|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Aug 2, 2011 10:58:51 GMT -5
Prisojanin, you're right about the Balkans. We're the "outcasts" of Europe, we're the ones who no one wants to be. But here I'm reminded of the good 'ol Norther American saying, "it might be s**t, but it's my s**t" and I love it. I find that it is easy to love something that is "at the top", but not so much when it's "at the bottom".. ironically enough, that's when it's most needed. I know people from the Balkans, some are Bulgarians, who do everything possible to disassociate themselves from the Balkans. Here some of them define themselves as 'Europeans' only. Many purposefully distance themselves from the reality of their true origin, but in my opinion these people are feeble minded and weak at heart. With regards to Bulgaria, realistically, if Britain and France didn't step in to dismember the rightfully Bulgarian borders of San Stefano Bulgaria we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now. With San Stefano Bulgaria in place, we would have avoided the Balkan Wars, we would have most likely remained neutral in both World Wars, and would have possibly avoided communism. Our focus would have been on evolving our country rather than trying to piece it back together. Either way, the reality of the situation would have been different. The Balkans, in my opinion, are the way they are today because the West wanted them to be that way. They put a lot of effort and resources into destabilizing the region over the past 100 years. It's ironic how first they come and "destroy" prospects of progress and development and now they're back with a promises of rebuilding and improving the region.. ie. the EU. And what's even worse is that Bulgaria today is probably less independent than it was during Ottoman rule. Yet again, we're enslaved and have others doing our bidding on our behalf.. unfortunate. None the less, I remain a proud Balkanian and an even prouder Bulgarian. When I was discussing the land I didn't mean the people. Everywhere in the Balkans most people are very kind hearted and they would give you the shirts off their back. If you earn our trust we make the best friends you could have. We can speculate ' what could've been' but that's pointless. Most of these regions were under Ottoman occupation for centuries and learned the Ottoman way of administration , which by industrial standards , was backwards. All these little nations upon sampling just a tidbit of freedom began to promote their 'glorious past' , well at least the intelligensia did, no matter what the cost. You cannot expect your way of life to change over night. The real error was the post ww1 scenario , not just in the Balkans but Europe as a whole. Some states should've never been created , the 14 points actually should've been followed and each of the remnant peoples of the Ottoman Empire and Austrian Empire should've recieved their own country instead of making artificial creations like Yugoslavia. This would've avoided a lot of angst and not made the Third Reich look so appealing. My people's government in WW2 , which was imposed from the outside , wouldn't have ever been accepted if they had not been in that state. Communism would have a weaker appeal as well. I refrain from saying I'm Balkan outright because it unnecessarily conjures up an image of the crap region that I described. My country is not like that , far from it being one of the most beautiful in Europe. If this image is changed then I wouldn't mind the term at all.
|
|
|
Post by anulu on Aug 2, 2011 11:41:34 GMT -5
....it is no co-incidence that wherever the us army goes, so do these nuttbags. Not entirely incorrect but you're only looking at a piece of the larger picture. The larger view being, imo, the flag follows the dollar, where the flag goes the army follows, and army serves the interests of industrialists who gather support by feeding the nutbags their religious enema.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 2, 2011 14:31:46 GMT -5
Albanians will not be touched by hostile hands, irregardless of the American presence in the Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Shqipni13 on Aug 2, 2011 15:30:53 GMT -5
Shqipni , I don't think you have an arguing point. NATO supports the existence of both R.Kosovo and R.Macedonia so I'm saying if you support NATO policy in this region then you have to leave Macedonia alone. And IMO Albanians , Serbs , and Macedonians are the most volitile people of the Balkans. Especially Serbs and Albanians , hardly any neighbor likes them or are extremely skeptical of them and they even hate eachother. Macedonia happens to be the country that all her neighbors want to claim as sort of a 'holy land.' No wonder this part of the Balkans is so shoddy and pathetic. The argument started when chento questioned where we would be without the US. I then responded that Fyrom needed the US just as much (if not more). Croatia has always had western support which is why it is economically ahead of these "pathetic, shoddy countries" you mention. Hell where would you be without the west? You think Croatia would have had a chance against Serbia? You guys got what you want so you can now lay low and criticize others for wanting what you attained, good for you. Some of your generals were Albanian (Agim çeku ring a bell?). I don't know any Croatians personally but Albanians I have talked to that served in Yugoslav army claim the Croats were by far the most shady and arrogant followed by the Slovenes and Bosnians. I was shocked to hear the Serbs were the friendliest of all Yugoslavs. I do realize that may be because they felt like the top dogs of Yugoslavia.
