 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Czech rep is not catholic.
Czech rep is ABSOLUTELY ATHEISTIC - people who believe in some kind of God, Allah, Jehova or whatever are just a minority here and religion has absolutely no influence on our life.
|
From what I know, a third of population is catholic, and there are some protestants as well, but true, Czechs are the most de-religionised nation in Europe.
quote:
Slovakia is catholic, on contrary. Czech people see Poland as a religiously fanatical nation, where church has influence on normal life of people which is something that we absolutely canīt understand.
But despite history (communism), Czechs do NOT hate the Russians. We like Russians. What we really hate is Americans. They are alien culture to us, Russia is not.
|
Czechs are generally liked in Poland, which I can't understand in fact (as while I understand Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Byelorussian claims to what is theirs today, Czech occupation of Cieszyn up to today is for me
the only CompletelY unfair thing that happened to us)
Generally Czechs are nice as people, but their culture tends to be agressively atheistic and a bit rude in it.
quote:
Currently my thoughts with people who are trying to defend their motherland against foreign neo-colonial invasion, not with Saddam.
|
Neo-colonialism would be a suitable word for your war in Tchechenia I guess. When it comes to this one, You didn't seem to care when Iraqueese were dieing under Saddam. I think You are against this war only because
You are against America.
quote:
Between the two world wars Czechoslovakia was the only steady eastern democratic country
|
Which didn't stop it from persecuting Poles and Germans
and keeping Slovakians inside of it by force.
quote:
*I'm waiting for Saint Heresson's lecture*
|
Przebacz im, ojcze, gdyz nie wiedza, co czynia.
A wlasciwie mowia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparkle
|
 |
Prague
Jan 2003
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
From what I know, a third of population is catholic, and there are some protestants as well, but true, Czechs are the most de-religionised nation in Europe.
|
Second most. After Albania.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Which didn't stop it from persecuting Poles and Germans
and keeping Slovakians inside of it by force.
|
WHAT?? Germans were never persecuted in Czech rep before WW2. They occupied Sudetenland, the richest part of Czech rep, and were mainly factory owners and were very influential. They collaborated with Hitler who took the land from us and were persecuting us!!
And we did not keep Slovakia inside of it in force, donīt know where you got that. Slovakia was a poor agricultural country, while Czech rep was a rich industrial country and they were sooo happy that we will take care of them. Then the Slovaks collaborated with Hitler, they were sooo happy that Hitler will take care of them...
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I think You are against this war only because
You are against America.
|
Thatīs absolutely true. Czechs, in general, are quite cynical, with no bigger concerns about "higher ideals" like world peace. But still 85% of us are against war in Iraq - and thatīs definitely not because someone would like Saddam :-))
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
[qupte]
WHAT?? Germans were never persecuted in Czech rep before WW2. They occupied Sudetenland,
[/quote]
You mean: inhabited?
quote:
the richest part of Czech rep, and were mainly factory owners and were very influential. They collaborated with Hitler who took the land from us and were persecuting us!!
|
after some time, yes.
But yes, probably I'm wrong. I was transposing treating of Polish minority on treating of German one, while in fact I remember one Polish book of that time complaining that You are making efforts to colonise Cieszyn region while You should do that to German-inhabited ones.
quote:
And we did not keep Slovakia inside of it in force, donīt know where you got that. Slovakia was a poor agricultural country, while Czech rep was a rich industrial country and they were sooo happy that we will take care of them. Then the Slovaks collaborated with Hitler, they were sooo happy that Hitler will take care of them...
|
I think Slovakia owes a lot to Czechs; without them,
Spisz Orawa and Czadca would be Polish, and southern part would be Hungarian, if Slovakia would exist at all.
