>From: [email protected] In article >>[email protected]>, [email protected] (GMC0633) wrote: >> Ever since the rise of the Pan-Slavic movement, which drew popular support >> among the Slavs beginning in the 19th century, many people have believed that >> the Slavs are united by many aspects of history, culture, and language. >Language definitely, but their histories separated over 1000 years ago, when >there was not that much in terms of culture to share. The common Christian culture which was introduced in 863 by Cyril and Methodius and subsequently spread throughout the Slavic world has been with the Slavs for over a millenium. The >> Slavs are, after all, one of the three largest ethnolinguistic families in >> Europe, along with the Romance and Germanic peoples (not to ignore the less >> numerous Celts). Though Slavs from Siberia may not physically resemble those > from Macedonia, they do share many linguistic traits. >They do, but it is just about the only thing they share. I disagree. Not to idealize the Slavs, there are some unpleasant character traits shared by all Slavs, but there are even more positive ones. After all, the German philosopher Herder viewed the Slavs as the future of Europe. The Slavs have yet to reach their potential, but the potential is enormous. Indeed, the Slavic >> languages are closer to one another, viewed as a group, than the Romance or >> Germanic languages. (It has even been suggested in recent decades that all >> Slavs should adopt a single Slavic spoken and literary language). Who suggested that :-) During the past century quite a few scholars (not just Russians) argued that Russian should be adopted as the Pan-Slavic literary language. (Given the enormous resentment many Slavs feel today towards the Russians and their language, that idea is a lost cause, of course). Others have argued for Slovak, since spatially and linguistically Slovak is the central Slavic language. Others have suggested one of the varieties of Church Slavonic, the liturgical language of Orthodox Christians and Greek Catholics. >> Most Slavs are united by a Christian heritage that dates back to Saints Cyril >> (Constantine) and Methodius, who converted Moravia in the year 863. In one >> form or another, the Christian Cyrilo-Methodian heritage still unites Slavic >> Christians, whether Catholic or Orthodox (or Hussite). >I don't see how. The Poles have been Catholic for a thousand years. AFAIK, >they were never Orthodox before. This is like grouping the English and >Italians, who were both converted within the Roman Empire. The Slavs accepted Christianity before the division between Rome and the East. This division was no fault of the Slavs. Indeed, if there is anyone who might heal the tragic break between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, it is the Slavs. The Pan-Slavs of the >> 19th century were inspired by this Cyrilo-Methodian heritage and many dreamed >> of the day when all Slavs might be united politically and religiously. >This was an ideological construct of immature oppressed small nationalities, >rather than anything based on cultural or historical facts. The small nations >needed a big friend, and believed it would be Russia. They did not really >know very much about the country itself. Pan-Slavism came in several varieties, only one of which advocated submitting to the Russian tsar. There was the Moravian and Slovak version of Pan-Slavism and the South Slavic variety. THe men who advocated Pan-Slavism were hardly immature. The >> Church Slavonic language which is used today in Orthodox and Greek Catholic >> liturgies is a modern form of the language devised by Cyril and Methodius. >Just like Latin, which is frequently used in Catholic context. It does not >really unify the Irish with the Italians. I disagree. Latin for many Catholics still does have a unifying effect. And Church Slavonic for the Orthodox Slavs certainly symbolizes the unity of their faith.