|
|
|
Post by Shqipni13 on Aug 2, 2011 15:37:48 GMT -5
Prisojanin, you're right about the Balkans. We're the "outcasts" of Europe, we're the ones who no one wants to be. But here I'm reminded of the good 'ol Norther American saying, "it might be s**t, but it's my s**t" and I love it. +1
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 8, 2011 12:33:16 GMT -5
"Actually, it is the linguistic element that proves their Illyrian ancestry best." Remember Anittas, modern Shqiptare is in Satem division not Centum. Just a couple of random words they use here is to prove their originality, c'mon, we can all do that. It's really around 300 words; and Dacian might have been Satem, too.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 9, 2011 5:13:48 GMT -5
Your right, l agree with you, when the US eventually falls, who will protect the Albanians. All of her neighbours arn't in love with her, imagine, if they decided to invade and rip her up into pieces and delegate regions to the victors (Greece, Serbia etc....).
All of Albania's neighbours have a stronger case historically to Albania itself than the Albanians to her neighbours territory.
PS there is no plan B l see from them.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 9, 2011 5:17:26 GMT -5
"It's really around 300 words; and Dacian might have been Satem, too."
Anittas, 300 words so what. So are you incinuating that Albanians may have originated from the Dacians? l highly doubt this, but whats your take?
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 9, 2011 11:33:29 GMT -5
My take is that the Albanians are of the native element, as most of the Balkans are; the difference is that they were not assimilated by Slavs or Greeks. No, their ancestors were not Daco-Thracian, but had contact with them and thus the linguistical exchange. All this displeasure towards them is due to their Muslim majority and because they're different... thus they're not considered "brate".
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Aug 9, 2011 18:39:41 GMT -5
whether or not they are "native" is irrelevant...they underhandedly occupy land that is not theirs
|
|
|
Post by Shqipni13 on Aug 10, 2011 1:42:59 GMT -5
^If native how can you call them occupiers?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 10, 2011 8:54:14 GMT -5
Lol I think Krivosanin will have a hard time grasping this. Though, his views appear to be very different from reality. As far as I've understood him, according to his views, Bulgarians are Serbs mixed with Turks.. which is light years away from the truth.
But then again, he also thinks that all Slavic speaking populations in South Eastern Europe are Serbs as well, which is also light years away from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Aug 10, 2011 9:14:29 GMT -5
Ivo, his argument is quite sound regarding the Slavic speaking population being Serbs. Serbs and Serbian is much older than "Slavic". Unfortunatly there's not much evidence at hand to prove it, yet there isn't much evidence to disprove it.
I will remain neutral in my stance regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 10, 2011 9:19:30 GMT -5
You idiot Ivo, your people have Turkish Bulgar blood, you know your brothers, THE GAUGAZI, who call themselves eski or hasli bulgar......now this is truth.
PS what do you know about truth? You know only propaganda, i.e, Turkish BuLgari are indo-europeans from the Pamirs, LMAO
|
|
|
Post by uz on Aug 10, 2011 9:22:08 GMT -5
Novi relax man, can you really blame them?
We're talking about their "identity" that is flawed, this is very sensitive for them to take, it takes time to be able to let go of something they were taught their whole life.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 10, 2011 12:41:51 GMT -5
On the contrary, his argument has no substance and the only people who support it appear to be ultra-nationalistic Serbs that have very pronounced "racist-like" tendencies.
The "old Serbs", much like the "old Bulgars" were not Slavs.
You claim to remain "neutral", yet some of your statements remain condescending.
What exactly is "flawed" with our identity? Bulgarians are Bulgarians, and our language falls under the Slavic linguistic group, however, the grammar of our language is different than all other Slavic languages/dialects (excluding Macedonian and Torlakian).
Before communism, the old Bulgar roots were emphasized, during communism the Slavic roots were emphasized. In fact, the Slavic roots of the modern Bulgars were so heavily emphasized during communism that many facts had been omitted from history. Thankfully, nowadays, all these facts are resurfacing and we're able to get closer to the truth.
Ahh, but there's a difference between the terms "Turkish" and "Turkic". If you're referring to the old Bulgars, there are theories that they were of 'Turkic' origin. The ironic thing is that the term 'Turkic' is much more recent than the term 'Bulgar'. The term Bulgar predates all terms such as Turk, Turkic, or Turkish by several centuries.
Anyway, the 'Turkic' theories were the most widely accepted during communism, however, contemporary findings are going in the direction of Iranic origin the same as the origin of the old Croats and the old Serbs.
According to one of my professors at U. of T. (he was Russian), the ethnic composition of the 'Balkan Slavs' (including Croats) is more or less the same. However, in the Bulgarian/Macedonian gene pool, the Slavic element is less pronounced than it is in Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins etc.
He also went on further to state that the term 'Slav' is not necessarily relevant to ethnicity, as it is more accurately applied to distinguish linguistic groups or ethno-linguistic groups if you will. His conclusions were that there are no "pure" Slav groups, and that all "Slavs" are mixed with a variation of other ethnic groups. The "purest" Slavs, ie. the ones who have the greatest element of actual "Slavic" blood in them are those living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus and the overall surrounding region. The Slavs living in Russia and the Ukraine are significantly mixed with other ethnic groups. And the Slavs in South Eastern Europe are amongst the most mixed Slavic groups of all, if not the most.
The physical characteristics of Bulgarians/Macedonians and most Torlaks, appear to be the Slavic groups with the least pronounced Slavic features. Ironically enough, the grammar of the dialects spoken by Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Torlaks is noticeably different than the grammar of all other Slavs.
Anyway, I'll stop here as I feel like I can discuss this all day long and there'll still be more to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Shqipni13 on Aug 10, 2011 13:45:43 GMT -5
Lol I think Krivosanin will have a hard time grasping this. Though, his views appear to be very different from reality. As far as I've understood him, according to his views, Bulgarians are Serbs mixed with Turks.. which is light years away from the truth. But then again, he also thinks that all Slavic speaking populations in South Eastern Europe are Serbs as well, which is also light years away from the truth. The Serbs make up their own reality. Dobrica Cosic said it best.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 11, 2011 2:24:06 GMT -5
^ Dobrica Cosich, thats the only person you can reveal here for us....its like me revealing:
- Resuli - Vebiu - Lubonja etc....
|
|
|
Post by Shqipni13 on Aug 11, 2011 2:38:42 GMT -5
^Those guys were never president of a country. Hey patriot, there is no 'ch' in serbian language.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 11, 2011 3:49:38 GMT -5
"Ahh, but there's a difference between the terms "Turkish" and "Turkic". If you're referring to the old Bulgars, there are theories that they were of 'Turkic' origin. The ironic thing is that the term 'Turkic' is much more recent than the term 'Bulgar'. The term Bulgar predates all terms such as Turk, Turkic, or Turkish by several centuries." Whats the difference, they are still Asians, Asians like the Mongolians/Japanese/Chinese etc....What do you want to say, they arn't mongolids but Caucasoids like the original Japanese Ainu?
"Anyway, the 'Turkic' theories were the most widely accepted during communism, however, contemporary findings are going in the direction of Iranic origin the same as the origin of the old Croats and the old Serbs." Now you are spinning BS, your Khans when they *first* arrived and founded their 'Abode' (meaning Capital) of modern Pliska, they didn't speak an Alien language to other related Turkish tribes (Gaugazi, Kirgiz, Uzbeks, Tartars, Sakas, Azeris etc....). Your khans had their shamens, yurts, Airags, followed calendars that are exact to this day from eastern asia, you know, the year of the rabbit, horse, pig etc....Their clothing wasn't even styled like an indo-european but someone from Tibet, oh, l forgot, they had a skygod Tengri that all Turkish peoples believed. Finally, liars like the BuLgari won't admit that Asparuch built his first building in his Abode in Turkish style ;D
Croatians, if they believe they are from Iran, good for them. I believe, Slavs, like all other indo-europeans had split away from their point of origin in Southern Russia. Ofcourse our Slavic language will be closest to modern, persian, since they both, are within the Satem language division. Slavic/Baltic, North Indian and Persian are very archaic, Slavic like Serbian and North Indian languages use *R* as a vowel. To say the name Serb is Iranic, to me, doesn't seem to gel. "According to one of my professors at U. of T. (he was Russian), the ethnic composition of the 'Balkan Slavs' (including Croats) is more or less the same. However, in the Bulgarian/Macedonian gene pool, the Slavic element is less pronounced than it is in Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins etc." Wah, Slavic element is strongest in the North Balkans (Slovenia, Croatia and Nth Serbia), apparently, it spikes in vardar river region and northern greece.....again, your BS'ing. The match between Serbs and the vardar river region, genetically, is basically identical.
"He also went on further to state that the term 'Slav' is not necessarily relevant to ethnicity, as it is more accurately applied to distinguish linguistic groups or ethno-linguistic groups if you will. His conclusions were that there are no "pure" Slav groups, and that all "Slavs" are mixed with a variation of other ethnic groups. The "purest" Slavs, ie. the ones who have the greatest element of actual "Slavic" blood in them are those living in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus and the overall surrounding region. The Slavs living in Russia and the Ukraine are significantly mixed with other ethnic groups. And the Slavs in South Eastern Europe are amongst the most mixed Slavic groups of all, if not the most." Apparently, the most PURE Slavic group is the Serbs of Germany, or known to the Germans as Wends or Sorbs, hence why there is a spike in Slavic genes in Northern Greece and Vardar
"The physical characteristics of Bulgarians/Macedonians and most Torlaks, appear to be the Slavic groups with the least pronounced Slavic features. Ironically enough, the grammar of the dialects spoken by Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Torlaks is noticeably different than the grammar of all other Slavs." Torlakian & Shopi have some declension system, but BuLgarski and Standard Vardarska doesn't, this doesn't mean they are BuLgari. Again, if we place you next to Boris' Slavs, from the 9th century, would you have been able to understand them, l mean, Boris' Slavs spoke a form of language that would have contained a declension system like modern Serbian/Croatian/Slovene and old church slavonic from the Thessaloniki region. Hey, the Wends/Serbs from Germany speak a dialect almost akin to Polish, does that make them Polish?, ofcourse not, but however, Balkan Serbian from the 5/6th centuries and Wendish from 5/6th centuries were the same, in-fact, all slavic languages, from each related slavic groups, were the same, it was said that slavic was one language mass from Novgorod to Thessaloniki.
Max Vasmer:
"before the more important dialectual differences began to emerge, they inhabited a region whose individual areas were subject to mutual linguistic modification."
J.J. Mikkola:
"Where we find Slavs, who call themselves Slavs, we must derive them from a single proto-tribe.""Anyway, I'll stop here as I feel like I can discuss this all day long and there'll still be more to discuss." Your too simplistic theories don't make sense.
|
|