- This topic has 24 voices and 148 replies.
- July 21, 2011 at 9:15 pm #342043
I'm not really that great with history and whatnot. Mainly because I'm 14 and don't know anything..
Why do people(mostly Hungarians on this issue) say that Slovakia is an artificial nation? Cause I'm pretty sure that Slovaks were like one of the first Slavic tribes or something. I think.
I probably sound like an idiot because I'm so ignorant of these things.July 21, 2011 at 10:07 pm #360724
They say it because they are butthurt over "lost territories". Just like Russians say that Ukraine is an artificial nation. It's butthurt, just plain butthurt.July 21, 2011 at 10:23 pm #360725
Cause I'm pretty sure that Slovaks were like one of the first Slavic tribes or something. I think.
before the arrivals of the Magyars into Pannonian basin, the area from the Adriatic ( or hinterland near Adriatic sea) all the way to modern Slovakia was covered with Slavic lands and the main identity was Slavdome itself. Magyars separated Slavs so those in the north became part of Slovakian nation in the 19. century, those in the west became Slovenians and those in the south became Slavonians or Croats in relatively modern times ( Slovakia – Slovenia – Slavonia). Next, Bosnia ( which is southern neighbour of Slavonija) did not loose common Slavic identity until the late medieval period. So, Slovaks are not artificial in any way…Slovaks are just Slavs who became a nation in confrontation with surrounding political units but kept common Slavic name.
Hungarian chauvinists say that Slovakia is a false nation because they want territory of Slovakia. The same situation we have here in the Balkans where some Serbian pseudo-historians or whatever claim that the whole area from Bulgaria up to the Istra is Serbian and that all nations are fake- only Serbian has solid foundations.
I probably sound like an idiot because I'm so ignorant of these things.
No. Idiots are those who don't want to learn and are happy with their ignorance ( although they think that they know everything).
CheersJuly 21, 2011 at 10:57 pm #360726
Ask Hungarian people you know, if they consider Poles as an artificial nation. Slovaks are in the same way artificial as Poles. If Hungarians insist, then we should revise our brotherhood-in-law with them.July 22, 2011 at 12:43 am #360727
Because their understanding of word "nation" is similar to the English… nation = people with a government. At least it seems to be so, in my opinion.
Well, Slovaks as a nation we know today did not exist until 17th century. Until then, we were a group of different peoples, not very numerous, with different levels of national consciousness. The strongest national consciousness was in what is now western Slovakia, and southern Moravia (Moravské Slovácko, Moravian Slovakia), the weakest in what is now eastern part of the country (a very unclear line between Slovaks and Rusyns). These groups were relatively isolated from each other, and that is why even today there are about 30 major dialects in Slovakia, and relatively large differences in culture.
Plus the concept of inhabitant of Hungary = Hungarian = Magyar, which is only a big confusion of "political nation" (Americans, Brits) and "nation as an ethnicity" (English, Welsh…).
People with language/closely tied dialects and culture are a nation, regardless of whether they have a state or not.July 22, 2011 at 10:01 am #360728
I think because there wasn't state called Slovakia before 20th Century.
Hungarian say this because their state has existed since 1000 AD.
But of course this does not mean Slovaks never existed before in history, they were always there.
Besides, what means artificial nation? Slovaks have own language, culture, identity and heritage. Just because state as such is new, does not make it artificial IMO.
Artificial nations in Europe are definitely Belgium, United Kingdom, Moldova and Kosovo. Some people might even say that Austria and Switzerland are artificial nations as well, while others claim that Ukrainians and Belarussians are. Also, Balkans is probably best known for people claiming which state is artificial and which not.
One should look at it case-by-case basis, but Slovakia definitely isn't one to be called artificial, no ways. It is just historical animosity between Hungarians and Slovaks, nothing different from 100 other such cases in Europe.July 22, 2011 at 9:58 pm #360729
Well, I forgot to add this… thanks to Vlkolak for reminding me.
They mean to say that Slovakia is an artificial state. Because, as Wilkolak pointed out, there was no Slovakia as a defined geopolitical entity before 20th century. Only "partes superiores" of Regnum Hungarorum, or, "Hungaria Superior". There was Ducatus Nitrensis as an autonomous part of Hungaria (actually the most populated and influential part) that ceased to exist in 12th century as the King tried to centralise power in the Kingdom, it was, however, in no way "Slovakia".
The fact that we had no great historic figures besides Mauritius de Benovensis (Móric Beňovský), that our history was a history of a subdued, silent peasant results in a HUGE inferiority complex in many Slovaks. That is why there is a great deal of "slovakization" of anything at hand. Andy Warhol is made Slovak, Maria Theresa was crowned in Slovakia ( :), a great amount of inventors were made Slovak (like M. Hell, J. Petzval, :), wallachian axe, salash and bryndza are "traditionally Slovak". Slovaks finally need to wake up and realize that we are a bunch of Carpathian and Pannonian peasants and brigands with diametrally different cultures only recently unified into a nation with which we barely can identify. Instead of hunting history we must face the reality and protect the only things that are our own: our cultures and our dialects.
Sadly, this is what we are losing right now. People use artificial, cold language created in 1840's, forget their own dialects and say they are "proud Slovaks".
This is image of Slovak nation, an image full of joy and hope. I barely identify myself with this nation, usually only to avoid confusion in people. Another reason for my polonophilia and bohemophilia
Nation (ethnicity) is usually a too big group to identify with, that is why nation-states of Europe are failing and fading away. "Europe of nations" is era that comes to its end, and it seems that the only way for us, Europeans, is the EU. It just needs to be reformed. Really reformed. But that is a different topic.
P. P. S.
All nations and states are artificial.July 26, 2011 at 10:16 am #360730
Why do people(mostly Hungarians on this issue) say that Slovakia is an artificial nation? Cause I’m pretty sure that Slovaks were like one of the first Slavic tribes or something. I think.
I probably sound like an idiot because I’m so ignorant of these things.
Not mostly Magyars, exclusively Magyars say that. And the reason is quite simple. People may start asking our Magyar friends unpleasant questions about their version of historyJuly 26, 2011 at 11:42 am #360732
… because in 1780 Magyars created only 28% of the whole inhabitants of Hungary and the rest created the Slavs, Germans etc. … because Magyar language was official language of the Kingdom of Hungary only 62 years in the last period of the Kingdom (19th – 20th century) and the Slovakized Czech language was officially used in the 15th century … because in the Middle age the French chroniclers treated Hungary as the Slavic country and the Hungarian language as the Slavic dialect which is close to Czech, Polish and Russian (of course, they didn't meet with Magyar language 'cause it's totally different from Slavic languages, but most probable with Slovak -> that means Slovak language was wide-spread, moreover territory of Slovakia was the most developed in the whole Kingdom of Hungary wherein the term Hungarians meant rather a citizenship than nationality) … just because they'd like to see themselves as the first and superior ones, but the history tells them it was not like that.July 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm #360733
Something like France.
In the first half of 19th century, French comprised about 50% of France's population, the rest were Bretagnese, Provencals, Occitans, Walloonians, Alsaceans, Lotharingians, Basques, Catalanese, Flemish…
This actually led to defeat of France in French-Prussian war in 1871. Soldiers, sent to battlefields to fight for France, did not want to fight for the country with which they did not identify. Especially Alsacean and Lotharingian soldiers, who spoke German dialects, refused to fight their cousins. By that time, nationalism and especially romantic nationalism was very widespread among people.
After the war the French government enacted harsh "frenchization" policies, resulting in cultural genocide of non-French speaking citizens of France.
Even today, the French do not recognize most of these ethnic minorities and suppress their language.July 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm #360734
Yes, something like France for example…July 27, 2011 at 3:31 am #360735
I guess I get it now. The more you know!
