How the Slavic migration reshaped Central and Eastern Europe
mpg.de
mpg.de
From my own research and this article, this seems to be a rare situation? Or I guess the fatherline and motherline are still pretty small percentages, so that lines up with the "minor traces" mentioned.
In Poland specifically, the research overturns earlier ideas of long-term population continuity. Genetic results show that starting in the 6th and 7th centuries CE, the region’s earlier inhabitants—descendants of populations with strong links to Northern Europe and Scandinavia in particular—almost entirely disappeared and were successively replaced by newcomers from the East, who are closely related to modern Poles, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. This conclusion is reinforced by the analysis of some of the earliest known Slavic inhumation graves in Poland, excavated at the site of Gródek, which provide rare and direct evidence of these early migrants. While the population shift was overwhelming, the genetic evidence also reveals minor traces of mixing with local populations. These findings underscore both the scale of population change and the complex dynamics that shaped the roots of today’s Central and Eastern European linguistic landscape.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations
But in reference to the Slavic migrations, I think they likely headed west and south:
Just like we learned in elementary school, 30 years ago.
The etymology deriving from σκυλεύω makes more sense.
In recent years evidence has been accumulating that this was actually right, like the genetic evidence mentioned in TFA.
Though I'm sure Russian jingoists over 60 today too prefer to see Soviet-allied states as "their empire". It's no more true than saying Argentina was a US colony - which means yes, you could say it, but we'd all be dumber for thinking of it like that.
Poles are Slavs, and they colonized EE before Russians took over.
It's just a pointless subdivision within a pointless hierarchy.
Races as defined by Americans don't match skin color nor DNA proximity.
Skin color doesn't match DNA proximity.
And none of these map cleanly into "bully vs victim" subdivisions. Mostly because groups of people move from bullies to victims and back over time. People who systematically have the chance to bully others will eventually do that.
Makes no sense, but the whole idea of races is dumb from the start (same skin color is a very bad proxy for DNA similarity), so it's pointless to correct them.
It's actually a remarkably good one. If we continue to mix for several hundred years more then it won't be. For now, it is.
It's like we've split the encyclopedia into three books: A-S, T, and U-Z.
This isn't true.
At various points in time Italians, Jews, Slavs weren't considered "white" in US.
See the above joke. It's seriously how many Americans think even now.
> Slavic peoples were considered to be people of an "inferior race" who were unable to assimilate into American society.[4] They were originally not considered to be "fully white" (and thus fully American), and Slavic peoples' "whiteness" continues to be a debate to this day, but most people consider them to be of Caucasian culture
edit:
One of them is just some 24 minute movie.
The other is false. The Immigration Act of 1924 did not establish any category of "inferior" races or countries.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt promoted a Good Neighbor policy that sought better relations with Mexico. In 1935, a federal judge ruled that three Mexican immigrants were ineligible for citizenship because they were not white, as required by federal law.
Mexico protested, and Roosevelt decided to circumvent the decision and make sure the federal government treated Hispanics as white. The State Department, the Census Bureau, the Labor Department, and other government agencies therefore made sure to uniformly classify people of Mexican descent as white.
This policy encouraged the League of United Latin American Citizens in its quest to minimize discrimination by asserting their whiteness.
The race category of "Mexican" was eliminated in 1940, and the population of Mexican descent was counted with the white population.
What started as Slaves OR Free Whites OR Other Free People later granulated in fair arbirtray and often political ways: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USCensus...
The entire "science of race" in the US was fairly arbitrary phrenology adjacent quack science.
And Protestantism didn't exist until centuries after the Anglo-Saxons stopped being identifiable groups, if they ever were
And quite likely, you will also need another fairly arbitrary decision of which groups to include as "white" (if you included Turkic people as white, and saw them as a single group, I'm pretty sure there are more of them than Slavs).
I think a core problem there is that people fail to realize that emphasizing and celebrating the own ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion opens the door for discrimination along those lines.
Demonstrating "pride" to belong to some group is never consequence-free, and often a really bad trade-off overall.
But I also think there are positive ways of celebrating your culture.
I think you're right, I was being too prohibitive.
When people start to reduce their own identity (and their judgement of others) to just one dimension is where the actually dangerous territory starts, but it is a very easy position to end up in sadly (even right after being on the receiving end).
If you look at Viking migration by DNA, you can find 1:1 match with Grant's Nordic peoples areas in Europe.