
#REDIRECT Slavic peoples
The Slavic peoples are the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in Europe. They speak Slavic languages and reside chiefly in Eastern Europe, but are also found in Asia. ==Ethno-cultural subdivisions== One can customarily divide the Slavs into the following subgroups: * East Slavs: **Russians ***Lipovan **Ukrainians ***Rusyns (Ruthenes)* ****Lemko ****Bojko ****Hucul **Rusyns (Ruthenes)* ***Lemko ***Bojko ***Hucul **Belarusians ***Poleszuks (transitional between Ukrainians and Belarusians) *West Slavs: **Lechitic group allegedly includes Poles, Pomeranians and Polabian Slavs **Poles ***Mazurians ***Polanie ***Silesians* ***Warmiaks ***Pomeranians ****Kashubians ****Slovincians ****Kociewiacy ****Borowiacy **Polabian Slavs ****Volinians (Velunzani) ****Pyritzans (Prissani) ****Veleti (Wiltzi) ****Abodrites (Nortabtrezi). **Czechs ***Moravians (ethnic group)* **Moravians (ethnic group)* **Slovaks **Rusyns **Sorbs (Lusatians, Serb-Lusatians) *South Slavs: **Bulgarians ***Muslim Bulgarians (Pomaks) **Macedonian Slavs ***Torbesh **Bosniaks ***Muslims by nationality* **Muslims by nationality* **Croats ***Bokelji ***Bunjevci* ***Janjevci ***Molise Croats ***Burgenland Croats ***Sokci* **Bunjevci* **Sokci* **"Yugoslavs" **Serbs ***Krashovans ***Montenegrins* ***Gorani (Kosovo)* **Gorani (Kosovo)* **Montenegrins* **Slovenians ***Karantanians (''Proto-Slovenes'') (*) Classification disputed. ==The emergence of Proto-Slavic== The Proto-Slavic language (or Proto-Balto-Slavic) language branched off at some uncertain time in an unknown location from common Proto-Indo-European, becoming a separate Indo-European language: Proto-Slavic, a hypothetical (reconstructed) language whence Common Slavonic and the later individual Slavic languages emerged. ==The Slavic homeland Debates== A common theory is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and also the later Proto-Slavs, originated from the steppes of Ukraine and southern Russia (see Kurgan hypothesis). However, other scholars believe that the Proto-Slavs had been in north-east Central Europe since very early times, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture and later the Przeworsk culture (and were also part of the Chernyakhov culture). However, this latter theory does not contradict the Kurgan hypothesis. There are thus two major historical theories that address the issue of the original homeland of Slavs: # the ''autochthonic'' theory assumes that Slavs had lived north of the Carpathian Mountains since the Lusatian culture (before 1000 BC). # the ''allochthonic'' theory assumes that the Slavs came there in the 5th century or 6th century AD. German people and different Slavic nations have employed either of these theories as tools of political propaganda, resulting in general confusion. Some scientists (such as Kazimierz Godlowski or Zdenek Vana) consider both theories absurd: they think that Slavs as such appeared and differentiated themselves from other tribes some time after 1 AD. Many regions have been proposed as the hypothetical Slavic homeland. Suggestions include today's Poland, the marshes of Polesie, Volhynia, areas around the upper Dniepr river, and even Central Asia. Slavs first appeared in history living in the Pripyat Marshes area (Polesie). Around 500 BC, Celtic tribes settled along the upper Oder river (''Odra''), and Germanic tribes settled on the lower Vistula and the lower Oder rivers. The lands of the Elbe, Oder, and Vistula regions all came to be known as ''Magna Germania'' by ca. 100 AD. It has not been verified whether any Slavic tribes were settled in these regions at that time. One theory suggests that two waves of ''Slavs'' existed: ''Proto-Slavs'' (called by these theorists "Venedes" or "Venedes"), and the Slavs proper; and that these two groups were mixed to become today's Slavs. However, the claim that the Venedes were a Slavic or even a proto-Slavic people is very controversial, and many scholars believe that the ''Venedes'' belonged to another Indo-European branch, rather than Slavic. Another recent theory, relying on the multiregional origin hypothesis claims an autochthonous Slavic origin from pre-glacial times. The Slavic homeland would thus have included areas described by Tacitus as Germania. This theory has little support among scientists. Still more confusion comes from the fact that some Slavic peoples have originated as a result of complete assimilation of non-Slavic peoples. Myth-weavers often seize upon this phenomenon (which happened in some cases) to create spurious pseudo-histories (''see Connection between Poles and Vandals''). Finally, several new theories of the origin of Slavs were published, and found large numbers of followers, in the 1990s and 2000s, fueled by the rise of nationalism in Ukraine and Russia. Most of them attempt to establish a direct connection between the Slavs and Aryan. Some even claim that Slavs existed as an entity as early as the 7th millennium BC to 5th millennium BC and were ancestors of the Sumerian. They say that the fabled Sumerian city of Aratta was located in Ukraine. There is plenty of archeological evidence for settlements in northern Ukraine and Poland as far back as 3rd millennium BC (Trypillian culture , Tishinets, Peshevor, Zarubinets cultures). People who lived there supported themselves principally by means of agriculture; some of them had mastered the use of metal by the 8th century BC. The absence of a written language leaves it open for debate whether those people were in any way related to modern Slavs. ==Ethnonyms applied to Slavs== The peoples we now know as Slavs appeared in early histories as "Venedes" or "Wends", but as noted above, their connection to the Venedes mentioned by Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder remains uncertain, and the similarity of the two names may have come about spuriously, by way of a later misidentification. Some later writers recorded the names of Slavic peoples as ''Sclavens'', ''Sclovene'', and ''Ants''. Jordanes mentions that the Venets sub-divided into three groups: the Venets, the Ants and the Sklavens. Traditionally the name "Venets" has become associated with the Western Slavs, "Sklavens" with the Southern Slavs, and the "Ants" (or "Antes") with the Eastern Slavs. ==Etymology of 'Slav'== Even the origin of the word "Slav" remains controversial. In the Old Church Slavonic language that word is "Sloveane", or something similar, with obvious similarities to the word ''slovo'' meaning "word, talk". Thus ''Sloveane'' would mean "people who speak (the same language)", i.e. people who understand each other, as opposed to the Slavic word for Germans, ''nemtsi'', or "dumb, speechless people" (from Slavic ''nemi'' - mute, dumb; compare the Greek coinage of the term "barbarian"). Another obvious similarity links "Slavs" to the word ''slava'', that is "glory" or "praise" (with a root in common with ''slovo'' - one who is often spoken of). Some linguists believe, however, that these obvious connections mislead, despite the early translation of the Greek word ''orthodoxos'' ("Correct/right", "glorifying/praising") having its equivalent in ''pravoslavni'' with ''pravo'' meaning "right" or "correct" and ''slavni'' meaning "those who praise" or "those who glorify" [God]. ==Slavs in the Historical period== Slavs emerged from obscurity when the westward movement of Germans and Celts in the 5th century and 6th century (necessitated by the onslaught of peoples from Siberia and Eastern Europe: Huns, Avars, Bulgars and Magyars) started the Human migration#The great migrations of the Slavs, who followed in the Germans' wake: westward into the country between the Odra and the Elbe-Saale line; southward into Bohemia, Moravia, much of present day Austria, the Pannonian plain and the Balkans; and northward along the upper Dnieper river. When their migratory movements ended, there appeared among the Slavs the first rudiments of state organizations, each headed by a prince with a treasury and defense force; and the beginnings of class differentiation, with nobles who pledged allegiance to the Frankish and Holy Roman Emperors. In the 7th century the Frankish nobleman Samo, who supported the Slavs fighting their Avar rulers, became the ruler of the first known Slav state in Central Europe. Karantania in today's Austria and Slovenia was one Slavic state; very old also are the Principality of Nitra and the Moravians (ethnic group) principality (see under Great Moravia). In this period there existed central Slavic groups and states, such as the Balaton Principality or the Severans, but the subsequent expansion of the Magyars and Romanians, as well as the Germanisation of Austria, separated the northern and southern Slavs. ''An explanation of the distinction between the western and eastern Slavs remains to be written.'' In the early history of the Slavs, and continuing into the Dark Ages, non-Slavic groups were sometimes assimilated by Slavic-speaking populations: the Croats and the Bulgars became Slavicized and their non-Slavic tongues disappeared; in other cases, Slavs themselves were assimilated into other groups such as the Romanians, Magyars, Greeks, etc. Scarcely any unity developed among various Slavic peoples in the early historic period, although faint traces of co-operation sometimes appeared. Because of the vastness and diversity of the territory occupied by Slavic peoples, there were several centers of Slavic consolidation, a process that was never completed for many reasons. In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics. The common Slavic experience of Soviet communism after World War II within the Eastern bloc (Warsaw Pact) was a forced high-level political and economic alliance, but nothing more, and it was hegemony in favor of certain groups. A notable political union of the 20th century that covered many South Slavs was Yugoslavia, but it broke apart as well. Nazi Germany, whose proponents claimed a racial superiority for the Germanic people, particularly over Semitic and Slavic peoples, plotted an enslavement of the Slavic peoples, and the reduction of their numbers by killing the majority of the population. As a result, a large number of Slavs were slain during World War II. == Religion and alphabet == In religion, the Slavs traditionally divided into two main groups: # those associated with the Eastern Orthodoxy - most Russians, most Ukrainians, most Belarusians, some Carpatho-Ruthenians (Rusyns), most Serbs, most Bulgarians and most Macedonians # those associated with the Roman Catholic Church (both Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite) - Poles, some Sorbs, some Czechs, most Slovaks, Croats, Slovenians, some Ukrainians, a few Serbs, a few Macedonians and some Belarusians. Some Sorbs profess Protestantism, as do certain Slovaks, and a few Czechs and Slovenians. Most Bosniaks, Pomaks, Gorani, and Torbesh are Muslims. The Orthodox/Catholic religious divisions become further exacerbated by the use of the Cyrillic alphabet by the Orthodox and Uniates (Greek Catholics) and of the Roman alphabet by Roman Catholics. However, Serbian language can be written in both Cyrillic and Roman alphabets. There is also a Latin script to write in Belarusian language, called Lacinka alphabet. Bosnian language was written in Arabic alphabet until the 20th century. == See also == * List of Slavs * Slavic mythology * Gord (Slavic settlement) * Early East Slavs Slavs Slavic ethnic groups bs:Slaveni
