Let’s argue!
“the Slavs are most courageous and violent, and if it was not for disputes caused by the proliferation of divisions in their branches and fragmentation into tribes, no people would be able to match their strength”
Those words, written over a thousand years ago by Ibrahim ibn Yaqub, are one of the best known and most cited description of the Slavic nature – a description rarely (if at all) questioned. This quote is frequently used as an argument for pan-slavism, to show what a powerful force Slavs would be if we could only unite. But the question of credibility of Ibrahim’s assessment of Slavs remains unanswered. Were Slavs really so violent, so divided and disputed/argued so much? Maybe, as with many other historical sources, ibn Yaqub’s descriptions are distorted by lack of understanding of the culture of our ancestors?
The Journey of Ibrahim ibn Yaqub (thanks to: By Popik - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=83847845)
Slavic democracy
Ibrahim ibn Yaqub was a merchant, possibly a spy and/or a diplomat, as well as – perhaps – a physician. He was born in Spain (Catalonia or Andalusia) and was either a Sephardi Jew, or a Muslim of Jewish ancestry. He was most certainly highly educated, well-rounded, from a good family and influential enough to be received by Holy Roman Emperor Otto I himself. Why does it matter where Ibrahim was from? As it turns out – quite a lot.
Ibrahim grew up in a world of very complex, hierarchical social structure. In a world, where everybody had (and knew) his/her own place, where the social status of an individual was determined by traditions and laws, which nobody dared to contest. In the elites of both Jewish and Muslim culture everybody knew how to speak, what to speak, what to do, what to wear, how low to bow, what’s allowed and what’s forbidden. Even if somebody did not agree with the social order, nobody (or – only few) dared to question the status quo. Rebelling brought – in the best case – social alienation, and in the worst case – death.
When Ibrahim visited Slavic land, Slavs, for at least a few hundred years, lived in a democratic society. They themselves created their laws and elected their leaders. Their social hierarchy was build on the basis of competency not on ancestry/lineage. In order to hold any position of responsibility – to be a żertsa (a priest), a warrior, a ruler etc – required one to have certain abilities and skills, which were verified in real time by the society and, what’s more important, by reality. Any doubts about competency of the people in position of power were discussed publicly on wiec (a public meeting like Old English Moot, or Germanic Thing), where those accused of incompetence had to explain themselves and address the accusations in a satisfactory manner: they had to present their actions/decisions in different/more favourable light, explain why the accusations could be unfounded, show any hidden motivations of the accuser. One who held a position of power in the Slavic society had to be able to justify and answer for any of his/hers decisions, had to present his/hers opinions/points of view in a clear and understandable way.
Pre-Christian Slavs learnt very early that their own opinion is not only worth having but also worth expressing. To rise in the social hierarchy of Slavs required real abilities and achievements. Being born in the right family or having the right political backing wasn’t very helpful in the long run, therefore our Slavic ancestors had no reason to hide their strength or their abilities. They knew that to achieve something in their life they had to rely on themselves and themselves only. Additionally the religion of pre-Christian Slavs did not give any promises for afterlife, so Slavs had no reason to suffer or punish themselves, like Jews, Muslim or Christian had to do, according to the rules of their religion. It’s no wonder then, that in the eyes of Ibrahim ibn Yaqub Slavs appeared loud, violent and divided/argumentative. The merchant/spy, brought up in a hierarchical, restrictive and highly regulated culture, interpreted the behaviour of Slavs through the prism of his own knowledge and experience. It is exactly the same reason why many Syrian refugees see European women as lewd. Through the prism of orthodox Islamic culture, uncovered hair or body is not a matter of fashion, but a proof of indecency.
Pax Christi
In the modern world being argumentative, violent or divided are considered negative traits. Despite the fact that we live (or at least I assume the readers of Witia’s blog live) in democracy and (supposedly) we enjoy our freedom of speech, from very early childhood we are taught to be humble, quiet, obedient and not to argue (with grownups, neighbours, spouses etc.). Our socialisation is based on supressing the ability to: think for ourselves, express our own opinion, confront our own opinion with the opinions of others. We are taught to self-censor our words and thoughts to make sure we do not to offend anyone. We are only allowed to criticise ourselves, ideally crying out mea culpa and taking blame for all the world’s suffering , but all attempts to criticise others’ opinions or actions are cut down with accusations of xenophobia, chauvinism, feminism, Nazism, fascism, Marxism, leftism, sexism, colonialism, intolerance (delete as appropriate).
Where did this amicability of Western culture come from? Why are we so opposed to arguing? How is it possible that our secular, democratic, rainbow society of independent women, men and all other genders, is so, so scared of different opinions, that we gag with accusations anybody who dares to have a different point of view? Why in seemingly diverse and free society we are still stuck in prison of censorship and political correctness? It seems that the roots of this enforced humility and obedience can be found in the Christian ideology, dominating Europe for hundreds of years.
