Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1000 years + old murky, distorted and lied over period of an obscure history is still fresh and important for the Russian minds ( and WW2 ended just a few hours ago if you are a Russian). That's peculiar Russian way of legitimation of the pretenses and compensation for the misery of today' existence.
Now you know, dont start any historical ponderings if there is a Russian in sight. History is a weapon to legitimate Russia' rights and to witness its glory and greatness. Russians cannot be rational, honest and dispationate about any mythologized chapter of their history, no matter how ancient. Imperial exceptionalism and conditioning doesnt allow that.
Not that I can go through all your nonsense on a constant bases, but did you edit Wikipedia? All of it? I guess not yet.
Since you missed your opportunity, here it is -
This was the making of Russian state. The dude was Rurikid. He was the one who finished off his son by the way, so as you can see that Russian rulers were not only fratricidal - they've had more in storage )))
Dont play stupid and just read what I said. You have this tendency to unleash conditioned flow unrelated to the message you reply to. The modern concepts of nation, state, nationalism appearead a few centuries after Ivan Grozny killed his son. Thus simple projecting of the modern ideas on the ancient history is stupid and it has no value of any kind.
Dont play stupid and just read what I said. You have this tendency to unleash conditioned flow unrelated to the message you reply to. The modern concepts of nation, state, nationalism appearead a few centuries after Ivan Grozny killed his son. Thus simple projecting of the modern ideas on the ancient history is stupid and it has no value of any kind.
I honestly fail to see your point. Read up on the history of England, around the same time you're talking about with ancient Rus, Wessex and Essex were separate kingdoms. The concept of nation-state didn't exist back then, but does that mean people of Manchester and London are not modern English? Truth be told, the differences between people from Novgorod, Kiev, and Moscow princedoms were not that different from people of Birmingham, Manchester, and London. Eventually those kingdoms were united and were known as England, just like the other "city-states" in the east of Europe were united and became known as the Rus.
More important is how happy belarusian people is under Lukashenko's rule. I think they are quite happy. Lukashenko isn't a dictator,
People being happy with what they ought not be happy put them under the same category as cattle salivating at a fresh load of hay dropped at a feedlot. People are like rats - highly adaptable, and careful herding can create contentment under the most unacceptable conditions.
I honestly fail to see your point. Read up on the history of England, around the same time you're talking about with ancient Rus, Wessex and Essex were separate kingdoms. The concept of nation-state didn't exist back then, but does that mean people of Manchester and London are not modern English? Truth be told, the differences between people from Novgorod, Kiev, and Moscow princedoms were not that different from people of Birmingham, Manchester, and London. Eventually those kingdoms were united and were known as England, just like the other "city-states" in the east of Europe were united and became known as the Rus.
I fail to see your point. It took 1500 years for the Germanic invadors to mix with Romanized and non romanized kelts, normans, etc. for the people of London and Manchester to become modern English. 1500 years ago romanized Londinium looked quite unlike the non Romanized heartland of what is now England. Looks like you and the Russians want to say that since assimilation into a collective was so successful and thorough, it's been always a collective (and those vicious enemies trying to undermine and split it).
More important is how happy belarusian people is under Lukashenko's rule. I think they are quite happy. Lukashenko isn't a dictator, he is like a good and kind father for belarusian people.
- I see that people here are happy and peaceful. I suppose it's nicely enough to live in this country.
(- Я вижу, что люди там счастливы, они спокойны. В этой стране, должно быть, приятно жить.)
Well if you read Belarusian forums you get the impression that people are unhappy. Belarusians actually like to moan and complain.
in real life it's better but it varies. Many are not happy with the economic instability, regular devaluations etc. Some are unhappy because it's "not like the West"
I fail to see your point. It took 1500 years for the Germanic invadors to mix with Romanized and non romanized kelts, normans, etc. for the people of London and Manchester to become modern English. 1500 years ago romanized Londinium looked quite unlike the non Romanized heartland of what is now England. Looks like you and the Russians want to say that since assimilation into a collective was so successful and thorough, it's been always a collective (and those vicious enemies trying to undermine and split it).
No, all I am saying is that if you rewind the clock of history far enough, any human settlements from anywhere would be different. Russia is not an exception. The point is, later on they became a part of the same collective and assimilated.
Btw, just because you say the other poster is a "fascist nazi", that doesn't prove you right, especially when they post a mainstream version of history with links to english wikipedia...You do realize your version of history is rather "alternative", and is not taught anywhere in the western world, do you?
I think American history can shed some light on the evolution of the events in the swamps and forest of NE Europe. 240 years ago, people of the same culture, language and origin as English had a sparsely populated, unexploited continent in front of them. And it was enough for the Americans to get an independence bug in them, freedom rhetoric, taxes, grievances etc. those are minor things compared.
And now think about those ancient slavic tribes expanding into and exploiting their new motherlands. Were they any different in their grabbing instincts than Americans? They had all those new forests and swamps to claim, uniting with mother tribe or any tribe was not on the menu. The agenda of unity as to improve exploitation of resources, division of labor and military power must follow "speciation" of the tribes from a mother tribe and explosion in diversity. Russian comrades just mindlessly project unification agenda of the Russian Empire onto ancient past.
Again, since in all probability the Poles are the "purest" descendants of the mother of all Slavic tribes, Russians positioning themselves as the natural uniters preserving all that purity etc. is a nonsensical claim on multiple levels.
Last edited by RememberMee; 07-28-2015 at 02:25 PM..
No, all I am saying is that if you rewind the clock of history far enough, any human settlements from anywhere would be different. Russia is not an exception. The point is, later on they became a part of the same collective and assimilated.
Btw, just because you say the other poster is a "fascist nazi", that doesn't prove you right, especially when they post a mainstream version of history with links to english wikipedia...You do realize your version of history is rather "alternative", and is not taught anywhere in the western world, do you?
Who are "they" you are talking about? Who got assimilated with whom into perpetuity? I converse with Russian comrades for almost 2 years, I fully rationalized my fascist, nazi claims using nothing but mainstream definitions and plenty of mainstream links. Russian comrades and you share mainstream Imperial mythology, so what? Links to wiki, without a slightest attempt to include those links in an intelligent message. Please. If I write some garbage, including a few links to multipage scrolls, and then I say "look it's a proof, dig it". What does it mean aside me being less than sincere propagandist? I digged through a few wiki links, I pointed comrades to their wishful dishonesty, it doesnt make my history "alternative".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