==Macedonian== 62.47.28.215 let us clearify a bit a term Macedonian. I am Slovene and also I am a Slovene citizen. In Slovenia there are no other Slovenes. We can't talk about Slovene or non-Slovene Slavs. In this country there are just other nationalities. So what nationality you are? I know just for a nation, called Macedonians. You might be Greek, Albanian, Serb or whatever. If you insist on the term Macedonian Slavs, so let it be. Are there any other nations which are Macedonians but are not Slavs? I think not. Best regards. --User:XJamRastafire 09:30 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC) The Macedonians are Greek people ! See Alexander the Great and "Vergina sun" ! Macedonian,Greek 25.04.2003 :So in my point of view you're Greek or at least Macedonian Greek. Probably you talk and write Greek language. According to one snub German I'll be Slovene Slav, which do not exist. --User:XJamRastafire 09:47 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC) ==Bunjevci, Sokci, Istrians== Listing Bunjevci and Šokci under Serbs and Istrians under Croats is another shining example of Slobodan Milosevic-like logic. First of all -- Istrians -- a fraction of people in the Istria county of Croatia declared their ethnicity (local word "narodnost", rather ambiguous but fairly well translated as ethnicity) as ''regional''. I've never heard of that group asking for any separate ethnic minority rights, while I've often heard of (self-proclaimed) Croats in Istria demanding regional autonomy, so while it's plausible to consider the Istrians distinct, it's pretty hard to imagine why they should be listed as a separate _ethnicity_. As for Bunjevci and Šokci, ever since the census of 1981, their number in Serbia (Vojvodina really) rose as the number of Croats fell (and the number of ''Yugoslavs'' also rose). Bunjevci are the more vocal group of those, and there is a faction among them that claims they're neither Serbs nor Croats, just plain Bunjevci. Another faction thinks they're Croats. The Šokci on the other hand, spread through both Slavonia and Vojvodina. In Slavonia they hardly register as a blip on the ethnic radar, whereas in Vojvodina they show up, together with the undeclared and other regional affiliations, almost always in places where there are/were significant Croat minorities. I don't know, maybe it's all due to Tito's and Ranković's and whoever's discriminatory policies against the people who actually wanted to be part of smaller ethnic groups. Or maybe it's due to the fact they're a small Catholic minority among the Orthodox Serbs, looking to get out of sight at a time when Serb nationalism is looking very unfavourably at the "enemy". (Needless to mention, Croats, Albanians and Bosniaks were all painted that way during the Milosevic-led jingoist upheaval.) Declaring one's self a member of one of those groups, that isn't simply Croat and has ways of getting by as Serb, was a reasonably simple way out. I don't blame them, really. But wartime opportunism is one thing; continued flawed ethnic appropriation is another, and that's what the current article perpetuates. The sad thing here is that I'm arguing the same basic point as the Croat nationalists and that I'm likely going to be accused of siding with them by the Serb nationalists. *sigh* --User:Shallot 11:42, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC) ------------------------- The nonsense about "Bunjevci" "people" deleted. This is simply a regional Croatian subgroup that was in past 10-20 years manipulated and pressured by Serbian fascist regime of Slobodan Milošević and Vojislav Šešelj (the ICTY Hague tenants)to distance from Croatdom- for very obvious reasons for which they are currently at trial. There are no separate Bunjevac press, books, dialect or folklore. Every Bunjevac, from father of modern Croatian nationalism Ante Starčević, to popular folklore singer Zvonko Bogdan- knew and know where they belong. As for censa- any census that is conducted in the climate of fear is of no consequence. "Ethnic" Bunjevci are as "real" as "ethnic" Yugoslavs, as real as angular circle or square triangle. M H Milosevic did not pressure them, even before Milosevic came to power some Bunjevci chose to be a seperate ethnic group. There are in fact seperate Bunjevci press, books, and foljlore. ==Incoherent sentences== I removed the second "sentence" from the article because try as I might, I could make no sense of it: :''The Germanic and Rumanian population will be effect of language changes after conquest.'' Characteristic genetic Y mark HG3 (M17). Who does it refer to? What does it mean? Where does it come from? Could whoever added this, or someone familiar with the theory, rewrite this as a real sentence and reinsert it into the appropriate paragraph? Thanks. --User:Mirv 21:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) == Slavs in the Vistula 500 BC? == The article alleges that Celts and Germans passed through the Vistula area "without displacing" local slavs. Is there a confusion with Illyrians and Thrakians? What evidence is there that Slavs lived there before the 6th century? Also, who is the editor? The articles often seem written by unreconstructed Polish nationalists. What do Illyrians and Thrakians have to do with the area around the Vistula River? ==Bunjevci, Gorani, etc== The anonymous user from 193.198.x.y (cmu.carnet.hr, a dialup block from Croatia) apparently seems to have an anti-Serbian agenda... I just noticed after this recent commit here that they have been continuously reverting the Bunjevci article to some blatant copy&paste and have also now changed the Gorani article to make the Macedonians, though Google shows that they're more like the Bosniaks. Mass-revert, and/or ban? It'll be non-trivial to ban them without banning the whole dialup range... --User:Shallot 00:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Gradisce/Burgenland, Molise, etc== The anonymous user from 24.70.95.203 (something in Canada IIRC) apparently has a pan-Serbian agenda... they included notes about Molise and Gradisce/Burgenland in here and in Serbo-Croatian language, and marked them as Serbs, whereas those are Croats AFAIK. They also don't seem to grasp the fact Burgenland == Gradišće, and their user contribution page shows some other deficiencies... --User:Shallot 00:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC) Now Igor also inserted these "heavily Italianized Molise Serbs". Like, what the hell? Google can't find a single mention of that. I found only one page that refers to them as "Serbs-Croats", probably per the notion that those who speak "Serbo-Croatian" must be "Serbo-Croats", which is false (though amusing). : In the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there were scholars which held that there exists a certain people called Serbocroats :) User:Nikola Smolenski Those Slavs in Kruč, Mundimitar and Filič, as shown on [http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Sprachwiss/slavistik/acqua/indexN.htm this page], came from Croatia and speak a dialect closest to Croatian čakavian. To consider them Serbs is really shallow conjecture that serves no purpose but to troll. --User:Shallot 17:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) : See, for example, [http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1998/03/article-17.html this article]. User:Nikola Smolenski 06:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) :: I suppose that if the old lady said so, the old lady said so :) But it's still a single report over a hundred years old, and it doesn't appear to be reproducible today. Perhaps both Croats and Serbs migrated back then, but the Serbs are no longer to be found today, faster naturalization or something... --User:Shallot 13:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::Serbian megamoronism has achieved new triumphs, I see. What's next ? Serbopitecs ? http://www.croatidelmolise.it/ User:Mir Harven 14:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Serbs can still be found in the region and other regions. So you have no right saying that their is no thing as Molise Serbs. There are Molise Serbs, and the article did not refer to Molise Croats. Molise Serb also refers to people who are Serbian Orthodox living in Italy who can trace their origin to Serbia, and whose ancestors came to Italy in the late 15th or early 16th century.User:Slav :There are, have never been and will, surely, no such group as "Molise Serbs". This is just a part of despicable Serbian propaganda and I the page should be removed. It's simply a disgusting lie. http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/michelequici/croati/ , http://www.eurolang.net/Languages/Croatian.htm , http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Sprachwiss/slavistik/acqua/spracheE.htm User:Mir Harven 21:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) : This user has since restated pretty much the same on Talk:Molise Serbs, but after reviewing some data it seems like the term is being intentionally twisted for a political purpose. Someone else should have a look at it before I move it to what seems to be a more suitable title (like "Serbs in Italy"). --User:Shallot 21:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC) ---- I know nothing about Molise Serbs or Burgenland Serbs. But I know lots of about Molise Croats and Burgendland Croats. In Google there are just a few hits for B. Serbs (all Wikipedaia based) and M.Serbs. But hundreds hits for B.Croats and M.Croats. Before you introduce your thesis, please write something more about that. User:Yeti 22:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ---- The Gradisce Slavs speak and write