This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
They are sourced and show how contradictory his public views were with beliefs expressed in private life, also we should make clear distinction between his views being seen as supportive of inferiority of Poles during German Empire and his views being seen as supportive of the theory that Poles were subhuman in Third German Reich, right now the sentences combine the two.A distinction should be made.Also since we have the quotes, I see why they shouldn't be put into place.Seems to a bit of an effort to present him only in a way that won't mention his rather negative sides. -- Molobo 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also the terms describing his attitude in view of the quotes seem very light. Outright claims that Poles are on animal level indicate a way more serious beliefs then simple insults. -- Molobo 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
In order to add racism to the article we would need a wider support for the view We have direct quotes of Forster in which he views Poles as animals. -- Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We are describing Forster's negative side Why are you avoiding putting into text his famous and studied quotes portaying Poles as animals ? -- Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
However, we should not describe his views as "racist". The concept of racism emerged only more than 50 years after his death While definitions what constitutes racism might have been formulated after Forster died, it doesn't make them irrelevant to this person, as such views could have been held earlier even without proper ideology or definitions. Dehumanising other human beings (as seen by his quotes) is an obvious comment belonging within definition of racism. Burleigh book is far from the evidence that Forster held the view that [[Racism|human species can meaningfully be divided into races] Well Forster viewed that Poles are like animals.How should we describe Forster's belief that Poles aren't part of human race but more like pigs ? -- Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore the word insults seems inappropriate-at least it should be negative stereotypes or prejudice against Polish people. -- Molobo 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The passage:
has been removed due to possible POV/OR suspection. Basically, the sentence
is just a summary of the last paragraphs in the paper by Pauline Kleingeld which is mentioned in the bibliography (starting with With the exception of Friedrich Schlegel's version of international...) The content in the second sentence may be regarded as POV/OR, but still there is some evidence in the sources which can support that. It is the matter of good will to add the information. If you think it makes sense, I can gather the support for that and we will see if it's legitimate to include the information. However, I am not going to insist on reintroduction of that information. Still, the information from the first sentence is an information I consider to be crucial for the section. alx-pl D 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all the placement of the sentence in question may be a little bit misleading after the sentence of cosmopolitanism. The first sentence introduces the context in which the second may be interpreted as if it describes his recognition after his death while the actual intent is to describe the way G.F. was received in his lifetime. This should be probably fixed. I will gradually provide the support for the consecutive parts of the sentence (it is very time consuming to find once again the evidence):
alx-pl D 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know an explanation why for Poles in later years his intellectualism that led him to deduct Poles are like pigs was too high to grasp ? The sentence doesn't after all speak about his experience in university in general, but about Poles in XIX century in general. As such your quote isn't connected to the issue I put up. -- Molobo 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The new sentence says his "cosmopolitan" ideas weren't welcomed. This is contradicted by Forster himself in his private letters, where he shows prejudice to other nations.Obviously his ideas about Poles were supported by nationalists in Germany, so the article contradicts itself now. -- Molobo 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The sentence states clearly that his cosmopolitan ideas Except of course that we already have evidence in the article that his cosmopolitian ideas were just in public, and he held harsh "uncosmopolitian" ideas in private.The formulating of the sentence is misleading. It should write something like "his publicly expressed views often viewed as cosmopolitian weren't welcomed, while his negative stereotypes and insults towards other nations that he held in private were welcomed and supported by German nationalists." -- Molobo 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We have two contradictory sentences : Said insults only became known after his death, when his private correspondence and diaries were released to the public. Since Forster's published descriptions of other nations were seen as impartial scientific observations, Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of science-based support for a purported German superiority[7]. And later: In the Germany of Wilhelm II and even more so in the Third Reich, Forster's memory was ostracized. This two sentences obviously contradict each other. -- Molobo 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They might have used his opinions in the following context: Even this traitor Forster admits that Poles were swines' This is your POV. Please provide scholary source. Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational and thus was a hissing and reproach to the conservatives who dominated German scholarship in the nighteenth century This only about his public views. We already have sources confirming Forsters acceptence among German nationalists due to his private views.-- Molobo 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational Contradicted by his private views in higher and lesser nations-that is those who are like pigs and those he believed were more human then Poles. A clear distinction should be made between his public stated views and his private ones.We shouldn't confuse readers. -- Molobo 20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Then I suggest stating so, mentioning specific facts, without incorrect generalisations that contradict earlier information found in the article.-- Molobo 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the specifc information- -It will expand the article in positive way -It will avoid portaying Forster as unaccaptable to German people, since his views were supported by German nationalists. -- Molobo 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I challenge you to find any source that says "Forster's views were supported by German nationalists" Both Bismarck and Hitler believed Poles to be animals didn't they ? The concept that Poles are inferior to such degree that they are almost animals is widely found in German nationalism. -- Molobo 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Which would mean that you deny that either: -The German nationalists viewed Poles as inferior people, compared them to animals, viewed them as dirty, stupid people. -that Forster didn't held such views-easly proved by quotes above(of course he wasn't the only one among German scholars whose darker sides aren't researched so well, Weber had also similiar views, which aren't so well known). -- Molobo 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source Kusma challenged you for that says about Forster himself? Where is the source claiming German nationalists didn't view Poles as inferior and animal like ? Or are you trying to say Bismarck didn't tell his sister that they are like wolves to be shot, or Hitler that they are subhumans ? Or Forster that they are as pigs ?