I know it’s hard to believe, but Christianity was born as a deeply pacifistic movement. The first Christians were not allowed to kill, fight, argue or go against their God’s will in any other way. Although such attitude was very helpful on the first stages of the development of Christianity (I wrote about it here), with time it started to be more and more troublesome.
Under the rule of Constantin the Great (who had to fight off the “barbarians”) a concept of fighting in the name of faith was born, which resulted in the development of “just war” theory. This theory allowed Christian to fight in defence of the innocent. Next were Crusades – born from the doctrine of holy war, which presented killing of the heathens as a penance for one’s sins. However, despite lots of efforts going into thinking up ways to allow pacifistic Christians to pursue military conquest, until this day the theologist and thinkers have not come up with a doctrine which would allow Christians to argue amongst themselves. Well, it’s no wonder really, as having an argumentative subjects has never been in the best interest of the Church or the State, while military conquest has always been very profitable for both. So, for hundreds of years generations of Christians had to follow the religious doctrine and, without a word of dissent they had to fulfil the will of the “shepherds”. This obedience and acceptance of pointless suffering is called “carrying one’s own cross” and is expected of every Christian to this very day. Considering that the European culture is saturated with the ideas and ideals of Christianity, it is not surprising that we are, as society, meek and obedient as lambs are.
The argument ‘s anatomy
To understand why argumentativeness is considered to be a negative feature in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, we have to understand first what exactly an argument is. In the most wide meaning an argument is a vehement conversation of two people of diametrically different points of view. So, in order to have an argument we need to have first:
our own opinion – strong enough to want to defend it;
access to a person/persons holding a different opinion. Opinion, it has to be added, strong enough to be worth defending;
ability to express own opinion clearly enough for the other person/persons to hear and understand it (because if our opinion is not heard/understood it wouldn’t trigger an argument);
ability to hear/understand the person/persons holding a different point of view;
ability to formulate and modify our arguments in response to the arguments of the person/persons we argue with.
An argument requires thinking, having an opinion, listening with understanding and, what is most important – an argument requires to have a contact with people of a different points of view. Talking to somebody who shares our outlook we can only confirm our way of thinking, but we most certainly will not have an argument. However talking – or arguing – with somebody of different opinion we can easily learn something new and maybe even change our opinion about a given topic. So an argument is one of the basic form of learning, exploring the world, exchanging opinions and thoughts. This is why arguing was and still is so frown upon in the Judeo-Christian culture. Brainwashed “sheeps” carefully separated from different points of views and outlooks are much more likely to be docile and obedient, than people like our argumentative, “violent and divided” Slavic ancestors.
Anti-totalitarian vaccination
The history, particularly the events of the XX century show us how dangerous can excessive agreeability of the society be. The ideas of Nazism or Stalinism would not have brought such a bloody harvest, if the individuals living in those totalitarian systems did not agree to it. “Orders are orders” was the most common defence line in the Nuremberg trials; if the Soviet communists (and then the whole Soviet society) were not as docile and obedient as they were, Josef Stalin would remain a rude commissar with grandiosity issues. The totalitarian ideas would never have become dangerous, if it wasn’t for the people who were ready to make them happen. Let’s not forget – the people who were ready to accept and bring to life Nazism or Stalinism, lived only a few decades ago – in the historical perspective it like yesterday. We are not that far from those people. Our education system, our social order, ethical values and our laws were built on the same foundations which supported the bloody buildings of the totalitarian systems. The Milgram experiment and its more recent variations prove that a few decades of “freedom” will not charm away hundreds of years to Christian brainwashing into obedience and agreeability.
Were then Slavs divided and violent? From our, saturated with Judeo-Christian ideology, perspective they probably were. But from the point of view of pre-christian Slavs – they most certainly were not. However we look at it, despite the lack of unity, the “argumentativeness” of our ancestors, they were still able to create a society stable enough to allow for trade, state or legal system to develop. Despite how “divided” or „fragmented” they were, they manage to have a common language, shared believes and traditions (with world-famous hospitality!), which united them strongly and deeply enough to survive and stay alive until today.
With the approaching festive season (however you want to call it*) I would like to wish you all*, not only the Slavs, to find in you soul the remains of your argumentative, pagan roots. Let’s be as divided as Slavs, despite „violence” and “fragmentation” lets share a common language, traditions and laws. Let’s argue and disagree like our ancestors did on wiec, Moot of Thing*. Let’s have our own opinion – thought though enough to not to be scared of criticism – let’s express it loudly, with pride and let’s allow others to express their opinion too. But, for Gods’ sake, let’s never unite, because Ibrahim ibn Yaqub was right in one thing – the humanity will never survive the totalitarian rule of Slavic Paganism.
Slava!
*to remain politically correct
The commandments of logic - a "religion" created for the sole purpose of arguing by the best known European Pagans - the Ancient Greek and Romans. Enjoy your arguing!(thanks to I fucking love science)