Is the idea of "Slavs" bullshit? from what I understand, they are immensly different.
>Linguistically
Outside from their language sub groups they seem hardly interchangeable
>Ethnically
Russians and Bulgarians aren't very similar in terms of DNA and physical aesthetics.
>Spiritually
The vast majority of west Slavs, and even a good number of southern slavs are Catholic. While the rest are mostly Orthodox and a few Muslims.
I generally find the idea of Pan-Slavism interesting; but the evidence that they are connected seems awfully vague.
Is the idea of "Germans" bullshit? from what I understand, they are immensly different.
>Linguistically
Outside from their language sub groups they seem hardly interchangeable
>Ethnically
Frisians and Austrians aren't very similar in terms of DNA and physical aesthetics.
>Spiritually
The vast majority of north German people, and even a good number of southern German people are Protestant. While the rest are mostly Catholic and Reformed.
I generally find the idea of unifying German people under one flag interesting; but the evidence that they are connected seems awfully vague.
>>448114
>Is the idea of "Slavs" bullshit?
Something existing for 1000 of years. Documented by Byzantines, Franks, Slavs themselves, Italians, Romans.
>Outside from their language sub groups they seem hardly interchangeable
They even have a language which every Slav can read and understand without even learning it. It is called interslavic. There is more similarities in slavic languages than in germanic ones or romanic ones.
>The vast majority of west Slavs, and even a good number of southern slavs are Catholic.
Religion changes from one day to another in times of wars and crisis.
>Russians and Bulgarians aren't very similar in terms of DNA and physical aesthetics.
DNA's are not nations, and all Slavs have similar genetic material just in different percentages, outside from frinde appearances (mongoloid looking poles and russians, gypsy looking bulgarians and macedonians, mediterranean looking croats and serbs) Slavs do have a specific aesthetics
Tell me which slavic group does this guy belong to without googling it?
most of what the west think are slavs and slav attributes (squatting drunk degenerates) are referred to as gopniks in russia - they're the russian equivalent to british chavs pretty much
like, calling all slavs gopniks is like calling all anglos chavs
>>448133
Frisians look much more similar to Austrians than Poles do to Serbs.
The Slav group is much broader than the Germanic one.
>>448114
They're all exactly the same.
t. not Polish
>>448160
Slavs are much, much more closer linguistically to each other than Germanics though
>>448144
West Ukrainian is my first guess.
>>448158
So all Slavs are Gopnik?
>>448114
Balkan peoples are basically all the same:
"...it should be noted that ethnic divisions among the southern Slavs were not established until modern times. The Southern Slavs, according to the Slavic Muslims of Bosnia, all belonged to the same ethnic group; their ancestors had all settled in the area in the sixth and seventh centuries. They did not even begin consciously to sort themselves into branches of that souther Slavic family until the late 1700s and early 1800s, and then it was largely the intellectuals- those who wrote aboue linguistic, cultural, and historical differences- that understood how Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and perhaps others might be distinct from each other."
-Carole Rogel, The Breakup of Yugoslavia and its Aftermath
Pretty much everything that I read indicates that divisions among Southern Slavs is entirely a construction by late 18th and early 19th century Serb intellectuals, and that those ideas were really only realized during the conflicts in the Balkans following WWI. In the case of the Southern Slavs, the term "Slavic" is definitely a good identifier. I'm not sure if this really adds anything to the conversation, though.
>>448198
There are only two types of Slav:
Gopniks and New Russians.
>>448114
Weren't the Slavs just a tribe in Europe that settled a shit ton of it?
I think it's more like, each individual Slavic group has different genetics, but they all have a loose connection to the original Slavic tribe that settled the area.
Even if they all come from different regions, different cultures and different religions, they're all descendant of the same Pagan Tribe.
>>448199
>Southern Slavs is entirely a construction by late 18th and early 19th century Serb intellectuals
Serbs considered most of Yugoslavs to be Serbs of different religions, so I doubt the divisions came because of them.
>>448165
you are right there, picrelated
>>448191
He is a serbian theater director.
Of course we have mediterranean looking people, even Brits do (Rowan Atkinson, that Katty Perry monkey, TotalBiscuit) every nation does, some more, some less.