did also Bismarck and Hitler supported the ideas behind and freedoms promised by French Revolution?
It would be enjoyable to write the article how the one firsts acts of genocide that was made in modern era during French Revolution and its totalitarian ideology influenced Hitler's totalitarian views as well as anti-catholicism.But this is not the scope of the article, like I said, views that were presented by Forster in public were different from his private ones, and currentely you aren't distinguishing between the two in many parts of the article, which makes it confusing. Furthermore you still didn't answer why we can't have quotes demonstrating Forster's private views in the article. -- Molobo 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Molobo 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC) How about exchangin the POV sentence with this one ?
The Poles didn't know what he said against them, and I can see no proof of malice on Forster's part by the way Excuse me ? You see nothing wrong with claiming another nations is inferior on animal level, compering whole nation to pigs ? Sorry If you believe one can Poles like me in this way, and it isn't malicious then I am afraid there is a very big problem regarding your edits. You see nothing wrong in claiming that Poles are animals ? -- Molobo 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
malevolent, which is a POV you would need to prove, citing sources' Sure thing: The Poles are innately swine (Forster to Therese Heyne, 22-24 January 1785). http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815), by Dariusz üukasiewicz. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of the history and social sciences series. 183 pages. Illustrations, tables and indices of persons, localities, and topics. ISSN 0079-4651. ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften)
I am just trying to see them in context and judge them fairly.
Dear German collegue can I know what is the context that allows people to claim Poles are inferior animals that you are speaking of or the what is the fair judgment of the belief that Poles are inferior animals that you also mention ?
--
Molobo
02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Simpe information provided by Kusma-mainly that the focus on Forster's description of Poles was they were pigs. As of yet they were only slight sentences without any information that would inform the reader what the exact terms were. -- Molobo 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Care to say why those quotes shouldn't be inserted or at least described by a simple sentence to an interested reader who hasn't got the references ?
--
Molobo
02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please try to be fair and try to use a better argument then "but he said Poles are animals" which misses the point What point ? The case is clear he described Poles as animals ? Why are you trying to stop mentioning this fact in the article ? -- Molobo 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I can provide some good things Forster said about Poland if you wish. That's hardly an argument. I got tonnes of things German propaganda said about Poles that were positive during the period of 1939-1944. Forster's antipolish stance is studied till these days, and that is what counts.I see no reason why we should avoid mentioning the exact statements made by him that led to such studies. -- Molobo 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Care to say why those quotes shouldn't be inserted or at least described by a simple sentence to an interested reader who hasn't got the references ? -- Molobo 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but Forster's isn't studied as a source of good will towards Polish people but as creator of negative stereotypes. Adding too much about his views on Poles is out of proportion with the rest of the article Adding one sentence that shows what were the stereotypes and comparisions he used won't overshadow the article. I heartily rejoice at seeing the freedom that every noble Pole enjoys Huh ? This is a complement on freedom, it doesn't have to speak about Poles who he viewed as pigs. -- Molobo 10:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are confusing personal disputes with labeling a whole nation and classifing them as animals. Of course knowing your tolerance Alx I know you have no ill feelings when somebody calls Poles pigs or believes they are animals. But lest assured that most people are not as tolerant as you towards labeling their nation as such :)Anyway your point is easly discredited as such remarks are refered in study about German prejudice towards Poles. -- Molobo 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If anybody describes a whole nation as inferior animallike people-yes in my view that is racism. -- Molobo 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If they believe that a whole nation is inferior animal-like people-yes. -- Molobo 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, still, this is another case No, not really, Forster believes Poles are inferior and describes them as animals. Where is the difference between that and believing a nation is a an inferior animal-like people ? Or is just because they are Poles ? -- Molobo 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Defining ethnic groups as animals seems pretty good example of racism Alx. As to personal relations between married couples this is hardly on topic Alx. Married people can develop a code of words which makes even insults intimate allusions-but enough of that and stay on topic please. -- Molobo 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
