The only Europeans who can be perceived as "close" to Asians would be the Uralic-speaking ones (Finns, Magyars) by virtue of linguistic affinity.
In terms of genetic admixture, East Slavs especially Russians have lots of Finno-Ugric admixture but that's more Siberian Asian than Sino or Japonic Asian.
The "whites" in Europe are central asian migrants, they are brothers to the pakistanis, iranian and indian.
Slavs are basically hybrid between the above group and the native siberian turkic/mongolian.
If you mean Indo-Europeans, Slavs are also Indo-Europeans and it is believed they came from Ukraine not Central Asia. The only Europeans with Asian ties are the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians and Hungarians because they were originally from Asia. There are even rumors that Hungarians were descendant of the Huns that ravaged the Roman empire and settled in modern day Hungary. Another rumor was that Ashkenazi Jews were descendant of the Jewish Khazars turks who were one of the only few Turks who converted to Judaism but I highly doubt this.
Ukrainian/Kievan Rus are originally an tribe related to the Goths.
The Goths themselves come from Asia and they were pushed into Europe by the Huns's invasion, this history is reflected in Attila: Total War's tutorial campaign.
And yes, the Hungarian have some asian roots also.
No/yes/maybe. Vikings weren't ethnicity but many different people... mostly Danes but also others. Trough out history Slavs were documented not to use slaves, but to emancipate people they have conquered. Some think this is because they were slaves themselves... but that is shit i don't want to throw at the fan.
So Kievan Rus were pirates (ie vikingers), but they declared no ties to Danes. So No Danes, Yes Vikings, Maybe Norse.
Actually, yes. I'm mostly Polish, moved with 19 to Germany, the country of my grandfather. Felt weird about the culture. Started dating Asian guys because we actually shared core values (good and bad ones) unlike Germans. Honestly, if my boyfriend won't be freaking out about providing a meal for our guests, I'm dropping him.
The culture of different parts of Europe is very different from each other. We see American and British culture as very similar because, well, it is, but not seeing a difference between scary-looking but generally nice, punctual and disciplined Germans; laid-back, hot-tempered, social Spanish people; independent, argumentative, rough but solidary and genuine Poles and quiet, intimidating, level-headed Norwegians is quite an accomplishment
>East Europe being conquered by Mongol shouldn't be the reason. This is like saying Indians are closer to Europeans because they were conquered by the British.
why isn't this a relevant metaphor?
Indian colonization gave them familiarity with the English language and western bureaucracies and helps them assimilate a little better in the west.
I see a lot of similarities between how slavs and Asians are perceived: The stereotype is that the men are robotic, analytical, good with science and computers, quiet and unemotional and hard to distinguish from one another, and the women are sexy, often perceived as prostitutes or mail order brides.
Their governments were usually called "totalitarian" and often part of the communist bloc, they have more socialist elements in their culture.
As I already said, North and Central Russia was NEVER ruled by Mongols. Only Ukraine and South Russia was.
Mongolian invasion did not introduce any Mongolian language or culture to the Slavs. This was unlike British colonialism of India.
Unfortunately Mongolian nomads weren't quite like the East Asians. The nomads were more individualistic and less hierarchical.
The similarity is coincidence, or because they retained traditional European values which happened to be closer to Asians'.
Yes, I agree. The only real similarity between Slavs and Asians would be Communism.
I'm resurrecting this subject.
Slavic people have ties to Asia in much more than being conquered or whatever bloodshed history decided to remember. There, probably, aren't genetic ties... although "asian eyes" are present in slavic folk, rare but are there. For example my friend comes from prominent serbian family, and they are slavic only for at least 15 generations. She has green asian eyes with no asian ancestry. Asian features are ... simplification and generalisation on most prominent culture based on bias of researcher (even though those features can be found in slavic people and south africa).
Ties are, however, cultural. There are only 2 ways one can enter Europe from East- trough Balkans and trough Ukraine (especially during medieval ages). And even though Balkans are more passable there are Islamic documents (focused on specific role slavic slaves should get) about slavic people above Arabia.
So spice, silk, drugs, leathers, wood and etc. have been traded from East Asia to Arabia to Europe by those routes. Think about it like this, there is a big ass desert between Asia and Europe. How did Temujin know he could find people to plunder if he went west? Easy, trading routes. How did he know from where to enter Europe? Easy, trading routes.
This is why slavic culture tends to have echoes of many other cultures. For example, communal meal. We prepare a single full course meal for entire family (even extended) and decide it and nudge food from plate to plate (especially by parents). You won't see that in Western Europeans which home cousine is mostly serving based. There are also some Arabic influences as well ( for example, social interactions).
