Slavs = slaves = sclavus often promoted by some pseudo scientist on YT. Term Slawen, slawisch for slav, slavic came in 18th century in German books about roots Indo-germanic language. Before that no one used term slaves, closest were Slavonen (modern Slovenia). Ususally Slavic tribes were called with their own names, like Garmanic or Celtic tribes. However Germans has always the desire to push Slavic language back to the east and to germanizie Slavic speaking people. This ideology reached its final peak in nazi ideologies which ended in WW2
Another evidence is DNA. Balto-Slavic tribes conquered Germanic tribes up region of modern Hamburg, Hanover, Kassel while Slavic expansion lasting from III -VI century. I assume people in slavery don't conquer and don't establish dominant language and culture. Just my assumption since regions in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Baltic were 100% germanic before 0. AD (Birth of Jesus) Modern DNA tests show that men in those regions tend to have R1a Y-haplogroup while men in western part of Germany tend to have R1b, while female mtDNA in central Europe is far more homogenous, there is no sharp division. Probably Germanic men were killed or were sold to Romans as lion fed, while women assimilated in a natural way. Probably slav means rather slaver, however this happened 1400 years back, no reparations and no refunds. lol
I was glad you mentioned Western Slavs (~Hamburg) as that is my descent. :)
Now I am not disputing what you say ( as you clearly know more than I) but there are aspects I would question.
The slavic self name of Slovene became Sklabos in Byzantine Greek is the conventional etymology. Sklabos went into Latin as sclavus (which you list) from whence Old French and middle English words derive.
The earliest use of the English sclave was ~1300 which is considerably before the 18th Century German books. So I have to question "before that no one used term slaves" since the English term seems at least 400 years older.
The Old English word for slave, Þēow, (from which thrall now derives), used the letter thorn and that letter became defunct with Caxton's printing press. The European typesetters probably used the Old French since it was in circulation to some degree. They buggered up a lot of other English spelling to avoid adding thorn to the typeset after all.
So can we really attribute slave to German grammer books of the 18th century?
The info on Y haplogroups was interesting. Clearly at least some preferential access to females has happened in the past. I am curious there were Germanic people people in Poland et al originally as my understanding was Germanic people migrated in much later.
The Teutonic Knights, for example, crusaded against the heathen Prussian baltic tribe. Killed all the men and stole all the women even though they were a Church fellowship group.
I'd appreciate if you give me more info on the Germanic distribution around that.
@RavVid Before Slavic expansion regions around Baltic sea and along Vistula river were Germanic, mostly descendants of Goths which lived there since 4000 years and moved southwester. (there are tons of archaeologic evidences) Goths were predominantly I1 Y-happlogroup.
Term Slavoni or Sklavoni was used to describe southern Slavic tribe that beat Byzantine empire see *1. However I'm sure this tribe called themselves that way. Since Slava (Glory) or Slovo (Word) was used as part of their identity. That's why it's so in the books.
The west expansion of Slavic language is according to some sources "abandoning of those regions by Germanic tribes and resettling of Slavic ones" Honestly who believes such BS. Unless there was a disease that killed exclusively Germanic men with R1b. No one person who knows human nature will believe that. It was a conquest of Avars (Hungars) in center of Europe, Wast Slavs (Wends, Veneti) along south Balitic coast and Elbe River and South Slavs (Slavoni) against Byzantine Empire and Germanic tribes which disliked Franks This was bigger conquest as that of Vikings between 7th and 9th century.
Distribution of R1a Y-haplogroup confirms that too.
Is that myth because people confuse Prussia with Russia?
I think it's the one of ancient Britons all running around naked bar a coating of woad paint. I mean it's bloody freezing wet and windy here 90% of the time so makes zero sense. It just means without armour.
That vikings had horns on their helmets. 4th grade monthly book report had my entire class including the teacher telling me that I'm a lying fucking retard when I broke that factoid out for some fucking reason.
I mean, the harsh lesson of dealing with a room full of know-it-alls when you inform them of a fact that they don't like was a pivotal moment for me. It was like going to a BLM meeting and informing them that Cleopatra wasn't black and Wakanda doesn't exist. I mean they were really fucking butthurt about hornless helmets.