For example, there is a difference between public hatemongering and private bitterness even if the very same words are used Which is not the case with Forster, since he didn't addres some private Polish person whom he viewed as animal, but he addresed the whole Polish nation, nobody private. -- Molobo 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He did not address the Polish nation, he wrote to his future wife. He described the whole Polish nation not his wife. Also, he made exceptions and admitted the existence of Poles that he were sufficiently civilised for his taste, as shown in the context of the "swine" quote above. Which proves he was not racist. All racist make exceptions when it suits them(that is when they have to face reality(, this is hardly an argument: At this moment we want to give the Polish soldier absolute justice. At many points the Pole fought bravely. [1] Adolf Hitler. I doubt his praise about bravery of Polish soldiers should convice us he wasn't an racist. Similar-Forster is studied for his negative attitude towards Poles not praises. -- Molobo 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This is an article about Georg Forster not about Georg Forster's attitude toward Poles Sorry but Georg Forster is known for his antipolish statements and he is subject of study when analysing negative stereotypes about Poles in German society. Georg's Forsters views on Poles are as appropriate as his views on other aspects of the world. -- Molobo 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No I don't have to. The mention of his antipolish views is only made in one or two sentences, and I have proven beyond any doubt that he expressed such views, In fact you agreed with me already that he did. The argument that I should find English sources fits exactly into the stereotypical http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_deal_with_Poles Rule number six: As soon as discussion is started, ask them for sources. Don't worry when they will provide you sources, they will be most likely written by Polish authors. Tell them that Polish authors are known by their dishonesty and bias. Demand English sources. In most unlikely scenario when you will be presented with English sources, you still have a chance. If the dispute is about history of, say, Germany, demand German sources as they will most likely know about history of their own country (and Germans are not Poles, so they won't be biased). If this is dispute about history of Poland, demand a book written by some totally neutral author, say, Chinese. English research doesn't cover every aspect of the world, and for example you can hardly find mention about atrocities of German units in English research on them, as they concentrate on other things. As to Forster's attitude towards Poles this is not a minority view but fact that isn't known well by western researchers. Thus there is no reason for delete it unless you can find that Forster didn't held such views. And I already presented several sources where they are studied. -- Molobo 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Kusma if you believe racism isn't the right word, what other formulation do you suggest ? -- Molobo 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is he stated as German ? The article again contradicts itself-he was born in Poland, with Scotish ancestors, never felt like Pole, yet Germans rejected him. Please discuss. -- Molobo 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the basis on this opinion-was he not of Scottish descent ? Did he regard himself as German ? -- Molobo 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed unsourced opinion : unhappy with the lack of intellectual stimulation he encountered among Poles Alx claims the staff was Polish-I would like Alx to provide a scholary resource proving that among people Forster encountered in Lithuanian Vilnius none were of German, Lithuanian, Russian, Jewish background and all were pure ethnic Poles. -- Molobo 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in the culture of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since this is not the source of dispute. Please provide source on ethnic background of the people who he met. Without that you can't claim they were Poles. Your sentence speaks about Poles-not about Polish culture, or the language used in the university. Furthermore Vilnius had different culture then for example Poznan or Kraków, the only thing that you need to do is to give example who he met that made him claim such things and why do you believe all those people were ethnic Poles. Unless of course you want to claim that Lithuanians, Jews, Germans had no identity in Lithuania and were all Poles. -- Molobo 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Polish elite ? I suggest then to prove they were ethnic Poles. For starters I recommend making a list of the people you claim were part of some alledged elite in his enviroment. Then point out