>>448144
Montenegrin or Serbian
>>448114
Slavs are the same kind of loose ethno-linguistic group as Germanics or Romance people
>>448222
There were different proto-Slavic tribes, though they indeed started their expansion from a single region, roughly Podolia-Carpathia.
>>448114
In my experience a lot of SLAVS look similar, with big sloping noses and beady eyes
>>448228
>Serbs considered most of Yugoslavs to be Serbs of different religions
To my understanding, that view developed during the collapse of Yugoslavia when Serbia and Croatia were trying to appropriate the entirety of Yugoslavia from each other.
>>448133
This and you can say the same about old greeks too, the spartarns were in some way, athens were in other, cretians, macenodians etc.
>>448248
>the entirety
Mostly just Bosnia. Macedonia and Slovenia got out almost entirely untouched
>>448133
There are dialects, but the only subgroup is Dutch. Frisians only differ in terms of height, also Austria is historically more ethnical diverse.
Historically, Germans used to refer to 'Slavs' as slaves, from Latin 'slavicus'. People beyond the Elbe river were captured and sold among famous marketplaces for slaves such as Magdeburg. The slaves mostly headed south to the Moorish empires.
>>448268
All jokes and Nationalist revisionism aside, aren't Slovenians just Croatians?
>>448304
no, slovenians are slovenians
mountains tend to preserve nationalities
>>448248
>To my understanding, that view developed during the collapse of Yugoslavia
No, we Serbs consider everyone who is of Serbian ancestry, is a native speaker of Serbian (this means of the easter-herzegovinian dialect, which is the most spread, most used, considered the literally standard and also originates from the core serbian medieval state) as a Serb. By our reason and logic he is one.
However some people belonging to the Croatian and Muslim national body, aswell as in the recent history the Montenegrin one, which share these traits, are out of religious or political reasons resentful towards identifying as Serbs. Which is their God given right, to choose and identify as whatever they want to be.
These can in times of wars and crisis be used as all kinds of justifications for all sort of actions.
Considering the Serbian ancestry, according to the books written by Byzantines, Italians, Franks, Germans, Russians and of course us themselves in the medieval times. We belong to the same slavic group as Czechs, Moravians, Croats and Caranthanians (Nestor Chronicle), and descend from the region known known as Lusatia where Lusatian Serbs (ger. Sorbs) still live (source: DAI Porphyrogenetus). According to ones political view one can attack it or accept it, nonetheless these are the historical sources that are the only existing concerning our national or ethnical history.
>>448312
But in a Ethnic sense, aren't they pretty much just Croatians?
>>448228
>Katty Perry
>Perry has English, German, Irish, and Portuguese ancestry
>>448273
no wrong. it comes from locked up in latin: esclavus - locked up. slaves were the locked up ones. slavic literally is just a self-descriptive term based on slovo or slowo or something that means word - the ones who speak.
>>448319
I meant this guy. Russel Brand as I just googled.
>>448314
>everyone who speaks Serbian is a Serb
That's like all of Bosnia and Croatia and Montenegro
>>448144
>Romans + Italians + Byzantines
>1,000 years ago
Nope.
>>448344
Ohh, I thought you called her a monkey.
Kek
>>448273
>Historically, Germans used to refer to 'Slavs' as slaves, from Latin 'slavicus'.
Why do people still perpetuate this shit.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Slavic/slava
>>448353
Yes
DAI and Nestor are unnecessary to be posted, if not knowing those you are in a wrong thread, but Fredegar is interesting since not many slavic enthusiast read his chronicles.
https://books.google.at/books?id=WGUz01yBumEC&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=fredegar+serbs&source=bl&ots=fnDrNyBMw9&sig=t4rOD7ISpqyZmkC_itx-da_73x0&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHzJCtiPDJAhWB1hQKHYYuACgQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=fredegar%20serbs&f=false
>>448314
>we [X] consider everyone who is of [X] ancestry, is a native speaker of [X] language, as a [X]
no offence but this mindset is the reason why Ukraine, the Baltic states and to a lesser extent Belarus fear Russia in 2015
>>448378
Ukrainian as a language is pretty different than russian
But yeah, it's why everyone thinks Serbs are super expansionist
>>448366
Because it's true. Pic related.