Cakavian-Ikavian ([http://www.hrvatskenovine.at Gradisce-Croatian newspaper]) and are about the most Catholic people you get in Austria east of Salzburg :) Calling them Serbs is going way beyond even Vuk Karadzic' theories... User:Jakob Stevo 14:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :One more note: there actually is a difference in terms between Burgenland Croats and Gradisce Croats: Burgenland refers to the area of one Austrian Bundesland, while ''gradiscanski Hrvati'' at least in Croatian usually seems to include the autochthonous Croat minorities in Western Hungary and Slovakia. In other words: Burgenland Croats are the largest subgroup of Gradisce Croats, but not all Gradisce Croats live in Burgenland. Unless there is a fixed terminology in English of which I don't know, i suggest we should copy this use into English, calling them Gradisce Croats when historically or culturally talking about the Croats in pre-WW-I Western Hungary and Burgenland Croats only in an Austrian context. User:Jakob Stevo 15:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :: Hmm, while we're at it, I might mention the following: I happened to catch a glimpse of some programme on HTV recently where they interviewed Croats from Slovakia at some folklore-related event. The interviewer, from .hr, referred to them as being "gradišćanski Hrvati", but the woman she talked to seemed to take offense at that notion, saying that their ancestors moved at the same time but not to Gradišće so that she shouldn't call them the same name. I was slightly surprised myself, and I don't know if this is a common sentiment, either. --User:Shallot 21:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :::Well, I never talked to any Slovakian Croats :-) but the ones in Austria talk about "gradišćanski Hrvati on both sides of the border". User:Jakob Stevo 16:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC) ==Anon edit== Can someone please check the anon edits made in the last few minutes? Thanks! User:Mark Richards 22:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Map== The map Media:slavic.jpg refers to languages rather to ethnic groups so it may cause confusion. It also lists no minorities, and it doesn't show anything other than a zoomed part of Europe. Further, there's no license attached, but there is some note in the lower right corner that resembles the author. I don't really see why it should remain on the page... --User:Shallot 21:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==The word slave== The English word "slave" has its root in the Slavic ethnonym, because the Roman Empire often used Slavs as slaves. See this external>>> >>>there were not slavs in west-southern europe till of the end of 6 cent. about 600. political end of west-rome is date 476. --80.142.197.150 :Maybe it should say the Holy Roman Empire ??? User:Jakob Stevo 15:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :One of history's mysteries... User:Nikola Smolenski 10:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==Religion of the Czechs== I thought most Czechs are catholics, not protestants? User:Meursault2004 23:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) :AFAIK, most Czechs are non-religious and usually describe themselves as "atheists". --User:Kpalion 10:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ::According to the CIA Factbook, 40% is atheist, 39% catholic. —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 06:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) ==Pan-Slavism== ''In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics.'' I'm not sure if this is right. The 19th cent. Pan-Slavism had quite a big influence on practical politics after the WW1. It led to the creation of the SHS Kingdom (Yugoslavia) whose official anthem was the Pan-Slavic song, ''Hej Sloveni''. I guess the creation of Czechoslovakia was also influenced by the Pan-Slavic movement, and perhaps to some extent also played a role in the creation of the Soviet Union (which started as a union of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian soviet republics). Also note that national colors of most Slavic nations are based on the Russian white, blue and red flag, since Russia was seen as the natural leader of the Pan-Slavic movement (notable exceptions are the nations which used to be dominated by Russia - Belarus, Ukraine and Poland); see Pan-Slavic colors. Of course, Pan-Slavism was more popular among some Slavic nations, and less among others. For intance, it had almost no following in Poland which was fighting for independence from Russia and wouldn't adhere to a Russian-led movement. --User:Kpalion 10:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ==Theory of autochthonous Slavic origin== This pseudo-scientific piece can only have a very nationalistic scholar as its origin: ''The opposite recent theory postulates an autochthonous Slavic origin from pre-glacial times. The Germanic and Romanian (Vlachian) populations, by this theory, would have arisen from the effect of language changes after conquest. This theory is based on genetic research and a theory of multi-regional human evolution instead of the "out of Africa" concept. The Slavic homeland, in this theory, would have included areas described by Tacitus as Germania. Tacitus wrote that Germania, as applied to all the Germanic peoples, was a relatively recent (1st century) coinage.'' So, I conclude that the Slavs have inhabited Eastern Europe since before the ice age. The text also implies that the presence of Germanic tribes and Romanian are linked to the later immigration to Europe. This logically means that the Slavs are descended from Neanderthals, right? User:Wiglaf Yeah, this version of the autohtonic theory is much exagerrated, but in matter of fact, there is no theory that explains all the issues, so autohtonic theory, saying pre-Slavs populated some nicha areas in Poland since ice-era and then emerged and then have assimilated some local elements explains facts no worse then invasion theory. User:Cautious 16:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC) They point is that both theories as presented here start from the assumption that there has always been such a thing as clearly defined nations. Most certainly the Germanic expension to the south east during the last pre-Christian centuries was only carried by a small amount of people who formed the elite and mingled with the existing population. Again, most certainly the existing population was in some way related to the ones that later became known as ''Slavs''. If they where Slavs themselves, we simply can not say as we don't know their language. Also we don't know if Germanic became doninant language in, let's say, todays Poland, or if it ever remained language of elites and administration. We only know that the earliest existing Germanic text (the Lord's Prayer in Gothic) contains words that are most certainly not Germanic (''ata'' for ''father'' resembling of Turkic). That leads me to believe that the Eastern Germanics shared the space with other peoples - the Ostrogoths possibly with some Turkic tribes, the Visigoths probably with Skyths, the ones further to the Northwest - Vandals, Langobards, Burgundians,... - maybe with proto-Slavs. So I believe it's possible that what we came to call Slavs emerged from the authochthonous population of what (much later) came to be parts of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth after the Germanics left during the migration era. Also I recall no records of a great Slavic invasion in Poland or Eastern Germany, they just suddenly seem to be there at one point. But it doesn't make sense to say they have been there from pre-glacial times. User:Jakob Stevo 15:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :This article impresses me as full of agressive speculations.--User:Wiglaf 12:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Sentence == No, this sentence does not make sense as it is: "The Germanic and Romanian (Vlachian) populations, by this theory, would have arisen from the effect of language changes after the conquest". I see that the original phrasing of the sentence was totally incoherent (see history)---this one is not much better. I am erasing this phrase completely. (Decius) == commented out bits == : ''The various Slavic nations and peoples conducted their policies in accordance with what they regarded as their national interests, and these policies often proved as bitterly hostile toward other Slavic peoples as friendly toward non-Slavs. Even political unions of the 20th century, such as that of Yugoslavia, did not always achieve ethnic or cultural accord and remained essentially hegemony in favor of certain groups.'' Nothing specific to Slavs here: as if Chinese, African, Romance or Germanic people didn't kill their kin --User:Mikkalai, 10 Dec 2003 ==Hitler's opinions on Slavic people== I believe that Hitler's opinion on Slavic people is totally irrelevant and has little or no impact on the discussion on Slavic people in the historical context. In fact, despite a large international influence Hitler's statements have no place in this article. If his opinion may come across as important or worthy of mentioning to Germans, it should be put in the Hitler's biography or a separate article on Hitler's view vis-a-vis Slavic people. I think that to most Slavs, Hitler's or generally German opinion on them are irrelevant. --User:VicFromTheBlock : Fact remains that Nazi Germany committed genocidal acts against large numbers of Slavs just because they were Slavs, so I'll rephrase... --User:Joy I agree with --User:Joy Nazis planned partly to exterminate, partly to assimilate the Poles and Czechs, because of their racial inferiority. When someone wants to exterminate you, it is not irrelevant.