daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture > European Classic Architecture and Landscapes

European Classic Architecture and Landscapes All related to historical buildings and landscapes of the old world.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 22nd, 2015, 12:33 PM   #1921
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Mruczek,

Quote:
In September 1945 in Warmia and Mazury there was approximately 30 thousand local Warmiacy and Mazurzy.
What is the source for this number ???

Quote:
Still, the number of migration to Germany are confirming the thesis of nearly complete extintion of the ethnographic groups of Warmiaks and Mazurians by moving out:

1956-59: 38,4 thousand
1960-70: 20 thousand
1971-86: 50 thousand
What is the source for these numbers ???

Between 1950 and 1990 Poland's population increased from 25,0 million in 1950 and 29,8 million in 1960, to 38,2 million in 1990, despite negative net migration rates all the time during those decades (according to the link below, net migration rate in period 1950-1990 was minus 0,758 million people; including minus 0,658 million people in period 1960-1990):

https://books.google.pl/books?id=_75...201990&f=false

So as you can see Poland had a very high natural growth rate. By contrast Germany had below replacement level fertility during most of post-WW2 period:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=7Hg...epage&q&f=true



Acccording to Kasprzycki, Masurians who stayed in Poland had an even higher than Poland's average total fertility rate:

http://sgph.geo.uni.lodz.pl/wp-conte...Kasprzycki.pdf

An excerpt from page 198 (18):

"(...) wysoka dzietność rodzin mazurskich [po 1945]. Posiadanie trójki, czwórki czy piątki dzieci nie należało wcale do rzadkości."

"(...) high fertility of Masurian families [after 1945]. Having three, four, or five children by their families was not rare at all."

Quote:
nearly 10 thousand moved to East Germany, where Communism was much more serious than in Poland.
Worse than in Poland? East German shops were full when Polish were empty. I think what you wanted to say, is that East Germans were not opposing Communism too hard. East Germany was being subsidized by the USSR because it was "the propaganda postcard" of the entire Eastern Bloc. Western opinion about the Eastern Bloc was being shaped by how East Germany looked like. So at least there an impression of well-being had to be created for western journalists. BTW - it was much easier to move to East Germany, than to West Germany. You couldn't cross the Iron Courtain without a special permission. So you could move to East Germany first, and later you could try to jump over the East German border, and avoid getting shot if you were lucky.

As for Działdowo county:

Quote:
Out of 18 thousand of Masurians (as of 1920) only 6 thousand left in 1931
Source? Is this based on simply counting all Protestants? Also - does this number of 18 thousand really refer to 1920, or to 1921?

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 02:02 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 22nd, 2015, 02:57 PM   #1922
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Mruczek,

Quote:
Also, what's the point in counting statistics from the whole East Prussia, if it Northern part was neither settled by Polish-speaking people, nor ever was under Polish administration?
Depends in which period.

Ducal Prussia was for a long time (since 1466/1525 until 1657) subjected to Polish Crown. In the 16th century Polish people (mostly new immigrants from Poland proper, but also locals from Warmia-Masuria) constituted about 30% of the population of Königsberg, and in period since 1544 until the late 18th century Polish students were the 2nd most numerous ethnic group after German students at the University of Königsberg (for example in 1744 out of 1032 students, 283 were Polish). In 1544-1619 over 2000 students came from Poland. Among them, Bieniasz Budny, Samuel Dambrowski, Erazm Gliczner, Marcin Kwiatkowski, Piotr Kochanowski, Andrzej Kochanowski, Stanisław Murzynowski, Jan Niemojewski, Jakub Niemojewski, Stanisław Sarnicki, and the famous Polish Renaissance poet, Jan Kochanowski. Ethnic Pole, Celestyn Myślenta, was even the Rector of the University of Königsberg for 24 years (from 1628 to 1652).

Some good articles (in English):

http://www.iz.poznan.pl/pz/news/9_06.%20Kowalski.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25778680...n_tab_contents

http://rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/291...a-Kowalski.pdf

During the 16th century, Königsberg's printing houses published 297 books in Latin, 183 in German, 104 in Polish, and some in Lithuanian and Prussian. Albrecht Hohenzollern's mother was Polish (his father was German), and we know from his own testimony, that he considered himself to be "fully Polish" ("ganz und gar ein Poln") after 1525:

http://otworzksiazke.pl/images/ksiaz..._1525-1548.pdf

An excerpt from the German summary: http://s27.postimg.org/ljy4cnpo3/Preussen4a.png



We also know that Albrecht Hohenzollern was bilingual (German-Polish), because he even wrote several texts in Polish - for example this preface to this book:



Joachim Friedrich Hohenzollern (1546-1608) was in terms of ancestry only 37% German, and 48% Slavic (mostly Polish):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachi...of_Brandenburg



Source: Erich Brandenburg, "Die Ahnen Augusts des Starken" (Abhandl. der Saechs. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Bd.43, Nr.5), Leipzig 1937.

Heinrich der Fromme (Henry IV of Saxony) was according to this source only 27% German and 62% Slavic & Lithuanian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Duke_of_Saxony



Considering that this book was published in 1937, I suppose that counting % of Slavic blood among German royalty was intended for some "we need to make our royalty more racially pure" program.
__________________

RS_UK-PL, Urbanista1 liked this post

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 03:39 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 04:04 PM   #1923
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mruczek
You can compare it with situations of Germans after Versailles, when nobody harassed them and nobody forced them to go, and yet, within 5 years, over 75% of them left Poland. For many reasons.
Large part of them left Poland because they were state officials working for the administrative apparatus of the kingdom of Prussia and later of the German Reich, as well as of Austria. Immediately after WW1, as many as 33,5% of the entire German population inherited by the reborn Polish state, were state officials and their families, who simply did not belong (most of them were not locals, but they came from other parts of Germany to work as state officials). After German administration was replaced by Polish administration, those people had nothing to do there. See pages 36 - 37 in the link below:

http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/WydBAS.nsf/0...niejszosci.pdf

Not to mention Germans from other regions who lived in eastern garrisons as soldiers, often their families were also moving in to live there.

As the saying goes, Prussia was not a state with an army, but an army with a state.

Another group which left almost in its entirety, were Germans settled during few decades before WW1 by the Prussian Colonization Commission:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussi...ent_Commission

In German: Königlich Preußische Ansiedlungskommission in den Provinzen Westpreußen und Posen.

Their goal was to settle Germans in West Prussia and in the north of Posen Provinz, in order to connect East Prussia with the rest of Germany. In other words, they tried to destroy the so called Polish Corridor, the area with Polish majority among inhabitants stretching up to the Baltic Sea.

Among other organizations which had a similar goal was HaKaTa, the Society for the Advancement of Germanness in the Eastern Marches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...arches_Society

In German: Verein zur Förderung des Deutschtums in den Ostmarken.

Apart from colonizing the land by Germans immigrants, they were of course also trying to turn local Poles into Germans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrze%C...ike#Background

Poles had support from across the Atlantic Ocean - Polish-Americans protested against Germanization policies in Prussia.

An excerpt from "American Polonia and the School Strike in Wrzesnia":

http://www.wbc.poznan.pl/Content/247...20Wrzesnia.pdf

Quote:
The Poles in America regularly read in Zgoda, the PNA’s official organ, and Naród Polski, the PRCU official organ, about the persecution of Poles in the Prussian sector [of partitioned Poland] and the condemnations of the HaKaTa and its supporters and activities. Similar stories were to be found in Ameryka, an independent weekly published by Antoni Paryski in Toledo, Ohio.

In 1901 there were reports about dismissals of Poles from the military and civil service, Polish soldiers compelled to confess in German, the expulsion of Polish students from gymnasia and the university for engaging in Polish cultural initiatives, the ban on Polish in churches and in schools, and reports of teachers seizing Polish language school books from their students.