>>448349
He said everyone who is of Serbian ancestry and is a native speaker of Serbian. Which in every nation is a logical assumption.
>>448392
Now, we all know the term sclavicus existed long before any mention of 'Slavic tribes', which is to say, it isn't an ethnonym, but the 'Slavs' are still trying to find ahistorical explanations for the names the Westerners gave them.
>>448378
This is a normal mindset, I do not know which ethnicity you belong to but how would you decide who is of your ethnicity and who is not. If someone is of the same ancestry as I am and speaks native German like I do, but he says he is Swiss, I'll still consider him a German, although a Swiss German or an Austrian German, but a German. However like he said it is my view on them, they themselves can identify as whatever the fuck they want.
>>448392
anachronistic revisionism. the word appeared far before the emergence of slavic tribes in Europe.
>>448408
>Now, we all know the term sclavicus existed long before any mention of 'Slavic tribes'
no it didn't, it is a latin neologism of the middle ages. coming from the endonym for Slavs.
>>448416
It's politically correct dumbed down. It's like "all the negroes suck at IQ-testing, but it's only because these test are culturally biased".
>>448428
right, feel free to believe whatever you want as proof and reasoning doesn't seem to sway your opinion.
>>448421
Okay, I give you that. Slave.
>>448369
>Yes
>DAI and Nestor are unnecessary to be posted, if not knowing those you are in a wrong thread, but Fredegar is interesting since not many slavic enthusiast read his chronicles.
Irrelevant to what I said.
The Romans did not exist 1,000 years ago, they collapsed in the 5th century AD, and were replaced by a series of regional kingdoms which were not unified into 'Italy' until the 19th century.
>>448412
Given the closeness of the languages, especially in former yugo, it's pretty dangerous to just start considering people Serbs if they don't think so themselves
>>448378
>Ukraine
doesn't speak Russian, not every Ukrainian is of Russian ancestry (Tatars, Poles, Turks)
>Baltic states
neigher language, nor of the same ancestry, nor the same meta-ethnicity
>>448451
>not every Ukrainian is of Russian ancestry (Tatars, Poles, Turks)
Or, you know, Ruthenians.
>>448445
considering them, and pushing them to be ones are different things.
we consider them since it is the logical thing to do, if you are of the same ancestry as my nation is, and you speak the same language as a native speaker as we do, you are by default of the same ethnicity. If you say that no you aren't, you are a born again, muslim, croat, montenegro, macedonian etc. then be one.
>>448473
important to say Croats that are of croatian ancestry and speak a native croatian dialect (chakavian or kajkavian* - although those are according to Slovenes, their people but croatised) are not considered Serbs. Also not all Bosnian muslims are of Serb ancestry.
We do not consider nations in their entirety, this is an individiual classification from person to person not a supra-national one.
>>448473
And that mindset is why a lot of people view Serbs to be expansionist, trying to create a "greater Serbia"
>>448451
The only linguistically pure part of Ukraine is the West side; most of central Ukraine speaks in both russian and ukrainian, or speak surzhyk (a mix between russian and ukrainian). Crimea and East Ukraine are dominantly russian-speaking.
Baltic states host russian diaspora from their commie days, they fear of Russia invading their to "defend" the russian peoples.
>>448496
>If you say that no you aren't, you are a born again, muslim, croat, montenegro, macedonian etc. then be one.
>And that mindset is why a lot of people view Serbs to be expansionist
I sincerely doubt it.
>>448514
*invading their lands
>>448518
>if you say you're not a Serb we'll respect it but really you're a Serb and your land belongs to Serbia
>>448531
what land? I not once mentioned any land?
if you want to make this a 90's war thread, consider the 25 years rule or go to some >>ex-yu on /int
>>448514
>they fear of Russia invading their to "defend" the russian peoples.
Then why ban their language and force them to change their names to fit local naming conventions?
>>448560
Poor diplomacy.
>>448344
>le eternal anglo is med looking
>>448232
Romanians are slavs that speak a romance language.
t. Wallach
>>448673
Stop trying to look cool on 4chin.
>>448514
>>Baltic states host russian diaspora from their commie days, they fear of Russia invading their to "defend" the russian peoples.
Nobody care about russian diaspore even in jewish russia.
