In addition, among Slavs, the Poles are surely the most "Germanic" of the bunch, at least in terms of their outward appearance:-) Many has been the time right here in the States when I've mistaken Polish tourists and visitors for German, even Scandinavian!
As I may have posted once before, Poles are more Western in their mentality, owing in large measure to their relatively early conversion to Catholicism, hence their adaptation of both the Latin alphabet as well as countless loanwords, most used in everyday language, such as "literatura", "restauracja" "inauguracja", "matura" etc....
Right. Poland as well in an attempt to Christianize aka Westernize! To this day, the Russian Orthodox faith as practiced in nearly every South and East Slavic nation differs from Catholicism.
With all due respect, we really don't fit in unless we're Anusim and/or highly assimilated. We're not "eastern european, along with our close-knit ukrainian, belarusian, czech, slovak, and russian counterparts;" and many them are Anusim and/or highly-assimilated Jews (not that some of us didn't enter or be forced to have interrelationships, but hey; and anyway, we contributed to much of Slavic, Magyar, and Romanian culture.
(PPS Eastern Europeans and Southeastern Europeans are like Jews and Arabs: descended from common ancestors, though long since different peoples. Eastern Europeans Slavic, Magyar, and Romanian, thus why Jews like me with roots in Eastern Europe are called Ashkenazi Jews. Southeastern Europeans are Balkaners, not "Southern Slavs", which is why Jews with roots in the Balkans are called Sephardic Jews.)
I would say rather that Poland is at the crossroads between Western, Central and Eastern Europe
western - cultural aspirations, prussian heritage in western poland, bordering Germany
central - (traditionally austria, hungary, czech and slovakia) but parts of southern Poland were in the Austro-Hungarian empire which shows in places like Kraków
eastern - (orthodox lands to to the east) mainly reflected in things like fatalism and materialism (
For complex cultural, geographic and historical reasons individual places and persons in Poland are liable to display western, central and eastern characteristics all at the same time.
Poland is at the crossroads between Western, Central and Eastern Europe
Nope, Poland as it is has post-colonial stress disorder.
Culturally and historically Poland is western as in western civilization that encompasses more that some elicits anglophones like to think. (not a dig at you)
Poland is a branch of the western civilization/culture in this part of the world.
All those superficial features you listed are not what matters. Those are just historical influences due to history.
western - cultural aspirations, prussian heritage in western poland, bordering Germany
I would argue if Germany could be considered a Western country. Sociologically speaking, they are more of a Byzantine type of civilisation
Feliks Koneczny, a Polish pre-war historian and philosopher, has defined types of culture and civilisations as follows:
Latin civilization in which ethics are source of law. If some laws are not ethical, then they are changed. Individuality, self-rule and decentralization are highly valued. He considered it the highest type of civilisation
Byzantine civilization - in which the legal government has absolute authority and its orders are not doubted
Turanian civilization in which the government is the source of law and ethics and stands above the law and ethics.
Jewish civilization in which the law, which derives from Talmud, is the source of ethics. The law cannot be changed. However, the same law can be differently interpreted, which leads to ethical relativism.
Individuality, self-rule and decentralization are highly valued.
It is rather amusing to see that those aspects criteria apply more to Germany during history than e.g. France, a country that I suspect was classified by him as "Latin". Remember it was France that became increasingly centralized since the Middle Ages, while in Germany local authorities became more and more important. Not to mention that the HRE allowed individual rights like the choice of (Christian) confession. Even Bismarck's Empire was more federalized than contemporary France. The only brief time period in which the opposite was true wouble be the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. And since 1949 it has reverted back to the former.
As in...France: highly centralized state compared to Germany: federation with fa reaching rights for the Bundesländer which value their self-rule very highly.
And since 1949 it has reverted back to the former.
Unlike Poland of course, which tried to decentralise things in 1998 and failed miserably. Today, the (unelected) provincial governors wield an extraordinary amount of power compared to the democratically elected provincial governments.
Still heavily centralized. In fact the revolution put even more power in the hands of the central government than before, because some local authorities tried to resist the revolution (think of Vendee).
No, you miss the point. I listed those key words as the main reason for highly (not heavily) centralized France. Royal France wasn't that centralised - its a bad rep than anything else.
It was very centralized for its' time at last. There were of course limits of the time (e.g. the still very underdeveloped bureaucracy) but if there is one example of a centralized country in the Early Modern Time period, it is France.
I've found urban Poles completely at home in being considered Eastern Europeans with a large dose of Western culture, from their alphabet to their religion.
I readily admit that historically, the more rustic Poles from far-flung areas of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire DID tend to remain closer to the language aka local dialect and folk traditions of Ukraine and Russia than to the German-speaking regions of the West.
Mentally Western or Eastern? Polish society seams to be strongly internally divided. As every society, after all. On various issues.
But, considering that first Polish contact with western Europe and Rome occurred via western Balkan Serbians, I must say, it would be much better if first Serbian instructions to Poles about Romans was just to burn Roman trader on the first spot (that`s how it started, with traders). What I want to tell you, we wouldn`t even talk of things like this if we Serbs were more vigilant. Orientation of Poles was well cemented and it was not for discussion. But, today, we talk.
In my opinion Poland is and historically was mostly, the bright example of a typical borderline, middle of the road, 50/50 country. What is the problem here? Does it serve as an identity crisis background?
Majority of European countries are the crossroads of cultures to some degree, as they never existed in complete isolation. It relates to Ukraine, Russia, Belarus as well.
"Feliks Koneczny, a Polish pre-war historian and philosopher, has defined types of culture and civilisations as follows:
Latin civilization in which ethics are source of law. If some laws are not ethical, then they are changed. Individuality, self-rule and decentralization are highly valued. He considered it the highest type of civilisation.
Jewish civilization in which the law, which derives from Talmud, is the source of ethics. The law cannot be changed. However, the same law can be differently interpreted, which leads to ethical relativism."
Probably you will laugh, but Felix Koneczny believed that Poland is an example of ... TURANIAN civilization! Therefore you have to be careful with different amateurish theories.
Always go to genesis to understand situation. Science says that Russians separated from Poles and at time when separated (as nomads!), ancestors of modern day Poles were themselves nomadic.
Listen. After last Ice age was finished Proto-Slavic (ie Sarmatian, ie Slavic) civilization started to spread from minimum 2 Ice age refugiums (1-Balkan and 2-Crimea). Plus, there were our ancients that were outside of Europe. Re-population of Europe went primarily along great rivers and most active was branch from Balkan. They reached Baltic and established strong European backbone, wide line from Balkan to Baltic. They populated entire Baltic and from Baltic they populated complete British islands. They were first sedentary Sarmats.
As for Poland`s population, in particular, as genetics confirms, 40% of all Poles genetically belongs to that oldest Sarmatian wave in Europe (actually, first native Europeans after Ice age was finished). Rest of Polish genetic findings confirms that other branch from Crimea, later, also arrived and merged with first branch. Now, considering that tribes of first wave already populated Baltic and let`s say half of Poland, half of what is now Germany, etc; great deal of tribes of second wave was forced to jump over (travel thru) settled area of first branch and that is how what is now France and Spain were populated. That is also confirmed by linguistics.
As for Russians, genetics confirms that in its entirety Russian genome coming from that second Polish (ie Sarmatian) wave from Crimea. They separated as nomadic branch consisting completely from males that separated, gathered from probably several tribes and traveled Eastern, North-Eastern. Considering that they were nomads, presumably is that entire second Sarmatian branch was actually nomadic (I was surprised with this finding because expected that at least those ancients on Crimea were sedentary but seams that during Ice age itself Crimean ancients mingled with steppe branches from steppes). On the other side, Balkan branch during Ice age preferable communicated with those Sarmats from Anatolia who were also mainly sedentary. So, see, Russians are Poles by their male genetic line.
I'm not sure how Felix Koneczny theory is relevant nowdays. Official laws and official govt. structure is not much different in different countries. Presently, this is the low obedience and police efficiency which defines the difference.
However, the same law can be differently interpreted, which leads to ethical relativism.
Felix Koneczny had no idea what he was saying. Talmudic law is strict and, contrary to its own claims, deviates quite substantially from Torah. That "the same law can be differently interpreted" comes not from "ethical relativism" but from the Haskalah, in which reformers such as (I kid you not; this was the guy's name) Isaac Satanow played a significant part. Unfortunately, many took that as a license to discount the inerrancy and infallibility of Tanakh altogether and conveniently still lump in the Talmud with Tanakh in order to justify the discounting.
