially saying that a historical perspective based on 6000-7000 years of knowledge is 'no better' than historical perspective that at best is 2000-2500 years old. I find that laughable, really.

Strange that you find it laughable, I don't find you laughable. There is no basis to what you have stated, it is not a fact or a generally accepted idea. It might be your belief or opinion, but I don't really see why it should be accepted as a dogma.

I am not saying that Asian history is any superior, just that their understanding of history is a bit more evolved from simplistic (and often utterly ridiculous/unsubstantiated) notions of tying history with race/ethnicity.

That none of them relate to the Huns have a lot to do with their own historical perspective, choices made in history along racial, religious, etc. lines.
Does not mean that they are not related, particularly since there is no clear evidence of a great Hun vs Slav fight where the slavs butchered the Huns to the last man.
As far as history tells us, circa 400-500 AD, Huns were Polish people. Circa 700-800 AD, Polish people were called Slavs. Since there is no evidence- historical or legendary- of a Slavic genocide of huns, the default position must be that Huns & Slavs mixed to create the modern day state/nation of Polish people. If you can find any evidence that suggests otherwise, it certainly should be entertained but this is what the logical default position should be before any evidence is brought to light.

According to you all history is documented and clearly understood. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. This is the reason why I asked you what sources do you base your knowledge of your culture on? And how trustworthy do you think those sources are? For example many events that happened in the XX century are debatable and unclear, so how can we argue about things that happened over a millenium ago?

 

[Tortilla Boy]

How is it a mistake ? You are essentially saying that a historical perspective based on 6000-7000 years of knowledge is 'no better' than historical perspective that at best is 2000-2500 years old. I find that laughable, really.

Make it 60-70 years old man and 20-25 years old one. How age would make that first one's perspective better? 25 year old one might be ruler of Empire who just died, and 60 year old one - some peasant who never saw world outside his village who will live 10 years longer not learning anything new in particular.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

. There is no basis to what you have stated, it is not a fact or a generally accepted idea. It might be your belief or opinion, but I don't really see why it should be accepted as a dogma.

So let me get this straight.
History = a field where more information about the past the better.
Culture A = draws conclusion on the nature of historic interactions with cultures after watching itself and its neighbours for 8000 years
Culture B = does the same for 2000 years.

You wish to argue that Culture B's understanding of history and its workings is equal to culture A's, given that history is an incomplete field ?!
Thats rubbish, really.
My reason for bringing in the comparison was simple : had you any idea of your own history for the last 5000-6000 years or more, you'd realize how mixed you are ethnically/racially and therefore, you'd find that benchmark pretty ridiculous when evaluating culture.

How age would make that first one's perspective better?

Far more experience on the timeline and therefore, presenting a better understanding of historical happenings and its mechanisms.

25 year old one might be ruler of Empire who just died, and 60 year old one - some peasant who never saw world outside his village who will live 10 years longer not learning anything new in particular.

But we are talking about cultures here- not just a man.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

According to you all history is documented and clearly understood. I'm not sure where you get this idea from.

Never said this to be the case. I said that what IS clearly understood should not be replaced by speculation and speculation should merit some sort of logical basis-even if thin.
To make it short, Huns lived in Poland circa 500 AD. Poles lived in Poland since 700 AD or so. If there is no mention whatsoever in Slavic legend/traditions of waging a great war against Huns and exterminating them, then there is no basis whatsoever to assume that Huns & Poles didnt intermingle or that Huns arnt related to the Poles.
You cannot just simply assume that a culture wiped out another one completely 1200-1300 years ago and didnt leave a single evidence in its legend/lore/history. Infact, lack of such evidence categorically supports the notion that Huns & Poles must've interbred, since only other way it wouldn't is if there was genocide of the Huns to the last man- and there is absolutely no evidence of that, so that position is unsubstantiated.
Isnt that simple, really?

 

[0R4NG3]

Never said this to be the case. I said that what IS clearly understood should not be replaced by speculation and speculation should merit some sort of logical basis-even if thin.
To make it short, Huns lived in Poland circa 500 AD. Poles lived in Poland since 700 AD or so. If there is no mention whatsoever in Slavic legend/traditions of waging a great war against Huns and exterminating them, then there is no basis whatsoever to assume that Huns & Poles didnt intermingle or that Huns arnt related to the Poles.
You cannot just simply assume that a culture wiped out another one completely 1200-1300 years ago and didnt leave a single evidence in its legend/lore/history. Infact, lack of such evidence categorically supports the notion that Huns & Poles must've interbred, since only other way it wouldn't is if there was genocide of the Huns to the last man- and there is absolutely no evidence of that, so that position is unsubstantiated.
Isnt that simple, really?

There is no mention of Huns full stop... What does that mean? Maybe someone purposefully removed them from Slavic history records. Maybe Huns=Poles. Maybe it is as you say. Maybe non of the above.
Also Scythians lived in Poland, so did Celts.
Also, it is common in Hungary to use Attila as a boy's name, but yet Hungarians are not Huns.
Anyway Huns were nomads, they came and went, so their stay in Poland could've been temporary, maybe they went to India afterwards joke

But we are talking about cultures here- not just a man.

Strange that you didn't understand his irony. Main point was that quality>quantity.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Main point was that quality>quantity.

In history, quantity IS quality !
Its simply having more data in your sample space, where weight of each data point is more or less equal.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I understand your point of view, but I do not understand why you are being so stubborn about it. I mean if people in Europe weren't racist there wouldn't have been as many wars as there were.

That's more than a bit simplistic. Wars can be fought over many things -tribal differences, land, money, religion, natural resources, trading privileges, the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever. And it isn't exactly as if the peoples on other continents lived in constant peace and ahrmony. There have been a rgeat number over very bloody and cruel wars in India, to naem but one example.

This thread should get a special mention as "silliest discussion ever".

 

[Dennis_Moore]

About the Huns. Even though the Huns were originally an Altaic people (with some Uralic mixed in), the Huns of Attila's empire were a mish-mash of tribes possibly joined together by their common hatred of the Romans. So among the "Huns" in Poland many were Germanic or Slavic (both indo-european).

 

[Tortilla Boy]

So let me get this straight.
History = a field where more information about the past the better.
Culture A = draws conclusion on the nature of historic interactions with cultures after watching itself and its neighbours for 8000 years
Culture B = does the same for 2000 years.

Yeah right, and all knowledge just simply adds up. - That's called "naive concept of progress" - there are no in-fightings, no counter theories, no coming back to the point of start. It's like Europe in time of Enlightenment, 200 years ago, already criticized, and ridiculed in it's positivistic embodiment after WII.
Everything you say here is like: Let's get back to Enlightenment because that's where Asians are now, and they can't be wrong, just because they were here for some time longer.

And it doesn't matter that all knowledge gathered in last 6 millenia is tiny inch compared to last 50 years of scientific breakthroughs and knowledge flood.
[EDIT: After all it's you, who accused Europeans of making up a history anew in the era of nationalism. Why assume that everybody else *but* Europeans are nice-guys who never lie?]

You wish to argue that Culture B's understanding of history and its workings is equal to culture A's, given that history is an incomplete field ?!
Thats rubbish, really.

Knowledge summing-up vision of progress is "outdated rubbish" - using your own way of stating it.

But we are talking about cultures here- not just a man.

Yes, and those cultures are nothing more than people who tend to live aprox. 70 years (now). Knowledge exceeding one's very life is bound to be made on assumptions. Empirical knowledge also has it's flaws.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

In history, quantity IS quality !
Its simply having more data in your sample space, where weight of each data point is more or less equal.

Oh, that one is liberal concept of information. The more information the better. Which one's better:
-audio record made in large hall full of people, all speaking aloud on different subjects in different languages;
-audio record of conversation between two people, speaking with no foreign accent in one language.
?

In information, quantity is -mainly- nothing but noise.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

To make it short, Huns lived in Poland circa 500 AD. Poles lived in Poland since 700 AD or so. If there is no mention whatsoever in Slavic legend/traditions of waging a great war against Huns and exterminating them, then there is no basis whatsoever to assume that Huns & Poles didnt intermingle or that Huns arnt related to the Poles.

Only that Hunnic is Turkic family of languages It's other culture. This discussion is ridiculous - You state that Polish culture is Hunnic culture on basis that there were some Huns. Then you state that Hungarian culture (at very heart of Hunnic empire) is not Hunnic culture. This is... just... sigh... Zen stuff

 

[Ahimsadharma]

That's called "naive concept of progress" - there are no in-fightings, no counter theories, no coming back to the point of start.

Err no, there is in-fighting & commng back to the point of start many times. But some cultures are simply too massive to completely fall- and the one thing hardest to erase is history- so cultures like India/China etc. due to their massive size retained their cultural continuity (and thus historical awareness) for much much longer. And a longer perspective really results in a better understanding of history than a shorter one.

Everything you say here is like: Let's get back to Enlightenment because that's where Asians are now, and they can't be wrong, just because they were here for some time longer.

Err no, more like 'learn about historical perspectives from them because they've been at it longer, know the progress and quirks of history longer and there are not as many dumb assumptions in Asiatic history as in European history'.

