On the Nation of the Suavs

The discussion about the origin of the Slavs or Suavs is often conducted between the “academics” and “commoners”.  This has led to a lot of confusion – primarily by reason of the former who purposefully mislead the latter as to what is the subject of the discussion.  We’ve made this point before but think it is worth reiterating it.

Not the Customs

Some of it goes back to the question what is an “ethnicity”.  The latter is defined by the academics (e.g., Anthony Smith)* as follows.

• First, the academics claim that an ethnicity is “not inherent” but “created;
• Second, they list factors that contribute to “ethnicity” as so defined;  for example, Anthony Smith lists the following as defining an ethnicity:
  • collective name
  • common myth of descent
  • shared history
  • distinctive shared culture
  • an association with a specific territory
  • a sense of solidarity

(Although, oddly, Smith leaves it out here, others see language as the primary “ethnic” criterion.)

* Who is Anthony Smith?  Just a guy with an opinion.  His opinion is not half bad.  For example, in his book Ethnic Origins of Nations he argues against the theses that nationalism is a modern phenomenon – an argument that is a bit like trying to ram an open door, but ok, we’ll take what we can.  Nevertheless, Smith presumably had to be careful.  He operated in a post-WWII world in a coterie of privileged, elitist intellectuals.

[The only activity such snobs find more pleasing than putting down the unwashed masses is being snarky to one another.  One of Smith’s teachers, Ernest Gellner, managed to do both in one breath (discussing prior department head, Morris Ginsberg): “Ginsberg… was totally unoriginal and lacked any sharpness. He simply reproduced the kind of evolutionary rationalistic vision which had already been formulated by Hobhouse and which incidentally was a kind of extrapolation of his [Ginsberg’s] own personal life: starting in Poland [Lithuania, actually, but, hey, all Eastern Europe looks the same] and ending up as a fairly influential professor at LSE. He evolved, he had an idea of a great chain of being where the lowest form of life was the drunk, Polish, anti-Semitic peasant and the next stage was the Polish gentry, a bit better, or the Staedtl, better still. And then he came to England, first to University College under Dawes Hicks, who was quite rational  (not all that rational—he still had some anti-Semitic prejudices, it seems) and finally ended up at LSE with Hobhouse, who was so rational that rationality came out of his ears. And so Ginsberg extrapolated this, and on his view the whole of humanity moved to ever greater rationality, from drunk Polish peasant to T.L. Hobhouse and a Hampstead garden.”  To what extent he was influenced by Gellner and the likes is unclear. (alas Gellner ultimately ended up working for Soros’ Central European University).]

All of these above “factors”, however, are not what the “commoners” mean when they ask the question of “from where came the Suavs”.  The “commoners” in seeking the “origin of the Suavs” understand something much simpler.  They understand themselves to be the Suavs of today and are merely seeking their ancestors or the primary groups comprising those.

Thus, while their view of the ethnic may certainly include the above factors (and language), these are merely attachments to the true ethnic determinant – blood relationships.  With the latter, the factors listed above (and language) are attachments and expressions of shared family connection – reinforcers of sameness or the “familial glue”, if you will.

Nor the Language

As regards language, suffice it to say that anyone can learn as many languages as one wants to – doing so makes him or her a polyglot but it does not make him a member of any specific nation.  Neither are mute people condemned to the limbo of no nation.  Surely, the ancestors of many Spanish-only-speaking Mexicans were not Spaniards but local Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs and the like.  Likewise, the ancestors of Caribbean Britons (in a geographic sense) were not from London (or the Caribbean for that matter) even if they only speak English.  Of course, language can be a glue of sorts (along with other such glues) but it is merely an overlay.

Since we’re talking about ancestry when we talk about ethnicity here and since ancestry reduces to “blood”, the notion that ethnicity is “created” rather than “inherited” must be declared deeply and irretrievably wrong.

Nor the State

For the “commoners” ethnicity – or what they seek – is better defined by “nationhood”.  But even here academia intrudes.  Academics are not favorably disposed towards “nation-states” in the classic sense of the word “nation” (and as the term is understood by commoners).  Thus, not content with defining “ethnicity” their own way, the academics have attempted to define the “nation” too.  They pull this trick by conflating the nation with the state or, if you will, conflating nationality with citizenship.  Thus, in their “view”, any “citizen” of a state is part of a “nation” – all it takes is a piece of paper issued by someone in power.  If the criteria for obtaining that piece of paper can be set up so that most or even all of the above factors are not included among such criteria, then the only thing that makes a man a member of our nation is that piece of paper.

If that seems too radical, you – as the state – might ask some basic history questions or, at least, some basic language skills.  Yet even that has recently gone by the wayside as states begin to hand out residence – then citizenship certificates – to anyone who comes through so as to hide the fact that they have lost complete control of their borders.  This rather pathetic activity is as much an act of legitimizing the migrants as a feeble attempt to preserve some appearance of state control (“yeah, we let them in, yeah, but that is because we wanted to and t was by our grace that they are here, bla, bla.”).

Aside from the destructive effect of this state behaviour on the actual nation, the notion that it is the state that determines your “nationhood” is deeply dangerous.  It fosters an environment where the state decides who “your people” are.  This is eerily reminiscent of the Communist times where another basic societal unity – the family – was seen as a competitor and the enemy of the state (as surely it was in fact with respect to an all intrusive state such as any communist dictatorship) with wives and husbands and children spying on one another (in fact some married based on the orders of the state… (though their spouses were not always aware of that)).

In any event, once again when the commoner speaks of a nation he or she does not speak of a piece of paper granted by the whim of some corrupt or intoxicated bureaucrat operating on the orders of an ivory tower professor who legitimized legislation defining citizenship for the bureaucrat to enforce while operating in the false consciousness of Marxist pseudo-science and funded with the money of überrich yet primitive elitists.

On the “Blood” Nation 

The meaning of the word Nation is quite simple – all you have to look up is its Latin origin – natio = birth.  Unsurprisingly, the same holds for Suavic words and thus Narod, i.e., a derivative of rodzic = to give birth.  A family becomes a tribe and a tribe becomes a nation.  (Duh)

This does not, of course, imply some need for a red herring “purity” (here it may be appropriate to quote Mussolini’s remark about the Germans) but it does require an exchange of fluids, you might say.  Why?  Because if two groups of people live right next to each other but do not engage in sexual relations (or at least do not procreate together) then the question must be put as to “why”.

Their geographic closeness may give them knowledge of one another.  They may engage in trade relations.  They may even have their neighbors over for coffee but if it is clear that the children of one group will not marry the children of the other then they can hardly be called one group.   The very fact that two groups of people can be so close and not merge is unnatural.

There may be a whole host of reasons for this state of affairs (we look down upon them, they look down upon us, they want to preserve their traditions, we want to preserve ours, all of the above, and so forth) but the point is that just because the two groups are not at war and occupy the same territory does not mean they are of the same nation (indeed, over time, this can also result in social classes becoming separate quasi-nations and sometimes they even start out that way). In fact, there are examples of this from Central Europe where researchers are finding some ancient villages that were populated by two different groups – seemingly, as crazy as it sounds, for generations.

In fact, this very point can be made about the word ethos, Slav/Suav and Suev and Sueb.  All these, according to Zbigniew Golab simply mean “one’s own” people but also “people apart” from others (suebha = according to Pokorny, “frei, zum eigenen Volke gehoerig”).  Thus, svoboda (freedom) translates into being apart, free from the others or if you will being able to do your own thing (and, yes, boda is cognate with “body” and “to be”).  Ultimately, the same direction of “exchange of fluids” occurs too to Golab who says that while the word denoted “affines”, this affinity is necessary for consanguinity.  While anyone who’s ever been to a pub can attest that ethnos is not an absolute prerequisite for consanguinity (in fact, in a bar situation, the “exotic” may be attractive), it is difficult to see the former without the latter.  Thus, the word “suovo” (“word”) may have come from the same root as the word “Suavs” but that may be the extent of the relationship (so to speak) between the two (i.e., rather than the ethnonym “Suavs” coming from “slovo”). Moreover, as noted, Golab also connected the same svoi/Suav/suebha with the word “ethnos” and ethnicity.

Finally, note that once you have a consanguinity then much of what of the rest follows. After all, people who are blood relations are much more likely to use a particular language and share particular customs and religion. Otherwise we would have to cut out of the Tribe people who share our blood/ancestors but who, perhaps, no longer speak the original language (how many Irish speak Gaelic? Are they not Irish then?) or who have different, even drastically, political views (Republican, Whig, Tory, progressive but also Marxist or fascist, anarchist or monarchist/royalist – politics may not be discussed at the Thanksgiving table but there is still a Thanksgiving table and every family member should get an invite) or who have converted to a different faith (even the Calvinists deserve a seat at the table).  In fact, the only person who may have to be excluded is the person who acts so much against the tribe’s group interest as to completely and irretrievably negate that person’s group connection.

Wrong Questions and The Nation of the Suavs

With the above in mind we have to observe that the problem of the “Origin of the Suavs” is not simply a problem of shared “traditions” or shared “language” or a shared “state”.  The Suavs existed without a state (e.g., Poles in the 19th century) and they may have to exists without a state platform in the future.  Suavic emigrants to North America, Australia, Brazil or, more recently, the UK and Ireland and their children are Suavs – whether or not they cultivate any “Suavic” traditions, speak the Suavic language or identify with the local (or other) culture.  For so long as they have Suavic blood in their veins.  Conversely, Suavic-speaking foreigners even if they like pyerogi are not Suavs (though their children are – if the other parent is a Suav).