Now, decades later, these history documentaries drop that fact like it's candy, and it just reminds me of the time I dropped that fact and it created a mob that wanted to burn me at the steak over it. ... well not that bad, but the teacher did call me stupid in front of the class. Good times.
My theory is that it's down to the cone shaped helmets. Our word for cone is côn and for horn is corn, they sound virtually the same and could easily be confused as news spread across Britain
@purplepoppy According to the books it was just Romantic writers for plays and opera outfits. Thus the myth started in the early 1900's.
From a combat perspective... horns would be absolutely retarded. A halberd, long ax, sword, or mase would make short work of a helmet that has something sticking out. Basically you could slap the horn and the damn helmet would be backwards on their head... or you could hook it with the halberd or long ax and jerk the helmet right off, if not the dude's head around. The main point of the helmet was get things to bounce off instead of getting a nice flat surface where the weapons weight comes to a complete stop and transfers all that force right into the skull inside.
The bottom line is... these retards seen bugs bunny cartoons with horns, therefore horns. And instead of accepting a kid just read they didn't have horns in a history book that's non-fiction, it pissed them off because it challenged their fictional belief... to the point of giving the kid shit and calling him names.
It's just a good lesson or a reminder, that most people are fucking stupid. Think about how stupid the average person is, and then bask in the fact that half of the population is even stupider than that.
@purplepoppy Yeah that teacher calling me a retard sort of made an impression. Her letting those kids go cut throat on me was sort of soul searching. They were wishing violence upon me for something so stupid... and i was right the entire time.
People like a good greek tragedy. So Bonepart's fall was always going to be fitted into the hubris model.
The ones I am particularly annoyed are dual historical/political myths. For example that indigenous people are in tune with nature.
Whereas the truth is they burnt the shit out of Australia, changed the ecology forever and they killed off all the megafauna. To be fair I wouldn't have liked the giant running crocodiles and giant snakes either.
"Whereas the truth is they burnt the shit out of Australia, changed the ecology forever and they killed off all the megafauna." OF COURSE YOU CAN SUPPORT THAT WITH PEER REVIEWED STUDIES, right?
That 6 million Jews were killed in Hitler's concentration camps. That's bull shit. I'm not sure he even hated Jews or it was just a bunch of political hype because a lot of Germans did and he could get elected that way. Those camps were minor compared to what went on in the Soviet Union. Probably more Jews died there along with every one else. All you hear over and over is what monsters the Nazis were. The Soviets were bigger monsters and better at it. Bigger than them were the Chinese, Mao made Hitler and Stalin look like boy scouts. China has gulags to this day committing atrocities beyond what Hitler did and you hear very little about it. People believe what they want to believe.
You claim that the deaths of six million Jews in Nazi Germany are “bullshit,” and that Hitler may not even have hated Jews—that it was “political hype.” This is not only wrong, it betrays a complete disregard for the overwhelming documentary and testimonial record confirming both intent and scale. The figure of around six million Jewish victims is supported by Nazi transport logs, camp registers, detailed correspondence, orders, and other bureaucratic paperwork, all cross-checked with survivor testimony and demographic studies. This is not “propaganda” but forensic history.
Yes, Stalin and Mao oversaw terrible crimes that cost millions of lives—and those crimes deserve full recognition. But pointing to them does not make the Holocaust any less real, nor diminish its horrors. To argue otherwise is a classic tactic of moral relativism: “they did worse” becomes a shield for denial. Intentional genocide, organized, industrialized, state-approved, explicitly antisemitic — all of that is irrefutably documented in speeches, laws, policy texts, and orders.
So no: you cannot compare or minimize the Holocaust by citing Soviet or Chinese atrocities. You also cannot claim Hitler “didn’t hate Jews” when hatred, exclusion, dehumanization, laws, and ultimately mass murder are plainly laid out in the historical record. Denying or downplaying these facts isn’t opinion—it’s denialism. And history, unlike rhetoric, does not bend under wishful thinking.
I don't need numbers or racial data to minimize the "holocaust" Hitler was an amateur. I could not care less about the race of his victims, a Jew, a "Gypsie" a German farmer who talked too much. One life is the same as another. His numbers are the lowest of all assuming they are even correct. It's silly how people point at a meth head who lost and got exposed. A dead monster to kick and curse. Odd how silent they are about a live one like the CCP.