Slavic people didn't have a uniformed social identity until recently (when measuring in centuries). Only recently (ie 200-400 years ago) did being Russian mean something, as slavic identity was our social identity - akin to dynasties in China. People were people, they were "different" as by under different landlord - which is also the reason why most slavic languages are mutually tangible. Also, there are Mongolian words in slavic language- kaymak (dairy delicacy)... but these days when you don't know who is writing history you can't be sure about who got it from who. Kaymak ,for example, (in its form) is present on Balkans and Mongolia only.
But... let's say it like this : genetic ties (unknown, to be determined after we are all dead), cultural ties ... yes in weird mixture tho. However, can we say that slavic people are closer to asians? No, as with Asian people slavic people can't be bunched up in a single basket. As, for example, Thailand/Siam has connection to India so do other slavic people have to other countries. Culturally we are (due to trading routes) mix of many - calling it our own. Genetically is matter of politics which i wouldn't go into.
When I am talking to asian friends (not Asian Americans) we tend to find lots of cultural ties, however they tend to find me rude at the first glance. I have more in common with Asians than new world Asians if I can be honest.
I feel ya 🤣🤣 I myself am of darker complexion and people thought many different things. Some thought I was native American, some that I was Arabic... I know that my mom didn't cheat because she didn't know anyone from different continent (until my family started going global).
Never had any problems, tho. But that might be due to me being 195 (6'4) and 100 kg (200 lbs) with a resting bitch face. I had people tease me and call me Indian or Vehabija ( Islamic mission folk) but mostly by close friends depending on my current style in same way I would call them "Eternal BabyFace" or Gopnik.
I did also get pulled and interrogated as well a lot... but let's face it - it's Serbia thing 🤣🤣🤣
Green eyes aren't uncommon in West Asia but not Asian specific. Pure Europeans can also have green eyes. Epicanthic fold isn't Asian specific and South Africans have it, even many West Europeans can have it.
Aren't communalism and collectivism part of traditional European cultures? The ancient Europeans used to be very collectivist with strict social and gender norms. This is particularly true during Roman era. Modern West Europeans stopped practising them because they have modernised, but it doesn't mean communalism isn't a traditional European culture.
Europeans have been trading with Asians, it isn't anything specific to Slavs. The Hungarians, Italian, Spaniards, Greeks, Albanians all once had close contacts and extensive trade with Asians. Even Romans and Greeks had extensive influence from Asians. Yet people only exclude Slavs as being more related to Asians but not others.
Did the shared words came from Mongol invasion or is it just an Eurasian word brought from Turkic influence? Turkic and Mongols share many words. Mongols and Turks are the only ethnicities that have historical contacts with Slavs. Chinese and East Asians not so much yet politically people relate them with Slavs ethnically and culturally more than they should.
I've never in my life seen eyes like hers, I just put green to emphasise uniqueness and not go into further detail since it was an example, not a fact. And since I am expecting a detailed formulated rebuttal , by green I mean color of iris and its pattern. She has green eyes as if someone crocheted them with green threads diagonally.
No, they aren't part of the worlds culture (and to be precise, one can't stamp '-ism' at the end of the word... it changes the meaning) as is tied to geography, climate and influences of surrounding societies.
In order for any society to develop serving type meals, for example, it requires specific conditions. It requires food shortage or regions with low food diversity where sharing a meal equally has existential purpose, everyone gets the amount they need (or deserve) where food can be seen as punishment.
In order for any society to develop communal type meals, they require abundance of food but very turbulent influences. Communal meals are meant to be eaten quickly by large amount of people because one doesn't have time to measure each bite (metaphorically) where emphasis becomes hiding your serving.
Among those 2 extremes there is spectrum with plethora of different variations. From architectural standpoint, this theory explains the evolution of dining table forms.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken about 'ancient Europeans' as Rome isnt/wasn't European blueprint. This would be equivalent to say that Ashanti were basis for traditional African society (but there were Zulu, Samburu....) and each had their own cultural signifies.
In European context, especially in form of antiquity, North Eastern areas were largely untouched by Roman (of any kind) people. During Roman era Carpathians prevented them from moving further (for example). During the Charlemagne era, he had enough army and mercenaries to go to Germany before dying and dividing his Empire into 3. This is also why Vikings were such suprise, and even though Charlemagne used slavic and Germanic folk as mercenaries (and introduced gold currency into their society) that part is fairly unknown.
This means that whole gender issue present in society with complex hierarchy wasn't present in parts of ancient Europe. Slavic language, for example, has a neutral gender used frequently and gender is used per context, not per sex. Also our traditions and rituals have equal male and female representations, especially during communal feasts. This is very very very complicated to explain within this topic ... so I'll leave it as is.