I don't like Hungarians anymore.July 28, 2011 at 9:05 pm #360736
As I read this discussion I must write couple of lines about old Hungarian Empire. It is not true, that Slovaks didnt have any important personalities in this empire. Kingdom of St. Stefanus was in fact created with strong help of Slovak noblemen, mostly Hunt and Poznan (http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Hunt-Poznan), but they were not alone – they had own retinues, and they helped Stefan to defeat Kopan – who at the end of 10 th century represented old magyarian principle. (Another members of these two old slovak aristocratic famillies whose origin is dated back to age of Great Moravia, saved life of king Belo IV after hungarian army was defeated by tartars on battle by river Slana in year 1241 – actualy one of them gave his horse to king, who – with his help escaped from vicinity of tartars and saved his life, unlike of Hunt, who without his horse didnt have chance and was killed.) After Stephen became a king in year 1000, he started to build Hungarian kingdom on principle of so called "natio hungarica" – he find out very soon that Hungaria is a multinatiaonal state and so it could not be built on ethnic – magyar – principles. Natio hungarica – its member was every free citizen, at early kingdom it was only aristocracy and clergy, later free citizens of towns. It didnt metter what nationality they were. Other inhabitants (mostly peasants) – were not part of natio hungarica – doesnt metter if tey were Slovaks or Magyars. King Stephen gave his son Imrich an important advice (http://www.klasici.sk/node/531) – that he should not forget, that kingdom of one language is weak. Almost all of Hungarian Kings folowed this advice and so only official language of empire, used by state power was not magyar, but latin language. Without this priciple – empire would become Babylon, where state rulers would not understand each other. Another interesting thing that should be mentioned is so called Zobor document from year 1111, where lot of Slovak names are mentioned as important noblemen, who testify property of Nitran monastery. In this document except lot of Slovak personal names, many of city/vilages names in slovak language are captured. (http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoborské_listiny) Paradoxically it was not magyars who tried to expell Slovaks from political life (in free cities), but Germans. Lets look at one well known incident from 14 th century from free city Žilina (city in todays northern Slovakia) It was originaly city inhabited by Slovaks, but in 13 th century came lot of Germans in slovak cities and started to expell Slovaks from rulling in cities – in this example from rulling of Zilina. But Slovaks didnt just let it be, they sent an request to king Ludovit I. After this, king granted so called Privilegium pro Slavis. According to this privilege Slovaks and Germans each occupied half of the seats in the city council and the mayor should be elected each year, alternating between those nationalities. It was issued after the complaints of Slovaks that the Germans refused to respect this rule. The privilege was issued in 1381 (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilegium_pro_Slavis ) Then I could mention famous Matej Bel – a famous wisemen from 18 th century who was called "pearl of Hungary" (http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matej_Bel) or for example field Marshal Andrej Hadík (http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrej_Had%C3%ADk) who in the year 1757 defeted with his army city of Berlin(!!!) Then I should mention Samuel Mikovini – first real cartograph in Hungary, who created lot of high quality maps. Lest look at one of them – map of todays western and central Slovakia from year 1738. In these maps you can fint lots of cities and villages names in Slovak language. If you see some map from 19. th century – after magyarisation, you will fing out, that all of them were ranamed in 19 th century in order to look like magyar names. The map is here: http://mek.oszk.hu/06400/06422/html/top_megye/megye16_sl.html
All of this personalities (there is much more but I cannot give it everything here) shows, that Slovak nation was not just nation of peasants, nor "artificial nation" but played an important role throughout the all history of hungarian kingdom. So I showed here some examples which proves, that Slovaks were significant nation of Hungarian kingdom, they lived here from 6 th century till todays. There was many others Slovaks who played an important role in Hungarian kingdom and who never denied their Slovak origin (in fact they didnt have reason for that, because until 19. th century the nationality played only small role, as i mentioned – important was – wether you are part of political Natio Hungarica or not. In 19 th century, mostly second half, great magyrisation began and in this process, the old Natio hungarica magyars tried to change to natio magyarica – they started process of violent magyrisation of Slovaks but also other nations- because I forgot to say it before, there was a lot of other nations in Hungary, not only Magyars and Slovaks. Who in those times would say how truthful were words of king Stephan – kingdom of one language is weak. So the starting of magyarisation was beginning of the end of thousand years lasting kingdom, where every nation was equal. Kingdom became "prison for nations" and this stupid politics of brutal hungarian nationalism lead to doom of this ancient kingdom in 1918.
So why the hungarians say that our nation is artificial? One explanation is that they dont know own history. Second is that Slovakvcnation just doesn't fits into their limited vision of their selfs and and their nationalism. Sory about my bad english.July 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm #360737
And one more thing – in history of Hungarian kingdom most of kings were not magyars. Only first royal family – Arpad family had magyar nationality and last king from this family died in 1301. Other kings in later times had no-magyar nationality (only exception was Matheus Korvin, but also his family (Hunyady) was not clear magyar origin.August 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm #360738
Slovaks cannot be any artificial nation, because a nation which has such rich embroidery with such natural and original meaning on the folk costumes, just cannot be artificial… A famous Czech photographer Karel Plicka was impressed by Slovak embroideries and their deep roots.
If this kolovrat or svastika, the primeval symbol of the Sun and of the god Svarog, had been made by the Slovak women only “in artificial way”, there’s no place for next discussion, ’cause it’s absurd to think, the Slovaks have no deep roots at the sight of this embroidery.
Other examples? Here we go!
Did you ever heard of the Maya people they’re an artificial nation? Absolutely no. They are always considered to be a people with deep and sometimes mysterious culture. Just compare pictures 1., 2. and 3. which come from Slovakia with Maya symbols. Really, are we artificial nation?
… spirals – symbols of creation ….
… Slovaks – the artificial nation? I just can laugh. :
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.