which one made him do such comments. -- Molobo 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So you are claiming that there was only Polish identity in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ? This would be very hard for you to argue I am afraid Alx-pl. Anwyay you wanted to write that he was frustrated by Poles not by Polish culture-are you now trying to say he was frustrated by Polish culture ? -- Molobo 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand your current position is that it is right to name people at Vilnius univerisity as Poles because you believe Polish culture was the only option for them ? -- Molobo 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If it debatable why not named it the climate at Vilnius ? Since calling Poles seems POV and would need to be explained, as even you agreed that that people who encountered them considered them as Poles even though they might be of another ethnical background, then perhaps a different wording would be better ? Or do you want to insist on Poles ? If so why ? -- Molobo 01:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I want to insist on Poles. Why ? Such wording would be unfair, since you now claim that he got in conflict with inviduals. Why not name them if you got sources confirming this ? Your current proposed wording would suggest Poles in general ware intellectually inferior to Forster. Obviously this would consitute a very strong POV which would have to be corrected. Perhaps better wording would be such "because Forster viewed Poles as intellectuall inferior to him". Of course that is only if you insist on such sentence. But I don't understand why you want to do it since obviously this is very POV ? -- Molobo 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Molobo 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but Alx didn't present any quotes about Polish attitudes towards Forster, but only about Forster's attitude. I am waiting for sources and quotes. -- Molobo 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) And contribute to this debate in a more constructive way I am contributing in constructive way, without my help, Forster's full image wouldn't be presented and the hypocracy behind his public and private statements wouldn't be known to reader. Of course we still need examples, since the reader isn't informed in what ways Forster did insult nations he considered animal-like. I still don't know why you are refusing that the article should have examples. -- Molobo 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a request in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to resolve the dispute. This is the first step to take as Wikipedia:Resolving disputes suggests. alx-pl D 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nassenhuben records were removed from article, therefore posted here: Nassenhuben Official Records of Inhabitants
Georg Forster was born in Landkreis Danziger Niederung in a small village, named Nassenhuben in Prussia (aka Royal Prussia). Nassenhuben was the property of the noble family of Schwartzenberg [2] until its annexation by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772. Earlier Nassenhuben was known as Mutterstrenz.
In 1660 Professor Daniel Ernst Jablonski was also born in Nassenhuben, Danziger Niederung. MG 4/8/2006
Here are all the churches in the area Danzig Stadt and Danzig Land(kreis): [3]
Only Danzig seems to have had some Catholic churches [4] The overwhelming majority was Evangelisch- Protestant. Polish language was not used, why should it have been? It was not Poland. Danzig Landkreis , several hundred towns included, changed from Low-German language in 1566 to High German. This Royal Prussia stuff in Wikipedia does not reflect factual events.
The de: German Wikipedia copies much from ENglish wikipedia, it is about as reliable as the English wikipedia.
And when and if Forster said something like this (which I have not seen any original copy, and therefore cannot confirm) then he referred to what became known as Polish Prussia or Royal Prussia about the time of the Imperial Kurfürsten August the Strong and August III.
I have looked at a lot of old maps and I have never seen anything other than Prussia for both parts western and eastern Prussia, before 1700's. I have several times asked Polish editors to post anything , that shows the term Polish or Royal added to Prussia before 1700 in connection to the Copernicus debates, but no one has posted any earlier reference. Therefore I believe, the western part of Prussia should not be referred to as Royal or Polish Prussia, until it was actually started to be called that.
The earliest possible time it could be claimed by Polish as Polish Prussia, would be 1569, when the Polish sejm one-sidedly declared western Prussia Polish, against the wishes of the Land and people involved. But at that time it was Lithuania-Poland-Swedish, married to Habsburg royal dynasties.
When Danzig and Elbing (which were Hanse cities, since 1477 city states, while in some connection to 'Polish' crown) were occupied by Saxon and Russian troops, the king of Prussia, Frederick II , called the Prussians 'Russians'. because under occupation they had to submit to the Tzarina. Does that make them Russian for the time they were occupied by Russia, same for the Swedish occupations?
