Correction Of Russia's Past

[unmerged(4730)]

The sweeds were never invited to rule Russia to
what many of u think out there. Lets be honest
its a nice western assumption. Urik or Rurik did
invade Russia but never conquered it and was beaten
back. Let me prove to u exactly why most of ur
beliefs are bs. Books are nice as long as they are
historical and accurate not written long after the
fact by 3rd parties which never witnessed any
events and wrote without facts.
There is proof that Russians are Skiffs which
roamed the geography of todays Russia years ago and
worshiped idols and and all that crap.
There are many stone statues in Russia that are
in a few museums now I bet. There are also written
documents written on tree bark 1200 years ago which
are also in museum which prove that Sweeds were
of a separate conotation and that the invasions
were repeled within several years. There was no rule
there was plunder and invasion which was driven back
within several years a decade at most. Tree bark was
used in ancient Russia as a means for records, and
documents. There are also many letters from
Ivan Grozny (The Terrable in ur words) to the king of
sweeds (written of first person not some historian
years later who speculated on bullshit)
these letters said somethin like this.
Your people which are inferior to mine were always
in good service to my people. (*the letter was
written in such a manner and it was of no mention
of common root or even anythin close*) a first person
letter mind u.
Now I ll say this in many books i read Kiev wasnt
even a capital of Russia it was held by one of the
ruling Lords at the time of the invasion of Batu-Han
as i recolect the main lord got the lands of Vladimir
and the city itself as his capital upon when he became
the Great Duke as u call it but after the city and
and land reverberated to the next Great Duke. Kiev
was home to the Russian orthodox church ....
Give me a historical document when u argue something
tangible. Something of first person not somethin made
up by a historian 300 years later to Make the Grandure
Of the nations eccomplishments seem immense. An invade
does not constitute a subjugation or a rulling over
people but it could look as one if it gets written up
the correct way... The only subjugation or rule over
Russia was done by the Tartars-Mongols noone else mind
u.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

All of the above is nothing more than a distillation of Soviet revisionist history. It is simply not true.

In fact many Russian and Ukranian intellectuals died in the Soviet Gulags for publishing samizdat papers which claimed just the opposite. When the Soviets didn't like the facts, they changed them and improsoned those who thought otherwise.

Lets honor the memory of historians who were imprisoned for publishing the truth and not perpetuate such rubbish.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

A lot of history isn't true. Probably more than anybody knows. It's always the winning side that gets to write the reports.

 

[unmerged(592)]

just wonder why one has to write a view is "bullshit". It may be wrong or based on false/outdated data or lack thereof, but I rarely read real "BS"

 

[Agelastus]

I am curious as to why his proof partly rests on the conditions prevailing in Russia just prior to the Mongol invasion, some centuries after the period in question. Russia was disunited at this time, but that does not disprove the existence of the Kievan Rus state. As for the letter, if that's a direct quote, that seems to be a typical diplomatic insult which reads in the translation in a way to imply that Ivan is claiming that the Swedes were Russian slaves in the past.

Swedes and Russians are clearly not the same people-but that does not negate the recieved view that a small "ruling caste" was impressed on the top of the proto-Russian lands which intermarried with the natives and provided the more enduring term for the people of the area. This is not an unusual event in history, consider the Angles etc. for whom my country is named!

 

[unmerged(4730)]

lets be real

a lot of stuff is rewritten by people who
are in power. A lot of times it is used for a
political agenda or the gain of those in power.
Sweedish controled Russia would symbolize a link
to western europe it actually binds western
Europe closer to Russia nowadays it is usefull.
btw noone has full access to historical archives
in Moscow or any other city that is holding
historical documents simply put this history
suits the now. Its just pisses me off sometimes
I remember teacher told me that Russians came
from the sweeds Rus which is just a theory
most of the artifacts found in Russia were made
by skiffs ergo ancient Russians. There are a lot
of ancient documents that prove otherwise. If u
discard those and just look at some of the pottery
or weapons found u could say it was made in sweedn
but just by goin by that wouldnt be accurate
because there are also pottery from istambul, turkey
and weaponry from those places as well. Some old
weapons and pottery have arabic writing on them
that dont mean that arabs eventually became Russian
or of Russian origin thats bs...
I went to a website which greatly upset me this
fairy tail about how Russians called for outside
people to come and rule them (usually if riots broke
out even the nobles were hurt and outsiders got
the most of the anger i dont see the sweeds as
rulers even for a year or two wouldnt been had simply
put .