One comment on the administrative harassment of Poles described it as "fierce German purges [that] are prepared to cut off the heads of all Poles and to order them to walk about on all four hands and legs. The punishments for our sins do not matter and it is not enough for our enemy to severely persecute us. We will still conduct an obstinate battle".25

Letters to Naród Polski from Poles in West and East Prussia expressed concern for children, "the victims of the barbarism and chauvinism of the Prussian bureaucracy." "The barbarism of the Prussian HaKaTa-ists" was so bad that "Moscovite [Russian] persecutions paled by comparison".26

Another article could not understand the reasons for the "present war of extermination" that the German government wages against the Poles.27

Nevertheless, Professor Tomasz Siemiradzki believed that Germanization was not to be feared for it encouraged "the Polish spirit" and that the day would come when "the future Poland might even be grateful for this compulsory school of patriotism".28

This discourse was emotionally charged, but it included another patriotic lesson for the American Poles. Identifying with "our brothers" the appropriate response "in this foreign land" was "to unite, to work for the common good, to awaken the Polish spirit and to faithfully stand by the faith of our fathers"
In the Russian partition zone, Russification policies were equally harsh and strong as Germanization policies in Prussia.

But Germanization policies were perhaps to some extent more successful than Russification attempts.

From "Persistent effects of empires: Evidence from the partitions of Poland" by Irena Grosfeld and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya:

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cpmdocweb/1311.htm



Adolf Hitler in his "Mein Kampf" actually criticized Otto von Bismarck for his Germanization policies:

"(...) Not only in Austria, however, but also in the Reich, these so-called national circles were, and still are, under the influence of similar erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, a policy towards Poland, whereby the East was to be Germanized, was demanded by many, and was based on the same false reasoning. Here, again, it was believed that the Polish people could be Germanized, by being compelled to use the German language. The result would have been fatal. A people of foreign race would have had to use the German language to express modes of thought that were foreign to the German, thus compromising, by its own inferiority, the dignity and nobility of our nation. (...)", source - https://books.google.pl/books?id=xG1...page&q&f=false

Otto von Bismarck's wife was actually ethnic Polish. Yet it didn't stop him from trying to erase Polish culture and language. Bismarck explicated what he planned to do already on 26 February 1861, a year before he was appointed as Minister President of Prussia (1862):

"Hit the Poles till they despair of their very lives. I have every sympathy for their position, but if we are to survive, our only course is to exterminate them."

Source: Werner Richter, "Bismarck", Putnam Press, New York 1964, page 101.

Some other citations from Bismarck:

"Prussia even more needs Germanization, than Germany needs Prussification."

And:

"What are the arcana of politics? To sign a good treaty with Russia."

And my favourite:

"With use of bayonets you can do everything, you just can't sit on them."

Of course Bismarck wanted to Germanize the land by turning Poles into Germans, while Hitler wanted to do it by physically removing Poles from that land.
__________________

RS_UK-PL liked this post

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 04:44 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 05:02 PM   #1924
Saxonia
Registered User
 
Saxonia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Res publica Banana
Posts: 1,057
Likes (Received): 7404

Quote:
Bismarck's wife was actually ethnic Polish. Yet it didn't stop him from trying to erase Polish culture.
The Puttkamer family had slavic roots, like most of pommeranian nobilty. But I wouldn't call Johanna, a rigorous pietist, "ethnic Polish". With you criteria, almost all entirely german speaking Pommeranian people would have gone under "ethnic Pole". Biologically maybe, but that was far from beeing relevant that time and the Puttkamers certainly don't felt that way but as pure Prussians.

Quote:
Ducal Prussia was for a long time (since 1466/1525 until 1657) subjected to Polish Crown. In the 16th century Polish people (mostly new immigrants from Poland proper, but also locals from Warmia-Masuria) constituted about 30% of the population of Königsberg, and in period since 1544 until the late 18th century Polish students were the 2nd most numerous ethnic group after German students at the University of Königsberg (for example in 1744 out of 1032 students, 283 were Polish). In 1544-1619 over 2000 students came from Poland. Among them, Bieniasz Budny, Samuel Dambrowski, Erazm Gliczner, Marcin Kwiatkowski, Piotr Kochanowski, Andrzej Kochanowski, Stanisław Murzynowski, Jan Niemojewski, Jakub Niemojewski, Stanisław Sarnicki, and the famous Polish Renaissance poet, Jan Kochanowski. Ethnic Pole, Celestyn Myślenta, was even the Rector of the University of Königsberg for 24 years (from 1628 to 1652).

[...]

During the 16th century, Königsberg's printing houses published 297 books in Latin, 183 in German, 104 in Polish, and some in Lithuanian and Prussian. Albrecht Hohenzollern's mother was Polish (his father was German), and we know from his own testimony, that he considered himself to be "fully Polish" ("ganz und gar ein Poln") after 1525:

[...]
The reason for that may also be, that despite Jagiellonian University and some academies, Poland lacked of adequate Universities at that time. Whereas the Königsberg University was quite famous already before Kant. Dorpat, the next big university in the Baltic region, was also mainly a german led institution.
__________________
"Und heute ist die Frage Kommunist oder Sozialdemokrat, die Frage: Russe oder Deutscher und wir sind für Deutsche!"
- Kurt Schumacher

Last edited by Saxonia; July 22nd, 2015 at 06:12 PM.
Saxonia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 08:06 PM   #1925
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Sorry then, I was mistaken about Bismarck's wife. I've repeatedly seen a rumour that she was at least part-Polish, but it seems from what you have just posted, that she could be of West Slavic ancestry, but from a long-Germanized family. I should have checked that info more carefully.

However, surname Puttkamer probably comes etymologically from the same root as Polish surname Putko.

Quote:
had slavic roots, like most of pommeranian nobilty.
Probably true, but some part of Pomeranian nobility was also "imported" from the west:

http://www.feudalismus.de/magister.htm



Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxonia
The reason for that may also be, that despite Jagiellonian University and some academies, Poland lacked of adequate Universities at that time. Whereas the Königsberg University was quite famous already before Kant. Dorpat, the next big university in the Baltic region, was also mainly a german led institution.
The Cracow University was perhaps even more popular abroad than the Königsberg University, though its "golden age" was earlier. During the 15th and the early 16th centuries only about 50% of all students of the Cracow University were students from the Kingdom of Poland, while around 50% of them were foreigners - including students from what is today Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Germany, Switzerland, Silesia, etc.

People from Silesia were up to 15% of all students of the Cracow University in period 1400 - 1525 (link):

http://polonia-viva.eu/index.php/pl/...ic-historyczny

List of Rectors (university presidents) of the Cracow University since 1400 until now:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rektor...go#1400_-_1499

There was an established custom among the students from Cracow that in each academic year during one week - between 15 and 22 October - they were playing truant and having parties. They were also taking power over the university, and after that they were electing a student king and his royal court. Then they were taking power over the city during those few days. "Breve regnum" is a 15th century song of Cracow's students, which tells the story of their "short reign" taking place each year in October. In the link "Breve regnum" performed by a modern Ukrainian band Kings & Beggars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGVNsTpyJZY

People from some regions of Poland, such as for example Mazovia, had closer to Königsberg than to Cracow.

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 08:44 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 08:08 PM   #1926
Mruczek
Warrior of Excel
 
Mruczek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Outside Blue Banana
Posts: 10,438
Likes (Received): 13464

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Between 1950 and 1990 Poland's population increased from 25,0 million in 1950 and 29,8 million in 1960, to 38,2 million in 1990, despite negative net migration rates all the time during those decades (according to the link below, net migration rate in period 1950-1990 was minus 0,758 million people; including minus 0,658 million people in period 1960-1990):

https://books.google.pl/books?id=_75...201990&f=false

So as you can see Poland had a very high natural growth rate. By contrast Germany had below replacement level fertility during most of post-WW2 period:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=7Hg...epage&q&f=true



Acccording to Kasprzycki, Masurians who stayed in Poland had an even higher than Poland's average total fertility rate:

http://sgph.geo.uni.lodz.pl/wp-conte...Kasprzycki.pdf

An excerpt from page 198 (18):

"(...) wysoka dzietność rodzin mazurskich [po 1945]. Posiadanie trójki, czwórki czy piątki dzieci nie należało wcale do rzadkości."