A lot of historians, linguists and archeologists when discussing Suavs talk about one of two things:

• material culture
• language

They do so among themselves which is fine because they know what it is that they are talking about but they also do this when discussing the topic with lay people.  This, however, is duplicitous.  Why?  Because the same academics know full well  that their interlocutors do not use the term in the same way.  The commoner merely wants to know about his or her ancestors – but the academic answers about “culture” or “language” (e.g., “Suavs came from somewhere East” or “Suavic identity ‘formed’ on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire”), i.e., the question he wants to answer with the answer he wants to give.  These kinds of answers are, again, duplicitous but, more simply, are simply inapposite and nonresponsive to the question being asked.  They are irrelevant.

We are thus fully prepared to accept a number of hypotheses about the origin of the Suavic language or the origin of the Suavic culture.  Either or both of these may (may!) have come from the East.  BUT that does not mean the ancestors of most Suavs had.  It may, for example, be that the Suavs really are a mix of the Suevi and the Sarmatians (more on that here though it is a topic that we will, of course, return to).

A lot of academics, for example, sneer at the suggestion of a full population replacement as naive.  Their “sophisticated” theorizing has them say “well, of course, some people stayed behind and were ‘assimilated’ by the Suavs.”  But they never say how many?

What percentage?  10%? 30%? 90%?  And what are these %s of?  I think most people would want to know the relative % of the autochtons and the newcomers – at the time of the arrival of the newcomers but also later (those relative %s can change, of course).  There is also the question of who the autochtons were: if the Germanics came from Scandinavia then what was their % of the “autochtonous” population at the time the Suavs “arrived”?  What if the other “autochtonous” population were also Suavs?  Just different ones (or, for that matter, Veneti, Balts, Aestii (same as Balts?), Illyrians, whatever you may want to call them).

The answer to these questions does seem to matter, no?

Certainly, once you admit that a full population exchange has not taken place, it behooves you to specify what actually did take place.  If you say that “some” people stay and the percentage you have in mind more than 50% then your sneering answer begins to look like merely covering one’s ignorance of the underlying question.

In other words, one would think that you can’t say “Suavs came from the East and the autochtonic theories are wrong, nationalistic and discredited” then be asked about all the evidence suggesting the ancestors of Suavs lived precisely where current Suavs live and then respond to that by saying “duh, of course, there was never a full population exchange” when by “there was never a full population exchange” you mean that 90% of the population actually predates the arrival of the Suavs.  That would be completely misleading and disingenuous.  

But maybe you justify this flip-flopping to yourself with, “I am talking about the linguistic or cultural ancestors of the people we call today Suavs.”  However, since you know that your interlocutor is talking about his or her physical ancestors and not any hypothetical linguistic or cultural “ancestors” then your answer is more than Clintonian.

And I am not suggesting that the Suavs’ language or culture came from the East at all.  We’re merely pointing out that assuming they did that still does not answer the question that is actually being asked. 

The question about the Suavs is and has always been a question about “blood” or, if you will, genes.  We explore Suavic beliefs and culture as ways of finding more about our ancestors – this “familial glue” is a clue on the road to the ultimate goal – but it is not a goal in and of itself.

On the one hand, as we have said before, such a question cannot be crudely asked to identify the Suavs with, e.g., a particular gene.  For example, it is not clear whether the so-called “Suavic” gene – R1a – was associated with the Suavs or was, e.g., one of only a number of genes associated with historic Suavs.  Or it may turn out that the original speakers of Suavic were the ones who were not carriers of R1a.  (Other (male) haplogroups associated with the Suavs include R1b, I1 and I2.)  What then? That is why one has to be careful at this early time with placing too much emphasis on genetic information. This, quite aside from the fact that there are apparently different clades of the same Y DNA and just because some ancient person was R1a does not mean that his clade was the same as the R1a of most of today’s inhabitants of the same area (not to mention autosomal differences).

On the other hand, anyone who is not completely blind can see that the physical differences between at least the Northern Suavs (and some Southern Suavs) are staggeringly few – they are some of the most physically monolithic peoples in the world (on par with the Japanese and Koreans).  Such differences seem few even when compared with much of the Eastern “Germans”, the Balts, the Finns and many, many of the Scandinavians.

Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with who your friends or enemies are – in fact interfamilar squabbles are sometimes the worst and friendships can and do span multiplicity of ethnic, racial, religion and all kinds of other groups – it is merely a recognition that there is a blood and tradition (of course!) “Kern” that provides an ancestral connection and that should create some obligation (not a slavish one though) to the past as opposed to merely a selfish look to one’s own future. 

Maybe the Suavs will change over time though, for now, the description of the Suavs/Slavs from Procopius continues to remain generally applicable:

“For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color.”

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved