Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.45.21.204 (talk) at 23:30, 15 October 2005 (→Recidivism of primitive polish chauvinism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recidivism of primitive polish chauvinism

What evidence is there that Pruzzen meant "fair-haired?"

Does anyone know if Danzig was almost entirely German -- or was there a sizable proportion of native Prussians living there?

In the beginning Gdansk was entirely Polish without any Prussian population. In XIII and especially XIV century there was a huge wave of Dutch, Flemmish and German immigration to the City. Since the city never belonged to original land of Prussians there was never a Prussian Population there.Space Cadet 13:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Proper citation would be helpful. The eastern mouth of the Vistula was indeed part of the Prussian homeland since before Slavs arrived. After their arrival, was the native population forced out, or were they absorbed? Citation? Does info on St. Adalbert give much detail? Also, after Danzig became a Hansa port was there zero population from the neighboring old Prussian area or was it entirely German and Dutch?

• This article should be expanded with a description of Prussian culture (see external links in the page), and a brief summary of the Old Prussian language. Also, specifics on revival of culture and language may prove interesting. (Compare this article with that on Indigenous people.

• Watch out for one particular vandal who will destroy any article which does not eulogize the glories of Communism and Poland!
  --Wighson

Spacecadet, you are full of yourself like the rest of Misplaced Pages's Polish flagwavers: "Polish without any Prussian population", you say? Clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It was Prussian to begin with. Prussia has nothing to do with Germany until the 13th century. By an accunt of "nationality", the area rightfully belongs to the Lithuanian/Latvian Slavs. Furthermore, there is a difference between Polish as a nationality and Poland the Kingdom, an imperial entity. That would be like calling Hannoverians British in the 18th Century. Its imperialist just like any other nation. Interestingly enough, the Prussians were conquered by BOTH the Teutons and the Poles in cooperation...and to think that you thought Polish people inhabited the area from Manchuria to Belgium? Shame on you.

Gdańsk was founded in 980 and NO: it never had any Prussian population. Prussia was on the eastern side of the Vistula river! If you are calling Lithuanians and Latvians - Slavs, then it is you who has no clue. They are Balts, BTW. Space Cadet 17:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was suggesting that the Slavs residing there originally were had ventured from the east (Lithuania/Latvia was a reference point). I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that one... Of course, this is really irrelavant to the point I was making, which was that the Lutics had established themselves in the region before the Polish invaders arrived. Wooden structures were already present before the Poles came, took the land and built Gdansk. The Lutics were conquered by the Poles and became Polish through, surprise, expansion and assimilation. I am not arguing that Danzig was Prussian, but I am arguing that region where Danzig was established was not originaly belonging to Polish peoples. Do you see what I am getting at? Following this logic, the land is just as much Polish as it is German. Hope that helps.

Vandalism

There is no Prussian people, and has not been any since the 18th century. The inhabitants of East Prussia, who were expelled after the Second World War, considered themselves to be Germans. That they are now interested in reviving a "Prussian" identity is worth noting, but the idea that there is any kind of continuity between this and old Prussian culture is ridiculous. john 02:09, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is maintained by compromise and co-operation with the community. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to an article you should do that. Blanking out the bulk of others' work, is not contribution and is in violation of Misplaced Pages's expressed policy.

The whole point of the article, and what makes it interesting and relevant, is that they are still an identifiable ethnic group and some among them wish to revive certain markers. The current movement of cultural revival was sparked by their physical removal from the lands which they have inhabited since before history.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that's it -- it's an over-generalization. By the same logic, there are no Tibetan people and no Hawaiian people. By this logic, Koreans have no continuity with Koreans of the past because they were ruled so long by China and Japan. By this logic, Aborigines removed from their native lands cease to be Aborigine if they speak only English. This is ridiculous and offensive to people the world over. Needless to say, such a hostile racial stance is inappropriate on Misplaced Pages.

Intelligent conversation should be encouraged, not attacked. Without compromising neutrality, you could make an intelligent note of your opinion without gross censorship and Misplaced Pages:Vandalism of an article. You could, for example, ask the question: "If an ethnic group no longer speaks its native language, does it cease to exist? Does it lose the right to discuss its history since the said change?" If you are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs. Some Prussians do believe themselves to exist and wish to be heard, wrongly or rightly.

That said, do you have any knowledge of the Old Prussians to make an intelligent contribution? For example, Tacitus referred to them long before Adalbert. Moreover, there is a corpus of archaeological data from the region. If you have access to a university library, you could provide some intelligent input about this information. As it is, simply blanking out the bulk of an article doesn't demonstrate the minimum requisite knowledge necessary to contribute.

--Wighson

The comparisons you are making are ridiculous. No people living in East Prussia had a sense of being part of a "Prussian" nationality before 1945. They considered themselves to be Germans (or, in some cases, Poles). The idea that they were "Prussians" is a political invention designed to make it seem as though innocent Prussians were kicked off their lands by the mean Russians because of things that Germans did. While this should be discussed, it is not at all the same thing as Tibetans or Koreans being ruled by foreigners. Also, my last name is Kenney, and I did not even revert the article this last time. john 00:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My respectful suggestions:

• Avoid generalizations such as "no people." Substantiation?
• Which Prussians considered themselves Poles? Is this supposition? Substantiation?
• Do not conflate "nationality" with "ethnicity."
• What do you know of current ethnic Prussians' political affiliation? Substantiation?
• Why isn't the history of the Prussian Balts analogous to that of Tibetans or Koreans? Explain.
• "Mean Russians" is POV. Would you really wish to discuss this? Are Russians truly mean?

Sorry about misspelling your last name (if it matters). You did commit vandalism on 20:22, 2004 Apr 1, unless someone forged your handle.

Quibling objections may be worthy of the Talk page, but are hardly justification for massive unilateral deletion, ie, vandalism. Why not just emend the article with your insights? That would be more helpful. At very least, express your objection, before blanking out most of an article with which you disagree.

I am sure others welcome your opinions as much as I.

Best wishes,

--Wighson

1. Shouldn't you have to prove that there was a sense of Prussian ethnicity among the inhabitants of East Prussia? I've never read that there was.
2. I imagine the southern inhabitants who voted for becoming part of Poland in that plebiscite did. I'm not sure how many of them there were.
3. "Prussian" was neither a nationality nor an ethnicity. There was certainly a regional or civic identity of being Prussian (along with people in the Rhineland), and a regional identity as being East Prussians, but I've never read anything about a sense of ethnic identity
4. There's no such thing as an ethnic Prussian, so I have no idea. Most of those who identify themselves as Prussian expellees are fairly right wing, though, was my understanding.
5. Tibetans and Koreans have maintained a separate ethnic identity and their own language throughout recorded history. Furthermore, they have for long periods had a separate political identity (especially Korea, which has basically been independent or autonomous for most of modern history except the 1910-1945 period). Prussians have, so far as I can tell, never had a separate political identity. Their separate language disappeared by the 18th century. And this sense of ethnic identity was manufactures wholesale by a small number of rightwing expellees after they all ceased to live in East Prussia anyway.
6. I wasn't saying the Russians were mean. I was saying that that argument is the reason why expellees from East Prussia try to pretend they have this phantom "Prussian" ethnicity. john 01:52, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful answers. Perhaps some Wikipedian would care to address these issues.

--Wighson

Mr. Kenney and Mr. Wighson, my goodness what a furor. You sound like a couple of college professors fighting for a stipend. And yet, there seems to be some partial truth in what each of you says.

I might note from what I have read that there is not a small number of expelees. The Russians were pretty mad. They had just lost 40 million people to German ideological shenanigans. Prussia was totally cleared out. Millions of people took it on the lam and every town city and village was destroyed, with their civic records dumped into German municipalities much further west. It will never be back, like it or not. Sorry, boys. Any attempt to restore Prussia is only fun and games, but you won't gain Russian approval, will you? They seem to have beat everyone else around there, and probably could still do it today.

As for the people that were cleared out, you seem to be having problems defining identity. Genetic identity is not cultural identity. Genes can't be contained and cultures change fast. There's a new field of study that matches the DNA of ancient remains to modern and tries to find moderns that are close to ancients. They can be found. I'm sure there are plenty of pockets of ancients in most populations. I got no doubt that that the cleared-out Prussians included many descendents of Germanized Prussians. I'm sure there were Gothic descendants also. Unless you massacre them, populations do not disappear, they go into other populations gene by gene. The plague did not take everyone; moreover, that was only the last vestige of Prussians. But politically speaking, who cares? The Russians aren't going to raise the Titanic or put Kaliningrad back to Koenigsburg.

As for the culture, plenty of current Germans trace a connection back to Prussians. If you look up on Prussian Reconstructions you will find such words as klausewingi, "hearer", probably "Confessor." If you turn that into Polish you get Klausewitz and if you Germanize that you get Von Klausewitz. We already know that Copernicus was Kapernik, "coppersmith". Note the Slavic -nik, which was also Prussian. But, let's look at it another way. The Balts once extended all the way over to Moscow. Indeed the Lithuanians probably came from Belarus. So, the "Slavic" population of North Russia probably came from a Baltic one. Not only that, but Baltic and Slavic as well as Thracian are only developments of an original common language. Does all this do anything to your fixed ideas of ethnicity?

As for the ancient sources, the Balts no doubt appear, but to identify them for sure is harder. Are Herodotus' Gelones an early form of Galindi? I'd like to see more done along those lines.