--User:Georgius 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Etymology of Slav == There is another etymology that should be mentioned in the article, because it is possible: the theory is mentioned in a Time-Life book on The Balkans by Edmund Stillman, and in many other sources. The idea is that Slav is from ''Slava'' a swampy region near the Vistula river. I'll get the quote. The Strategikon describes the Slavs as being well-acquainted with living in swampy areas. User:Decius 09:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) The Time-Life book is 'The Balkans' by Edmund Stillman and the Editors of Life, and was part of the 'Life World Library' series. My copy is from 1964. I am going to quote the entire paragraph on pg. 28, which was titled "The Disputed Origin Of 'Slav'": :"'''The origin of the name of the Slavs, the tribal ancestors of so many of the Balkan peoples, and of the Poles and Russians as well, has been considerably disputed. The dispute, moreover, is a partial reflection of the tensions between peoples which have long permeated the area. The Slavs themselves offer a totally legendary explanation, tracing the origin of the name to 'Slava', the word for "glory" in the ancient Slavic language. Some philologists connect the word with the medieval Latin word 'sclaveni', from which the English word "slave" is derived. Still another suggestion sometimes offered is that the word derives from a river or swampy area known as 'Slava' or 'Slova'. The Slavic peoples did, in fact, originally come from the marshy regions of the upper Vistula valley area in what is now Poland.'''" That's the paragraph, word for word. The 'swamp' etymology resonates with what the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (reigned in the mid-late 6th century) wrote concering the Slavs in the Strategikon text (various mss, different dates). But you don't want me to quote the Strategikon, because it is quite disheartening to the Slavic people. User:Decius 07:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) : Who are you arguing against here? Why not simply fix whatever needs to be fixed in the article, and drop the offensive overgeneralized rant against some apparently imaginary enemies? Where does all this bile come from... --User:Joy 11:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't need to put this etymology in the article. What I am going to fix is that "germanic, romanian" statement. Bile is secreted from the liver and stored in the gallbladder. User:Decius 14:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) My revisions are phrased in an un-encyclopedic tone on purpose, to mock the un-scientific theory that was half-wittedly described. User:Decius 16:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I didn't see anyone throwing stones, but I think one must have hit your gallbladder. ''Clean-up in Slavic peoples!'' ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-29 17:48 Z'' No, no stones hit me, they didn't have good aim, and not enough force behind them. Anyway, this article was a mess, and that theory should be properly described (why not, there is space to describe it) unless you want it to be erased. How much is science and how much is politics and propaganda in this "autochthonic" theory? User:Decius 06:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) == South Slavs == Bosniaks, Muslims, Croats, Bunjevci, Sokci, Yugoslavs, Serbs, Gorani and Montenegrins are all listed as separate nationalities in last census in Serbia in 2002. So, all of them are separate nationalities (not part of another nationality). User:PANONIAN : I feel that it's an excessive fragmentation. You end up with more Slavic subgroups in 250,000 km2 Yugoslavia than in 22,000,000 km2 Soviet Union. This begs the question: are they really all that different, or are we applying different division rules to different countries? : Bunjevci and Gorani are less than 50,000 people each, they should probably be listed as subgroups of Croats and Serbs, respectively. I don't know how appropriate it is to include Muslims and Yugoslavs in the list, neither of these ethnic groups existed until 50 years ago. --User:Itinerant 03:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: And how big should a nation be in order to be treated as a nation? If the government of Serbia and Montenegro treats them as national minorities, then why should we "assimilate" them by force here in wikipedia? User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 07:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) ::: I suppose we could have a nation of only 50,000 if it was sufficiently self-contained and isolated from the rest of the world ( e.g. somewhere on a Pacific island ). In the center of Europe, I doubt it is possible for such a small group of people to attain sufficient isolation and identity. Most European nations are at least a few million people. When we have a group of 5,000,000 people ( who call themselves X ) living on a certain piece of land and another group of 50,000 people called Y who live in the neighboring area, speak essentially the same language, have the same religion, and probably share the same ancestry, it makes sense to list X as a nationality and Y as a subgroup of X. --User:Itinerant 08:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: Our section definition is rather broad and allows for this, it only says "ethno-cultural subdivisions". If we changed the section to be like the categories, we'd have one group with "nations" and one with "ethnic groups" and probably avoid this distinction. Then the borderline cases would be fewer (although still existant - see Montenegrins). --User:Joy 09:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) As I already said, all of these ethnic groups are officially recognized nationalities by Serbian government and there is no reason to assimilate them here (As Halibutt pointed out). Now, for Itinerant: I do not know is this fragmentation excessive or not, but that is just how things are. Also, in former Soviet Union you have much more small ethnic groups (only difference is that these ethnic groups are not Slavic). And you ask are these ethnic groups really different. I can tell you this: I live in Vojvodina region of Serbia and all of these ethnic groups live here, so I can tell you from the first hand that they are different. For example, people of Bunjevci nationality live mostly in northern Vojvodina. Some of the Bunjevci regard and declare themselves as Croats, some regard and declare themselves as Serbs and some regard and declare themselves as separate Bunjevci nationality. Bunjevci, which declared selves as such, do not regard selves as part of Croatian or Serbian nationality, and they are recognized as separate nationality by Serbian government. As for Muslims and Yugoslavs, they are also recognized nationalities by Serbian government (Even my mother declared herself as Yugoslav). So, I do not see a reason not to include these nationalities here. Why creating unneeded time limit (they didn’t existed 50 years ago). So what if they didn’t? They exist now and only that is important here. As for your statement that these nations should be listed as part of larger nationalities because they share same language and heritage with these larger nations, it is not what define a nationality. If these small nationalities do not regard themselves as parts of larger nations, there is no reason that we regard them as such. It is a national consciousness what makes somebody to be part of one nationality (not language and heritage). For Joy: I am pretty sure that Bunjevci Croats or Croats of Bunjevci origin (not same as Bunjevci nationality) exists in Vojvodina, but I am not sure are there Sokci Croats (not same as Sokci nationality). I suppose that some declared Croats in Vojvodina are Sokci by origin, but I repeat, I am not sure. User:PANONIAN : There are numerous Šokci in Slavonia that are Croats (telling you from first-hand experience). --User:Joy 20:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) I added Rusyns from Vojvodina in article (I forgot to log in when I done this). Ukrainian Rusyns are listed here as sub-ethnicity of Ukrainians. However, Rusyns and Ukrainians in Vojvodina are recognized as separate nationalities by Serbian government. Besides that, Rusyns in Vojvodina speak Western Slavic language (similar to Slovak), while Rusyns in Ukraine speak Eastern Slavic language. If we have these facts in our mind, we should to include Rusyns from Vojvodina in our list as separate ethnic group of Western Slavs. Also, their name is Rusyns, but I wrote Vojvodina Rusyns to make distinction between them and Rusyns, who live in Ukraine. User:PANONIAN == Bokelji == Bokeljs (Serbian: Бокељи) are NOT Croats. Less then 2% (or something) have declared them selfs as Croats. I have changed this allready but somebody keeps returning it. User:Milant 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Where do you get the number 2% from? Ever seen the article Bokelji? --User:Joy 16:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Assimilation== "Still more confusion comes from the fact that some Slavic peoples originated as a result of complete assimilation of ancient non-Slavic peoples. For example, the name of modern Bulgarians can be traced to the Turkic tribe Bulgars who merged with Balkan Slavs in the 7th century." But this actually is an example of the opposite of the first sentence! User:Nikola Smolenski 06:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I agree + ther are quite many cases of the opposite - the Polabian Slavs who became assimilated by the Germans, the Panonian Slavs who were assimilated by the Hungarians and the Slavs in Pelloponessos and Thessaly, who were assimilated by the Greeks. I can't see any "Slav resilience" in these cases VMORO 08:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) == Do the Slavic people exist? == Wikipedia does not have an article about Germanic people (only Germanic tribes) or Romance people.No list of Germanic people including Tiger Woods,Einstein and Vincent van Gogh. Is it really true, that people speaking Slavic languages today have a common ethnic origin? Does for example an average Czech have more common ancestors with an average Macedonian than with an average German-speaking Austrian? Or do Macedonians really have more common ancestry with people living currently in Poland than with people living in Greece? Do the Slavic peple have something in common apart from the origin of their languages?--User:Georgius 10:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :I would assume that generally there are a proportion of genes in common, but I haven't read any genetic studies on the matter. In the old days, scholars used to speak of "Slavic physical traits" such as brachycephalic craniums (basically, wide faces), etc., but that is largely outdated science. User:Decius 11:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC) == split off tribes? == I was wondering, would people like it if Slavic tribes was split off from this article? That way we could eliminate most of the historical mulling from here, and leave more space for expansion in the tribes article. --User:Joy 13:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Slavic_Peoples:
Slavic_Peoples
Slavic_peoples
Slavic_peoples
Slavic Peoples
#REDIRECT Slavic peoples