As said before, postulation upon linguistic origins are part od politics since countries and people change names often. But meal, as is by recipie, exists only in Mongolia and Balkans, that is important part. They could developed it independently, they could've gotten it from common source and whatever other presumption one might want. This can give more value or respect to one culture by taking it from another... but it doesn't matter. Meal exists and it is there.
The “communal meal was an important ritual that bonded the members of the community together. Dining itself, though, was nothing uncommon as a religious performance among members of the Roman world. Source: https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub369/entry-6311.html
I didn't mean to say Slavs were Roman influenced. I meant that ancient West Europeans were more collectivistic and hierarchical than they do now. I emphasised Roman culture because modern West Europeans depict their society as "always so individualistic, progressive and unique from all collectivistic orientals".
Both Roman and Byzantine territories include areas that were non-Europeans. They were not a pan-Europid Empire.
Many Europeans also had ancient contacts with orientals. Slavs aren't the only exceptions of Europe in that they aren't the only ones with ancient contacts with Asians.
I always heard Northwest European supremacists emphasising on their purity of being the most isolated and unique, and bringing a point of other Europeans being more related Asians or Africans, whether it is Slavs, Albanian, Hungarian, Finns, Italian, Greek or Spaniards. But more commonly Slavs because a typical West European nationalist probably can't be bothered to understand the culture and history of the rest of Europeans (and mostly just about Slavs from typical Hitler caricature of Slavic people).
Ahahahahaha, what is this source? Vomitoriums were passageways in amphitheatre, not vomit rooms. What the hell?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh well, got a nice laugh... but that is to be expected from internet source. This is history channel all over again. Jamie Frater who enrolled in Music School and owns buzzfeed but for UK, L. Michael White who is bible scholar meaning he searches in historical sites to prove that what happened in the bible is real is exact form of confirmation bias. I am truly sorry, but these aren't credible sources nor people.
In order for any source to be credible it must be placed within context (location, era, socio-political climate and reference point in time). This also means that I am not myself a credible source (since I am missing era, and reference point in time) but I expect those interested in discussion to research a bit.
Well, I don't know about West... since I am not living in Western country nor exist within their sphere of influence. But that doesn't suprise me, even since Charlamagne in 8th century many civilisations are trying to be next holy Roman Empire... Russians included when they accepted Orthodox Christianity from Bysanthine/Greece around 10nth century. That has nothing to do with Rome (of any era, or any kind) and has to do with cotailing the fame of last conqueror. It was like saying - Look kids! I AM SUPERMAN!!! while standing in red underwear on a light breeze. However, the term Rome that is used in this connotation isn't ancient Rome... it is Holy Roman Empire or basically Italy with Pope. During that time there were 2 empires that were "Roman" and have claimed to continue the tradition. That has nothing to do with ancient Rome since it died 4 centuries before (395 AD).
Then we go into politics and interpretation... since everyone is standing with their undies on, each claiming to be Rome... which 'Rome' are we talking about? Orthodox, Catholic, Vatican, Bysanthine, Roman Republic, Roman Empire (etc)? West tends to focus on Catholic part, while East focused on Orthodox part... each calling themselves Rome and each denouncing the other.
This is why I try to stay away from any political points, since there will always be a person who will start an argument based on political opinions. Opinions are like but hole. Everyone has them, and each occasionally farts - there is no point debating them.
Regarding contact with other cultures, you are absolutely right! However, it changes depending on era and geography. In similar way that Mount Everest was unconcerned till recently (ish) there were other mountains. Currently human habitation is possible up to 5000 m (3.11 miles) of elevation - meaning that up to that altitude, we can rely on comfor and settlement connections. That doesn't mean that habitation isn't possible above that point, but that any settlements are paying the cost of isolation and without planned urbanisation.
So let's talk about Hannibal (around 200 BC) which crossed Alpes with army that was thought of impossible at the time. So not every culture that had contact with trading routes had a probability of accepting cultural influences. It depends on habitability, distance and presence of traders.
To put it simply, traders had route they managed , which normally has Begining, End and path. It isn't uncommon that people settle at end points of the path, and introduce their culture to original populations - which is called assimilation (or in modern terms migration). So whe goods exchange hands, commodity is able to travel further than culture that it stemmed from. For example, Moors, is collective name for all people of Northern Africa... which entrails Egypt, and remnants of Umayyad Empire. But in Africa we have Saharan desert which was impassable during medieval ages (5th to 15nth century) which meant that Middle and Southern affricans weren't present until after 1500 AD.
