|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 21, 2009 5:50:12 GMT -5
Bulgarian far-Right leader condemns British ambassador for supporting gay prideSteve Williams, the ambassador to Bulgaria, sent a message of support for a Rainbow Friendship Rally in Sofia this coming Sunday. The same event last year in the Bulgarian capital ended in a bloody riot as marchers clashed with nationalists and riot police. "Celebrating diversity is not about promoting a lifestyle," he wrote. "It is about promoting respect for fundamental human rights. It is about the very essence of our European democratic values." A far-Right political leader condemned the embassy's interference in a controversial domestic issue and issued a personal attack on Mr Williams, who is married with three children. "He should mind his own business and his country's business," said Bojan Rasate, the leader of the Guardia Bulgarian National Alliance. "He has no right to tell Bulgarians how to live in Bulgaria. Europe has been ruled by homosexuals for a long time. We do not care how they live, but we do not want them to impose their pervert values on us." Ric Todd, the British ambassador to Poland, stirred similar criticism last week after publicly backing a rally in. The country's civil rights ombudsman warned the ambassador that he had "exceeded his authority". A Foreign Office spokesman said the government regarded the messages as a key plank of its human rights policies. "We have had the policy for some time," she said. "What's new is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender [LGBT] Toolkit, which has raised the profile of such activities a bit." In the wake of the Polish row, rights groups put pressure on David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to maintain the approach. "We cannot be complacent about LGBT rights in Europe and elsewhere in the world," said Kate Allen, Amnesty's UK director. 'This year we have seen attempts to ban Baltic Pride in Riga, the banning of Slavic Pride and violence when that march went ahead, and the banning of LGBT people holding public events as part of a 'Rainbow Spring 2009' in Ukraine." international.ibox.bg/news/id_1215767299
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jul 21, 2009 7:24:02 GMT -5
Ahh ;D.....Rasate ;D. He and his men were arrested for engaging the police during a gay parade. They couldn't harm the gays due to the heavy police presence which obviously knew what could be the reaction of the Bulgarians ;D.
I wish more of us follow his steps in this direction.
Janny - do you know that this guy bears two ancient Bulgar names? Boyan - Bayan - BatBayan. One of the sons of Khan Yuvigi Kubrat. And Rasate - Rasate was the last pagan ruler of Bulgaria. The last bearer and defender of the Great Bulgar/Sarmatian culture.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 24, 2009 5:44:38 GMT -5
Janny - do you know that this guy bears two ancient Bulgar names? Boyan - Bayan - BatBayan. One of the sons of Khan Yuvigi Kubrat. And Rasate - Rasate was the last pagan ruler of Bulgaria. The last bearer and defender of the Great Bulgar/Sarmatian culture. Atan, Atan, Atan, It is good on him that he bears ancient Turkic-Bolgar names. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jul 25, 2009 5:46:16 GMT -5
Like Kubrat you Turks have included in your history for unknown reasons?
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jul 26, 2009 16:31:22 GMT -5
gay pride parades do more harm then good. Especially in the Balkans. The Buglarian rightwingers have a right to criticize the ambassador, while I do not their ideas and statements in general. Homosexuals in the Balkans need to be accepted and given proper rights, but not while openly defying norms in such an explosive way. They should seek acceptance in more moderate ways.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 27, 2009 3:50:52 GMT -5
Like Kubrat you Turks have included in your history for unknown reasons? We Turks? You think that the rest of the world is the Turks? ;D Let us recall even how the CIA interprets the origins of the Bulgars: The Bulgars, a Central Asian Turkic tribe, merged with the local Slavic inhabitants in the late 7th century to form the first Bulgarian state. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jul 27, 2009 8:28:27 GMT -5
Fact is, today Bulgarians are 100% slavs. The superior Slavic element prevailed over the weaker barbaric turkic one.
Same thing with Russians and tatars. Same thing with Serbs and avars.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jul 27, 2009 12:05:26 GMT -5
Didn't have to do so much with genetic superiority as you try to convey, but simply greater numbers.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 27, 2009 13:34:27 GMT -5
You wish Pyrros....
Agreed Donnie, the fact is Turks numbers were smaller back then, and they assimilated.