Perhaps from 1945 to 1990 in what is today Bundesrepublik Germany, there were no German, but only British, French, Americans and Russians in British Germany and French Germany and American Germany and Russian Germany . After all, Germany was under the highest authority of the Allies. right? Following this 'logic' that has overtaken this Wikipedia, a large number of Germans or Prussians, actually everyone east of the Oder-Neisse or better yet east of the Else-Saale and why not East of the Rhine river were actually all Polish, right ??? MG 4/8/2006
You'll need better inline citations to get featured, but looks good enough for a GA tag. Keep up the good work. savidan (talk) (e@) 10:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why examples of remarks against Poland made by Forster aren't presented to the reader. -- Molobo 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
They are sourced and show how contradictory his public views were with beliefs expressed in private life, also we should make clear distinction between his views being seen as supportive of inferiority of Poles during German Empire and his views being seen as supportive of the theory that Poles were subhuman in Third German Reich, right now the sentences combine the two.A distinction should be made.Also since we have the quotes, I see why they shouldn't be put into place.Seems to a bit of an effort to present him only in a way that won't mention his rather negative sides. -- Molobo 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also the terms describing his attitude in view of the quotes seem very light. Outright claims that Poles are on animal level indicate a way more serious beliefs then simple insults. -- Molobo 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
In order to add racism to the article we would need a wider support for the view We have direct quotes of Forster in which he views Poles as animals. -- Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We are describing Forster's negative side Why are you avoiding putting into text his famous and studied quotes portaying Poles as animals ? -- Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
However, we should not describe his views as "racist". The concept of racism emerged only more than 50 years after his death While definitions what constitutes racism might have been formulated after Forster died, it doesn't make them irrelevant to this person, as such views could have been held earlier even without proper ideology or definitions. Dehumanising other human beings (as seen by his quotes) is an obvious comment belonging within definition of racism. Burleigh book is far from the evidence that Forster held the view that [[Racism|human species can meaningfully be divided into races] Well Forster viewed that Poles are like animals.How should we describe Forster's belief that Poles aren't part of human race but more like pigs ? -- Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore the word insults seems inappropriate-at least it should be negative stereotypes or prejudice against Polish people. -- Molobo 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The passage:
has been removed due to possible POV/OR suspection. Basically, the sentence
is just a summary of the last paragraphs in the paper by Pauline Kleingeld which is mentioned in the bibliography (starting with With the exception of Friedrich Schlegel's version of international...) The content in the second sentence may be regarded as POV/OR, but still there is some evidence in the sources which can support that. It is the matter of good will to add the information. If you think it makes sense, I can gather the support for that and we will see if it's legitimate to include the information. However, I am not going to insist on reintroduction of that information. Still, the information from the first sentence is an information I consider to be crucial for the section. alx-pl D 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all the placement of the sentence in question may be a little bit misleading after the sentence of cosmopolitanism. The first sentence introduces the context in which the second may be interpreted as if it describes his recognition after his death while the actual intent is to describe the way G.F. was received in his lifetime. This should be probably fixed. I will gradually provide the support for the consecutive parts of the sentence (it is very time consuming to find once again the evidence):
alx-pl D 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know an explanation why for Poles in later years his intellectualism that led him to deduct Poles are like pigs was too high to grasp ? The sentence doesn't after all speak about his experience in university in general, but about Poles in XIX century in general. As such your quote isn't connected to the issue I put up. -- Molobo 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The new sentence says his "cosmopolitan" ideas weren't welcomed. This is contradicted by Forster himself in his private letters, where he shows prejudice to other nations.Obviously his ideas about Poles were supported by nationalists in Germany, so the article contradicts itself now. -- Molobo 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The sentence states clearly that his cosmopolitan ideas Except of course that we already have evidence in the article that his cosmopolitian ideas were just in public, and he held harsh "uncosmopolitian" ideas in private.The formulating of the sentence is misleading. It should write something like "his publicly expressed views often viewed as cosmopolitian weren't welcomed, while his negative stereotypes and insults towards other nations that he held in private were welcomed and supported by German nationalists." -- Molobo 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We have two contradictory sentences : Said insults only became known after his death, when his private correspondence and diaries were released to the public. Since Forster's published descriptions of other nations were seen as impartial scientific observations, Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of science-based support for a purported German superiority[7]. And later: In the Germany of Wilhelm II and even more so in the Third Reich, Forster's memory was ostracized. This two sentences obviously contradict each other. -- Molobo 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They might have used his opinions in the following context: Even this traitor Forster admits that Poles were swines' This is your POV. Please provide scholary source. Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational and thus was a hissing and reproach to the conservatives who dominated German scholarship in the nighteenth century This only about his public views. We already have sources confirming Forsters acceptence among German nationalists due to his private views.-- Molobo 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational Contradicted by his private views in higher and lesser nations-that is those who are like pigs and those he believed were more human then Poles. A clear distinction should be made between his public stated views and his private ones.We shouldn't confuse readers. -- Molobo 20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Then I suggest stating so, mentioning specific facts, without incorrect generalisations that contradict earlier information found in the article.-- Molobo 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the specifc information- -It will expand the article in positive way -It will avoid portaying Forster as unaccaptable to German people, since his views were supported by German nationalists. -- Molobo 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I challenge you to find any source that says "Forster's views were supported by German nationalists" Both Bismarck and Hitler believed Poles to be animals didn't they ? The concept that Poles are inferior to such degree that they are almost animals is widely found in German nationalism. -- Molobo 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Which would mean that you deny that either: -The German nationalists viewed Poles as inferior people, compared them to animals, viewed them as dirty, stupid people. -that Forster didn't held such views-easly proved by quotes above(of course he wasn't the only one among German scholars whose darker sides aren't researched so well, Weber had also similiar views, which aren't so well known). -- Molobo 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source Kusma challenged you for that says about Forster himself? Where is the source claiming German nationalists didn't view Poles as inferior and animal like ? Or are you trying to say Bismarck didn't tell his sister that they are like wolves to be shot, or Hitler that they are subhumans ? Or Forster that they are as pigs ?