Slavic peoples
The Slavic peoples are the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in Europe. They speak Slavic languages and reside chiefly in Eastern Europe, but are also found in Asia. ==Ethno-cultural subdivisions== One can customarily divide the Slavs into the following subgroups: * East Slavs: **Russians ***Lipovan **Ukrainians ***Rusyns (Ruthenes)* ****Lemko ****Bojko ****Hucul **Rusyns (Ruthenes)* ***Lemko ***Bojko ***Hucul **Belarusians ***Poleszuks (transitional between Ukrainians and Belarusians) *West Slavs: **Lechitic group allegedly includes Poles, Pomeranians and Polabian Slavs **Poles ***Mazurians ***Polanie ***Silesians* ***Warmiaks ***Pomeranians ****Kashubians ****Slovincians ****Kociewiacy ****Borowiacy **Polabian Slavs ****Volinians (Velunzani) ****Pyritzans (Prissani) ****Veleti (Wiltzi) ****Abodrites (Nortabtrezi). **Czechs ***Moravians (ethnic group)* **Moravians (ethnic group)* **Slovaks **Rusyns **Sorbs (Lusatians, Serb-Lusatians) *South Slavs: **Bulgarians ***Muslim Bulgarians (Pomaks) **Macedonian Slavs ***Torbesh **Bosniaks ***Muslims by nationality* **Muslims by nationality* **Croats ***Bokelji ***Bunjevci* ***Janjevci ***Molise Croats ***Burgenland Croats ***Sokci* **Bunjevci* **Sokci* **"Yugoslavs" **Serbs ***Krashovans ***Montenegrins* ***Gorani (Kosovo)* **Gorani (Kosovo)* **Montenegrins* **Slovenians ***Karantanians (''Proto-Slovenes'') (*) Classification disputed. ==The emergence of Proto-Slavic== The Proto-Slavic language (or Proto-Balto-Slavic) language branched off at some uncertain time in an unknown location from common Proto-Indo-European, becoming a separate Indo-European language: Proto-Slavic, a hypothetical (reconstructed) language whence Common Slavonic and the later individual Slavic languages emerged. ==The Slavic homeland Debates== A common theory is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and also the later Proto-Slavs, originated from the steppes of Ukraine and southern Russia (see Kurgan hypothesis). However, other scholars believe that the Proto-Slavs had been in north-east Central Europe since very early times, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture and later the Przeworsk culture (and were also part of the Chernyakhov culture). However, this latter theory does not contradict the Kurgan hypothesis. There are thus two major historical theories that address the issue of the original homeland of Slavs: # the ''autochthonic'' theory assumes that Slavs had lived north of the Carpathian Mountains since the Lusatian culture (before 1000 BC). # the ''allochthonic'' theory assumes that the Slavs came there in the 5th century or 6th century AD. German people and different Slavic nations have employed either of these theories as tools of political propaganda, resulting in general confusion. Some scientists (such as Kazimierz Godlowski or Zdenek Vana) consider both theories absurd: they think that Slavs as such appeared and differentiated themselves from other tribes some time after 1 AD. Many regions have been proposed as the hypothetical Slavic homeland. Suggestions include today's Poland, the marshes of Polesie, Volhynia, areas around the upper Dniepr river, and even Central Asia. Slavs first appeared in history living in the Pripyat Marshes area (Polesie). Around 500 BC, Celtic tribes settled along the upper Oder river (''Odra''), and Germanic tribes settled on the lower Vistula and the lower Oder rivers. The lands of the Elbe, Oder, and Vistula regions all came to be known as ''Magna Germania'' by ca. 100 AD. It has not been verified whether any Slavic tribes were settled in these regions at that time. One theory suggests that two waves of ''Slavs'' existed: ''Proto-Slavs'' (called by these theorists "Venedes" or "Venedes"), and the Slavs proper; and that these two groups were mixed to become today's Slavs. However, the claim that the Venedes were a Slavic or even a proto-Slavic people is very controversial, and many scholars believe that the ''Venedes'' belonged to another Indo-European branch, rather than Slavic. Another recent theory, relying on the multiregional origin hypothesis claims an autochthonous Slavic origin from pre-glacial times. The Slavic homeland would thus have included areas described by Tacitus as Germania. This theory has little support among scientists. Still more confusion comes from the fact that some Slavic peoples have originated as a result of complete assimilation of non-Slavic peoples. Myth-weavers often seize upon this phenomenon (which happened in some cases) to create spurious pseudo-histories (''see Connection between Poles and Vandals''). Finally, several new theories of the origin of Slavs were published, and found large numbers of followers, in the 1990s and 2000s, fueled by the rise of nationalism in Ukraine and Russia. Most of them attempt to establish a direct connection between the Slavs and Aryan. Some even claim that Slavs existed as an entity as early as the 7th millennium BC to 5th millennium BC and were ancestors of the Sumerian. They say that the fabled Sumerian city of Aratta was located in Ukraine. There is plenty of archeological evidence for settlements in northern Ukraine and Poland as far back as 3rd millennium BC (Trypillian culture , Tishinets, Peshevor, Zarubinets cultures). People who lived there supported themselves principally by means of agriculture; some of them had mastered the use of metal by the 8th century BC. The absence of a written language leaves it open for debate whether those people were in any way related to modern Slavs. ==Ethnonyms applied to Slavs== The peoples we now know as Slavs appeared in early histories as "Venedes" or "Wends", but as noted above, their connection to the Venedes mentioned by Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder remains uncertain, and the similarity of the two names may have come about spuriously, by way of a later misidentification. Some later writers recorded the names of Slavic peoples as ''Sclavens'', ''Sclovene'', and ''Ants''. Jordanes mentions that the Venets sub-divided into three groups: the Venets, the Ants and the Sklavens. Traditionally the name "Venets" has become associated with the Western Slavs, "Sklavens" with the Southern Slavs, and the "Ants" (or "Antes") with the Eastern Slavs. ==Etymology of 'Slav'== Even the origin of the word "Slav" remains controversial. In the Old Church Slavonic language that word is "Sloveane", or something similar, with obvious similarities to the word ''slovo'' meaning "word, talk". Thus ''Sloveane'' would mean "people who speak (the same language)", i.e. people who understand each other, as opposed to the Slavic word for Germans, ''nemtsi'', or "dumb, speechless people" (from Slavic ''nemi'' - mute, dumb; compare the Greek coinage of the term "barbarian"). Another obvious similarity links "Slavs" to the word ''slava'', that is "glory" or "praise" (with a root in common with ''slovo'' - one who is often spoken of). Some linguists believe, however, that these obvious connections mislead, despite the early translation of the Greek word ''orthodoxos'' ("Correct/right", "glorifying/praising") having its equivalent in ''pravoslavni'' with ''pravo'' meaning "right" or "correct" and ''slavni'' meaning "those who praise" or "those who glorify" [God]. ==Slavs in the Historical period== Slavs emerged from obscurity when the westward movement of Germans and Celts in the 5th century and 6th century (necessitated by the onslaught of peoples from Siberia and Eastern Europe: Huns, Avars, Bulgars and Magyars) started the Human migration#The great migrations of the Slavs, who followed in the Germans' wake: westward into the country between the Odra and the Elbe-Saale line; southward into Bohemia, Moravia, much of present day Austria, the Pannonian plain and the Balkans; and northward along the upper Dnieper river. When their migratory movements ended, there appeared among the Slavs the first rudiments of state organizations, each headed by a prince with a treasury and defense force; and the beginnings of class differentiation, with nobles who pledged allegiance to the Frankish and Holy Roman Emperors. In the 7th century the Frankish nobleman Samo, who supported the Slavs fighting their Avar rulers, became the ruler of the first known Slav state in Central Europe. Karantania in today's Austria and Slovenia was one Slavic state; very old also are the Principality of Nitra and the Moravians (ethnic group) principality (see under Great Moravia). In this period there existed central Slavic groups and states, such as the Balaton Principality or the Severans, but the subsequent expansion of the Magyars and Romanians, as well as the Germanisation of Austria, separated the northern and southern Slavs. ''An explanation of the distinction between the western and eastern Slavs remains to be written.'' In the early history of the Slavs, and continuing into the Dark Ages, non-Slavic groups were sometimes assimilated by Slavic-speaking populations: the Croats and the Bulgars became Slavicized and their non-Slavic tongues disappeared; in other cases, Slavs themselves were assimilated into other groups such as the Romanians, Magyars, Greeks, etc. Scarcely any unity developed among various Slavic peoples in the early historic period, although faint traces of co-operation sometimes appeared. Because of the vastness and diversity of the territory occupied by Slavic peoples, there were several centers of Slavic consolidation, a process that was never completed for many reasons. In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics. The common Slavic experience of Soviet communism after World War II within the Eastern bloc (Warsaw Pact) was a forced high-level political and economic alliance, but nothing more, and it was hegemony in favor of certain groups. A notable political union of the 20th century that covered many South Slavs was Yugoslavia, but it broke apart as well. Nazi Germany, whose proponents claimed a racial superiority for the Germanic people, particularly over Semitic and Slavic peoples, plotted an enslavement of the Slavic peoples, and the reduction of their numbers by killing the majority of the population. As a result, a large number of Slavs were slain during World War II. == Religion and alphabet == In religion, the Slavs traditionally divided into two main groups: # those associated with the Eastern Orthodoxy - most Russians, most Ukrainians, most Belarusians, some Carpatho-Ruthenians (Rusyns), most Serbs, most Bulgarians and most Macedonians # those associated with the Roman Catholic Church (both Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite) - Poles, some Sorbs, some Czechs, most Slovaks, Croats, Slovenians, some Ukrainians, a few Serbs, a few Macedonians and some Belarusians. Some Sorbs profess Protestantism, as do certain Slovaks, and a few Czechs and Slovenians. Most Bosniaks, Pomaks, Gorani, and Torbesh are Muslims. The Orthodox/Catholic religious divisions become further exacerbated by the use of the Cyrillic alphabet by the Orthodox and Uniates (Greek Catholics) and of the Roman alphabet by Roman Catholics. However, Serbian language can be written in both Cyrillic and Roman alphabets. There is also a Latin script to write in Belarusian language, called Lacinka alphabet. Bosnian language was written in Arabic alphabet until the 20th century. == See also == * List of Slavs * Slavic mythology * Gord (Slavic settlement) * Early East Slavs Slavs Slavic ethnic groups bs:Slaveni
Slavic peoples
==Macedonian== 62.47.28.215 let us clearify a bit a term Macedonian. I am Slovene and also I am a Slovene citizen. In Slovenia there are no other Slovenes. We can't talk about Slovene or non-Slovene Slavs. In this country there are just other nationalities. So what nationality you are? I know just for a nation, called Macedonians. You might be Greek, Albanian, Serb or whatever. If you insist on the term Macedonian Slavs, so let it be. Are there any other nations which are Macedonians but are not Slavs? I think not. Best regards. --User:XJamRastafire 09:30 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC) The Macedonians are Greek people ! See Alexander the Great and "Vergina sun" ! Macedonian,Greek 25.04.2003 :So in my point of view you're Greek or at least Macedonian Greek. Probably you talk and write Greek language. According to one snub German I'll be Slovene Slav, which do not exist. --User:XJamRastafire 09:47 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC) ==Bunjevci, Sokci, Istrians== Listing Bunjevci and Šokci under Serbs and Istrians under Croats is another shining example of Slobodan Milosevic-like logic. First of all -- Istrians -- a fraction of people in the Istria county of Croatia declared their ethnicity (local word "narodnost", rather ambiguous but fairly well translated as ethnicity) as ''regional''. I've never heard of that group asking for any separate ethnic minority rights, while I've often heard of (self-proclaimed) Croats in Istria demanding regional autonomy, so while it's plausible to consider the Istrians distinct, it's pretty hard to imagine why they should be listed as a separate _ethnicity_. As for Bunjevci and Šokci, ever since the census of 1981, their number in Serbia (Vojvodina really) rose as the number of Croats fell (and the number of ''Yugoslavs'' also rose). Bunjevci are the more vocal group of those, and there is a faction among them that claims they're neither Serbs nor Croats, just plain Bunjevci. Another faction thinks they're Croats. The Šokci on the other hand, spread through both Slavonia and Vojvodina. In Slavonia they hardly register as a blip on the ethnic radar, whereas in Vojvodina they show up, together with the undeclared and other regional affiliations, almost always in places where there are/were significant Croat minorities. I don't know, maybe it's all due to Tito's and Ranković's and whoever's discriminatory policies against the people who actually wanted to be part of smaller ethnic groups. Or maybe it's due to the fact they're a small Catholic minority among the Orthodox Serbs, looking to get out of sight at a time when Serb nationalism is looking very unfavourably at the "enemy". (Needless to mention, Croats, Albanians and Bosniaks were all painted that way during the Milosevic-led jingoist upheaval.) Declaring one's self a member of one of those groups, that isn't simply Croat and has ways of getting by as Serb, was a reasonably simple way out. I don't blame them, really. But wartime opportunism is one thing; continued flawed ethnic appropriation is another, and that's what the current article perpetuates. The sad thing here is that I'm arguing the same basic point as the Croat nationalists and that I'm likely going to be accused of siding with them by the Serb nationalists. *sigh* --User:Shallot 11:42, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC) ------------------------- The nonsense about "Bunjevci" "people" deleted. This is simply a regional Croatian subgroup that was in past 10-20 years manipulated and pressured by Serbian fascist regime of Slobodan Milošević and Vojislav Šešelj (the ICTY Hague tenants)to distance from Croatdom- for very obvious reasons for which they are currently at trial. There are no separate Bunjevac press, books, dialect or folklore. Every Bunjevac, from father of modern Croatian nationalism Ante Starčević, to popular folklore singer Zvonko Bogdan- knew and know where they belong. As for censa- any census that is conducted in the climate of fear is of no consequence. "Ethnic" Bunjevci are as "real" as "ethnic" Yugoslavs, as real as angular circle or square triangle. M H Milosevic did not pressure them, even before Milosevic came to power some Bunjevci chose to be a seperate ethnic group. There are in fact seperate Bunjevci press, books, and foljlore. ==Incoherent sentences== I removed the second "sentence" from the article because try as I might, I could make no sense of it: :''The Germanic and Rumanian population will be effect of language changes after conquest.'' Characteristic genetic Y mark HG3 (M17). Who does it refer to? What does it mean? Where does it come from? Could whoever added this, or someone familiar with the theory, rewrite this as a real sentence and reinsert it into the appropriate paragraph? Thanks. --User:Mirv 21:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) == Slavs in the Vistula 500 BC? == The article alleges that Celts and Germans passed through the Vistula area "without displacing" local slavs. Is there a confusion with Illyrians and Thrakians? What evidence is there that Slavs lived there before the 6th century? Also, who is the editor? The articles often seem written by unreconstructed Polish nationalists. What do Illyrians and Thrakians have to do with the area around the Vistula River? ==Bunjevci, Gorani, etc== The anonymous user from 193.198.x.y (cmu.carnet.hr, a dialup block from Croatia) apparently seems to have an anti-Serbian agenda... I just noticed after this recent commit here that they have been continuously reverting the Bunjevci article to some blatant copy&paste and have also now changed the Gorani article to make the Macedonians, though Google shows that they're more like the Bosniaks. Mass-revert, and/or ban? It'll be non-trivial to ban them without banning the whole dialup range... --User:Shallot 00:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Gradisce/Burgenland, Molise, etc== The anonymous user from 24.70.95.203 (something in Canada IIRC) apparently has a pan-Serbian agenda... they included notes about Molise and Gradisce/Burgenland in here and in Serbo-Croatian language, and marked them as Serbs, whereas those are Croats AFAIK. They also don't seem to grasp the fact Burgenland == Gradišće, and their user contribution page shows some other deficiencies... --User:Shallot 00:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC) Now Igor also inserted these "heavily Italianized Molise Serbs". Like, what the hell? Google can't find a single mention of that. I found only one page that refers to them as "Serbs-Croats", probably per the notion that those who speak "Serbo-Croatian" must be "Serbo-Croats", which is false (though amusing). : In the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there were scholars which held that there exists a certain people called Serbocroats :) User:Nikola Smolenski Those Slavs in Kruč, Mundimitar and Filič, as shown on [http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Sprachwiss/slavistik/acqua/indexN.htm this page], came from Croatia and speak a dialect closest to Croatian čakavian. To consider them Serbs is really shallow conjecture that serves no purpose but to troll. --User:Shallot 17:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) : See, for example, [http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1998/03/article-17.html this article]. User:Nikola Smolenski 06:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) :: I suppose that if the old lady said so, the old lady said so :) But it's still a single report over a hundred years old, and it doesn't appear to be reproducible today. Perhaps both Croats and Serbs migrated back then, but the Serbs are no longer to be found today, faster naturalization or something... --User:Shallot 13:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::Serbian megamoronism has achieved new triumphs, I see. What's next ? Serbopitecs ? http://www.croatidelmolise.it/ User:Mir Harven 14:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Serbs can still be found in the region and other regions. So you have no right saying that their is no thing as Molise Serbs. There are Molise Serbs, and the article did not refer to Molise Croats. Molise Serb also refers to people who are Serbian Orthodox living in Italy who can trace their origin to Serbia, and whose ancestors came to Italy in the late 15th or early 16th century.User:Slav :There are, have never been and will, surely, no such group as "Molise Serbs". This is just a part of despicable Serbian propaganda and I the page should be removed. It's simply a disgusting lie. http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/michelequici/croati/ , http://www.eurolang.net/Languages/Croatian.htm , http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Sprachwiss/slavistik/acqua/spracheE.htm User:Mir Harven 21:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) : This user has since restated pretty much the same on Talk:Molise Serbs, but after reviewing some data it seems like the term is being intentionally twisted for a political purpose. Someone else should have a look at it before I move it to what seems to be a more suitable title (like "Serbs in Italy"). --User:Shallot 21:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC) ---- I know nothing about Molise Serbs or Burgenland Serbs. But I know lots of about Molise Croats and Burgendland Croats. In Google there are just a few hits for B. Serbs (all Wikipedaia based) and M.Serbs. But hundreds hits for B.Croats and M.Croats. Before you introduce your thesis, please write something more about that. User:Yeti 22:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ---- The Gradisce Slavs speak and