Still, from what I know, Slovakians felt dominated by Czechs, and the question of the name, which originally was supposed to be Czecho-Slovakia, not Czechoslovakia, was kind of significant for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparkle
|
|
Prague
Jan 2003
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
WHAT?? Germans were never persecuted in Czech rep before WW2. They occupied Sudetenland,
You mean: inhabited?
|
Eng-CZ Vocabulary on the web (www.seznam.cz)
occupy - bydlit
occupy - obsadit
occupy - obsadit (med.)
occupy - obsadit; voj.
occupy - okupovat
occupy - zabrat
occupy - zabírat
occupy - zabírat (čas i místo)
occupy - zabývat se
occupy - zamėstnat
occupy - zaneprázdnit
occupy - zaujímat
occupy - zaujímat (čas i místo)
So, the first and most common meaning of the word "occupy" is "to live" somewhere. And itīs also the meaning that I consider. The word has only one meaning in Czech, but it has more meanings in English. Like if I said "My occupation is programmer analyst" and you would think that I occupy some poor analysts :-))
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I think Slovakia owes a lot to Czechs; without them,
Spisz Orawa and Czadca would be Polish, and southern part would be Hungarian, if Slovakia would exist at all.
|
I was really trying to avoid any comments on your "evil Czechs took our land" thing. But this is ridiculous. What junk do your history teachers fill into your heads?? YOU started the whole conflict by occupying (now the second meaning of the word is used) Tesin, part of Orava and part of Spis in November 1918. Then you were trying to negotiate some "fair" deal which was unacceptable for us so we took our army and pushed you back to Visla. All this "operation" did last 7 days and was approved by The Triple Alliance. The peace treaty was also arranged by TTA and if you have such great knowledge about that, then you surely know that it was signed 28.7.1920 and while we got Bohumin railway and Coal area, you got east Tesin area and part of Orava and Spis. So, yeah without our armies Orava and Spis would have been all yours, beacouse you would have taken it from us by force. Fortunately there was, and still is, something called the Czechs to prevent Poles from being too aggressive :-)
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Still, from what I know, Slovakians felt dominated by Czechs, and the question of the name, which originally was supposed to be Czecho-Slovakia, not Czechoslovakia, was kind of significant for them. |
You know, village-people hate city-people, because they feel inferior. While city-people donīt care about village-people, because they have no reason to hate them. The same relationship is between a country and its colony, and a country and its smaller and poorer neighbor. Slovaks have been jealous towards Czechs. Their hate for us is only one sided. We donīt have anything against them. Itīs just their complex with no rational reason.
And the Czechoslovakia and Czecho-Slovakia thing...
there was a big argument over country name in 1990, whether it should be Czechoslovak or Czecho-Slovak federative republic. Finally Slovaks received what they wanted and the countryīs official name became Czech and Slovak federative republic. And 2 years later they got complete independency. So thereīs no need for Slovaks to feel hurt. And if I remember correctly, this "name war" in 1990 was only between politicians, with common people not caring about it and only being disgusted by arguments over such insignificant thing.
But I see weīre really offtopic now, so I better leave that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparkle
|
|
Prague
Jan 2003
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beren
And now Slovakia has been independant for a while.... Are they really better of whitout the Czechs?
|
No, they are definitely not :-)) Slovak people, compared to Czechs, have never had a political culture, so after they became independent, they quickly fell into webs of various populistic, extremist and mad politicians. Mr Meciar, a charismatic nationalist madman, won elections and ruined the country. Slovakia became a despotism, police state with human rights restricted, opposition politics threatened with life etc. Fortunately Slovak people used their last chance - elections in 1998 (already influenced with corruption) and voted for democratic opposition. There were new elections last year in Slovakia, and even though democrats won again, new threats emerged from new populistic parties which would never be successful in a country which has a developed democracy. Slovakia is poorer than Czech rep, poorer than Poland for example but richer than Ukraine definitely.
quote:
Originally posted by Beren
Oh and about the war... I have just turned anti-war the last couple of days, because I realised Bush is in it for religious purposes.
|
Man, you didnīt realise that before??? :-))))
What are your information resources like??
We had a religious study of mr. Bush in our newspapers weeks before Iraq conflict... heīs an extremist, member of a sect...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparkle
|
|
Prague
Jan 2003
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by XarXo
Slovakia is the example of a new type of state, it exist because the people that live inside want, not because they were invaded (a very new type of state created after the 1989 fall of Berlin wall with Letonia, Lituania and Estonia). I think (or want think) that this is the normal evolution of states inside europe, each one fracted and joined to conform a correctess borders with language, population, nantional feelings and history with PEACE (a TOTAL INNOVATION!!). |
Man, you know why split of Czechoslovakia was peaceful?
Because both Czechs and Slovaks are too cowardly and flegmatic to make any action.
Czech people just care about their bed, job, kids and beer. And are totally apathic towards any "global" thing. We have 35% people coming for last elections.
Slovakia is better in this, but you must consider that Slovakian nation created istelf in 18th century by mixing Hungarian and various Slavic people and common Slovak language was artificially created by Ludovit Stur in 1843. Where is no tradition, there can be not much patriotism...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
I was really trying to avoid any comments on your "evil Czechs took our land" thing. But this is ridiculous. What junk do your history teachers fill into your heads?? YOU started the whole conflict by occupying (now the second meaning of the word is used) Tesin, part of Orava and part of Spis in November 1918.
|
Now You should learn history.
In former Cieszyn (Tesin/Teschen) duchy, two organisations emerged, Polish and Czech one, and they
settled on dividing the region according to nationality line
in between themselves.
quote:
Then you were trying to negotiate some "fair" deal which was unacceptable for us
|
why?
quote:
so we took our army and pushed you back to Visla. All this "operation" did last 7 days and was approved by The Triple Alliance. The peace treaty was also arranged by TTA and if you have such great knowledge about that, then you surely know that it was signed 28.7.1920 and while we got Bohumin railway and Coal area, you got east Tesin area and part of Orava and Spis. So, yeah without our armies Orava and Spis would have been all yours, beacouse you would have taken it from us by force. Fortunately there was, and still is, something called the Czechs to prevent Poles from being too aggressive :-) |
The case looked somewhat different.
Poland was then involved in war with USSR and there was practically no army in the region - and probably only because of that your republic was so brave. Your action was not approved by anyone. In fact it is one of the most humorous events in the history I ever heard about, as your fellowmen, pretending to be delegates of the allied forces (sic!), came with a ultimatum demanding backing of Cieszyn region, despite they were recognised as Czechs.
Czech army attacked even before the time ultimatum gave
as the deadline, and took entire Cieszyn region at first, only later being pushed back to Wisla line. Later in all the
regions discussed but Czadca there was supposed to be votings, but nothing came out of it due to your attitude. Eventually, western allies actually did draw the line according to your wishes. Poland agreed on western judgement in this case in return for a mediation in the most critical part of the war against Soviets (which didn't gave us anything in fact, as Soviets were so close to crushing us they had no intention in negotiating the peace). Eventually, Poland got 49% of the territory,
with all industrial cities left on Czech side, though Poles
were 3/4 of the population (according to Austrian, not Polish, statistics), with 5-10% Germans,
Additionally,
all the speech up to Nowy Jiczyn (read; original borders of Silesia) are known in linguistics as Gwary Laskie (Lachy=Poles), and are in between Polish and Czech language, and Czechs got also entire Opava region, inhabited by Germans at this time.
Poles also got nothing of Czadca, and shreds (1/31 if I remember correctly) of Spisz and Orawa, nothing of Czadca (the truth is, however, that people in these regions, though speaking Polish, had no thought of their nationality, and today they regard themselves as Slovaks, and as such shoul be treated).
Czech pretensions to Cieszyn were motivated by several things;
1) that Cieszyn duchy, though ruled by a Polish dinasty,
was for hungreds years a fief, and later a part of Czech kingdom (on the other hand, Czechs were part of "Roman" (German) and Austrian empire at this time,
and it entire Czechy were for a while a part of Poland
1000 years ago...