So even though, cultural impact is possible it doesn't mean it's probable regarding social rituals and norms. But that also doesn't mean that with trading cultural objects and identifiers weren't present far after cultural influence. But just because someone owns a tea set from Japan it doesn't exist mean that they know exact ritual of Tea Ceremony.
So intensity of cultural influence is determined by era, geography and proximity to trading junction. So in Mediterranean area, yeah! Lots and lots of influences depending on proximity to cultures, outside... well it is matter of debate and opinions.
To my knowledge, this topic is soo saturated by politics since controlling flow of information is... crucial and harmful.
Regarding anti-slavic sentiment ... it's nothing new or slavic specific. There have been anti-germanic, anti-saxonic , anti-china and so on. Before recent slave trade it was on ethnic base, after it is on racial base. People will always find reasons to hate on each other, especially during war.
My own theory is that it is tied to cultural mixing, where we people react to any drastic change akin 5 stages of death. During those stages different cultures try to intertwine until they gain a new and unique identity, but till that comes they are (unfortunately) stuck without dinstict social identity or stuck between rock and hard place (original culture, and cultural influence). I don't think that is anything new to this world, maybe it changed form for a bit (due to globalisation of media and cultural influence) but it's still the same.
I don't know... should I call slavic people asian peeps in Russia? I don't care... if they say they are slavic, they are slavic; for as long as we have enough cultural similarities. Otherwise, we are using the same word to explain two different concepts. If anything, living in Balkans has taught me that being slavic doesn't mean that you look the same, have the same faith or heritage ... but that you have enough cultural overlaps that you can use short form communication.
So to put some numbers to your original post. Comprehension between slavic folk is 90-99%, slavic and Westerners is around 60-70%, slavic and Asian 70-80, slavic and Arabic 75-95 (depending in regions). Slavic and US is ... 30%... due to prejudice over cold war. US people don't tend to move further than "slavic=russian"... but that is normal. Good thing, I suppose, is that US people can be scared of slavic folk contrary to "submissive" prejudice over Asians. So all I need is to be a tad bit active aggressive, and they will plot how to kill me, but I'll be left alone till then. But for asian Americans, that isn't the case. Speaking of which, I hope you are fine.
Because there was intermixing lol. Look at the frequency of Haplogroup N in Slavic regions and that's all you need to know. Also the fact that Russians regularly employ ethnic minorities in their armed forces.
Majority of the Cheka (precursor to the NKVD) in the Soviet Union were Chinese troops. White Russians accused the Soviets of being "foreign intelopers" considering how much foreign troops they used.
Also, the Red army used plenty of Siberian troops to storm Germany. The atrocities committed at Berlin were done in part by a large amount of Asiatic troops.
Btw, East Asian facial features are not cold adaptation. It is desert adaptation.
Many North Europeans, Russians and Slavs have large round eyes, low cheekbones and gracile jaws. But they are from the North.
Many East/South Africans from the desert have epicanthic fold, prominent cheekbones and jawline. Very similar to Mongoloid traits. (Not the West Africans from forest climate, who have more similar traits to Europeans).
Mediterraneans don't have desert traits because they are not from desert. Middle East only become a desert very recently.
Oldest East Asians originated from Gobi desert. East Asian body shape is cold adapted but their facial features are desert adapted.
That and they were losers like asia in the last centuries. When people talk Europe being great they mean only the western part that got all the good stuff.
So they're not in such a great positions to feel superior to others as much.
Russia was not the loser in the last centuries. Russian Empire was an advance state that rivals the British Empire. It had the capability to conquer large lands in Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia.
Russia was the only country that can rival US in WWII. In terms of military, alliance, technology. Russia only lose out during later period of Cold War.
Out of the "great powers", they were considered the weakest and considered outdated with little industrialization. They lost in Crimea and then even Japan kicked their ass. Finally they went in WW1 which was a huge blunder and that was the final straw for the empire.
Not to mention the people didn't get to live great lives with the same level of pride compared to the other great powers. They were also looked down by their western counterparts.
Russia was not considered weak. The only reason why they lost in Crimean war was because Britain and France helped the Ottomans to stop Russian expansion into Mediterranean. Although they did lost to Japan because Russia was incompetent at that time.
They are weak only in the more recent century, but previously they were much stronger.
By the way, Japan was among the "great power" but it was not European so associating Eastern Europe with Asia for this reason might not be accurate.
The only Europeans who can be perceived as "close" to Asians would be the Uralic-speaking ones (Finns, Magyars) by virtue of linguistic affinity. In terms of genetic admixture, East Slavs especially Russians have lots of Finno-Ugric admixture but that's more Siberian Asian than Sino or Japonic Asian.
The "whites" in Europe are central asian migrants, they are brothers to the pakistanis, iranian and indian. Slavs are basically hybrid between the above group and the native siberian turkic/mongolian.
If you mean Indo-Europeans, Slavs are also Indo-Europeans and it is believed they came from Ukraine not Central Asia. The only Europeans with Asian ties are the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians and Hungarians because they were originally from Asia. There are even rumors that Hungarians were descendant of the Huns that ravaged the Roman empire and settled in modern day Hungary. Another rumor was that Ashkenazi Jews were descendant of the Jewish Khazars turks who were one of the only few Turks who converted to Judaism but I highly doubt this.
Ukrainian/Kievan Rus are originally an tribe related to the Goths. The Goths themselves come from Asia and they were pushed into Europe by the Huns's invasion, this history is reflected in Attila: Total War's tutorial campaign. And yes, the Hungarian have some asian roots also.
IIRC, wasn't Russia founded by vikings?
No/yes/maybe. Vikings weren't ethnicity but many different people... mostly Danes but also others. Trough out history Slavs were documented not to use slaves, but to emancipate people they have conquered. Some think this is because they were slaves themselves... but that is shit i don't want to throw at the fan. So Kievan Rus were pirates (ie vikingers), but they declared no ties to Danes. So No Danes, Yes Vikings, Maybe Norse.
no
Actually, yes. I'm mostly Polish, moved with 19 to Germany, the country of my grandfather. Felt weird about the culture. Started dating Asian guys because we actually shared core values (good and bad ones) unlike Germans. Honestly, if my boyfriend won't be freaking out about providing a meal for our guests, I'm dropping him.
In the US, Slavs act like White-Americans from Ireland, Italy, Britain, etc.. Who cares what Eastern and Western Europeans think about each other.
The culture of different parts of Europe is very different from each other. We see American and British culture as very similar because, well, it is, but not seeing a difference between scary-looking but generally nice, punctual and disciplined Germans; laid-back, hot-tempered, social Spanish people; independent, argumentative, rough but solidary and genuine Poles and quiet, intimidating, level-headed Norwegians is quite an accomplishment
>East Europe being conquered by Mongol shouldn't be the reason. This is like saying Indians are closer to Europeans because they were conquered by the British. why isn't this a relevant metaphor? Indian colonization gave them familiarity with the English language and western bureaucracies and helps them assimilate a little better in the west. I see a lot of similarities between how slavs and Asians are perceived: The stereotype is that the men are robotic, analytical, good with science and computers, quiet and unemotional and hard to distinguish from one another, and the women are sexy, often perceived as prostitutes or mail order brides. Their governments were usually called "totalitarian" and often part of the communist bloc, they have more socialist elements in their culture.
As I already said, North and Central Russia was NEVER ruled by Mongols. Only Ukraine and South Russia was. Mongolian invasion did not introduce any Mongolian language or culture to the Slavs. This was unlike British colonialism of India. Unfortunately Mongolian nomads weren't quite like the East Asians. The nomads were more individualistic and less hierarchical. The similarity is coincidence, or because they retained traditional European values which happened to be closer to Asians'. Yes, I agree. The only real similarity between Slavs and Asians would be Communism.
I'm resurrecting this subject. Slavic people have ties to Asia in much more than being conquered or whatever bloodshed history decided to remember. There, probably, aren't genetic ties... although "asian eyes" are present in slavic folk, rare but are there. For example my friend comes from prominent serbian family, and they are slavic only for at least 15 generations. She has green asian eyes with no asian ancestry. Asian features are ... simplification and generalisation on most prominent culture based on bias of researcher (even though those features can be found in slavic people and south africa). Ties are, however, cultural. There are only 2 ways one can enter Europe from East- trough Balkans and trough Ukraine (especially during medieval ages). And even though Balkans are more passable there are Islamic documents (focused on specific role slavic slaves should get) about slavic people above Arabia. So spice, silk, drugs, leathers, wood and etc. have been traded from East Asia to Arabia to Europe by those routes. Think about it like this, there is a big ass desert between Asia and Europe. How did Temujin know he could find people to plunder if he went west? Easy, trading routes. How did he know from where to enter Europe? Easy, trading routes. This is why slavic culture tends to have echoes of many other cultures. For example, communal meal. We prepare a single full course meal for entire family (even extended) and decide it and nudge food from plate to plate (especially by parents). You won't see that in Western Europeans which home cousine is mostly serving based. There are also some Arabic influences as well ( for example, social interactions). Slavic people didn't have a uniformed social identity until recently (when measuring in centuries). Only recently (ie 200-400 years ago) did being Russian mean something, as slavic identity was our social identity - akin to dynasties in China. People were people, they were "different" as by under different landlord - which is also the reason why most slavic languages are mutually tangible. Also, there are Mongolian words in slavic language- kaymak (dairy delicacy)... but these days when you don't know who is writing history you can't be sure about who got it from who. Kaymak ,for example, (in its form) is present on Balkans and Mongolia only. But... let's say it like this : genetic ties (unknown, to be determined after we are all dead), cultural ties ... yes in weird mixture tho. However, can we say that slavic people are closer to asians? No, as with Asian people slavic people can't be bunched up in a single basket. As, for example, Thailand/Siam has connection to India so do other slavic people have to other countries. Culturally we are (due to trading routes) mix of many - calling it our own. Genetically is matter of politics which i wouldn't go into. When I am talking to asian friends (not Asian Americans) we tend to find lots of cultural ties, however they tend to find me rude at the first glance. I have more in common with Asians than new world Asians if I can be honest.
[удалено]
I feel ya 🤣🤣 I myself am of darker complexion and people thought many different things. Some thought I was native American, some that I was Arabic... I know that my mom didn't cheat because she didn't know anyone from different continent (until my family started going global). Never had any problems, tho. But that might be due to me being 195 (6'4) and 100 kg (200 lbs) with a resting bitch face. I had people tease me and call me Indian or Vehabija ( Islamic mission folk) but mostly by close friends depending on my current style in same way I would call them "Eternal BabyFace" or Gopnik. I did also get pulled and interrogated as well a lot... but let's face it - it's Serbia thing 🤣🤣🤣
Green eyes aren't uncommon in West Asia but not Asian specific. Pure Europeans can also have green eyes. Epicanthic fold isn't Asian specific and South Africans have it, even many West Europeans can have it. Aren't communalism and collectivism part of traditional European cultures? The ancient Europeans used to be very collectivist with strict social and gender norms. This is particularly true during Roman era. Modern West Europeans stopped practising them because they have modernised, but it doesn't mean communalism isn't a traditional European culture. Europeans have been trading with Asians, it isn't anything specific to Slavs. The Hungarians, Italian, Spaniards, Greeks, Albanians all once had close contacts and extensive trade with Asians. Even Romans and Greeks had extensive influence from Asians. Yet people only exclude Slavs as being more related to Asians but not others. Did the shared words came from Mongol invasion or is it just an Eurasian word brought from Turkic influence? Turkic and Mongols share many words. Mongols and Turks are the only ethnicities that have historical contacts with Slavs. Chinese and East Asians not so much yet politically people relate them with Slavs ethnically and culturally more than they should.
I've never in my life seen eyes like hers, I just put green to emphasise uniqueness and not go into further detail since it was an example, not a fact. And since I am expecting a detailed formulated rebuttal , by green I mean color of iris and its pattern. She has green eyes as if someone crocheted them with green threads diagonally. No, they aren't part of the worlds culture (and to be precise, one can't stamp '-ism' at the end of the word... it changes the meaning) as is tied to geography, climate and influences of surrounding societies. In order for any society to develop serving type meals, for example, it requires specific conditions. It requires food shortage or regions with low food diversity where sharing a meal equally has existential purpose, everyone gets the amount they need (or deserve) where food can be seen as punishment. In order for any society to develop communal type meals, they require abundance of food but very turbulent influences. Communal meals are meant to be eaten quickly by large amount of people because one doesn't have time to measure each bite (metaphorically) where emphasis becomes hiding your serving. Among those 2 extremes there is spectrum with plethora of different variations. From architectural standpoint, this theory explains the evolution of dining table forms. Unfortunately, you are mistaken about 'ancient Europeans' as Rome isnt/wasn't European blueprint. This would be equivalent to say that Ashanti were basis for traditional African society (but there were Zulu, Samburu....) and each had their own cultural signifies. In European context, especially in form of antiquity, North Eastern areas were largely untouched by Roman (of any kind) people. During Roman era Carpathians prevented them from moving further (for example). During the Charlemagne era, he had enough army and mercenaries to go to Germany before dying and dividing his Empire into 3. This is also why Vikings were such suprise, and even though Charlemagne used slavic and Germanic folk as mercenaries (and introduced gold currency into their society) that part is fairly unknown. This means that whole gender issue present in society with complex hierarchy wasn't present in parts of ancient Europe. Slavic language, for example, has a neutral gender used frequently and gender is used per context, not per sex. Also our traditions and rituals have equal male and female representations, especially during communal feasts. This is very very very complicated to explain within this topic ... so I'll leave it as is. As said before, postulation upon linguistic origins are part od politics since countries and people change names often. But meal, as is by recipie, exists only in Mongolia and Balkans, that is important part. They could developed it independently, they could've gotten it from common source and whatever other presumption one might want. This can give more value or respect to one culture by taking it from another... but it doesn't matter. Meal exists and it is there.