write Cakavian-Ikavian ([http://www.hrvatskenovine.at Gradisce-Croatian newspaper]) and are about the most Catholic people you get in Austria east of Salzburg :) Calling them Serbs is going way beyond even Vuk Karadzic' theories... User:Jakob Stevo 14:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :One more note: there actually is a difference in terms between Burgenland Croats and Gradisce Croats: Burgenland refers to the area of one Austrian Bundesland, while ''gradiscanski Hrvati'' at least in Croatian usually seems to include the autochthonous Croat minorities in Western Hungary and Slovakia. In other words: Burgenland Croats are the largest subgroup of Gradisce Croats, but not all Gradisce Croats live in Burgenland. Unless there is a fixed terminology in English of which I don't know, i suggest we should copy this use into English, calling them Gradisce Croats when historically or culturally talking about the Croats in pre-WW-I Western Hungary and Burgenland Croats only in an Austrian context. User:Jakob Stevo 15:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :: Hmm, while we're at it, I might mention the following: I happened to catch a glimpse of some programme on HTV recently where they interviewed Croats from Slovakia at some folklore-related event. The interviewer, from .hr, referred to them as being "gradišćanski Hrvati", but the woman she talked to seemed to take offense at that notion, saying that their ancestors moved at the same time but not to Gradišće so that she shouldn't call them the same name. I was slightly surprised myself, and I don't know if this is a common sentiment, either. --User:Shallot 21:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :::Well, I never talked to any Slovakian Croats :-) but the ones in Austria talk about "gradišćanski Hrvati on both sides of the border". User:Jakob Stevo 16:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC) ==Anon edit== Can someone please check the anon edits made in the last few minutes? Thanks! User:Mark Richards 22:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Map== The map Media:slavic.jpg refers to languages rather to ethnic groups so it may cause confusion. It also lists no minorities, and it doesn't show anything other than a zoomed part of Europe. Further, there's no license attached, but there is some note in the lower right corner that resembles the author. I don't really see why it should remain on the page... --User:Shallot 21:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==The word slave== The English word "slave" has its root in the Slavic ethnonym, because the Roman Empire often used Slavs as slaves. See this external>>> >>>there were not slavs in west-southern europe till of the end of 6 cent. about 600. political end of west-rome is date 476. --80.142.197.150 :Maybe it should say the Holy Roman Empire ??? User:Jakob Stevo 15:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :One of history's mysteries... User:Nikola Smolenski 10:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==Religion of the Czechs== I thought most Czechs are catholics, not protestants? User:Meursault2004 23:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) :AFAIK, most Czechs are non-religious and usually describe themselves as "atheists". --User:Kpalion 10:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ::According to the CIA Factbook, 40% is atheist, 39% catholic. —User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 06:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) ==Pan-Slavism== ''In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics.'' I'm not sure if this is right. The 19th cent. Pan-Slavism had quite a big influence on practical politics after the WW1. It led to the creation of the SHS Kingdom (Yugoslavia) whose official anthem was the Pan-Slavic song, ''Hej Sloveni''. I guess the creation of Czechoslovakia was also influenced by the Pan-Slavic movement, and perhaps to some extent also played a role in the creation of the Soviet Union (which started as a union of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian soviet republics). Also note that national colors of most Slavic nations are based on the Russian white, blue and red flag, since Russia was seen as the natural leader of the Pan-Slavic movement (notable exceptions are the nations which used to be dominated by Russia - Belarus, Ukraine and Poland); see Pan-Slavic colors. Of course, Pan-Slavism was more popular among some Slavic nations, and less among others. For intance, it had almost no following in Poland which was fighting for independence from Russia and wouldn't adhere to a Russian-led movement. --User:Kpalion 10:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC) ==Theory of autochthonous Slavic origin== This pseudo-scientific piece can only have a very nationalistic scholar as its origin: ''The opposite recent theory postulates an autochthonous Slavic origin from pre-glacial times. The Germanic and Romanian (Vlachian) populations, by this theory, would have arisen from the effect of language changes after conquest. This theory is based on genetic research and a theory of multi-regional human evolution instead of the "out of Africa" concept. The Slavic homeland, in this theory, would have included areas described by Tacitus as Germania. Tacitus wrote that Germania, as applied to all the Germanic peoples, was a relatively recent (1st century) coinage.'' So, I conclude that the Slavs have inhabited Eastern Europe since before the ice age. The text also implies that the presence of Germanic tribes and Romanian are linked to the later immigration to Europe. This logically means that the Slavs are descended from Neanderthals, right? User:Wiglaf Yeah, this version of the autohtonic theory is much exagerrated, but in matter of fact, there is no theory that explains all the issues, so autohtonic theory, saying pre-Slavs populated some nicha areas in Poland since ice-era and then emerged and then have assimilated some local elements explains facts no worse then invasion theory. User:Cautious 16:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC) They point is that both theories as presented here start from the assumption that there has always been such a thing as clearly defined nations. Most certainly the Germanic expension to the south east during the last pre-Christian centuries was only carried by a small amount of people who formed the elite and mingled with the existing population. Again, most certainly the existing population was in some way related to the ones that later became known as ''Slavs''. If they where Slavs themselves, we simply can not say as we don't know their language. Also we don't know if Germanic became doninant language in, let's say, todays Poland, or if it ever remained language of elites and administration. We only know that the earliest existing Germanic text (the Lord's Prayer in Gothic) contains words that are most certainly not Germanic (''ata'' for ''father'' resembling of Turkic). That leads me to believe that the Eastern Germanics shared the space with other peoples - the Ostrogoths possibly with some Turkic tribes, the Visigoths probably with Skyths, the ones further to the Northwest - Vandals, Langobards, Burgundians,... - maybe with proto-Slavs. So I believe it's possible that what we came to call Slavs emerged from the authochthonous population of what (much later) came to be parts of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth after the Germanics left during the migration era. Also I recall no records of a great Slavic invasion in Poland or Eastern Germany, they just suddenly seem to be there at one point. But it doesn't make sense to say they have been there from pre-glacial times. User:Jakob Stevo 15:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :This article impresses me as full of agressive speculations.--User:Wiglaf 12:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Sentence == No, this sentence does not make sense as it is: "The Germanic and Romanian (Vlachian) populations, by this theory, would have arisen from the effect of language changes after the conquest". I see that the original phrasing of the sentence was totally incoherent (see history)---this one is not much better. I am erasing this phrase completely. (Decius) == commented out bits == : ''The various Slavic nations and peoples conducted their policies in accordance with what they regarded as their national interests, and these policies often proved as bitterly hostile toward other Slavic peoples as friendly toward non-Slavs. Even political unions of the 20th century, such as that of Yugoslavia, did not always achieve ethnic or cultural accord and remained essentially hegemony in favor of certain groups.'' Nothing specific to Slavs here: as if Chinese, African, Romance or Germanic people didn't kill their kin --User:Mikkalai, 10 Dec 2003 ==Hitler's opinions on Slavic people== I believe that Hitler's opinion on Slavic people is totally irrelevant and has little or no impact on the discussion on Slavic people in the historical context. In fact, despite a large international influence Hitler's statements have no place in this article. If his opinion may come across as important or worthy of mentioning to Germans, it should be put in the Hitler's biography or a separate article on Hitler's view vis-a-vis Slavic people. I think that to most Slavs, Hitler's or generally German opinion on them are irrelevant. --User:VicFromTheBlock : Fact remains that Nazi Germany committed genocidal acts against large numbers of Slavs just because they were Slavs, so I'll rephrase... --User:Joy I agree with --User:Joy Nazis planned partly to exterminate, partly to assimilate the Poles and Czechs, because of their racial inferiority. When someone wants to exterminate you, it is not irrelevant.