2)That Czechs need the coal there
As well as everyone else
3)That communism spreads amongst the Polish workers (sic! sic!)4)That Poles that live there came en masse to Cieszyn
during Austrian rule of southern Poland, in XIX century
That is quite absurd, but to be sure, I will add that this way, Poles there should not be protestants (as practically all Poles except for some regions that were long outside of Polish Kingdom were catholic), but Czechs,
while it was the other way round; what happened to local Czechs, then?; how managed mentioned gwary laskie to emerge during 100 years only?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snake1234
|
|
ukriane must be added, russians, are everyone, from uzbecks to all the others, mongols inculded. ukraine is the nation of the pure slavs, who ocne carried the flag of the slavick empire dating back to the days of rome, russian betrayed and ukraine fell just like all the other empire nations states do, now ukriane is ukraine again, the language, the culture, the food the spirit is still anicient slavick which russian is to mixed up with asia. russian is about 20 percent slav and the rest asian. so yes, ukraine must be put it, as the representation of the pure slavik rutes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CarnalCanaan
|
 |
The Biggest Little City in the World
May 2004
time: 05:23
|
|
Holy fazzoli!
And people wonder what I'm gonna do with a degree in Poli Sci!
Point 1: It's just a game and I think the comment made about the market potential is right on the mark, however --
Point 2: There is something to be said for "civs-within-civs" dilemmas. This Ukraine-in-Russia conflict seems pretty heated. Just imagine a Tibet-in-China conflict! What qualifies for a truly distinct and influential civilization is not necessarily the same for a nation. Keep in mind that nations are highly flexible concepts. Their definitions are often subjective and dependent on external realities (i.e. 'Canada' = North American Anglo descended post-colonial state that is NOT part of the United States). A civilization, however trancends states more often than not -- each Greek city was its own state. The question that has to be answered: Is the Ukraine a culturally independent, politically persuasive, ethno-linguistically defined group whose influence on the whole of humanity is uncontestable?
Thus, the Mongols are definitely in. As are the Maya. The Dutch and Portugese are in since they ruled a good chunk of the world. The Babylonians and Sumerians get to be distinct, even though the one subjugated the other. The Hittites, Celts and Iroquois are in because they were recognized, influencial political entities in their time -- however, much of their influence had been forgotten.
The one civ that is not in Civ3 which absolutely should be is Ethiopia (a.k.a. Abyssinia). Culturally distinct and it features a long, interesting history in conflict with other Civ3 civs (Italy [nee Rome], Arabia).
Other candidates should be:
The Hebrews (a.k.a. Israel). Narrow political definition, immesurable cultural contribution, natural rivalry with Babylon, Arabia, Rome.
The Polish. Limited political clout. Perhaps only as part of Age of Revolutions or Cold War scenario package.
The Navajo. Short, compromised political history. Indirect contact with Aztecs. Native American civ which had urban centers IRL.
The Thai: Long history. Limited importance. Alternative to Siam?
The Ghanaians: Ancient trade empire reborn as post-colonial state. At least as convoluted as 'Scandinavia'. Not necessarily more important than its West African counterparts, Mali, Songhay or Nigerians.
The Vietnamese: Unique culture. Distinct political identity (esp. relative to Americans). Would be byproduct of Vietnam War scenario.
Civs that shouldn't make it:
Any of the non-Russian slavic cultures (unfortunately) never expanded or attempted to expand far beyond their respective homelands. Fragmented, like Germany, but no recognized geo-ethnic territory, unlike Germany. The lynchpin: Their achievements do not stretch very far beyond their own borders. In fact, many of their achievements were attained under some higher, alien authority (Holy Roman Empire, Warsaw Pact, etc.)