"(...) high fertility of Masurian families [after 1945]. Having three, four, or five children by their families was not rare at all."
So? Because I don't see what's the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Worse than in Poland? East German shops were full when Polish were empty. I think what you wanted to say, is that East Germans were not opposing Communism too hard.
Probably because Stasi was much more efficient than Polish secret police. And that's exactly the reason, why people rather attempted to go outside the Honecker Kingdom, not inside.

Btw, I haven't heard much about Poles who wanted to migrate to East Germany, that was something such absurd like today's migration to Belarus or Russia

That's why I suppose that 10% account of East Germany among migration targets of Masurians might had something with the fact that they national auto-identification was slightly different than among "statistical" Poles. Or, also, another explanation, with the "connecting the families" phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
East Germany was being subsidized by the USSR because it was "the propaganda postcard" of the entire Eastern Bloc.
Still doesn't explain the fact why Poles didn't migrated to East Germany, while Masurians, albeit in small numbers, did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Western opinion about the Eastern Bloc was being shaped by how East Germany looked like. So at least there an impression of well-being had to be created for western journalists.
Apparently East Germans didn't make a good job

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
BTW - it was much easier to move to East Germany, than to West Germany. You couldn't cross the Iron Courtain without a special permission. So you could move to East Germany first, and later you could try to jump over the East German border, and avoid getting shot if you were lucky.
Again it doesn't explain why Poles didn't treat East Germany as a first-step-on-the-way-to-the-West and Masurians, apparently did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
As for Działdowo county:

Source? Is this based on simply counting all Protestants? Also - does this number of 18 thousand really refer to 1920, or to 1921?
It based on countring all inhabitants. In 1920 there was 24 citizens of Działdowo county, nearly 100% Protestants (who else)? Masurians comprised of 75%, based on the last available statistics from 1910 by adding "polnisch" and "masurisch" nationals.

The number refers to the period of taking over the county by Polish administration (late January, early Feb 1920). Since that it was falling extremely fast. In 1923 (after time of "optant" migration ceased) only 10 thousand remained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Mruczek,
Depends in which period.

Ducal Prussia was for a long time (since 1466/1525 until 1657) subjected to Polish Crown. In the 16th century Polish people (mostly new immigrants from Poland proper, but also locals from Warmia-Masuria) constituted about 30% of the population of Königsberg, and in period since 1544 until the late 18th century Polish students were the 2nd most numerous ethnic group after German students at the University of Königsberg (for example in 1744 out of 1032 students, 283 were Polish). In 1544-1619 over 2000 students came from Poland. Among them, Bieniasz Budny, Samuel Dambrowski, Erazm Gliczner, Marcin Kwiatkowski, Piotr Kochanowski, Andrzej Kochanowski, Stanisław Murzynowski, Jan Niemojewski, Jakub Niemojewski, Stanisław Sarnicki, and the famous Polish Renaissance poet, Jan Kochanowski. Ethnic Pole, Celestyn Myślenta, was even the Rector of the University of Königsberg for 24 years (from 1628 to 1652).
We're talking about post-war people movements. It's quite obvious that ethnical composition of 16th century is irrelevant. Not to mention that you aren't talking about ethnical composition of locals, but ethnical composition of university students, who were always group very mobile, cosmopolitan and not particularly tied to one place.

In 20th century nowhere to the north of today's Russian-Poland border Poles (or broadly speaking, Polish-speakers) did account for more than 1% of population (I'd bet no more than 0,1%, but possibly there were some migrant workers in factories of Koenigsberg).

Btw the Polish minority in, for example, West Pomerania or northern part of East Prussia had probably nothing to do with Masurian Prussians from XVI century. These were completely different people.
__________________
We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill
Z archiwum Mruczka:
Buk Miłosław Szamotuły
Barcelona Budapeszt Grodno Kowno Madryt Moskwa Ukraina
Mruczek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 08:45 PM   #1927
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Quote:
Still doesn't explain the fact why Poles didn't migrated to East Germany, while Masurians, albeit in small numbers, did.
Poles didn't migrate to East Germany? And how do you know this? Of course they did and in larger numbers than Masurians.

Huge numbers of Poles emigrated to Germany using falsified documents which made it easier for them to get German citizenship. German officials were also much more corruptible than according to stereotype. Ask any Pole who knows someone who emigrated to Germany using false documents.

For example, a falsified document saying that grandfather was a Volksdeutsch, etc. There was "mass-production" of such documents in Poland.

Quote:
So? Because I don't see what's the point.
The point is that you assumed no natural growth when you compared population in 1950 to number of emigrants from 1950-1990.

Quote:
Not to mention that you aren't talking about ethnical composition of locals, but ethnical composition of university student
Apparently you read 50% of what I write, and don't read the remaining 50%. I wrote both about inhabitants, and about students.

Quote:
the Polish minority in, for example, (...) northern part of East Prussia had probably nothing to do with Masurian Prussians from XVI century.
Poles who lived in Königsberg in the 16th century were not Masurian peasants, but - for the most part - immigrants from Poland "proper".

Quote:
These were COMPLETELY different people.
Different in what way ???

Quote:
refers to the period of taking over the county by Polish administration (late January, early Feb 1920). Since that it was falling extremely fast.
Nope, your information is inaccurate. The majority of Germans emigrated before Polish administration was established.

For example up to 125,000 Germans had emigrated from that part of Pomerelia given to Poland after WW1 during period from June 1919 to February 1920, already before the area was taken over by Polish administration. Polish administration started taking over it from German administration on 18 January 1920, and the takeover was finished by 10 February 1920. German large-scale emigration from that area to Germany began already in June 1919, when it became obvious that Poland was going to get the area, but long (several months) before Polish administration was established there.

My source is M. Stażewski, "Exodus: emigration of German population from Pomerelia to the Reich after WW1", 1998.

Although 125,000 Germans emigrated from Pomerelia, at least 83,000 Poles from areas which remained in Germany came there by 1921.

So it was a population exchange with people crossing the borders in both directions, rather than a one-sided migration.

Quote:
In 1920 there was 24 [thousand?] citizens of Działdowo county, nearly 100% Protestants (who else)? Masurians comprised of 75%, based on the last available statistics from 1910 by adding "polnisch" and "masurisch" nationals.
In 1921 Protestants were less than 63% of Dzialdowo county. I guess all people who identified as Germans had emigrated by that time.

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 09:21 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 09:25 PM   #1928
Mruczek
Warrior of Excel
 
Mruczek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Outside Blue Banana
Posts: 10,438
Likes (Received): 13464

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
The point is that you assumed no natural growth when you compared number in 1950 to number of emigrants from 1950-1990.
Number of citizens in 1950 comes from the census. Number of emigrants from 1950-90 come from the source of Ministry of Internal Affairs, which registers permissions to leave Poland, and counts every single time somebody crosses the border.

Today's numbers comes from census of 2011, membership of different organizations in Masuria, number of parishioners in Lutheran or Methodist church in Masuria.

I re-iterate: what does natural growth have to do with anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Apparently you read 50% of what I write, and don't read the remaining 50%. I wrote both about inhabitants, and about students.
You wrote unsubstantiated claim that Poles made up 30% of people in Koenigsberg in XVI century. Which firstly is of limited value regarding situation in 1945, but most importantly, seems like urban legend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Poles who lived in Königsberg in the 16th century were not Masurian peasants, but - for the most part - immigrants from Poland "proper".
Amazing really. In XVI century the main statistical tool to count population were counting number of property owners and multiplying it by (quite arbitrarily) number of people in the household. That's how statistics were made that time. And you are claiming, that you know the social status and the background of thousands of people, most which were not even registered in any way.

Forgive me, but I find it hard to swallow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Nope, your information is inaccurate. The majority of Germans emigrated before Polish administration was established.
It was a process which started in early 1919 (Versailles hasn't been signed yet, but gossips already emerged) and it was intensified after Polish administration took over the area. But mostly happened during "optant" period: 1920-23, where finally one had to choose: stay in Poland (but on the price of becoming of Polish citizen) or leave. For example Bydgoszcz changed completely its national profile, from 80% German majority to 1/4 minority. Which was still decreasing and reached some 7% in 1939.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
For example up to 125,000 Germans had emigrated from that part of Pomerelia given to Poland after WW1 during period from June 1919 to February 1920, already before the area was taken over by Polish administration. Polish administration started taking over it from German administration on 18 January 1920, and the takeover was finished by 10 February 1920. German large-scale emigration from that area to Germany began already in June 1919, when it became obvious that Poland was going to get the area, but long (several months) before Polish administration was established there.