--User:Georgius 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Etymology of Slav == There is another etymology that should be mentioned in the article, because it is possible: the theory is mentioned in a Time-Life book on The Balkans by Edmund Stillman, and in many other sources. The idea is that Slav is from ''Slava'' a swampy region near the Vistula river. I'll get the quote. The Strategikon describes the Slavs as being well-acquainted with living in swampy areas. User:Decius 09:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) The Time-Life book is 'The Balkans' by Edmund Stillman and the Editors of Life, and was part of the 'Life World Library' series. My copy is from 1964. I am going to quote the entire paragraph on pg. 28, which was titled "The Disputed Origin Of 'Slav'": :"'''The origin of the name of the Slavs, the tribal ancestors of so many of the Balkan peoples, and of the Poles and Russians as well, has been considerably disputed. The dispute, moreover, is a partial reflection of the tensions between peoples which have long permeated the area. The Slavs themselves offer a totally legendary explanation, tracing the origin of the name to 'Slava', the word for "glory" in the ancient Slavic language. Some philologists connect the word with the medieval Latin word 'sclaveni', from which the English word "slave" is derived. Still another suggestion sometimes offered is that the word derives from a river or swampy area known as 'Slava' or 'Slova'. The Slavic peoples did, in fact, originally come from the marshy regions of the upper Vistula valley area in what is now Poland.'''" That's the paragraph, word for word. The 'swamp' etymology resonates with what the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (reigned in the mid-late 6th century) wrote concering the Slavs in the Strategikon text (various mss, different dates). But you don't want me to quote the Strategikon, because it is quite disheartening to the Slavic people. User:Decius 07:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) : Who are you arguing against here? Why not simply fix whatever needs to be fixed in the article, and drop the offensive overgeneralized rant against some apparently imaginary enemies? Where does all this bile come from... --User:Joy 11:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't need to put this etymology in the article. What I am going to fix is that "germanic, romanian" statement. Bile is secreted from the liver and stored in the gallbladder. User:Decius 14:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) My revisions are phrased in an un-encyclopedic tone on purpose, to mock the un-scientific theory that was half-wittedly described. User:Decius 16:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I didn't see anyone throwing stones, but I think one must have hit your gallbladder. ''Clean-up in Slavic peoples!'' ''—User:Mzajac User talk:Mzajac 2005-01-29 17:48 Z'' No, no stones hit me, they didn't have good aim, and not enough force behind them. Anyway, this article was a mess, and that theory should be properly described (why not, there is space to describe it) unless you want it to be erased. How much is science and how much is politics and propaganda in this "autochthonic" theory? User:Decius 06:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) == South Slavs == Bosniaks, Muslims, Croats, Bunjevci, Sokci, Yugoslavs, Serbs, Gorani and Montenegrins are all listed as separate nationalities in last census in Serbia in 2002. So, all of them are separate nationalities (not part of another nationality). User:PANONIAN : I feel that it's an excessive fragmentation. You end up with more Slavic subgroups in 250,000 km2 Yugoslavia than in 22,000,000 km2 Soviet Union. This begs the question: are they really all that different, or are we applying different division rules to different countries? : Bunjevci and Gorani are less than 50,000 people each, they should probably be listed as subgroups of Croats and Serbs, respectively. I don't know how appropriate it is to include Muslims and Yugoslavs in the list, neither of these ethnic groups existed until 50 years ago. --User:Itinerant 03:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: And how big should a nation be in order to be treated as a nation? If the government of Serbia and Montenegro treats them as national minorities, then why should we "assimilate" them by force here in wikipedia? User:HalibuttUser talk:Halibutt 07:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) ::: I suppose we could have a nation of only 50,000 if it was sufficiently self-contained and isolated from the rest of the world ( e.g. somewhere on a Pacific island ). In the center of Europe, I doubt it is possible for such a small group of people to attain sufficient isolation and identity. Most European nations are at least a few million people. When we have a group of 5,000,000 people ( who call themselves X ) living on a certain piece of land and another group of 50,000 people called Y who live in the neighboring area, speak essentially the same language, have the same religion, and probably share the same ancestry, it makes sense to list X as a nationality and Y as a subgroup of X. --User:Itinerant 08:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: Our section definition is rather broad and allows for this, it only says "ethno-cultural subdivisions". If we changed the section to be like the categories, we'd have one group with "nations" and one with "ethnic groups" and probably avoid this distinction. Then the borderline cases would be fewer (although still existant - see Montenegrins). --User:Joy 09:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) As I already said, all of these ethnic groups are officially recognized nationalities by Serbian government and there is no reason to assimilate them here (As Halibutt pointed out). Now, for Itinerant: I do not know is this fragmentation excessive or not, but that is just how things are. Also, in former Soviet Union you have much more small ethnic groups (only difference is that these ethnic groups are not Slavic). And you ask are these ethnic groups really different. I can tell you this: I live in Vojvodina region of Serbia and all of these ethnic groups live here, so I can tell you from the first hand that they are different. For example, people of Bunjevci nationality live mostly in northern Vojvodina. Some of the Bunjevci regard and declare themselves as Croats, some regard and declare themselves as Serbs and some regard and declare themselves as separate Bunjevci nationality. Bunjevci, which declared selves as such, do not regard selves as part of Croatian or Serbian nationality, and they are recognized as separate nationality by Serbian government. As for Muslims and Yugoslavs, they are also recognized nationalities by Serbian government (Even my mother declared herself as Yugoslav). So, I do not see a reason not to include these nationalities here. Why creating unneeded time limit (they didn’t existed 50 years ago). So what if they didn’t? They exist now and only that is important here. As for your statement that these nations should be listed as part of larger nationalities because they share same language and heritage with these larger nations, it is not what define a nationality. If these small nationalities do not regard themselves as parts of larger nations, there is no reason that we regard them as such. It is a national consciousness what makes somebody to be part of one nationality (not language and heritage). For Joy: I am pretty sure that Bunjevci Croats or Croats of Bunjevci origin (not same as Bunjevci nationality) exists in Vojvodina, but I am not sure are there Sokci Croats (not same as Sokci nationality). I suppose that some declared Croats in Vojvodina are Sokci by origin, but I repeat, I am not sure. User:PANONIAN : There are numerous Šokci in Slavonia that are Croats (telling you from first-hand experience). --User:Joy 20:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) I added Rusyns from Vojvodina in article (I forgot to log in when I done this). Ukrainian Rusyns are listed here as sub-ethnicity of Ukrainians. However, Rusyns and Ukrainians in Vojvodina are recognized as separate nationalities by Serbian government. Besides that, Rusyns in Vojvodina speak Western Slavic language (similar to Slovak), while Rusyns in Ukraine speak Eastern Slavic language. If we have these facts in our mind, we should to include Rusyns from Vojvodina in our list as separate ethnic group of Western Slavs. Also, their name is Rusyns, but I wrote Vojvodina Rusyns to make distinction between them and Rusyns, who live in Ukraine. User:PANONIAN == Bokelji == Bokeljs (Serbian: Бокељи) are NOT Croats. Less then 2% (or something) have declared them selfs as Croats. I have changed this allready but somebody keeps returning it. User:Milant 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Where do you get the number 2% from? Ever seen the article Bokelji? --User:Joy 16:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Assimilation== "Still more confusion comes from the fact that some Slavic peoples originated as a result of complete assimilation of ancient non-Slavic peoples. For example, the name of modern Bulgarians can be traced to the Turkic tribe Bulgars who merged with Balkan Slavs in the 7th century." But this actually is an example of the opposite of the first sentence! User:Nikola Smolenski 06:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I agree + ther are quite many cases of the opposite - the Polabian Slavs who became assimilated by the Germans, the Panonian Slavs who were assimilated by the Hungarians and the Slavs in Pelloponessos and Thessaly, who were assimilated by the Greeks. I can't see any "Slav resilience" in these cases VMORO 08:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) == Do the Slavic people exist? == Wikipedia does not have an article about Germanic people (only Germanic tribes) or Romance people.No list of Germanic people including Tiger Woods,Einstein and Vincent van Gogh. Is it really true, that people speaking Slavic languages today have a common ethnic origin? Does for example an average Czech have more common ancestors with an average Macedonian than with an average German-speaking Austrian? Or do Macedonians really have more common ancestry with people living currently in Poland than with people living in Greece? Do the Slavic peple have something in common apart from the origin of their languages?--User:Georgius 10:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :I would assume that generally there are a proportion of genes in common, but I haven't read any genetic studies on the matter. In the old days, scholars used to speak of "Slavic physical traits" such as brachycephalic craniums (basically, wide faces), etc., but that is largely outdated science. User:Decius 11:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC) == split off tribes? == I was wondering, would people like it if Slavic tribes was split off from this article? That way we could eliminate most of the historical mulling from here, and leave more space for expansion in the tribes article. --User:Joy 13:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Slavic_Peoples:
Slavic_Peoples
Slavic_peoples
Slavic_peoples
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