Well all I can say is my grandfather was a very high ranking officer in the US Army during WW 2 and was part of a group of officers whose job was shortly after the camps were liberated, was to visit, photo and collect evidence along with integrating survivors, captured Germans and civilians from and near the camps. There is NO MYTH about what took place and numbers at those camps. You have to be some kind of deranged moron to think, say or print such nonsense.
@katiesmuff That's just you posting something that may or may not be true. Either way, these kinds of camps are common and still in use today. No on is saying anything about it except for the one example of Nazi Germany. One of the smaller examples of this occurring. So, until I see someone point at what Mao did I'm calling bull shit.
@DonaldDarko is an obvious troll. How can he be a Holocaust denier? He's not. The man running the United States is Jewish! His name is Stephen Miller. Troll Darko knows and loves the fact that the US will ALWAYS be on Israel's side. I'll bet that Darko, just like Miller, is 100% Jewish.
Religion. 100% bullshit. And religious people don't even understand the concept of the religion they claim to follow. It probably seemed like a good idea when the smart people of the time invented religion, because weak-minded people needed a little fear introduced into their to get them to behave. But everything backfired in a most horrendous way.
"Saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland." there were no snakes in Ireland and as far as I know there never have been. When people say that saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland the "Snakes" were pagans. Snake was basically a Christian slur for pagans in the early days so when they say saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland, they mean he drove out or converted all the pagans there.
the myth that "feminists won the equality we enjoy today" yet they're still claiming we're living in a "patriarchy". bitch would you be out in the streets complaining if we actually did live in a patriarchy? no. you'd be beat up and locked away by patriarchs. get a grip xD
The roots version of the transatlantic slave trade that Europeans went into peaceful African villages and stole them.. When really "traded" at the coast because Europeans couldn't survive the terrible diseases..
1. Slavery was automatically worse than being a "free" person in the old days.
2. The native americans had a large population before colonization.
3. Muslim invasions of Europe were benevolent.
It was ultimately a combination of commanders and armies that beat Napoleon, but in Russia he lost a lot of his best men. I guess the feeling is that the Russian campaign crippled him, though you are right it didn't end him.
All the stuff in the Torah (Old Testament) about Egypt, Jews conquering Canaan, David and Solomon being great kings, and Jews being God's chosen people.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
9 mo
the myth of the "oppressive patriarchy" as rewritten history by feminists
Mine is the myth that pilgrims handed out small pox blankets to kill natives. Yes in an age when people thought illness was caused by evil spirits and bad humors, somehow we figured out the whole biological warfare thing.
Let them eat cake. Marie Antoinette never said it; it was made up by the French press at the time because they hated her for being Austrian. That libel was probably the impotous for her unjust execution.
"Discovered" as in being the first European, he technecally DID, as America is a region.
Maybe "hero" is a stretch, but I agknowledge his contributions to the exploration industry and the development of the Americas. I feel bad for the Taino and Arawaks, but I don't feel bad for the Kalinago. They were a vicious war tribe, and there were Europeans who were far more vicious then Columbus. But I mean, come on. The man literally explored and mapped the entire Caribbean
Also, look at it this way, you wouldn't exist had it not been for Columbus and his successors. I like how my Mexico guidebook describes colonial conquest, "neither a good thing, nor a bad thing, but the painful birth of the Mestizo race"
@KostasKouvalis I had thought about that before, how I wouldn't be here without colonialism, that's true. But I can tell you that I am indifferent to Hernan Cortes, but disliked Colombus for what happened to the generally described peaceful and good natured Taino people.
So I literally just found out he didn't name Indians because he thouht he was in India, which was called Hindustan back then, but he named them "Indios", which in Spanish means "people of god", and the English being morons rewrote it as "Indians"
@KostasKouvalis I hadn't heard that before, maybe it was old Spanish if that's the case. But in modern Spanish India the country is also spelled "India" but almost no one refers to India Indians as "Indios/as" they are usually referred to as "Hindu" even though that's a religion and not all Indians are Hindu.
What I do know is that he and other Europeans referred to the Tainos in high regards, when talking about their personality and appearance. And he also wrote to the Queen of Spain that they would make good Christians.
Actually the virgin thing might be tiny chance that's true. There have been many claims of teens dry humping getting pregnant and given Mary was very young perhaps they just did that.
Like I mentioned.. Cult leaders don't die for their followers or their beliefs.. Not to mention cult leaders don't feed thousands of followers, tell them what they don't want to hear and lose them.. Also have you seen the movement of Christianity? The reason the West prospered so much was because of Judeo Christian values.. No cult leader makes a faith or "religion" so wide spread with generosity..
@Joshydavid25 He died because he was a threat to the Roman control of the region. A cult leader claiming to be the son of a god. The Romans ruled the Levant at the time, not the Jews. The Romans were the ones who nailed him to a cross. All that bullshit is a bunch of hearsay anyways.
No the Romans didn't concern themselves with the affairs of Israel much at the time.. Jesus was a local influential figure who seemed like a fabled magician to the Romans.. It was literally the Saduccees and Pharisees who got the Romans to carry out the execution on Jesus.. Israel couldn't do it at the time, only Rome..
@Joshydavid25 they didn't concern themselves with the affairs of Israel? Dude the Romans conquered Israel and were in control of it. You're just sucking up that king James antisemite Bible edit bullshit. Bible was edited over 400 times, you're just reading a bunch of bullshit by now.
The Bible is the main manuscript that talks about Jesus and the affairs of ancient Israel.. And no it wasn't edited 400 times.. The only errors in any translations are mostly grammatical.. But the stories and accounts remain consistent.. And yes I mentioned that Rome didn't allow Israel to execute themselves.. And the Bible aside from the supernatural accounts is regarded as historically sound in a lot of it's stories..
People have been singing the same song for centuries and yet... The Bible remains to be taken so serious that it has scholars and historians still trying to figure it out, and Christianity being the most life changing faiths (religions) out there.. I think results speak for itself..
Cults are only in small engraves and don't usually give you a choice as to whether you want to join or not.. Plus a huge part of the reason the West abolished Slavery was because of the principles laid out in the Bible and by Christianity..
@Joshydavid25 you're reaching dude, show me where in the Bible it says slavery is wrong. Most slave owners in Europe and America were so-called "Christians". It just took a long time for everybody to realize that they were actually pieces of shit.
The seeds of the emancipation of slaves are in the Bible, which teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27), which condemns those who kidnap and sell a person (Exodus 21:16; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8–10), and which shows that a slave can truly be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16).
The Quakers which is a sect of Christianity were some of the first people in the "New World" to get rid of their slaves and try to abolish it altogether..
@Joshydavid25 Christianity has definitely done more harm than good for this world. How many people were hated, killed, persecuted, and enslaved because they weren't Christians? Millions were "in the name of Christ". Religion is for weak minded people who can't accept death.
There have been many people who call themselves "Christians" but weren't following the teachings of Christ.. If it's not from the good book they didn't do anything "In the name of Christ".. Jesus never killed anybody for not believing in him, and in fact he lended grace.. While he was on the cross his last words were "Forgive them father for they don't know what they do".. No cult leaders would say that about people spitting, laughing, mocking, and killing him..
"Religion is for weak minded people who can't accept death." We're all weak minded in some way, and that's what people don't understand.. Religion is for people who realize that they are weak minded and look to something for strength to get them through life.. So there's absolutely nothing wrong with that..
@KostasKouvalis Taxes. The North wanted the South to buy their high-priced good but the South could buy for less from France and other countries. So the North, having more votes, greatly increased tariffs, which would impoverish the South. To avoid the taxes, the South withdrew. Lincoln illegally invaded the South. The criminals that won, didn't want it known that they illegally invaded and murdered millions over taxes, so they lied and claimed it was about slavery. They are still lying.
WOW! Thank you very much! That was extremely enlightening. I am honestly not surprised, especially knowing Lincoln's history. It actually makes sense, because Lincoln actually wanted to deport the freed slaves to Central America. Wow, it's so crazy how our whole lives we were being taught complete lies. Why?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
Anonymous(30-35)9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
u 9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
9 mo