Most central African nations and most Native American nations. The winners write history and these people's pretty much all lost. Like the Australo-Aborigines, though they are distinct and interesting, politically, they never consolidated or expanded. Even the non-Western civs (China, Azteca, India) experienced some level of political 'comings together' that constituted their civ. They had strong central political regiemes (Montezuma) or unifying events (Indian independence). And most all of the civs in the game experienced some time of expansion (or attempted expanion)... with the one oneous exception, Korea.
I do not know enough about Russo-Ukrainian history to say exactly whether Ukraine should be its own civ. But if Korea and Sumeria both may be, then the Ukraine deserves consideration. Like those two, if it does not have a long or impressive period of political influence it must have a highly distinctive, influencial and RESILENT culture. (Sumeria is still influencing us today and they don't call Korea the 4000 year nation for nothing.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CarnalCanaan
|
|
The Biggest Little City in the World
May 2004
time: 05:23
|
|
Bush is a fundamentalist!?
... but seriously, folks. Someone said earlier that they "hated" strongly religious people. And therein lies the drama.
What many "mainstream" Americans don't quite get is that the religious right -- which is so vilified by the media -- is exactly what it purports to be: a fundamentalist, Judeo-Christian revival movement. As such, many of the aspects of American culture that most of us accept at progressive at best and ambivalent at worst are, to the Christian Right, an attack on their very way of life.
And when you threaten someone's way of life, they react violently (see U.S. Civil War, Confederate States of America).
One cannot necessarily approach such individuals with the same concepts of reason and prudence as one would a peer. As Luther argued, those who are not saved by God's grace are completely corrupted, including their "reason" and "logic". Thus, trying to talk reasonablly with them is like a child trying to discuss Ulysses with a literature scholar: the latter cannot respect the former's opinion beyond amusement.
Hatred on the part of the Christian Right's opponents only helps prove their point.
The trick, of course, is that fundamentalism and traditionalism breed rebellion and aggression. But NOT from or by the preceeding culture. It must come from within. So, the undermining of the Christian Right in America will come from their own disaffected (read 'sexually frustrated') youth.
Bush won (and will win) because Americans are afraid that we've finally become the a-moral, valueless society everyone accused us of being 20 years ago. And to an extent, they are right. (Have you watched MTV lately?) Bushies are nothing more than the naysayers of 80s yuppy-ism getting their due.
Bush's fundamentalism will always play second fiddle to the overriding desire for purpose which is attracted to his Christian values.
P.S. I'm still not voting for him. It's just too bad Kerry's a dimwitted loser. *sigh*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snake1234
|
|
i got a polly sci degree also
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CarnalCanaan
|
|
The Biggest Little City in the World
May 2004
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Of Slavic nations, Poland played a major role in Europe for several centuries. Only in XVII/XVIII century it was overshadowed by Russia. Also, Bulgaria was very important civ, the main Byzantine rival in Europe before the crusades and before the rise of Serbia, which had a time of political importance only in XIV century, though.
Czechs played some role too.
Bulgaria and Poland are the best candidates.
Did they never expand far beyond their homeland?
Poland got as far as Elbe west, as far as Volga east,
as north as Estonia, as far as Donau south.
Bulgaria stretched over entire Balkan penisula and practically vassalised Byzantines for a short time.
On the other hand, the map is already crowded. |
Interesting.
Poland I think ought to be in any new Civ game. They certainly have an historical presense. Also, I think that their role in the Velvet Revolution should be explored via a Civ game.
Bulgaria is a really hard one, though. Frankly, they should make a Civ list before the Ukraine, since they did expand and they were allied with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans during WWI (Something that gets lost in most American history books - since we never fought them.)
It seems that most of the discussion in this thread was based on the ethnic definition of a civilization. While this is a factor, it is not the only one. Discussions such as this are why ethnology is so frustrating.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2003 22:14
Russians have the same views, and Heresson is alive evidence that it's true. Heresson
BATMAN! 
|