|
|
|
Post by raven on Jul 27, 2009 19:20:38 GMT -5
Fact is, today Bulgarians are 100% slavs. The superior Slavic element prevailed over the weaker barbaric turkic one. Same thing with Russians and tatars. Same thing with Serbs and avars. Bulgarians are mostly Thracian with Slavic and proto-Bulgar influences.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jul 27, 2009 23:39:15 GMT -5
Its far from proven that Bulgars were Turkic (which by the way is not similar to Turkish). Most probably they were turko-iranian mixture, because there are lots of iranian words, names, even the title of the supreme ruler "kanasubigi" meant "ruler from god" in Persian. Its wrong to think that the Volga Bulgars and the Tatars are one and the same. Actually Volga Bulgars were overruled at some time by the Tatars and were assimilated by them. Thus the Turkic character there prevailed and the Iranian almost dissapeared. I agree with Pyrros about the turkic influence in both Russians and Serbs. As for todays Bulgarians, they are not the same with Bulgars. We, Bulgarians, are mixed nation, a result of mixing of Slavs, Thracians and Bulgars. No one can really say what the precentage of the 3 groups really was. I personally think that Slavs were probably most numerous because the language is deffinately slavic. It could be due to Boris policy and in this case the Thracians and the Bulgars could ve prevailed. After that probably the Thracian element was the second biggest: I think the proove is the fact that our folkore, our culture is totally Balkanic. Most of the dances, some of the traditions can be observed in the previously "thracian" teritory in Romania, Bulgaria, Northern Greece, fyrom. The fact that our grammer is similar to the preslavic balkan languages (Greek, Albanian, Romanian). What that Thracian element was is very doubtful too: were they Romanized Thracians (if so the slavization was taking place even in the second bulgarian kingdome - Assen, Peter, Kaloyan... The second generation was undoubtedly only Bulgarian) or only Thracians - there were such Thracians (Bessi) in 7 century in Rodopy mountain, there were probably more in the villages in the whole of Bulgaria. The Bulgar element is the most "not obvious" in our culture. It is so because we do not know alot about the culture of the Bulgars. What they left as typical Bulgar (the calendar for example) didnt left that big influence on us. But was that calendar Bulgar or was it borrowed from the people in Central Asia? We have some ruins of towns from the Bulgars... Its very hard to really know how much their cultural and ethnic influence meant for our formation as nation. What is undoubted about the Bulgars is this: we, as Bulgarians, today do exist because of them. They created the state, they fought the East Roman empire, they allowed for the creation of the Bulgarian culture, they made slavic official in Bulgaria. In a way, they were the most important element, because if it wasnt for them, we would ve end up Greek most probably. The fact that we know them so little is the reason why we do not know what their cultural or ethnic influence on us was.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 28, 2009 1:40:42 GMT -5
Its far from proven that Bulgars were Turkic (which by the way is not similar to Turkish). Most probably they were turko-iranian mixture, because there are lots of iranian words, names, even the title of the supreme ruler "kanasubigi" meant "ruler from god" in Persian. Its wrong to think that the Volga Bulgars and the Tatars are one and the same. Actually Volga Bulgars were overruled at some time by the Tatars and were assimilated by them. Thus the Turkic character there prevailed and the Iranian almost dissapeared. I agree with Pyrros about the turkic influence in both Russians and Serbs. As for todays Bulgarians, they are not the same with Bulgars. We, Bulgarians, are mixed nation, a result of mixing of Slavs, Thracians and Bulgars. No one can really say what the precentage of the 3 groups really was. I personally think that Slavs were probably most numerous because the language is deffinately slavic. It could be due to Boris policy and in this case the Thracians and the Bulgars could ve prevailed. After that probably the Thracian element was the second biggest: I think the proove is the fact that our folkore, our culture is totally Balkanic. Most of the dances, some of the traditions can be observed in the previously "thracian" teritory in Romania, Bulgaria, Northern Greece, fyrom. The fact that our grammer is similar to the preslavic balkan languages (Greek, Albanian, Romanian). What that Thracian element was is very doubtful too: were they Romanized Thracians (if so the slavization was taking place even in the second bulgarian kingdome - Assen, Peter, Kaloyan... The second generation was undoubtedly only Bulgarian) or only Thracians - there were such Thracians (Bessi) in 7 century in Rodopy mountain, there were probably more in the villages in the whole of Bulgaria. The Bulgar element is the most "not obvious" in our culture. It is so because we do not know alot about the culture of the Bulgars. What they left as typical Bulgar (the calendar for example) didnt left that big influence on us. But was that calendar Bulgar or was it borrowed from the people in Central Asia? We have some ruins of towns from the Bulgars... Its very hard to really know how much their cultural and ethnic influence meant for our formation as nation. What is undoubted about the Bulgars is this: we, as Bulgarians, today do exist because of them. They created the state, they fought the East Roman empire, they allowed for the creation of the Bulgarian culture, they made slavic official in Bulgaria. In a way, they were the most important element, because if it wasnt for them, we would ve end up Greek most probably. The fact that we know them so little is the reason why we do not know what their cultural or ethnic influence on us was. - Prevailing number of academic circles (including Turkish, Western and Russian ones) stresses the Turkic origin of the Bolgars. Unfortunately, you Danube Bulgarians has " some theories", but those are not taken for granted in any academic circle outside of Danube Bulgaria. - Even today, we have thousands of Iranian words used in modern Turkish, but that does not make us "Turk-Iranian Mix" at all. Thus, many scholars around the world interpret the Azeris as some Turkic-Iranian mixture, but the Azeris themselves identify them selves as the Azeri Turks. - Moreover, your points on Volga Bolgars are far from being correct. In fact, Volga Bolgars existed after the break up the Kokturk State and those Bolgar tribes controled the Volga basin until the Mongol Invasion. After all, the Mongol Empire did not even last for 50 years, and after that, the Turkic Volga Bolgars contiuned to exist as an independent force until 16th Century. - The Tatar is a definition used by the Russians to define the Mongol Yoke. After the break-up the Mongol Empire, Turkut Khanate centered at Kazan continued to collect tribute. That is why, even the Cuman, Ghuzz and Bulgar peoples of the Crimean Khanate were named as the Tatars by the Russian. - I am a Karachay-Balkar. In a sense, I am from the place at where Great Bolgaria was originally established. Interestingly, we do not have any doubts like yo do. Neither do the Kazan Tatars, Chuvash, and Kumyks.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jul 28, 2009 1:43:47 GMT -5
I see we entered this endless topic again....