Knowledge summing-up vision of progress is "outdated rubbish" - using your own way of stating it.

that is completely contrary to the truth, really. Historical & cultural continuity presents a continuous steam of develpment without interruption/regression.
Biggest reason why Europe/Americas is the dominant world power now is because they've had a continuous history of the last 500 years without any real socio-political change from a foreign culture group's impact in an invasion way.

Yes, and those cultures are nothing more than people who tend to live aprox. 70 years (now). Knowledge exceeding one's very life is bound to be made on assumptions. Empirical knowledge also has it's flaws.

So what are the flaws of empirical knowledge over subjective knowledge ?
And no, cultures are a lot more than people living long vs young people- cultures are cumulative since it is based on the experience of majority/all the people in the culture, thus accumulative over time, if given stability.
I am afraid you are simply arguing for the sake of it, simply because you do not like the fact that i said your definition of what constitutes a culture/civilization ( based on your ethnic/racial model) is rather dumb and i've supplied my reasons for so. Yet you've not countered the reason that fact is, history of a land is far less subjective than history of a people, since history of a land is far more acheaologically neutral and corroborrative than myths and folktales of history of a people.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Oh, that one is liberal concept of information. The more information the better. Which one's better:
-audio record made in large hall full of people, all speaking aloud on different subjects in different languages;
-audio record of conversation between two people, speaking with no foreign accent in one language.
?

In information, quantity is -mainly- nothing but noise.

irrelevant example, since when we are talking about history, we are talking about a field with no known beginning and patchy information for all but the most recent of events. In a field like this, more information = more data available = far less blind spots = a far better understanding of history.
Fields that are investigative by nature fundamentally rely on quantity of information- since historically speaking, quality is more or less the same, given that a pot-shard from 4000 yrs ago is no less valid/subjective than a pot shard from 2000 yrs ago.

There is a good reason why Egyptiology is far more developed and go back far more than Polish-ology simply because the quantity of information for Egyptology outweighs that for Polish-ology by a few orders of magnitude.

I find it strange that you contest this, perhaps because you took offence to the idea that your historical understanding is less developed because of less information available to you on a historical scale of equivalent timeline.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Only that Hunnic is Turkic family of languages

Err so ? This is irrelevant. I don't care if the huns spoke a different language, dressed differently, ate different food and waged wars differently. Those are all irrelevant.
What is relevant is if the Poles/early slavs married into the Huns and absorbed them ( which seems to be the case, since presence of Hunnic culture in Poland is uncontested for Atilla's period and there is zero record- legend or otherwise- of a great slavic/germainic wipeout against huns), then Hunnic history = Polish history = history of Polish people today.
Its really that simple.
What makes it your history is if there is a cultural and/or genetic continuity as well as the fact that it is history of the same land! That there is both in the case of Hunnic Poland and Slavid Poland is the default position ( or surely there would be SOME mention of it somewhere in the 200 yrs period when Hunnic poland became slavic poland) and the onus is on the challenger to produce evidence that says otherwise.
People who live in a piece of land simply don't disappear - unless they are killed off- which requires proof, the only other alternative is they are absorbed into the fold.

Then you state that Hungarian culture (at very heart of Hunnic empire) is not Hunnic culture.

because it is a fact that it isn't. Huns were in south-eastern/central Europe, basically as far as North sea for north, Danube for South, Rhine for west & Volga for eastern borders. Hungarians ( who have NOTHING to do with the word 'Hun'- Hungary comes from the Turkic word 'On Ongur' ( meaning alliance of the ten arrows-tribes) for the Bulgar confederacy.
The first 'Hungarian' leader in history is Arpad, who brings the Bulgar 'On Ongur' alliance into the Carpathian basin around 900 AD- that is almost 500 years after the death of Atilla, 200-300 yrs after Huns in Europe are gone from history.
Sure, the Magyars (Hungarians) could've mixed with some remnants of Hunnic people- already absorbed into the fold of the people in Hungary- much much later but the points are:

a) The name 'Hungary' has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Huns" and have everything to do with the words ' On Ongur'.

b) There is a far stronger case of Hunnic heritage amongst Poles than amongst Magyars, given that the Poles emerge in history just a couple of centuries after Huns arn't mentioned anymore while the Magyars show up a good 450-500 yrs AFTER the Huns in Hungary.
So for the sake of consistency, i'd like you to admit that before we move on to Hungary(god forbid),though i am not denying that there could be remnants of Hunnic cultural & geneological traits in Magyars today. Just that its far less likely than in Poles and you are yet to agree upon that!