My source is M. Stażewski, "Exodus: emigration of German population from Pomerelia to the Reich after WW1", 1998.
That proves my point. In part of Pomorze granted to Poland there was approx. 421 thousand Germans in 1910. I assume your sources are correct, so if 125 thousand left before 1920, it still wouldn't be approx. 300 thousand.

The German population in this area in 1921 dropped to 176k, in 1931 - 100k.

(Blanke, Chwalba, data from censuses 1910, 21, 31)

Still, it doesn't answer my question, why Masurians were leaving as well.

And I am still not sure, what would happened in - I repeat - completely unrealistic scenario of transfer the "Oder-Neisse Ostgebiete", i.e. "Ziemie Odzyskane" in relatively calm and peaceful manner. And another food for thought: what would happen in much more realistic scenario, in which the Red Army atrocities happened, the flee of German citizens happened, the areas were transferred to Poland, the Polish administration established, but - there was no forceful expulsion.

Interesting, eh?
__________________
We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill
Z archiwum Mruczka:
Buk Miłosław Szamotuły
Barcelona Budapeszt Grodno Kowno Madryt Moskwa Ukraina
Mruczek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 09:51 PM   #1929
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Mruczek,

Quote:
Number of citizens in 1950 comes from the census. Number of emigrants from 1950-90 come from the source of Ministry of Internal Affairs, which REGISTERS permissions to leave Poland, and counts every single time somebody crosses the border.

Today's numbers comes from census of 2011, membership of different organizations in Masuria, number of parishioners in Lutheran or Methodist church in Masuria.

I re-iterate: what does natural growth have to do with anything?
Please, check sources that I link all the time (if you read Polish). I linked a source which provides hard data according to which a considerable number of Mazurians converted to Roman Catholicism and / or married Catholic Poles. Therefore today their descendants are not parishioners in Lutheran or Methodist church, and they are not members of Masurian organizations because their culture is now Catholic Polish, not Protestant. The Ministry of Internal Affairs did not record ethnicity or religion of emigrants. So they did not count how many Masurians versus Non-Masurians emigrated.

Quote:
You wrote unsubstantiated claim that Poles made up 30% of people in Koenigsberg in XVI century.
It was not unsubstantiated. I proved sources. Did you check the links which I provided, or not ???

Check page 2 (120) in this link:

"People of Polish decent constituted approximately 30% of the population of Königsberg[2]"

And footnote [2] gives sources:

- S. Augusiewicz, J. Jasiński, T. Oracki, "Wybitni Polacy w Królewcu XVI-XX wiek" (Olsztyn, 2005);
- M. Kałuski, "Polacy w Królewcu", in: Głos znad Pregoły 6/119 (2006): 7.

Of course this figure of 30% refers to the 16th and the early 17th centuries.

During the 15th century it was a smaller fraction, perhaps few or several percent of the total.

Königsberg was not a single city, but - like many Medieval cities (including for example Cracow) - it was a multiple-city. Königsberg consisted of three cities located next to each other, and suburbs (in case of Cracow those were four cities - Old City Cracow, Kazimierz, Kleparz, Stradom and suburbs).

In case of Königsberg those three cities were - Old City Königsberg, New City Königsberg and Kinpawa (Kneiphof).

As for multiple-cities read for example:

Marek Słoń, "Miasta podwójne i wielokrotne w średniowiecznej Europie" ("Double and multiple cities in Medieval Europe").

New City Königsberg (also known as Lipnik or Löbenicht) by the end of 15th century had the following ethnic structure:

Germans - 42%
Baltic Prussians - 40%
Lithuanians and Tatars - 9%
Livonians, Poles and Czechs - 7%
Scandinavians - 2%

Source:

D. Heckemann, "Zuwanderung und Integrationsprobleme in Königsberg in Mittelalter und fruher Neuzeit", in: "Probleme der Migration und Integration im Preussenland vom Mittelalter bis zum Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts", Marburg 2005.

Of course ethnic structure of entire Königsberg was not the same as that of its New City (Lipnik).

For instance, Lipnik and suburbs had the highest percentage of Prussians out of all three parts. Old City had the lowest percent of Prussians.

Considering methods of researching ethnic structure in the Middle Ages, check for example:

H. Boockmann, "Zur ethnischen Struktur der Bevolkerung deutscher Ostseestadte"; in: "Wege ins Mittelalter. Historische Aufsatze", Munchen 2000, pp. 123-132.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mruczek
The same way you can say that Indians didn't perish in the USA. No, technically speaking they didn't. Some of them even can leave their "reservations" To some degree it's apparently even fashionable to have some "Native American" roots.
Currently, each year thousands of people with Native American ancestry are crossing the Mexican-American border, immigrating to the USA.

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 10:23 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 10:40 PM   #1930
Mruczek
Warrior of Excel
 
Mruczek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Outside Blue Banana
Posts: 10,438
Likes (Received): 13464

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxonia View Post
The Puttkamer family had slavic roots, like most of pommeranian nobilty.
Let's call spade a spade: like most Germans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxonia View Post
But I wouldn't call Johanna, a rigorous pietist, "ethnic Polish". With you criteria, almost all entirely german speaking Pommeranian people would have gone under "ethnic Pole".
Wasserpolnisch, like your today's Chancellor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Mruczek,

Please, check sources that I link all the time (if you read Polish). I linked a source which provides hard data according to which a considerable number of Mazurians converted to Roman Catholicism and / or married Catholic Poles. Therefore today their descendants are not parishioners in Lutheran or Methodist church, and they are not members of Masurian organizations because their culture is now Catholic Polish, not Protestant.
But I do believe you, and I do trust your sources. Especially since I know this intermarriage phenomenon from my own family. But that only proves my point (well, not particularly innovative, and not mine, it's self-evident) that the Masurians as a large ethnographic group have gone. In Poland they were diluted in Polish ocean (with great applause of Poles). In Germany - in German (with equally great applause of Germans).

Now you've got just Cepelia-like skansen, Mazurskie Pofajdoki, and Museum of Michał Kajka (interesting, it is in the house owned by Kajka's daughter-in-law, who in 1969 sold the property to the state and emigrated... guess where?). You've got some remains of them. You've got some few Masurians in Germany, who remained Masurians and some Masurians in Poland.

Perhaps it is possible to re-create this society anew (based on fashionable phenomenon of searching for new "Small Fatherland", I won't use the word "Heimat" on purpose). Yes, maybe this is possible. But I am sceptical.

It is exactly the situation predicted by the Pastor from motion picture "Róża". As he was explaining to main hero: "And now, what Germans didn't manage to destroy, you will".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post

It was not unsubstantiated. I proved sources. Did you check the links which I provided, or not ???
I checked, and I still remain sceptical regarding so accurate assumptions on national self-identification allegedly counted in the years, which are pain in the... whatever... for historians, due to lack of good statistical data.

Every serious historian, while assessing the language balance of, say, Warmia, is using ranges (IIRC German-speaking 60 to 75, Polish 25 to 40).

And most important: we are talking about fleeing and expulsions of East Prussian people in 1944-48. Areas to the north of present Polish-Russian border were technically speaking Polenrein. Free from Poles. There were no substantial groups of Masurians on the Pregel river. Deal with it. It's even better for our mental health, no need to cry about what Russkies took

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Currently, each year thousands of people with Native American ancestry are crossing the Mexican-American border, immigrating to the USA.
Well, good for them, and good for American labour market. But would it re-create the Indian native societies - I seriously doubt. Especially since they don't migrate to reserve areas, do they? Somehow I belive they prefer Dallas, Chicago or NYC.

There is a very useful Polish proverb explaining this situation: "Nie zawrócisz kijem Wisły" ("You won't make Vistula river flowing backwards with a stick")
__________________
We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill
Z archiwum Mruczka:
Buk Miłosław Szamotuły
Barcelona Budapeszt Grodno Kowno Madryt Moskwa Ukraina
Mruczek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 11:38 PM   #1931
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Quote:
I checked, and I still remain sceptical regarding so accurate assumptions on national self-identification
It is data on ethnicity, not on national identification.

Hard to say what is "national self-identification" of a Kalahari bushman, but as long as he speaks his "click language", he is ethnically Khoisan. Khoisan who identify as nationally Namibian, Botswanian, or South African - all of them are ethnically Khoisan, despite 3 distinct national identities.

In the same way, an ethnic Yoruba is an ethnic Yoruba, no matter if he identifies as nationally Nigerian, or nationally Beninian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_people

In the same way, an ethnic Apache is an ethnic Apache, as long as he preserves ancestral language and culture (or at least culture alone). No matter if his national self-identification is Apache, or American (I suppose that large part of ethnic Apaches have American national identity today).

Ethnicity is objective classification based on language and culture. Identity is subjective, on the other hand.

But if we speak about national identity in the Middle Ages, then you should know that it worked differently than 19th century nationalism.

Quote:
But would it re-create the Indian native societies - I seriously doubt.
What's the point in re-creating them? If you put such an emphasis on national identity, then let ethnic Apaches identify as Americans.

What's the point in re-creating "obsolete" identities in the modern world? Maybe also tell them to live in tents and hunt buffalos again.

Quote:
There is a very useful Polish proverb explaining this situation: "Nie zawrócisz kijem Wisły" ("You won't make Vistula river flowing backwards with a stick")
Indeed it would be hard to force people to identify with regional folklore rural / peasant cultures of their ancestors.

Not in modern societies with standardized languages, public education, TV, internet, in which majority of population live in urban areas.

Quote:
In Poland they were diluted in Polish ocean (with great applause of Poles). In Germany - in German (with equally great applause of Germans).
All regional rural folklore cultures were dilluted in oceans of standardized national languages and cultures across Europe.

Most of regional ethnographic groups of the past no longer exist. And this is the case in all countries in Europe.

Show me some regional ethnographic groups in France or in Italy, for example.

Last edited by Domen123; July 22nd, 2015 at 11:58 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 11:45 PM   #1932
Mruczek
Warrior of Excel
 
Mruczek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Outside Blue Banana
Posts: 10,438
Likes (Received): 13464

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
It is data on ethnicity, not on national identification.
That what puzzles me: where was these data collected?

Before 19th century, people weren't so keen to count this stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Ethnicity is objective classification based on language and culture.
Well, that's not what today's Europe believe in. The self-perception is rather the most important factor. Although, in most cases, it is a derivate of both: language and culture.

The problem is with these small groups which were - viciously - keeping their own local identity and were not keen to join any of the other larger ethnical groups: Łemkowie, for example. Or Mazurzy.
__________________
We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill
Z archiwum Mruczka:
Buk Miłosław Szamotuły
Barcelona Budapeszt Grodno Kowno Madryt Moskwa Ukraina
Mruczek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 12:03 AM   #1933
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Quote:
Now you've got just Cepelia-like skansen
And in Wielkopolska you've got Wielkopolski Ethnographic Park (Skansen) in Dziekanowice.

It features nice old peasant cottages with nice old folk costumes, and you can make your own butter there, or eat traditional bread.

The culture shown in this skansen, also doesn't exist, even though there was no mass-emigration, but simply modernization. Now tell the people of Wielkopolska to move from their modern houses, back to these cottages, dress like in the old day, and thus "re-create" the former diversity of ethnographic groups in the region of Wielkopolska. What does Masurian culture offer the modern world? It was a typical peasant folklore culture of rural farmers.

There was no Masurian "high culture", so to speak. This is what they borrowed from Poland and from Germany.

Quote:
Well, that's not what today's Europe believe in.
Today's Europe's beliefs are irrelevant. What is relevant are opinions of scholars who specialize in this subject, both of the past and modern ones.

Most of them are not yet as insane as EU politicians.

If you research ethnic groups of the past, it is obvious that you do not check what identities people had (since it is impossible), but objective factors.

Historians know where did ethnic Hurrians, ethnic Sumerians, ethnic Akkadians, ethnic Kassites and ethnic Elamites live in the Ancient Middle East. They did not build a time machine, did not go to the Middle East 5000 years ago, and did not ask every peasant: "Sir, do you identify as Sumerian or as Kassite?"

But they know where was Sumerian language spoken, where was Kassite language spoken. Where Sumerian culture existed, where Kassite. Etc.

Ethno-linguistic groups are as old as humans and languages - they did not emerge when censuses started to ask people about their identity.

Quote:
The self-perception is rather the most important factor
"The most important" for what? What is "important" ??? Are we talking about politics or history/science ??? Do not mix politics with ethnography.

Who do you are objectively, and who do you identify as, are often two different things.

Why do others protest when citizens of the Rep. of Macedonia (FYROM) identify as Ancient Macedonians? Isn't self-perception the most important factor? If Masurians identify as Germans, they resemble FYROM-ians identifying as Ancient Macedonians. Reality contradicts identity in these two cases. If you claim that self-perception is the most important factor, then you must officially admit, that people from Skopje are cultural heirs of Alexander's Empire.

Another example: what if a person is so mentally handicapped, that he/she is incapable of having any kind of identity?

Does it mean that such a person does not belong to any ethnic group? Objecively speaking - of course he/she does belong to some ethnicity.

A mentally challenged ethnic Estonian is objectively Estonian, even if he/she is incapable of having an identity, due to his/her mental handicap.

Quote:
That what puzzles me: where was these data collected?
How do scholars know, which parts of the Roman Empire were inhabited by which ethnic group and who spoke which language?

How do scholars know, what was the range of Celtic populations in the Iron Age, or what was the range of Latin language in the Roman Empire?

You see, similar methods are used for later periods. Also data on languages in which sermons were delivered in parishes is useful.

Quote:
keeping their own local identity and were not keen to join any of the other larger ethnical groups
As I wrote above - identity is irrelevant to researching ethnicity.

We know where did ethnic Sumerians live, even though we don't have a time machine, and we didn't go to Ancient Sumer, and we didn't ask every Sumerian-speaking peasant in Ancient Mesopotamia: "Sir, do you identify as Sumerian, or perhaps do you have some distinct local identity?".

It doesn't of course mean that everything is absolutely clear about ethnic stuff. There are sometimes ambiguities.

Last edited by Domen123; July 23rd, 2015 at 12:41 AM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 12:42 AM   #1934
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Of course there is also another issue - one can ask: "why do we even need things such as these ethnic groups"?

Well, of course we don't need to use this term. It is a classification like any other.

All classifications are made by humans, who sort things into categories based on differences and similarities.

We classified dialects into languages and languages into families, because we did.

Humans like to describe complex phenomena by sorting things into various types of classifications and patterns.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 01:00 AM   #1935
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Quote:
Perhaps it is possible to re-create this society anew (based on fashionable phenomenon of searching for new "Small Fatherland", I won't use the word "Heimat" on purpose). Yes, maybe this is possible. But I am sceptical.
What is there to "re-create" about Masurians ???

Language is already there - Masurians spoke Polish, today people there speak Polish (except for the large Ukrainian minority ).

Masurians lived mostly in villages, today people there live mostly in cities. Are you going to force them to move to villages?

Next important thing, great majority of Masurians were peasants. So, I presume, you are going to force everyone to plow the fields again?

Last but not least, an important difference is religion - how about forcible conversions to Lutheranism ???

Anyway - why even bother re-creating Masurians, when we can re-create Old Prussians!

Israel proved that reviving an extinct language is not impossible. Nobody spoke Hebrew ~100 years ago (only educated Jews could read Hebrew, a skill they needed to read their liturgical texts), and now several million people in Israel speak Hebrew as their 1st or even only language.

So we can also encourage people to learn Old Prussian, if you want.

Enough texts in Old Prussian have survived, to re-create this language. Let's create an Old Prussian equivalent of FYROM!

================================

And even better idea, would be re-creating Neanderthals, the original inhabitants of not just East Prussia, but most of Eurasia!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSUZu-XrPMg

In next census I'm typing in "Neanderthal" as my answer in national/ethnic identity question. Are you with me?!

We will see if GUS will report the presence of this minority in Poland, or not.

I have a right to type in Neanderthal, because as science shows, there was some admixture and modern humans are ca. 3% Neanderthal each.

So I'm almost as much Neanderthal, as "David 1/16 Indian" is Native American: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFViTJPAqw


Last edited by Domen123; July 23rd, 2015 at 01:23 AM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 11:43 AM   #1936
RS_UK-PL
Registered User
 
RS_UK-PL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: R-L1029
Posts: 2,301
Likes (Received): 3392

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
We also know that Albrecht Hohenzollern was bilingual (German-Polish), because he even wrote several texts in Polish - for example this preface to this book (...)
Just a small correction...Albrecht Hohenzollern wrote preface in Polish to "Repetitio corporis doctrinae ecclesiasticae albo Powtorzenie summy a gruntownego zamknienia prawey, pospolitey, chrzescianskiey, kościelney nauki (...)"

http://polona.pl/item/11652002/3/

Duke in Prussia, son of Sophia of Poland and Frederick I of Brandenburg-Ansbach, was also fluent in Latin (please see a letter Jan Kochanowski sent to Albrecht Hohenzollern in 1556 below)



http://zbiory.bj.uj.edu.pl/neolatina.../id/19371.html

...or Mikołaj Rej's letter here

"Oeconomia albo Gospodarstwo to iest Nauka (...)" was a gift for Dorothea of Denmark, Duchess of Prussia (I suppose she learned Polish at the court of Albrecht Hohenzollern)

http://polona.pl/item/14726459/8/

To put it simple, Albrecht Hohenzollern was a multilingual person fluent in Polish, German and Latin of mixed Polish-German origin, who ruled over mixed ethnically dukedom (Polish, German, Old Prussian, Lithuanian) and paid tribute and swore allegiance to rulers of Poland since 1525 until his death in 1568.

Albrecht's title: "Margrave of Brandenburg in Prussia, Stettin, Pomerania, Duke of the Kashubians, and Wandals (Slavs), Burgrave of Nuremberg, Duke of Rügen"

Royal title of Sigismund II Augustus in 1550: "Sigismund Augustus, by the Grace of God, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Lord and heir of the Lands of Kraków, Sandomierz, Sieradz, Łęczyca, Kuyavia, Ruthenia, all of Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Pomerania, Chełmno, Elbląg"

Last edited by RS_UK-PL; August 4th, 2015 at 11:50 AM.
RS_UK-PL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 04:29 PM   #1937
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxonia
In fact, many Masurians or descendants (the ones who care about though) heavely insist on not beeing mistaking for Poles.
Well, they were being told all the time how awful it is to be Polacks, just like ethnic Jews were always being told how awful they are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

Quote:
Self-hating Jew or self-loathing Jew is a pejorative term used for a Jewish person that holds antisemitic views.[1] The concept gained widespread currency after Theodor Lessing's 1930 book Der Jüdische Selbsthass ("Jewish Self-hatred"), which tries to explain the prevalence of Jewish intellectuals inciting antisemitism with their extremely hateful view toward Judaism. Jewish self-hate has been described as a neurotic reaction to the impact of antisemitism by Jews accepting, expressing, and even exaggerating the basic assumptions of the anti-Semite.[2] The term became "something of a key term of opprobrium in and beyond Cold War-era debates about Zionism".[3] Similar accusations of being uncomfortable with one's Jewishness were already being made by groups of Jews against each other before Zionism existed as a movement.[3]

(...)

The cultural historian Sander Gilman has written, "One of the most recent forms of Jewish self-hatred is the virulent opposition to the existence of the State of Israel."[7] He uses the term not against those who oppose Israel's policy, but against Jews who are opposed to Israel's existence.

(...)

The sociologist Irving Louis Horowitz reserves the term for Jews who pose a danger to the Jewish community, using "Jewish self-hater" to describe the court Jew "who validates the slander (against Jews) as he attempts to curry the favor of masters and rulers."[12] The historian Bernard Wasserstein prefers the term "Jewish anti-Semitism," which he says was often termed Jewish self-hatred.[13] He asks, "Could a Jew be an anti-Semite?" And responds, many Jews have "internalized elements of anti-Semitic discourse, succumbed to what Theodore Hamerow has called psychological surrender." Wasserstein goes on to say that self-hating Jews, "afflicted by some form of anti-Semitism were not so much haters of themselves as haters of 'other' Jews."

Social and psychological explanations

The issue has periodically been covered in the academic social psychology literature on social identity. Such studies "frequently cite Lewin as evidence that people may attempt to distance themselves from membership in devalued groups because they accept, to some degree, the negative evaluations of their group held by the majority and because these social identities are an obstacle to the pursuit of social status."[4] Modern social psychology literature uses terms such as "self-stigmatization", "internalized oppression", and "false consciousness" to describe this type of phenomenon.

Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychiatrist, says that Jewish self-hatred has two causes: Stockholm syndrome, where "population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous", as well as "the psychodynamics of abused children, who almost invariably blame themselves for their predicament, ascribe it to their being "bad," and nurture fantasies that by becoming "good" they can mollify their abusers and end their torment."[20] According to Howard W. Polsky, the social scientist, "feelings about Jewish marginality are often a step away from self-hatred." He then says, "Jewish self-hatred denotes that a person has adopted gentiles' definition of Jew as bad in one way or another and that being Jewish will hinder their success or identity."[21]
Even the same nationalism is to be blamed for "Masurian betrayal" as for self-hating Jews in Germany - namely, German nationalism:

Quote:
History

In Germany

The origins of terms such as "Jewish self-hatred" lie in the mid-nineteenth century feuding between German Orthodox Jews of the Breslau seminary and Reform Jews.[9] Each side accused the other of betraying Jewish identity,[3] the Orthodox Jews accusing the Reform Jews of identifying more closely with German Protestantism and German nationalism than with Judaism.[9]

Last edited by Domen123; July 23rd, 2015 at 04:38 PM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 08:34 PM   #1938
Mruczek
Warrior of Excel
 
Mruczek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Outside Blue Banana
Posts: 10,438
Likes (Received): 13464

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
And in Wielkopolska you've got Wielkopolski Ethnographic Park (Skansen) in Dziekanowice.

It features nice old peasant cottages with nice old folk costumes, and you can make your own butter there, or eat traditional bread.

The culture shown in this skansen, also doesn't exist, even though there was no mass-emigration, but simply modernization. Now tell the people of Wielkopolska to move from their modern houses, back to these cottages, dress like in the old day, and thus "re-create" the former diversity of ethnographic groups in the region of Wielkopolska. What does Masurian culture offer the modern world? It was a typical peasant folklore culture of rural farmers.
But you noticed that Wielkopolanie exist, and Masurians nearly completely vanished?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
There was no Masurian "high culture", so to speak. This is what they borrowed from Poland and from Germany.
But there were people who could gradually move upward in the social status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Today's Europe's beliefs are irrelevant. What is relevant are opinions of scholars who specialize in this subject, both of the past and modern ones.
Are there any insane scholars who are trying to say that people of East Germany are not Germans because they mostly have Slavic roots? Or, better, that American nation does not exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
If you research ethnic groups of the past, it is obvious that you do not check what identities people had (since it is impossible), but objective factors.
What objective factors? Ancestors from 300 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Historians know where did ethnic Hurrians, ethnic Sumerians, ethnic Akkadians, ethnic Kassites and ethnic Elamites live in the Ancient Middle East. They did not build a time machine, did not go to the Middle East 5000 years ago, and did not ask every peasant: "Sir, do you identify as Sumerian or as Kassite?"

But they know where was Sumerian language spoken, where was Kassite language spoken. Where Sumerian culture existed, where Kassite. Etc.

