Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Arx]

Scotland doesn't have to have a navy for Russia to dislike Scotland.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I didn't say anti-Scottish navy. I said anti-Scotland.

________
My opinion on "New Russia" thing... You know what is the "funniest" thing here? That is a typical name for a newly gained colony. They don't even hide their intention to be a Russian colony.... Ukrainians will have a role of savage natives that should be genocided to free the land


One more - that region was  called New Russia because before conquests of 18th century it wasn't Russian. No single Russian lived in that area before that. It was ethnic territory of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars

[Sergarr]

I wonder when did that Ukrainian ethnos appeared. Because Kiev was the capital of the Rus' (Russia before Mongol Conquests).

[Comrade P.]

I wonder when did that Ukrainian ethnos appeared. Because Kiev was the capital of the Rus' (Russia before Mongol Conquests).

After WWI. Thanks Austria-Hungary, RIP.

Disregard that. My arguments for it just turned out to be invalid.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I wonder when did that Ukrainian ethnos appeared. Because Kiev was the capital of the Rus' (Russia before Mongol Conquests).

Ukrainian ethnos renamed itself from Rusins to Ukrainians at some point of time.   Why that renaming happened? Because of other nation with similar name... sharing name with the enemy who actively tries to assimilate you is uncomfortable.

Russians claiming that Kiev Rus is Russia are as funny as if Romanians would claim  that The Roman Empire is Romania and Italy should give back Rome

Not wanna to discuss that further because it is very flammable.

[Owlbread]

My opinion on "New Russia" thing... You know what is the "funniest" thing here? That is a typical name for a newly gained colony. They don't even hide their intention to be a Russian colony.... Ukrainians will have a role of savage natives that should be genocided to free the land

One more - that region was  called New Russia because before conquests of 18th century it wasn't Russian. No single Russian lived in that area before that. It was ethnic territory of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars

For some of the Russian irredentists/Novorossiya supporters that go on about "historical claims" and how that land used to be Russian before the Soviets parceled it off, it reminds me of how American history begins with the coming of the white man, or Christopher Columbus. It's like all those centuries and centuries of independent Native American history don't matter. For the Novorossiyans, history begins in the 19th century.

The thing I always do when I look at a colonial/Imperial country like Russia or the USA and I look at a particular territory of it, I always ask myself "who lived there before? Whose land was this?". You can discover some pretty interesting things that way.

[Sergarr]

My opinion on "New Russia" thing... You know what is the "funniest" thing here? That is a typical name for a newly gained colony. They don't even hide their intention to be a Russian colony.... Ukrainians will have a role of savage natives that should be genocided to free the land

One more - that region was  called New Russia because before conquests of 18th century it wasn't Russian. No single Russian lived in that area before that. It was ethnic territory of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars

For some of the Russian irredentists/Novorossiya supporters that go on about "historical claims" and how that land used to be Russian before the Soviets parceled it off, it reminds me of how American history begins with the coming of the white man, or Christopher Columbus. It's like all those centuries and centuries of independent Native American history don't matter. For the Novorossiyans, history begins in the 19th century.

The thing I always do when I look at a colonial/Imperial country like Russia or the USA and I look at a particular territory of it, I always ask myself "who lived there before?". You can discover some pretty interesting things that way.

But then you remember that there were people who lived before those people. And the chain can be continued until all you have is a single tribe of ancient humans. Therefore, we must surrender all our territories to cavemen. 

EDIT: That means that no nation or ethnos can claim that there is a territory which belongs only to them.

[Guardian G.I.]

My opinion on "New Russia" thing... You know what is the "funniest" thing here? That is a typical name for a newly gained colony. They don't even hide their intention to be a Russian colony.... Ukrainians will have a role of savage natives that should be genocided to free the land

One more - that region was  called New Russia because before conquests of 18th century it wasn't Russian. No single Russian lived in that area before that. It was ethnic territory of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars

For some of the Russian irredentists/Novorossiya supporters that go on about "historical claims" and how that land used to be Russian before the Soviets parceled it off, it reminds me of how American history begins with the coming of the white man, or Christopher Columbus. It's like all those centuries and centuries of independent Native American history don't matter. For the Novorossiyans, history begins in the 19th century.

The thing I always do when I look at a colonial/Imperial country like Russia or the USA and I look at a particular territory of it, I always ask myself "who lived there before? Whose land was this?". You can discover some pretty interesting things that way.

The entire territory which constitutes Novorossiya had practically no permanent settlements (except some Ottoman outposts) because of Crimean Tatars and other nomads. It was called the Wild Fields for a reason.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Sounds like it should be Turkey's then. 

[Sergarr]

Sounds like it should be Turkey's then. 

Sounds like North America should be Native American's then.

[Guardian G.I.]

Sounds like it should be Turkey's then. 

Sounds like North America should be Native American's then.

Yeah, and Eastern Germany should belong to the Slavs (Wends, to be precise).

...and Sicily along with Southernmost Italy should belong to Greece.

[Owlbread]

The entire territory which constitutes Novorossiya had practically no permanent settlements (except some Ottoman outposts) because of Crimean Tatars and other nomads. It was called the Wild Fields for a reason.

There was me thinking all that belonged to various Ukrainian Cossack fiefdoms. I'll have to wait for Ukrainian Ranger to back me up there.

But then you remember that there were people who lived before those people. And the chain can be continued until all you have is a single tribe of ancient humans. Therefore, we must surrender all our territories to cavemen. 

EDIT: That means that no nation or ethnos can claim that there is a territory which belongs only to them.

I take this approach with Scotland:

Spoiler: A brief history (click to show/hide)

Scotland once belonged to Mesolithic hunter gatherers (cavemen), then it was invaded/conquered or peacefully colonised/assimilated (we don't know) by people who knew how to farm, spreading out from the middle east. Those people are commonly regarded as "Old Europeans".

They were then Celticised, most likely through peaceful means (though again, don't rule out war) and became various tribes with fairly common traits. When the Romans invaded, they scattered the people who called themselves "Britons" into various groups who turned into nations. In Scotland, they became the Britons in the South and the Picts everywhere else, who seemed to have lots of pre-Celtic traits.

Later, Gaelic speakers from Ireland (or possibly indigenous, we don't know) started appearing in Western Scotland in a specific area called Argyll. They then began fighting with the Picts and Britons for land. In the meantime the Norse came down, conquered most of the Pictish lands on the islands and created a Norse colonial fiefdom.

The Norse strengthened their grip, the Gaels conquered and assimilated, then through a complicated system of intermarriage the two Kingdoms of Pictland and Dal Riata were united into the Kingdom of Alba. The Norse colonies, which had always taken on a Gaelic identity, were eventually conquered and acquired by Alba. Meanwhile the English had been conquering all the Britons in the South of the country, assimilating them. They were conquered by the Scots, then as Alba took on Old English as its language of governance it became the Kingdom of Scotland.

Spoiler: Further explanation/exploration (click to show/hide)

You can see, based on that, how countless ethnic groups and peoples have ruled this land dating right back to cave people. Yet the crazy thing is that, in spite of all these changes of power, people have stayed mostly in the same place. Today there are people directly descended from the Britons in the South of Scotland and in turn the Neolithic farmers, I am one of them. There are even Mesolithic people in Scotland, people whose ancestors were the very first to even set eyes on the British Isles so many thousands of years ago. When people ask - "Where did the Picts go?" - I tell them "they're everywhere around us. They're still here. They never left." That unit of people, dating right back to the most ancient times, could be considered the "native" population of Scotland.

I don't know if this is really all that unusual when compared with the continent. I know people moved a lot more down there, especially in places like Ukraine, but even when we look at the Cossacks that settled in East Ukraine - they had been in that area for so long it's difficult to find exactly where they came from in the first place; whether they were at one point Turkic nomads that took on the Ukrainian language (then Ruthenian) or just naturally nomadic Slavs - it could be argued that they have, in fact, always been there in one form or another. When we talk of everything being like a big chain of conquerers, we have to remember that it is quite rare for the people who were originally conquered to disappear completely in the first place. You usually need to wipe them out physically in order for that to happen.

Maybe (I'm not an expert here) the people who are native to East Ukraine are still there and will always be there, just under the influence of an old or new conquerer. The only issue is the change in culture brought on through a change in influence over the last 100 years; should they cease to be Ukrainian/Rusyn, as they have been for 1000 years if my Cossack idea is correct, or should they embrace the Russian identity brought on through mass immigration of Russians following the Holodomor (leading to the virtual extinction of Ukrainians in the East) during the period of the USSR?

[XXSockXX]

I bet they are using this specifically to piss off Owlbread.

Yeah, and Eastern Germany should belong to the Slavs (Wends, to be precise).

Nope, the Germanic tribes that lived there just left for a bit to plunder and pillage Southern Europe before the Slavs snuck in. Before the migration period that whole area (including big parts of Poland) was germanic.

[MonkeyHead]

I get a big confederate states vibe from that flag.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

There was me thinking all that belonged to various Ukrainian Cossack fiefdoms. I'll have to wait for Ukrainian Ranger to back me up there.

Bassically it was an area of constant warfare between Cossacks and Crimean Tatars. It was sparsely populated frontier not empty lands

_________
I am in a very bad mood and keep waiting when anti-terror operation will become counter terror operation... So far Ukrainian forces do nothing but sit in one place and serve as alive targets, only shoot back. No attempts to attack for the whole duration of that shit... I am actually dreaming about a real junta now... That kind of government would do something productive