|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 5:46:04 GMT -5
Overall this is really a fruitless discussion. It sparks meaningless and pointless Croat vs Serb claims over the history of Bosnia as well as a Bosniak perspective that disagrees with both. The only history you can really rely on is natural history since political history is inherently subjective. Yes, its fruitless...but at the same time its good to recognise reality and historical facts. Or else you have " ethnic " splinter groups like fyromians that are delusional and in a current state of nation and ethnic building. Its time to call a spade a spade, and if ppl feel a certain way than that is fine but to say something completely false just to be politically correct is dangerous. Espescially in the balkans... Which historical facts to speak of? Do you think the point of history should be to dress it up to fit some particular nationalist agenda and then force that agenda down the throat of people today? Seriously , since so many nationalists in the Balkans are so fascinated with ethnic history ( naturally to make some absurd modern day claims) then why aren't they 'proud Africans?' Genetically speaking its undisputed that the first strands of genetic mutation in human Y-chromosomes comes from Africa. Yes , all of us (males) with the Y chromosome carry our African mutation. All the history we want to know is encoded in human DNA. Truth is , ethnicity , in the Balkanish quasi-nationalist sense has NOTHING to do with blood or anything tangible. It is a specifically a cultural phenomenon. When people speak of ethnic history people are really speaking about cultural influences which is nothing more than a set of beliefs developed by X group of people. In the Balkans many cultures left their imprint so the 'purity' of any today is laughable. If Macedonians want to be 'ethnic' Macedonians , what the hell is your problem with that? The only difference with that any neighboring ethnic group is that Macedonians established a culturally based identity later but its just as authentic as neighboring ethnic groups. ( Yes , this also means that any Greek , Bulgarian , or whatever living in Macedonia that doesn't want to be a Macedonian but rather Bulgarian , Greek , or whatever , is in their right to do so. Macedonian identity shouldn't be shoved down the throat of those that don't identify with it.) FFS , lets learn history for the sake of history , not to beat other people with petty and moronic nationalist agendas.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 6:05:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 6:15:14 GMT -5
I dont have a 130 to spare..i already looked into that, but that provides info 20,000 yrs ago and back then no ethnicities were formed. So its pretty pointless. If you find one for free let me know..Il do it
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 6:18:46 GMT -5
Yes, its fruitless...but at the same time its good to recognise reality and historical facts. Or else you have " ethnic " splinter groups like fyromians that are delusional and in a current state of nation and ethnic building. Its time to call a spade a spade, and if ppl feel a certain way than that is fine but to say something completely false just to be politically correct is dangerous. Espescially in the balkans... Which historical facts to speak of? Do you think the point of history should be to dress it up to fit some particular nationalist agenda and then force that agenda down the throat of people today? Seriously , since so many nationalists in the Balkans are so fascinated with ethnic history ( naturally to make some absurd modern day claims) then why aren't they 'proud Africans?' Genetically speaking its undisputed that the first strands of genetic mutation in human Y-chromosomes comes from Africa. Yes , all of us (males) with the Y chromosome carry our African mutation. All the history we want to know is encoded in human DNA. Truth is , ethnicity , in the Balkanish quasi-nationalist sense has NOTHING to do with blood or anything tangible. It is a specifically a cultural phenomenon. When people speak of ethnic history people are really speaking about cultural influences which is nothing more than a set of beliefs developed by X group of people. In the Balkans many cultures left their imprint so the 'purity' of any today is laughable. If Macedonians want to be 'ethnic' Macedonians , what the hell is your problem with that? The only difference with that any neighboring ethnic group is that Macedonians established a culturally based identity later but its just as authentic as neighboring ethnic groups. ( Yes , this also means that any Greek , Bulgarian , or whatever living in Macedonia that doesn't want to be a Macedonian but rather Bulgarian , Greek , or whatever , is in their right to do so. Macedonian identity shouldn't be shoved down the throat of those that don't identify with it.) FFS , lets learn history for the sake of history , not to beat other people with petty and moronic nationalist agendas. Im not into " clean blood " theories as well. I know im not purebred and I agree with your notions on what constitutes an " ethnic " background. All im saying is that ppl have to man up to the truth sometimes. As far as fyromians are concerned...my problem is that you cannot create something on the expense of someones else. There are already 2.5 million macedonians in greece that do not identify with their slav neighbors to the north. The fact that they speak slavic is not my fault, nor is it racist...its the truth. But you will find many of them that will even deny that part as well. As for the bosnians..my opinion is that the ottomans created that identity to divide and conquer that part of the balkans. I might get flamed for that...but its a personal opinion that is not set in stone.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 6:21:32 GMT -5
My friend , that is exactly the point. Now you begin to see how meaningless and arbitrary ethnicity really is in the face of hard facts about our human history.
Anyway , save up. I think its well worth the endeavor. I don't think you'll be disappointed. Think about it , you will know the travels , virtually step by step , your direct ancestors made up to now. =)
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 6:30:57 GMT -5
yes that would really be intersting Occam. Im just a little paranoid on how they keep your dna on file forever once you submit it. Not too mention your name and all the details about your submission. If there is a way I can do it anonymosly and get that info that way...then I would do it in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 6:32:33 GMT -5
Would be great if more people understood the truth about their precious ethnicity. Not sure what you mean here. Many modern day ethnic groups were constructed of the prevailing culture of the people which itself was influenced by other people. French , Spanish , and Italian language and many cultural customs were formed at the expense of what was considered Latin , and Latin off of what was considered ancient Hellenic ( Greek), and that off Egyptians and other far more ancient Mediterranean cultures. So they don't. Who is forcing them to identify with them? Slavs are part of Macedonia's history too. I think its silly for a single group to claim total exclusivity to a regional name based on their ethnic persuasion. They get a 'Republic of Macedonia' and the Greeks have a 'state of Macedonia' within Greece, what's the problem? Can you believe some people would actually go to war and murder each other over semantic BS like this? Pure insanity if you ask me. That is incorrect since Bosnia existed as a geopolitical entity before the Ottoman invasions. On top of that the Balkans were already divided long before the Ottomans showed up by the Greek and Latin factions of the Roman Empire. But hey , you are certainly entitled to your opinion, right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 6:36:38 GMT -5
yes that would really be intersting Occam. Im just a little paranoid on how they keep your dna on file forever once you submit it. Not too mention your name and all the details about your submission. If there is a way I can do it anonymosly and get that info that way...then I would do it in a heartbeat. As far as I know , there are privacy laws that are internationally recognized regarding such things. Anyway, your blood type is already documented and all the DNA information one could ever want could be on a simple swab of spit that you probably have produced once in your life or a single shed of hair.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 6:51:58 GMT -5
Would be great if more people understood the truth about their precious ethnicity. Not sure what you mean here. Many modern day ethnic groups were constructed of the prevailing culture of the people which itself was influenced by other people. French , Spanish , and Italian language and many cultural customs were formed at the expense of what was considered Latin , and Latin off of what was considered ancient Hellenic ( Greek), and that off Egyptians and other far more ancient Mediterranean cultures. So they don't. Who is forcing them to identify with them? Slavs are part of Macedonia's history too. I think its silly for a single group to claim total exclusivity to a regional name based on their ethnic persuasion. They get a 'Republic of Macedonia' and the Greeks have a 'state of Macedonia' within Greece, what's the problem? That is incorrect since Bosnia existed as a geopolitical entity before the Ottoman invasions. But hey , you are certainly entitled to your opinion, right or wrong. Fyromians are tyring to monopolize the name and history of that region not Greece. Just go to maknews.com to see how sick these ppl are. You also must take into account political realities that happened during communism and yugoslavia's era. Its not that long ago either. Back to the topic, Im not an expert on Bosnia. I know they are muslim and were allies to the ottomans. I dont know much about them pre-ottoman days.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 6:53:58 GMT -5
yes that would really be intersting Occam. Im just a little paranoid on how they keep your dna on file forever once you submit it. Not too mention your name and all the details about your submission. If there is a way I can do it anonymosly and get that info that way...then I would do it in a heartbeat. As far as I know , there are privacy laws that are internationally recognized regarding such things. Anyway, your blood type is already documented and all the DNA information one could ever want could be on a simple swab of spit that you probably have produced once in your life or a single shed of hair. I think those laws are waived if and when you decide to sign up to the company's dna testing program. I was looking into the one National Geographic sponsers...Il check other ones out as well though.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 7:12:40 GMT -5
Is the Macedonian government demanding that the region known as Macedonia in Greece change its name or something? As far as the history goes, I don't think its any secret that ancient Macedonia was certainly tied to and part of the ancient Hellenic culture. However, modern day Greece , aside from retaining its language, is rather different than ancient Hellas to the point of being almost completely a new culture but what else is to be expected after 2000 years of new history, migrations , and interaction with other peoples?
I don't know what the politics of Yugoslavia had to do with it. It officially recognized a Macedonian Republic within its borders but that region was pretty much recognized as Macedonia anyway regardless of its Slav and non-Slav composition.
Well I appreciate your honesty and curiosity. =P Bosnians , religiously , were mostly Christians predating the Ottomans. It was a mixture of Catholics and Orthodox ( most of the Orthodox adherents were under the Serbian patriarchy officially and remained that way even during the Ottoman centuries.)
Christianity wasn't very strong in Bosnia overall. Despite having some religious and sectarian kings and dukes , most of Bosnia's population didn't follow the orthodoxy of either the Catholic or Orthodox churches.
The Bosnians' conversion to Islam was gradual and not something that happened instantly. Bosnian nobles first began the trend of conversion mostly to hold their property and to seek shelter from Christian persecutors. ( Bosnia , by and large , was considered heretic by both Catholic and Orthodox clergy).
Not all Bosnians converted to Islam , obviously , or there wouldn't be Catholics , Croats , Serbs , and Orthodox people there today. ( Most Catholics later identified with Croats , Orthodox with Serbs)
Bosnia was one of the territories in the Ottoman Empire where local rulers were allowed to function as viceroys rather than having foreign rulers govern the land and people ( as was the case in many European empires.) The condition , of course , was that they had to be Muslim as a show of strong allegiance to the Sultan. Still , the Ottomans , most of the time , allowed for some degree of autonomy with the Christian religious groups. Both the Catholics and Orthodox had their representatives to the Sultan and were charged with keeping their people in order. The Ottomans weren't dumb exactly , someone had to tend the land ( think a form of serfdom) and pay the taxes to fund the war machine. If they forced all Christians to convert, then all the Christians would have probably left utterly destroying an Ottoman tax base.
But anyway, before the Ottomans , Bosnia was a mostly Christian kingdom/fiefdom, which , like most other European lands , had short lived alliances and rivalries with its neighbors and especially internally.
|
|
|
Post by L0gjICK on Oct 9, 2009 7:27:40 GMT -5
If we were to go by ethnicity, then why would the Greece of today have anything to do with the Ancient Greeks? These Sub-Saharan people share nothing with that of the Ancient Greeks. s**t most of these Sub-Saharan Greeks would of been Slaves in Ancient Greece. Bosnians are just that Bosnian -- they're Slavs that converted to Islam. Serb expansionist pigs should lay off the bong and drink some Turkish coffee to calm down their nerves. Logjik, can you please take it easy with the rough expression. Its not acceptable here. 1st and last warning.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 9, 2009 7:50:47 GMT -5
"So they don't. Who is forcing them to identify with them? Slavs are part of Macedonia's history too. I think its silly for a single group to claim total exclusivity to a regional name based on their ethnic persuasion. They get a 'Republic of Macedonia' and the Greeks have a 'state of Macedonia' within Greece, what's the problem?
Can you believe some people would actually go to war and murder each other over semantic BS like this? Pure insanity if you ask me."
Occam, the vardarians do have territorial ambitions, they openly advocate expansion into northern greece. This should not be swept under a rug, it has potential for future conflict. They now claim Alexander, next they will claim historial sites within greece, then what, the whole territory?
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 8:16:34 GMT -5
If we were to go by ethnicity, then why would the Greece of today have anything to do with the Ancient Greeks? These Sub-Saharan people share nothing with that of the Ancient Greeks. s**t most of these Sub-Saharan Greeks would of been Slaves in Ancient Greece. Bosnians are just that Bosnian -- they're Slavs that converted to Islam. Serb expansionist pigs should lay off the bong and drink some Turkish coffee to calm down their nerves. Logjik, can you please take it easy with the rough expression. Its not acceptable here. 1st and last warning. Subsaharan... So you recently subscribed to the new fyromian encyclopedia that came out..huh ? Good luck with that one LOL
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 8:17:20 GMT -5
"So they don't. Who is forcing them to identify with them? Slavs are part of Macedonia's history too. I think its silly for a single group to claim total exclusivity to a regional name based on their ethnic persuasion. They get a 'Republic of Macedonia' and the Greeks have a 'state of Macedonia' within Greece, what's the problem? Can you believe some people would actually go to war and murder each other over semantic BS like this? Pure insanity if you ask me." Occam, the vardarians do have territorial ambitions, they openly advocate expansion into northern greece. This should not be swept under a rug, it has potential for future conflict. They now claim Alexander, next they will claim historial sites within greece, then what, the whole territory? Good Point Novi Thats the balkans for us...
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 8:26:43 GMT -5
Occam... Youre right, after 2500 yrs ppl and cultures evolve. Since that time Christianity and the Ottomans have come and gone. However, we retained our language and customs even to this day. All greeks can read their inscriptions as well without needing a PHD in classic history. Not too many other ppl can do that with their languages. Not even the english... nice summary of the bosnians btw.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 9, 2009 8:59:27 GMT -5
"Good Point Novi Thats the balkans for us..." Chalke, seriously man, the compromise name of 'North Macedonia' won't be the end in my opinion, it somehow leaves the door open for another attempt sometime in the future.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 9:10:38 GMT -5
^^ I know what you mean Novi....you give an inch, they take a mile. Anyway, we'll have to see if they somehow manage to pry their head out of their arses anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by majmun on Oct 9, 2009 9:58:15 GMT -5
First of all some of you are acting as if the modern day definitions of ethnicity existed in medieval times. Second of all most of you justify your modern day political stances in your perceptions of medieval history. Second of all you ignore that noblemen often called them self whatever they felt like, and then the subjects of their would follow suit. And last you think that villagers 1000 years ago had a concept of nationhood. Are the majority of modern day Bosniaks descendants of Serbs, I would only dare say yes if you count anyone who spoke the stokavski dialect as a Serb. Let’s look at some facts; Croatian statehood is older than Serbian statehood. Croatia ruled Bosnia. There were Bosnian bans, why would not they join the Serb state right away then? Bosnia was mostly Catholic as I have shown in the map I posted. The first islamization was of ikavski speakers, ikavski is not a Serb dialect. Most modern day Bosniaks are ancestors of the population from the first islamization, until language reforms came into place all BiH Croats and most BiH Bosniaks spoke ikavski, at least in traces. The Ottomans kept documents, my family were mostly Catholics that converted, of those I know who were what. Maybe about ¼ were Serbs/orthodox. The second islamization is of ijekavski speakers, that would be Serbs And the people where either krstjani or catholics, the Bosnian church, before the turks. BiH Serbs are ijekavski speakers, ijekavski was made the norm, so now everyone speaks it, even if there are traces of ikavski. Apart from Herzegovina and south eastern Bosnia you did not have that large of an Orthodox presence, they were imported by the Turks to make up for the depopulation of the land, obviously a lot of these Serbs converted to Islam as well, that would be the second Islamization. Bosnian/ Bosnjanins were to Croats what Austrians are to Germans. And what is it that makes “you guys” Serbs, whilst we are “fake”, like it or not only thing that binds you together today is Orthodox religion, without it you would be Yugoslavs, as would we and the Croats. If I was to guess, I would say Serbians are a much more heterogen group then Bosniaks today, explained mostly by assimilation during Dusans Empire. Only reason Bosniaks are “less real” are that Kapetan Gradascevic’s revolt failed whilst the second srpski ustanak was a success. That and the fact that no one has had the common sense to stop using Arabic in religious services, and replace it with the native language, the same way as was done by Christians with latin and crkvenoslavenski before. And that we almost never give our kids names "native" to us, like "Vesna, Zeljko". Also I doubt that the people of medieval exyu considered themselves any more different then people from each other then different parts of Germany did before the Prussians united them. finally a person who wrote something that made sense Anyways, Greeks and Macedonians, get over it. Macedonian-Slavs look at them selfs as Macedonians, and thats it. As for ancient Macedonians, yes they were Greeks no doubt about that the ottomans did not really create a bosnian identity, converted slav nobles converted to islam to stay in power, and that you had heretic krstianji helped in that respect, and the population that were normal people often had to convert to Islam if they wanted to get anywhere in Ottoman society. Ottomans were an assimilating empire, and they used Islam to rule, the same way France used Catholic religion in indo-china. I have met Turks that were blond, and I would bet a months wage that they were Bosniaks/Slavic Muslims that fled to Turkey in 1870. Turks assimilated, didn't the Greeks of asia minor all become not just muslims, but Turkish speakers? In the w. balkans, real turks were on top, then slav muslims, then orthodox slavs, then catholics.. the Bosnian guy that thought he should have a state of his own used the word "Bosniak" during his revolt against the Turks, now I honestly think that Croats/Serbs/Bosniaks are so close peoples that it is a joke to make a line, and say who is what, or who was what. The south slavs did not have the 1800s national unification as Germans/Italians did, hence they based their ethnicity on religion, in essence Bosniaks=Slavs of muslim heretige, Serbs=Slavs of Orthodox heretige Croats=Slavs of catholic heritage. In all honesty, as long as you do not base modern day politics on it, what you think of it is not that much of a big deal, be it 100% true or 100% false. The problem in the balkans is not the myths we have, it is that we act on them.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Oct 9, 2009 11:28:06 GMT -5
They were Slavs. Occamrazor is the most objective person here, I would agree with his version. I personally find it interesting that there are records of initial Serbian settlements in the Balkans being exactly in present-day Bosnia (the oldest religious object in Sarajevo is a Serbian Orthodox Church, and records of first Slavic towns in Bosnia being Serbian settlements). But that's not indicative of national consciousness. At that time those people were Slavs and I doubt many even had a national consciousness. They became Christianized, and religion acted as a conduit for creating national identity, and that happened much later.
I find selective history espoused by Croats absolutely hilarious. If you are Catholic you must be Croatian. There are 1 billion Croats all of a sudden. If they cared to learn any history, they would realize Franciscans worked harder to convert people to Catholicism in Bosnia than Turks did to Islam.
|
|