Ethno-linguistic groups are as old as humans and languages - they did not emerge when censuses started to ask people about their identity.
Well, there is difference between German and German-speaking Swiss or Austrian, there is difference between American and English, and most importantly, Irish (who usually also speaks English). When I learnt at school about the languages, I was still taught there Serbo-Croatian language exists. If I'm not mistaken, there are at least 4 nations, mostly hating each other, who speak this language. Over 500 thousand of people in Poland declared themselves as members of Silesian nation, even though it's very discussable if Silesian language exist in the first place. Today people in Donbass are shooting at themselves, people speaking essentially the same Russian language.

Here you have got "objective criterias"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Why do others protest when citizens of the Rep. of Macedonia (FYROM) identify as Ancient Macedonians? Isn't self-perception the most important factor?
They don't identify as ancient Macedonians, they simply are called Macedonians, which is the derivate of the area they're living in for thousand of years. And nobody protest except from Greeks, who actually should at the moment pay attention to more important things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
If Masurians identify as Germans, they resemble FYROM-ians identifying as Ancient Macedonians. Reality contradicts identity in these two cases.
Reality is that in most cases there are no more Masurians.

With great applause of German and Polish nationalist alike. Congratulation. Great success with smashing the small and harmless ethnographic group and destroying it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
What is there to "re-create" about Masurians ???
Nothing. It will never happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Language is already there - Masurians spoke Polish, today people there speak Polish (except for the large Ukrainian minority ).
They spoke specific dialect of Polish, which also virtually ceased to exist. In today's Mazury people speak mostly standard Polish without any regional specific. This is actually typical for mixed population of the Ziemie Odzyskane. That's why the purest Polish is spoken in Wrocław and Szczecin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Masurians lived mostly in villages, today people there live mostly in cities. Are you going to force them to move to villages?
Most of Poles lived not long time ago in villages, the name "Polak" comes from the field, actually. Somehow they didn't cease to exist with migration to cities.

And btw, I suggest you to visit Masuria before you start discussion. There is plenty of villages there, and actually, autochtonic population lives mostly in these villages or small towns.

Small towns, next mistake. Masurians didn't live only in villages. They were widespread in small towns, although there they were Germanised quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
Israel proved that reviving an extinct language is not impossible. Nobody spoke Hebrew ~100 years ago (only educated Jews could read Hebrew, a skill they needed to read their liturgical texts), and now several million people in Israel speak Hebrew as their 1st or even only language.
But the Jews survived as a group (although extremely heterogenous). Masurians - well, they are close to extintion.
__________________
We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill
Z archiwum Mruczka:
Buk Miłosław Szamotuły
Barcelona Budapeszt Grodno Kowno Madryt Moskwa Ukraina
Mruczek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2015, 01:18 AM   #1939
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Mruczek,

Quote:
Most of Poles lived not long time ago in villages
But "not long time ago" = when exactly?

When Poland was partitioned between Russia, Austria and Prussia, Poles were the 6th most urbanized ethnic group of the Russian Empire.

Poles were among the top 7 most urbanized ethnic groups of the Empire (alongside Jews, Tajiks, Germans, Armenians, Sarts and Greeks).

Check this data from Table 4. of book "The Russian Empire: A Multi-ethnic History" by Andreas Kappeler:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=JZ9...groups&f=false



So many Poles lived in cities. And out of those who lived in the countryside, quite a large number lived in manors, rather than in villages.

W. M. Kabuzan in his book "Ethnic groups of Russia in the 18th century", published in Moscow in 1990, wrote:

"(...) In areas incorporated to Russia after the partitions of Poland, we had to consider all of nobility as Poles. (...)"

============================

Of course several centuries ago, in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era, most of every ethnic group lived in villages.

BTW - as for that Table 4.:

I'm not surprised by high ranks of Armenians, Germans & Greeks, but 2nd palce of Tajiks just behind Jews surprised me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks

And Sarts seem to be similar people to Tajiks, mostly some kinds of Iranian-speakers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sart

Quote:
the name "Polak" comes from the field, actually.
Not from agricultural field, though, but from 'open space' (as in English term 'battlefield', for example).

In Old Polish language, agricultural field was denoted by term 'niwa', not by term 'pole' (which meant 'open space').

Acording to Polish Slavist, Aleksander Brückner, the term 'pole' in Old Polish meant 'open space' (hence: 'w szczerym polu' - 'in open space', 'pole bitwy' - 'battlefield', 'kwiaty polne' - 'wildflowers', etc.), while agricultural farmland was denoted by the term 'niwa'. Thus it seems intriguing why a tribe which lived in an area where around 80% and perhaps even up to around 90% of the land was covered by forest, had a name of Polans. One theory says that their name does not come from 'pole', but from 'polano' ('log' or 'wooden pole'), because they were such fervent woodcutters. Indeed during the 940s they did cut down all the oaks in the Gniezno Plateau, constructed 3 large wooden boroughs and expanded 3 previously existing ones. Just construction of one wooden bridge connecting Ostrów Lednicki island in the middle of the Lednica Lake with mainland required cutting down ca. 3000 oaks. Indeed by the time of Mieszko's baptism in 966, there was a large area deprived of trees near Gniezno, but those forests disappeared in the 940s. The "Bavarian Geographer" in the 800s did not mention the tribe of Polans. It, however, did mention the tribe of Glopeani. According to one theory Glopeani could be distorted Slopeani, and Poleni/Polani could be from Latin translation of slop/slup, which is polus (English: pole).

So connection of the ethnonym Polans with wood (Latin: polus; English: pole; Polish: polano) is also possible. According to one version of the legend about Piast (founder of the Piast dynasty), Piast was a wheelwright, a profession related to wood (but according to another version, he was a farmer). Piast sounds also similar to piastun (another term: domarad), a term denoting a profession similar to maiordomus (mayor of the palace) in the Frankish Empire.

The legendary Piast, founder of the Piast dynasty, could be someone like Pepin the Short:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_the_Short

Perhaps Piast could be a "mayor of the house" (piastun) for some earlier chieftain (see: the legend about prince Popiel):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popiel

Legendary Piast could deprive the previous chieftain and his clan of power, and could establish a new ruling clan.

===================================

There was also an East Slavic, Ukrainian, tribe called Polyanians, and their name was as well not related to agriculture.

It was perhaps also related to 'open space'. They lived in the mixed forest-steppe zone of Ukraine, close to the steppe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_%28eastern%29

Quote:
Are there any insane scholars who are trying to say that people of East Germany are not Germans because they mostly have Slavic roots?
Who says so? I wrote that ethnicity is based on language and culture, not on genetic roots.

If someone speaks exclusively German as mother tongue, then he/she is ethnically German. That said, there are such ethnic Germans whose national identity is German, such ethnic Germans whose national identity is Austrian, such ethnic Germans whose national identity is Swiss, French, Polish, etc., etc.

I apply the same standards to Masurians, as I apply to Germans. I don't claim, that Germans in Austria are not ethnic Germans.

There is definitely Austrian nation, but is there Austrian ethnicity? Rather no. There is also no Belgian ethnicity, for example.

Quote:
What objective factors?
How many times should I repeat? Language, and culture. These objective factors.

Quote:
Or, better, that American nation does not exist?
American nation does exist! You are confusing two totally different things - ethnic group, and nation.

I agree with you that American ethnicity already exists, but only a minority of American citizens are ethnic Americans.

Basically ethnic Americans are only these people, who live in America for many generations, and have created an ethnic group of its own.

These who are recent immigrants or live in the USA for few generations, usually cannot be counted as ethnic Americans.

When you check ethnicity question in U.S. censuses, you will see that only several percent of the population call themselves Americans. Here are the answers to ethnicity question from U.S. census of 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010 (before 1980 this question was not being asked). Many people in the USA report having more than just one ethnicity, often multiple ones, that's why numbers of ethnic responses do not add up to the total population, but exceed it.

I made this chart based on 1980-2010 census results, of course it includes only selected categories, not all of them:



Are you claiming, that these Polish-Americans are "ethnic Americans" and not ethnic Poles who feel being part of American nation?

They cherish and celebrate their Polish cultural heritage, as can be seen in photos from "Pulaski Day Parades":



The photo above is from the USA (perhaps Chicago?), the video below is from Lithuania, Wilno - do you see similarities?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfg4Xo6zpDM

BTW:

In this thread you can see, that large parts of Americans who report Non-British ancestries, actually have some British acnestors as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...logroups/page2

Many Americans report multiple ethnicities, but large part of them also do not report any ethnic ancestries - see the map below:



Quote:
They don't identify as ancient Macedonians
Wrong. You should really read more about them...

Of course that they do identify as descendants and / or as cultural and national heirs of Ancient Macedonians.

Quote:
And nobody protest except from Greeks, who actually should at the moment pay attention to more important things.
Not true - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute

Here is the list of countries which still officially do not recognize the name "Macedonia", and instead call it "FYROM":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedo...ynthesis.3F.5D

Quote:
They spoke specific dialect of Polish, which also virtually ceased to exist.
Most of dialects of Polish ceased to exist, with the introduction of public education in Standard Polish (Hoch Polnisch / High Polish).

And no - they did not speak a specific dialect. They spoke Mazovian dialect, exactly the same as spoken by people in Mazovia.

Quote:
But the Jews survived as a group (although extremely heterogenous).
Heterogenous in what sense? Cultural?

Last edited by Domen123; July 24th, 2015 at 03:21 AM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2015, 02:02 AM   #1940
Domen123
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greater Poland
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 2465

Mruczek,

Quote:
In today's Mazury people speak mostly standard Polish without any regional specific. This is actually typical for mixed population of the Ziemie Odzyskane. That's why the purest Polish is spoken in Wrocław and Szczecin.
Not true. I don't live in Ziemie Odzyskane but in Wielkopolska, and we don't speak our traditional dialects anymore - we speak standard Polish. Only few elements of traditional dialects are still in use, mostly single words. This is the case in most of Poland, not just in ZO. And when I've been to Łagów in Lubuskie Voivodeship recently, I noticed that some people there speak a strange "Eastern" dialect - probably one of Kresy (Eastern Polish) dialects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialec..._Kresy_dialect

Lubuskie Voivodeship has a large percent of its population (ca. 51%) descended from Kresy Poles, in this case mostly from Belarus:



That said, I suppose that only in some villages some families still speak Kresy dialects there. The majority speak standard Polish.

Quote:
Ancestors from 300 years?
If we go back 300 years, everyone has mixed ancestors, from many ethnic or ethnographic groups*. For example I have some Olędrzy (Dutch/Flemish people) or German peasants among my ancestors (maternal grandfather's side - surname Meller), as well as Kashubian ancestors, Poles from Kresy, and of course Poles from Wielkopolska. I traced my Kashubian line (maternal grandmother's father's side) back to the 1772/1773 census of taxpayers.

Here is where people bearing the surname of my Kashubian ancestors lived in 1772/1773:



And here is the distribution of this surname in Poland nowadays, according to MoiKrewni:

http://www.moikrewni.pl/mapa/



=======================

*Read this study, for example - even individuals from opposite ends of Europe share many common ancestors during the last ~1000 years:

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

An excerpt:

Quote:
(...) We can furthermore conclude that pairs of individuals across Europe are reasonably likely to share common genetic ancestors within the last 1,000 years, and are certain to share many within the last 2,500 years. From our numerical results, the average number of genetic common ancestors from the last 1,000 years shared by individuals living at least 2,000 km APART is about 1/32 (and at least 1/80); between 1,000 and 2,000 ya they share about one; and between 2,000 and 3,000 ya they share above 10. Since the chance is small that any genetic material has been transmitted along a particular genealogical path from ancestor to descendent more than eight generations deep [8]—about .008 at 240 ya, and 2.5×10−7 at 480 ya—this implies, conservatively, thousands of shared genealogical ancestors in only the last 1,000 years even between pairs of individuals separated by large geographic distances.

At first sight this result seems counterintuitive. However, as 1,000 years is about 33 generations, and 233≈1010 is far larger than the size of the European population, so long as populations have mixed sufficiently, by 1,000 years ago everyone (who left descendants) would be an ancestor of every present-day European.

Our results are therefore one of the first genomic demonstrations of the counterintuitive but necessary fact that all Europeans are genealogically related over very short time periods (...)

The fact that most people alive today in Europe share nearly the same set of (European, and possibly world-wide) ancestors from only 1,000 years ago seems to contradict the signals of long-term, albeit subtle, population genetic structure within Europe (e.g., [13],[14]).

These two facts can be reconciled by the fact that even though the distribution of ancestors (as cartooned in Figure 1B) has spread to COVER the continent, there remain differences in degree of relatedness of modern individuals to these ancestral individuals.

For example, someone in Spain may be related to an ancestor in the Iberian peninsula through perhaps 1,000 different routes back through the pedigree, but to an ancestor in the Baltic region by only 10 different routes, so that the probability that this Spanish individual inherited genetic material from the Iberian ancestor is roughly 100 times higher.

This allows the amount of genetic material shared by pairs of extant individuals to vary even if the set of ancestors is constant. (...)
Differences are in proportions. For example someone from Iberia is more likely to have much more Iberian ancestors, than Baltic ancestors. As for the difference between genetic ancestor and genealogical ancestor - genealogical ancestors are all of ancestors, while genetic ancestors are only these ancestors (usually small proportion of all ancestors), from whom one inherited a long segment of DNA without recombination (so called IBD block):

About IBD blocks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_by_descent

Quote:
Here we use genome-wide data from European individuals to investigate these relationships over the past 3,000 years, by looking for long stretches of genome that are shared between pairs of individuals through their inheritance from common genetic ancestors. We quantify this ubiquitous recent common ancestry, showing for instance that even pairs of individuals from opposite ends of Europe share hundreds of genetic common ancestors over this time period.

(...)

We find that a pair of modern Europeans living in neighboring populations share around 2–12 genetic common ancestors from the last 1,500 years, and upwards of 100 genetic ancestors from the previous 1,000 years. These numbers drop off exponentially with geographic distance, but since these genetic ancestors are a tiny fraction of common genealogical ancestors, individuals from opposite ends of Europe are still EXPECTED to share millions of common genealogical ancestors over the last 1,500 years.

(...)

We find that even geographically distant Europeans share ubiquitous common ancestry within the past 1,000 years, and show that common ancestry from the past 3,000 years is a result of both local migration and large-scale historical events.

(...)

Here we define an “IBD block” to be a contiguous segment of genome inherited (on at least one chromosome) from a shared common ancestor without intervening recombination. (...) Segments of IBD are broken up over time by recombination, which implies that older shared ancestry tends to result in shorter shared IBD blocks. (...) Sufficiently long segments of IBD can be identified as long, contiguous regions over which the two individuals are identical (or nearly identical) at a set of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that segregate in the population.

(...)

During the period 500–1,500 ya, individuals typically share tens to hundreds of genetic common ancestors with others in the same or nearby populations, although some distant populations have very low rates. Longer ago than 1,500 ya, pairs of individuals from any part of Europe share hundreds of genetic ancestors in common, and some share significantly more.

The relationship between numbers of long, shared segments of genome, numbers of genetic common ancestors, and numbers of genealogical common ancestors can be difficult to envision. Since everyone has exactly two biological parents, every individual has exactly 2n paths of length n meioses leading back through their pedigree, each such path ending in a grandn–1parent. However, due to Mendelian segregation and limited recombination, genetic material will only be passed down along a small subset of these paths [8]. As n grows, these paths proliferate rapidly and so the genealogical paths of two individuals soon overlap significantly. (These points are illustrated in Figure 1.) By observing the number of shared genomic blocks, we learn about the degree to which their genealogies overlap, or the number of common ancestors from which both individuals have inherited genetic material.

At least one parent of each genetic common ancestor of two individuals is also a genetic common ancestor, so the number of genetic common ancestors at each point back in time is strictly increasing. A more relevant quantity is the rate of appearance of most recent common genetic ancestors. This quantity can be much more intuitive, and is closely related to the coalescent rate [33], as we demonstrate later. For this reason, when we say “genetic common ancestor” or “rate of genetic common ancestry,” we are referring to only the most recent genetic common ancestors from which the individuals in question inherited their shared segments of genome.

Last edited by Domen123; July 24th, 2015 at 03:21 AM.
Domen123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
königsberg, polska

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu