The information war against our people continues
It is no secret that it continues the information war against the Slavs and Russians, which began hundreds of years ago, but at each turn of history, she continues in a new guise.
Russophobic passages are increasingly heard in the media, including in Russia. Let’s look at a few illustrative examples ofhow the “scientists” trying to prove that the ancient Slavs were not. One case frivolous, if not ridiculous. The other with pretensions to science, and its author is Professor of medieval history and archaeology, faculty of history, University of Florida, USA, is himself a native of Croatia.
So, the first case. The author, a Bulgarian by the name of Plamen Paskov, has released a series of live shows called “When invented the Slavs” and “Ancient Slavs was not.” Turns out, he found that the early texts used the name “sloven”, and “Slavs” came later. On this basis, he writes that his fellow citizens for decades been deceived, that the Slavs were supposedly.
The author States that when he went to the opening to historians (he is not a historian), they only waved. Plamen Paskov calls “sound the alarm, turn on the bright spotlights and to let everybody know that ancient Slavs was not invented them. Not so translated ancient texts.
It seems that the person is a victim of scholasticism in the extreme. Open, for example, the Tale of bygone years in the presentation of V. N. Tatishcheva, prepared in the first half of the 18th century, and read: “From these same semidesert and Dou language was the language of the Slovenska…”, then “naryshenie norty, which is the essence of slovenias”, “seselis slovenias on the Danube, and from those Slavs razoshelsja countries”, but “Inii Slavs sat near Ilmen lake and called his name slovenias”.
As we can see, Tatishchev uses both, so what? Plamen Paskov, of course, not a Russophobe and slavophobe, just a layman imagined that he had made a great discovery, and he called on to sound the alarm and Shine the spotlight to his discovery entered the Pantheon of modern civilization. So little has changed words and letters in words for the last thousand years? It is enough to read any old text. Where such discoveries are a dime a dozen. A video presenter and adds fuel to the fire – “you will keep silent about” (referring to Paskova), it is “inconvenient history” and so on.
This, of course, funny and serious. Kindergarten. Go to the Professor Florina Kurt (Florin Curta) from the University of Florida, which was published in the journal Starohrvatska prosvjeta (2015) article 17 pages, entitled “Four questions for those who still believe in the prehistoric Slavs and other tales”. There is blatant slavophobe, the culmination of which is that the researchers of the early Slavs and the Slavic ethnogenesis “stick its ugly head when nationalism is gaining momentum and begins to haunt scientists.” Know the style outright enemies, if not outright enemies? And what is there for four questions?
The first question: “If the Slavic ethnicity is determined by language, how can people speak a Slavic, not being Slavs?” (If the Slavic ethnicity is about language, how can people speak without being Slavic Slavs). Here the critic, apparently, confused with the question and wanted to ask – “How can people be Slavs, not speaking Slavic?”.
Here again a typical example of scholasticism. Advance is an artificial constraint, and everything else is automatically displayed. So proclaimed. These games can make a lot – for example, how people can live in Canada if they do not speak canadian? How can people be called Swiss if they don’t speak Swiss? What could be the ancestors of the Soviet people, if the Soviet, and the Soviet people began to be important only since 1918?
But there will be deceit, because the elected bodies of local self-government (the Zemstvo, Zemstvo in Russia was introduced by the Zemstvo reform of 1864 at the level of province and County, and by 1914, existed in 43 provinces of European Russia. And before that it was the chamber and other bodies of the national government. Just again scholastics introduced restricting the term, and all that he formally goes, is denied.
But here again the problems – the author and others like him proclaim that to the 7th century ad, Slavic languages were not. But who really knows which were the languages of the early Slavs, Lusatian culture 3200 years ago, in the late II Millennium BC?
On what basis do States that they had “Slavic identity”? You may think that the criticism is known. Nothing criticism is unknown, he just pretends. But if simply- cheating. Wishful thinking.
What the critic actually believes that when the Slavs, Lusatian culture 3200 years ago came out with a Mace to fight for their land against the foe, most likely, bearers of haplogroup R1b, that still does not repeat on those territories, those Slavs were not consciousness?
You cannot limit the history of the Slavs “Slavic language” what is the concept of flexible, changeable over time, and also, most importantly – at the mercy of linguists, with their chronic mistakes and misunderstandings concerning dates and classifications.
Hereinafter, the “Slavic ethnic group”than usual manipulated “criticism” is not a concept clearly defined. Actually, this is not. The poles and Russian Slavs, but ethnic groups are different, different language, different religion different.
And Florin Kurt constantly presses on the “Slavic ethnic group”, which was supposedly only in the second half of I thousand BC, and it was not before, so it was not ancient Slavs. Notice of fraud, misrepresentation? It turns out those who fought on the river Tollense on site of early Slavic Lusatian culture, protecting their land, had not only identity, but also language, traditions, beliefs. What the hell did speaking exquisite scientific language, they all fought with their maces, as revealed by archaeological data? There was no need to fight, and would drink Bavarian beer, following the appeals of such “critics”.
It is of interest that, as Professor Kurt, no one knows what language was among the early Slavs. What linguists operate, according to Kurt, is not a real language, and there are an artificial linguistic construct, no unit proof or evidence. No its neither of Sklave, no antes, and in General none of the ancient Slavs.
Linguists, apparently, have no idea that the Slavs 3200 years ago only two thousand years before, had separated from the Aryans and their ancestors, the early Slavs and Aryans, only 1300 years before we lived on the Russian plain, and for 1,300 years, according to the principles lexicostatistic, stosownie the early Slavs and the Aryans retained 36% of the total words. More than a third!
That linguists and do not know it? Apparently, I don’t know, just put the divergence of the Slavic languages from the Aryan to 6900 years ago.
As we can see, the first question Florina Kurt has nothing to do with the ancient history of the Slavs, is a purely scholastic and reflects the low level of entry into the history of the Slavs. The attraction to this “ethnicity” does not help and only confuse “criticism”.
Author: Anatoly klyosov, doctor of chemical Sciences, Professor, project expert”Pereformat”