Ioan - let me ask you something. I have asked this question to everyone here who took place in a discussion for our nation's origin. None answered except Ruse.
You say the Bulgars from the steppes fought for our state and created it. They fought against the mightiest state at that time - the Oykumena. Byzantium. An Empire which won huge victory against the Arabs and was on the rise again.
What do you think? Were these people just a small, turkic, barbaric horde as is mentioned by the communist era "historians" and a theory which some here repeat? Keep in mind that these people fought alone against Byzantium. They received no help from local Slavs or Thracians.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 28, 2009 1:45:25 GMT -5
You wish Pyrros.... Agreed Donnie, the fact is Turks numbers were smaller back then, and they assimilated. The Bulgars evading confrontation with the Khazars tolled the Slav tribes with them on their way to Balkans just like Avars did. Most scholars believe that Turkic-Bolgar chieftains were nothing but some minorty elite by the time the Bulgarian Kingdom was established.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jul 28, 2009 1:57:56 GMT -5
True as logical statement but irrelevant to Bulgarian case.
Janny. Check my post above. We did not evade confrontation with Khazars. We were confronting them - from the day Khan Kubrat died until the beginning of the new centure (VII th). They pushed us back here. Khan Asparuh fought them and defeated them at last. The threat was eliminated.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jul 28, 2009 2:00:47 GMT -5
In the same time time the Bulgars fought with the mighty Byzantine Empire.
If this is the "SMALL TURKIC-BOLGAR ELITE" with which soldiers the Khans fought all these wars Janny? Marsian mercenaries?
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 28, 2009 2:23:13 GMT -5
True as logical statement but irrelevant to Bulgarian case. Janny. Check my post above. We did not evade confrontation with Khazars. We were confronting them - from the day Khan Kubrat died until the beginning of the new centure (VII th). They pushed us back here. Khan Asparuh fought them and defeated them at last. The threat was eliminated. You did not? Atan, you are probably the descendants of the Slavs that the Bolgars tugged to Balkans, not the chieftains or boyars. Yes, some of the Bolgars found the Khazar pressure unbearable, and migrated to West to evade of confrontation. The rest of the Bolgars either retreated to the mountains of Caucasus or emigrated to Volga region.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jul 28, 2009 3:20:04 GMT -5
Atan, as I said, it is not known how many the Bulgars were. I ve heard the number 100 000 repeated many times, but I am not sure. Especially considering we know nothing on the slavic or thracian numbers. 100 000 Bulgars seems logical, so 30-40 000 in medievil times was an enormous army. I also think the preposition of Yanny seems logical: that the Bulgars came with the Slavs to the Bolkans.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jul 28, 2009 3:51:37 GMT -5
Ioan. Make some calculations will you? From ~680 year up to the time of Khan Krum the Bulgars defended the country and they fought numerous wars (not Slavs not Thracians). Wars which can't be fought if they came here in such 100K number. It is not possible. How many from these 100K were warriors? 30% lets say. That means if Khan Asparuh fought against Byzantine 60K army he has to have approx. that number. The same time he fought Khazars. I am not even mentioning the later wars the Khans fought. That imply a number MUCH GREATER than 100K.
THAT!!! On the other hand means - we are more BULGARS than anything else.
NEXT POINT - who were the Bulgars?
Janny - did you have a sun stroke? What are you mumbling about? Give a reasonable explanation. Don't just talk out of your arse.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jul 28, 2009 4:16:00 GMT -5
Atan, all numbers that could pop would be a result of speculation. What we know from the Bulgars: calendars, words, cultural traditions etc... not much have been preserved in todays Bulgarians. Maybe we do not know alot about their traditions/language etc. If not alot was saved that must mean that the numbers were not that signifficant compared to the numbers of the other ethnic groups.
|
|