 

[unmerged(589)]

Who's talking about pottery and stuff? And who claims that everything happened exactly like in the Nestor chronicle (a Slavic source mind you, even though not contemporary with the events)? That there was a period of Swedish overlordship in the earliest Russian state is undeniable. The historical evidence is just too strong, especially the contemporary Byzantine sources.

If there is a problem with the history of early Russia it is that Russian research is either often too old (pre-1917) or too politically controlled (1917-1991 and possibly pre-1917) to be of interest. It will unfortunately take quite some time for Russia to catch up with the Western world in that field, like in so many others.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Ok, Now I get it. I think there are two problems here:

1) This thread's use of the word "Russian."
2) Eluminate is a Slavophile

1--Eluminate, by "Russian" do you mean "óÌÁ×ÑÎÉÎ" (Slavic)? I bet you do. The first reference to the Slavs in all of written history comes from Herodotus' "Histories" wherein he catalogs all the known peoples of the earth. The Great Slavic people deserved one line in Herodotus' book. He called them, "the Scythian plowmen" because they were a conquered people under the boot of the infamous Scythinan horsemen.

Now the ancient Slavs were not Russians. They were a short, squat, dark haired and dark skinned people. It was not until they mixed with the Nordic peoples of the Rus, that we can begin to identify anything close to a "Russian" people or culture. And that in itself is another discussion. (*Note of disclaimer, I have a great love of Slavic languages, cultures, and people. I mean no disrespect. But historical facts are facts.)

2-I have a suspicion that you are offended by the above history because of some latent Slavophile beliefs which are as much fiction as JRR Tolkien's "history of Middle Earth." The Slavs are truly a "people of glory" as the name implies. Any genetic relationship between the ancient Savs and Nordic peoples does not take away form that glory. But facts are facts. And history is history.

No man, or government, or people can change that.

 

[unmerged(5492)]

But even if we were to argue that Swedes did rule parts of Russia, we should remember that at the time, when the Vikings settled in Russia, there were no "nations" per se in that area, i.e. the Vikings were not from "Sweden" and the Slavs were not from "Russia", but from their viullages and towns anf families. Things were lot smaller in those days and a Slav didn't necessarily feel that he had anything in common with a Slav 10 km away, and the same applies to Vikings, of course. Nations and nationalities are more recent invention than nationalistic people want to admit. And that goes for the racial purity too, there is no pure race to protect, we are all a great big family with a common gene pool.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by MrMojo
Nations and nationalities are more recent invention than nationalistic people want to admit. And that goes for the racial purity too, there is no pure race to protect, we are all a great big family with a common gene pool.

True-it is believed that at one point the human, or proto-human, population was at the level of about ten thousand individuals for at least several centuries in Africa-we're all descended from them. Greetings, my blood-cousins!

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by MrMojo
But even if we were to argue that Swedes did rule parts of Russia, we should remember that at the time, when the Vikings settled in Russia, there were no "nations" per se in that area, i.e. the Vikings were not from "Sweden" and the Slavs were not from "Russia", but from their viullages and towns anf families. Things were lot smaller in those days and a Slav didn't necessarily feel that he had anything in common with a Slav 10 km away, and the same applies to Vikings, of course. Nations and nationalities are more recent invention than nationalistic people want to admit. And that goes for the racial purity too, there is no pure race to protect, we are all a great big family with a common gene pool.

You are of course correct that things were smaller back then, but many Vikings from what is now central Sweden were from Sweden since Sweden existed as a country back then. It was of course not a nation state in the modern way, but it was a country with a king and a nationwide political process, though of course of a more primitive kind than today. People in general probably identified more with their own provinces etc than with the whole country, but the country existed.

I know next to nothing about early Slav history so I won't say anything about them.

Not that race has anything to do with the Vikings in Russia, but surely it is self-evident that there are differences between races that are big enough for the kind of people who usually speak about "racial purity" to have something to talk about, no matter how repulsive their interpretations of said differences are.

 

[unmerged(4745)]

Russias past

First there were no organised kingdoms in what we to day call Russia or Scandinavia before 10th century.

The fragments to rely on are to few and not so detailed. The best might be something written in Konstantinopel.

What we know is that the scandinavians had used the water ways of modern Russia before the early viking era 9th to trade with the Greeks. We also know that something happend which led to that Rurik became prince of Kiev. Why is speculations, the Nestor chronicle or Snorre can be true.
We also know that they were few and soon mixed up with the slavs. A hypotesis might be that the slavs took the name of their former rulers as the south slavs did. Bulgars were a turk people who ruled the south slavs and then mixed up.

The word rus is nothern teutonic, the people of east Sweden, Roslagen.

 

[unmerged(5492)]

Originally posted by The Brain


You are of course correct that things were smaller back then, but many Vikings from what is now central Sweden were from Sweden since Sweden existed as a country back then. It was of course not a nation state in the modern way, but it was a country with a king and a nationwide political process, though of course of a more primitive kind than today. People in general probably identified more with their own provinces etc than with the whole country, but the country existed.

You could say that about every little town with it's own king. As they did not refer to thenselves as Swedes, it is obvious that they weren't Swedes. The Swedish Vikings had their main city, Birka, in Svealand, but Sweden as a country came a lot later. Tre kronor, Svea, Götä and ?norrland?, can't really remember. the first kings were voted for from the noblemen. and the country identified itself with it's ruler, back then, not with the area.

Originally posted by The Brain


Not that race has anything to do with the Vikings in Russia, but surely it is self-evident that there are differences between races that are big enough for the kind of people who usually speak about "racial purity" to have something to talk about, no matter how repulsive their interpretations of said differences are.

Differences, but show a differen that has any real meaning? And most of the "racial differences" are in fact cultural differences.

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by MrMojo


You could say that about every little town with it's own king. As they did not refer to thenselves as Swedes, it is obvious that they weren't Swedes. The Swedish Vikings had their main city, Birka, in Svealand, but Sweden as a country came a lot later. Tre kronor, Svea, Götä and ?norrland?, can't really remember. the first kings were voted for from the noblemen. and the country identified itself with it's ruler, back then, not with the area.

I'm not saying that it's somehow important or significant, but the simple fact is that Sweden existed before the unification with Götaland. The Tre kronor, a distinct social class of nobles etc are later medieval things that had little to do with the pagan kingdom. I'm not really sure what your sources are for your conclusions but as a Swede who has read a lot about these matters I have never encountered anything that would support your view that Sweden didn't exist, and quite a lot that supports my view that it did.

Originally posted by MrMojo

Differences, but show a differen that has any real meaning? And most of the "racial differences" are in fact cultural differences.

Meaning to whom? I'm sure a nazi for instance sees many things that have "meaning" to him. I myself cannot think of a single racial difference that is a cultural difference (hence, I suppose, the name racial). If some people use the word racial incorrectly I suppose you could say that they should use cultural instead, but that doesn't strike me as a very interesting issue.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

I think this thread is interesting because underneath each post, all of us consider the same implicit question: what makes a people….a people?

It is true that the "Swedes" existed before "Sweden." But were they Swedes or Norsmen or Vikings or…

The fact remains that "race" is quite honestly a cultural/philosophical designation. For decades now anthropology has disproved many previously held notions of "race." In fact, modern anthropology has questioned weather such a thing even exists. Rather, credible scientists argue that race is much like the Rorshock Test, wherein the viewer looks at a dot of paint and sees what they want to see.

 

[unmerged(5415)]

Originally posted by Petrus
Rather, credible scientists argue that race is much like the Rorshock Test, wherein the viewer looks at a dot of paint and sees what they want to see.

And the exact same thing can be said of culture, where one sees the differences one wants to see, and not the similarities. And since this also annuls the 'race difference is culturally based', we're back in square zero.

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by Petrus
...

The fact remains that "race" is quite honestly a cultural/philosophical designation. For decades now anthropology has disproved many previously held notions of "race." In fact, modern anthropology has questioned weather such a thing even exists. Rather, credible scientists argue that race is much like the Rorshock Test, wherein the viewer looks at a dot of paint and sees what they want to see.

No way is the racial difference between for instance a "typical Chinese" and a "typical Sudanese" merely in the eye of the beholder. You'd have to have pretty poor eyesight in that case.

And if it's just a case of seeing what you want to see then how come for instance forensic scientists can tell a lot about the racial origins of a skeleton?

I mean, really...

 

[Dark Knight]

I recall that a few years ago scientists did genetic analysis on Indians (from the subcontinent) and determined what percentage white, black, and oriental they were (on average).

Also, a controversial issue in the mapping of human genes is whether insurance companies should be able to take racial predispositions to certain diseases into account.

These would seem to indicate that race does exist even if there's more blurring than previously thought.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

The question of race is currently being discussed in the OT maybe in the maybe im a nazi thread, can we leave this thread for more intresting aspects?.

Hannibal

 

[unmerged(5492)]

What makes a people a people? IMHO it is the realization that "hey, those guys in that other village are like us, we belong to the same nationality. Hurray!" or "We are ruled by the same king, therefore we belong to him and are the same nation. Hurray!" What I'm trying to say is that realization that you belong to somethin larger that your own town or village, makes a people a people.

About race: There are racial differences, but we still are from the same little genepool...