did also Bismarck and Hitler supported the ideas behind and freedoms promised by French Revolution?
It would be enjoyable to write the article how the one firsts acts of genocide that was made in modern era during French Revolution and its totalitarian ideology influenced Hitler's totalitarian views as well as anti-catholicism.But this is not the scope of the article, like I said, views that were presented by Forster in public were different from his private ones, and currentely you aren't distinguishing between the two in many parts of the article, which makes it confusing. Furthermore you still didn't answer why we can't have quotes demonstrating Forster's private views in the article. -- Molobo 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Molobo 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC) How about exchangin the POV sentence with this one ?
The Poles didn't know what he said against them, and I can see no proof of malice on Forster's part by the way Excuse me ? You see nothing wrong with claiming another nations is inferior on animal level, compering whole nation to pigs ? Sorry If you believe one can Poles like me in this way, and it isn't malicious then I am afraid there is a very big problem regarding your edits. You see nothing wrong in claiming that Poles are animals ? -- Molobo 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
malevolent, which is a POV you would need to prove, citing sources' Sure thing: The Poles are innately swine (Forster to Therese Heyne, 22-24 January 1785). http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815), by Dariusz üukasiewicz. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of the history and social sciences series. 183 pages. Illustrations, tables and indices of persons, localities, and topics. ISSN 0079-4651. ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften)
I am just trying to see them in context and judge them fairly.
Dear German collegue can I know what is the context that allows people to claim Poles are inferior animals that you are speaking of or the what is the fair judgment of the belief that Poles are inferior animals that you also mention ?
--
Molobo
02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Simpe information provided by Kusma-mainly that the focus on Forster's description of Poles was they were pigs. As of yet they were only slight sentences without any information that would inform the reader what the exact terms were. -- Molobo 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Care to say why those quotes shouldn't be inserted or at least described by a simple sentence to an interested reader who hasn't got the references ?
--
Molobo
02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please try to be fair and try to use a better argument then "but he said Poles are animals" which misses the point What point ? The case is clear he described Poles as animals ? Why are you trying to stop mentioning this fact in the article ? -- Molobo 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I can provide some good things Forster said about Poland if you wish. That's hardly an argument. I got tonnes of things German propaganda said about Poles that were positive during the period of 1939-1944. Forster's antipolish stance is studied till these days, and that is what counts.I see no reason why we should avoid mentioning the exact statements made by him that led to such studies. -- Molobo 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Care to say why those quotes shouldn't be inserted or at least described by a simple sentence to an interested reader who hasn't got the references ? -- Molobo 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but Forster's isn't studied as a source of good will towards Polish people but as creator of negative stereotypes. Adding too much about his views on Poles is out of proportion with the rest of the article Adding one sentence that shows what were the stereotypes and comparisions he used won't overshadow the article. I heartily rejoice at seeing the freedom that every noble Pole enjoys Huh ? This is a complement on freedom, it doesn't have to speak about Poles who he viewed as pigs. -- Molobo 10:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are confusing personal disputes with labeling a whole nation and classifing them as animals. Of course knowing your tolerance Alx I know you have no ill feelings when somebody calls Poles pigs or believes they are animals. But lest assured that most people are not as tolerant as you towards labeling their nation as such :)Anyway your point is easly discredited as such remarks are refered in study about German prejudice towards Poles. -- Molobo 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If anybody describes a whole nation as inferior animallike people-yes in my view that is racism. -- Molobo 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If they believe that a whole nation is inferior animal-like people-yes. -- Molobo 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, still, this is another case No, not really, Forster believes Poles are inferior and describes them as animals. Where is the difference between that and believing a nation is a an inferior animal-like people ? Or is just because they are Poles ? -- Molobo 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Defining ethnic groups as animals seems pretty good example of racism Alx. As to personal relations between married couples this is hardly on topic Alx. Married people can develop a code of words which makes even insults intimate allusions-but enough of that and stay on topic please. -- Molobo 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
For example, there is a difference between public hatemongering and private bitterness even if the very same words are used Which is not the case with Forster, since he didn't addres some private Polish person whom he viewed as animal, but he addresed the whole Polish nation, nobody private. -- Molobo 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He did not address the Polish nation, he wrote to his future wife. He described the whole Polish nation not his wife. Also, he made exceptions and admitted the existence of Poles that he were sufficiently civilised for his taste, as shown in the context of the "swine" quote above. Which proves he was not racist. All racist make exceptions when it suits them(that is when they have to face reality(, this is hardly an argument: At this moment we want to give the Polish soldier absolute justice. At many points the Pole fought bravely. [1] Adolf Hitler. I doubt his praise about bravery of Polish soldiers should convice us he wasn't an racist. Similar-Forster is studied for his negative attitude towards Poles not praises. -- Molobo 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This is an article about Georg Forster not about Georg Forster's attitude toward Poles Sorry but Georg Forster is known for his antipolish statements and he is subject of study when analysing negative stereotypes about Poles in German society. Georg's Forsters views on Poles are as appropriate as his views on other aspects of the world. -- Molobo 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No I don't have to. The mention of his antipolish views is only made in one or two sentences, and I have proven beyond any doubt that he expressed such views, In fact you agreed with me already that he did. The argument that I should find English sources fits exactly into the stereotypical http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_deal_with_Poles Rule number six: As soon as discussion is started, ask them for sources. Don't worry when they will provide you sources, they will be most likely written by Polish authors. Tell them that Polish authors are known by their dishonesty and bias. Demand English sources. In most unlikely scenario when you will be presented with English sources, you still have a chance. If the dispute is about history of, say, Germany, demand German sources as they will most likely know about history of their own country (and Germans are not Poles, so they won't be biased). If this is dispute about history of Poland, demand a book written by some totally neutral author, say, Chinese. English research doesn't cover every aspect of the world, and for example you can hardly find mention about atrocities of German units in English research on them, as they concentrate on other things. As to Forster's attitude towards Poles this is not a minority view but fact that isn't known well by western researchers. Thus there is no reason for delete it unless you can find that Forster didn't held such views. And I already presented several sources where they are studied. -- Molobo 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Kusma if you believe racism isn't the right word, what other formulation do you suggest ? -- Molobo 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is he stated as German ? The article again contradicts itself-he was born in Poland, with Scotish ancestors, never felt like Pole, yet Germans rejected him. Please discuss. -- Molobo 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the basis on this opinion-was he not of Scottish descent ? Did he regard himself as German ? -- Molobo 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed unsourced opinion : unhappy with the lack of intellectual stimulation he encountered among Poles Alx claims the staff was Polish-I would like Alx to provide a scholary resource proving that among people Forster encountered in Lithuanian Vilnius none were of German, Lithuanian, Russian, Jewish background and all were pure ethnic Poles. -- Molobo 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in the culture of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since this is not the source of dispute. Please provide source on ethnic background of the people who he met. Without that you can't claim they were Poles. Your sentence speaks about Poles-not about Polish culture, or the language used in the university. Furthermore Vilnius had different culture then for example Poznan or Kraków, the only thing that you need to do is to give example who he met that made him claim such things and why do you believe all those people were ethnic Poles. Unless of course you want to claim that Lithuanians, Jews, Germans had no identity in Lithuania and were all Poles. -- Molobo 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Polish elite ? I suggest then to prove they were ethnic Poles. For starters I recommend making a list of the people you claim were part of some alledged elite in his enviroment. Then point out which one made him do such comments. -- Molobo 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So you are claiming that there was only Polish identity in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ? This would be very hard for you to argue I am afraid Alx-pl. Anwyay you wanted to write that he was frustrated by Poles not by Polish culture-are you now trying to say he was frustrated by Polish culture ? -- Molobo 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand your current position is that it is right to name people at Vilnius univerisity as Poles because you believe Polish culture was the only option for them ? -- Molobo 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If it debatable why not named it the climate at Vilnius ? Since calling Poles seems POV and would need to be explained, as even you agreed that that people who encountered them considered them as Poles even though they might be of another ethnical background, then perhaps a different wording would be better ? Or do you want to insist on Poles ? If so why ? -- Molobo 01:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I want to insist on Poles. Why ? Such wording would be unfair, since you now claim that he got in conflict with inviduals. Why not name them if you got sources confirming this ? Your current proposed wording would suggest Poles in general ware intellectually inferior to Forster. Obviously this would consitute a very strong POV which would have to be corrected. Perhaps better wording would be such "because Forster viewed Poles as intellectuall inferior to him". Of course that is only if you insist on such sentence. But I don't understand why you want to do it since obviously this is very POV ? -- Molobo 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Molobo 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but Alx didn't present any quotes about Polish attitudes towards Forster, but only about Forster's attitude. I am waiting for sources and quotes. -- Molobo 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) And contribute to this debate in a more constructive way I am contributing in constructive way, without my help, Forster's full image wouldn't be presented and the hypocracy behind his public and private statements wouldn't be known to reader. Of course we still need examples, since the reader isn't informed in what ways Forster did insult nations he considered animal-like. I still don't know why you are refusing that the article should have examples. -- Molobo 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a request in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to resolve the dispute. This is the first step to take as Wikipedia:Resolving disputes suggests. alx-pl D 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nassenhuben records were removed from article, therefore posted here: Nassenhuben Official Records of Inhabitants
Georg Forster was born in Landkreis Danziger Niederung in a small village, named Nassenhuben in Prussia (aka Royal Prussia). Nassenhuben was the property of the noble family of Schwartzenberg [2] until its annexation by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772. Earlier Nassenhuben was known as Mutterstrenz.
In 1660 Professor Daniel Ernst Jablonski was also born in Nassenhuben, Danziger Niederung. MG 4/8/2006
Here are all the churches in the area Danzig Stadt and Danzig Land(kreis): [3]
Only Danzig seems to have had some Catholic churches [4] The overwhelming majority was Evangelisch- Protestant. Polish language was not used, why should it have been? It was not Poland. Danzig Landkreis , several hundred towns included, changed from Low-German language in 1566 to High German. This Royal Prussia stuff in Wikipedia does not reflect factual events.
The de: German Wikipedia copies much from ENglish wikipedia, it is about as reliable as the English wikipedia.
And when and if Forster said something like this (which I have not seen any original copy, and therefore cannot confirm) then he referred to what became known as Polish Prussia or Royal Prussia about the time of the Imperial Kurfürsten August the Strong and August III.
I have looked at a lot of old maps and I have never seen anything other than Prussia for both parts western and eastern Prussia, before 1700's. I have several times asked Polish editors to post anything , that shows the term Polish or Royal added to Prussia before 1700 in connection to the Copernicus debates, but no one has posted any earlier reference. Therefore I believe, the western part of Prussia should not be referred to as Royal or Polish Prussia, until it was actually started to be called that.
The earliest possible time it could be claimed by Polish as Polish Prussia, would be 1569, when the Polish sejm one-sidedly declared western Prussia Polish, against the wishes of the Land and people involved. But at that time it was Lithuania-Poland-Swedish, married to Habsburg royal dynasties.
When Danzig and Elbing (which were Hanse cities, since 1477 city states, while in some connection to 'Polish' crown) were occupied by Saxon and Russian troops, the king of Prussia, Frederick II , called the Prussians 'Russians'. because under occupation they had to submit to the Tzarina. Does that make them Russian for the time they were occupied by Russia, same for the Swedish occupations?
Perhaps from 1945 to 1990 in what is today Bundesrepublik Germany, there were no German, but only British, French, Americans and Russians in British Germany and French Germany and American Germany and Russian Germany . After all, Germany was under the highest authority of the Allies. right? Following this 'logic' that has overtaken this Wikipedia, a large number of Germans or Prussians, actually everyone east of the Oder-Neisse or better yet east of the Else-Saale and why not East of the Rhine river were actually all Polish, right ??? MG 4/8/2006
You'll need better inline citations to get featured, but looks good enough for a GA tag. Keep up the good work. savidan (talk) (e@) 10:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why examples of remarks against Poland made by Forster aren't presented to the reader. -- Molobo 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)