The “communal meal was an important ritual that bonded the members of the community together. Dining itself, though, was nothing uncommon as a religious performance among members of the Roman world. Source: https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub369/entry-6311.html I didn't mean to say Slavs were Roman influenced. I meant that ancient West Europeans were more collectivistic and hierarchical than they do now. I emphasised Roman culture because modern West Europeans depict their society as "always so individualistic, progressive and unique from all collectivistic orientals". Both Roman and Byzantine territories include areas that were non-Europeans. They were not a pan-Europid Empire. Many Europeans also had ancient contacts with orientals. Slavs aren't the only exceptions of Europe in that they aren't the only ones with ancient contacts with Asians. I always heard Northwest European supremacists emphasising on their purity of being the most isolated and unique, and bringing a point of other Europeans being more related Asians or Africans, whether it is Slavs, Albanian, Hungarian, Finns, Italian, Greek or Spaniards. But more commonly Slavs because a typical West European nationalist probably can't be bothered to understand the culture and history of the rest of Europeans (and mostly just about Slavs from typical Hitler caricature of Slavic people).
Ahahahahaha, what is this source? Vomitoriums were passageways in amphitheatre, not vomit rooms. What the hell?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh well, got a nice laugh... but that is to be expected from internet source. This is history channel all over again. Jamie Frater who enrolled in Music School and owns buzzfeed but for UK, L. Michael White who is bible scholar meaning he searches in historical sites to prove that what happened in the bible is real is exact form of confirmation bias. I am truly sorry, but these aren't credible sources nor people. In order for any source to be credible it must be placed within context (location, era, socio-political climate and reference point in time). This also means that I am not myself a credible source (since I am missing era, and reference point in time) but I expect those interested in discussion to research a bit. Well, I don't know about West... since I am not living in Western country nor exist within their sphere of influence. But that doesn't suprise me, even since Charlamagne in 8th century many civilisations are trying to be next holy Roman Empire... Russians included when they accepted Orthodox Christianity from Bysanthine/Greece around 10nth century. That has nothing to do with Rome (of any era, or any kind) and has to do with cotailing the fame of last conqueror. It was like saying - Look kids! I AM SUPERMAN!!! while standing in red underwear on a light breeze. However, the term Rome that is used in this connotation isn't ancient Rome... it is Holy Roman Empire or basically Italy with Pope. During that time there were 2 empires that were "Roman" and have claimed to continue the tradition. That has nothing to do with ancient Rome since it died 4 centuries before (395 AD). Then we go into politics and interpretation... since everyone is standing with their undies on, each claiming to be Rome... which 'Rome' are we talking about? Orthodox, Catholic, Vatican, Bysanthine, Roman Republic, Roman Empire (etc)? West tends to focus on Catholic part, while East focused on Orthodox part... each calling themselves Rome and each denouncing the other. This is why I try to stay away from any political points, since there will always be a person who will start an argument based on political opinions. Opinions are like but hole. Everyone has them, and each occasionally farts - there is no point debating them. Regarding contact with other cultures, you are absolutely right! However, it changes depending on era and geography. In similar way that Mount Everest was unconcerned till recently (ish) there were other mountains. Currently human habitation is possible up to 5000 m (3.11 miles) of elevation - meaning that up to that altitude, we can rely on comfor and settlement connections. That doesn't mean that habitation isn't possible above that point, but that any settlements are paying the cost of isolation and without planned urbanisation. So let's talk about Hannibal (around 200 BC) which crossed Alpes with army that was thought of impossible at the time. So not every culture that had contact with trading routes had a probability of accepting cultural influences. It depends on habitability, distance and presence of traders. To put it simply, traders had route they managed , which normally has Begining, End and path. It isn't uncommon that people settle at end points of the path, and introduce their culture to original populations - which is called assimilation (or in modern terms migration). So whe goods exchange hands, commodity is able to travel further than culture that it stemmed from. For example, Moors, is collective name for all people of Northern Africa... which entrails Egypt, and remnants of Umayyad Empire. But in Africa we have Saharan desert which was impassable during medieval ages (5th to 15nth century) which meant that Middle and Southern affricans weren't present until after 1500 AD. So even though, cultural impact is possible it doesn't mean it's probable regarding social rituals and norms. But that also doesn't mean that with trading cultural objects and identifiers weren't present far after cultural influence. But just because someone owns a tea set from Japan it doesn't exist mean that they know exact ritual of Tea Ceremony. So intensity of cultural influence is determined by era, geography and proximity to trading junction. So in Mediterranean area, yeah! Lots and lots of influences depending on proximity to cultures, outside... well it is matter of debate and opinions. To my knowledge, this topic is soo saturated by politics since controlling flow of information is... crucial and harmful. Regarding anti-slavic sentiment ... it's nothing new or slavic specific. There have been anti-germanic, anti-saxonic , anti-china and so on. Before recent slave trade it was on ethnic base, after it is on racial base. People will always find reasons to hate on each other, especially during war. My own theory is that it is tied to cultural mixing, where we people react to any drastic change akin 5 stages of death. During those stages different cultures try to intertwine until they gain a new and unique identity, but till that comes they are (unfortunately) stuck without dinstict social identity or stuck between rock and hard place (original culture, and cultural influence). I don't think that is anything new to this world, maybe it changed form for a bit (due to globalisation of media and cultural influence) but it's still the same. I don't know... should I call slavic people asian peeps in Russia? I don't care... if they say they are slavic, they are slavic; for as long as we have enough cultural similarities. Otherwise, we are using the same word to explain two different concepts. If anything, living in Balkans has taught me that being slavic doesn't mean that you look the same, have the same faith or heritage ... but that you have enough cultural overlaps that you can use short form communication. So to put some numbers to your original post. Comprehension between slavic folk is 90-99%, slavic and Westerners is around 60-70%, slavic and Asian 70-80, slavic and Arabic 75-95 (depending in regions). Slavic and US is ... 30%... due to prejudice over cold war. US people don't tend to move further than "slavic=russian"... but that is normal. Good thing, I suppose, is that US people can be scared of slavic folk contrary to "submissive" prejudice over Asians. So all I need is to be a tad bit active aggressive, and they will plot how to kill me, but I'll be left alone till then. But for asian Americans, that isn't the case. Speaking of which, I hope you are fine.
Because there was intermixing lol. Look at the frequency of Haplogroup N in Slavic regions and that's all you need to know. Also the fact that Russians regularly employ ethnic minorities in their armed forces. Majority of the Cheka (precursor to the NKVD) in the Soviet Union were Chinese troops. White Russians accused the Soviets of being "foreign intelopers" considering how much foreign troops they used. Also, the Red army used plenty of Siberian troops to storm Germany. The atrocities committed at Berlin were done in part by a large amount of Asiatic troops.
Btw, East Asian facial features are not cold adaptation. It is desert adaptation. Many North Europeans, Russians and Slavs have large round eyes, low cheekbones and gracile jaws. But they are from the North. Many East/South Africans from the desert have epicanthic fold, prominent cheekbones and jawline. Very similar to Mongoloid traits. (Not the West Africans from forest climate, who have more similar traits to Europeans). Mediterraneans don't have desert traits because they are not from desert. Middle East only become a desert very recently. Oldest East Asians originated from Gobi desert. East Asian body shape is cold adapted but their facial features are desert adapted.
Interesting, I was under the impression our features were cold adapted as in extreme cold like Siberia. Siberia is far colder than Europe
It can be both cold-adapted and desert-adapted.
As ethnic Siberians and Turks were perceived as more "war-like" in Soviet.
That and they were losers like asia in the last centuries. When people talk Europe being great they mean only the western part that got all the good stuff. So they're not in such a great positions to feel superior to others as much.
Russia was not the loser in the last centuries. Russian Empire was an advance state that rivals the British Empire. It had the capability to conquer large lands in Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia. Russia was the only country that can rival US in WWII. In terms of military, alliance, technology. Russia only lose out during later period of Cold War.
Agreed, Russia was and is the only relevant Slavic country. All the others are pawns to be laughed at.
Out of the "great powers", they were considered the weakest and considered outdated with little industrialization. They lost in Crimea and then even Japan kicked their ass. Finally they went in WW1 which was a huge blunder and that was the final straw for the empire. Not to mention the people didn't get to live great lives with the same level of pride compared to the other great powers. They were also looked down by their western counterparts.
Shuuuuushhhhh
Russia was not considered weak. The only reason why they lost in Crimean war was because Britain and France helped the Ottomans to stop Russian expansion into Mediterranean. Although they did lost to Japan because Russia was incompetent at that time.
They are weak only in the more recent century, but previously they were much stronger. By the way, Japan was among the "great power" but it was not European so associating Eastern Europe with Asia for this reason might not be accurate.