|
Post by Anittas on Sept 5, 2011 9:37:11 GMT -5
countrystudies.us/bulgaria/5.htmI wasn't aware that bulgar meant "one of mixed ancestry". So I suppose that all of these debates about your origins were in fact not about having the origins of this and that, but rather of the magnitute that these ethnicites had as an impact on your genetic pool. Bulgaria is the World. Sing along with me, Bulgarians! We are the world.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 5, 2011 11:32:02 GMT -5
Much like the origin of the Bulgars, the term Bulgar has various interpretations. This is one them. And once again, not a decisive one.
The term Bulgar itself was most likely a personal name of some old ruler or tribal leader. Much like the term 'Frank'. So the term itself is not necessarily descriptive of the people as a whole. Though, the fact that the old Bulgars assimilated a multitude of other tribes is no secret.
Realistically the history of all peoples is the same, and the amalgamation of different ethnic groups is what has formed the modern day nations of Europe. The only difference is that we the Bulgars have to balls to admit it.
On the other hand, nations like Romania cling on to some 'invented' history in the mid 1800's. A country that once used the Cyrillic alphabet and Old Bulgarian (ie. Old Church Slavonic) as it's official language.
And all of the sudden, a country with heavy Slavic influences on its culture and language becomes a country that is a "Latin island in a sea of Slavs", priding itself in the fact that a small portion of its land was once submitted and dominated by the Romans for a mere 160 years.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 5, 2011 12:50:54 GMT -5
Do you really believe in all that crap you wrote? There wasn't an official language in those times. You look like a moron while repeating this lie all over the forum. It's Bulgarian stupidity at it's best. Slavonic language was the language used by the Church and just one of the languages used in chancellery. It was in it's prime for about 200 years since the first documents in Slavonic (about 1350) to the first book printed in Romanian (1544). By 1600 Slavonic was already obsolete. And there wasn't any Slavonic cultural influence because there isn't a Slavonic Culture. The Slavs, being one of the most primitive people in the World, are only good for slaves and are incapable of creating culture but only of destroying it. What you think as Slavonic culture is nothing but a copy of the Late Roman (Byzantine) culture.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 5, 2011 13:40:33 GMT -5
^propagandonist in training right here.
Your idea of "primitive" is lack of pyramid social-structure these empires were imposing. The Slavs didn't have a one-leader, vote, democratic system. Law and justice was directed and consulted through the elders, for wisdom and life experience can only lead. Equality was profound. Never conquerers, simply survivors despite the fact many of our fellow Balkanians were quick to clean/shine the shoes and pick up the s**t of these foreign empires, while bowing and immediately assimilating.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 5, 2011 15:35:46 GMT -5
Romania had and still has a strongly serbian-slavic element. Replace bulgar with something more original like "SERBIAN" and i agree 100% with Ivo's post.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 5, 2011 15:50:26 GMT -5
I believe in the things I write, if I didn't I wouldn't write them. And the reason why I believe in them is because I've read about them extensively.
You're misinformed. That was the official language of state and church of your principalities. Even today, Romanians use phrases like 'bogdaproste' which is actually 'Bog da prosti'.. it translates to 'God forgives'. The icons in your churches still bear the Cyrillic letters, and modern day Romanians are unable to read them.
It is no lie. Your government simply chooses to avoid emphasizing these facts.
It became 'obsolete' later than that. However, this didn't happen naturally. Much like Ataturk 'purified' the Ottoman language, your government 'purified' your language by replacing Slavic terms with Latin ones.
Bulgarian culture, and Slavic culture in general, has definitely been heavily influenced by East Roman culture. This is true.
Bulgarian culture is a Slavic culture. Realistically, you have more Bulgarian/Slavic cultural influences than you do Roman influences. I know this is hard for you to swallow, but that is the reality of it all.
What do you use as a measure of being 'primitive'? The Romans, for example, would watch women and children get torn apart limb from limb by lions and tigers for pleasure. To me, this is something that casts a big fat shadow on the oh so 'civilized' Roman Empire.
Not that you have any actual relation to the Romans, but you do seem to admire the short-lived masters of that one small part of your land.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 5, 2011 15:52:15 GMT -5
Lol. When exactly have the lands of modern day Romania been ruled by Serbia? They've been a part of the Bulgarian Empires for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 5, 2011 20:40:59 GMT -5
Ivo, you retard. You don't understand the meaning of offical language. For a country to have an official language, this needs to be mentioned in its constitution or some other legal form. Therefore, Bulgarian was not the official language, nor was Romanian the official language because, we did not have an official language. Much like USA doesn't have an official language.
Old Slavonic was used in official correspondence for some time, but it wasn't used exclusively. At times we used Latin, Greek, Italian. The local population did not speak Old Slavonic and the fact that a big part of our vocabulary was influenced by Slavonic has nothing to do with Bulgars. It has to do with Slavs, so let's not use the two terms interchangeably.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 5, 2011 20:48:00 GMT -5
Catcher, there are some good Slavs out there. Czech, Slovaks and Slovenes and if you're lucky, some nice Poles. Those are the only decent Slavs left. Ukrainians used to be cool some centuries back and Serbs used to be very civilized prior to the 90s. Bulgarians have always been savages and that's because they're not Slavs, but Mongols.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 5, 2011 20:52:01 GMT -5
Elaborate pls, but don't bring up the war b/c you'll be sliding down the slope pretty hard if you do.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 5, 2011 20:55:12 GMT -5
Why wouldn't I bring up the war? Apart from the war, I've also noticed that Serbs from Banat and the Belgrade region are more civilized than those from Bosnia. The latter are savages.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 5, 2011 20:57:44 GMT -5
I ran into a lot of you older posts under the name; Annitas. You showed a lot of sensitivity when people bashed Romania, and Romanians.
Did you finally give up on your heritage so you can excuse yourself to bash others with no substance?
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 5, 2011 21:03:57 GMT -5
I've been here since 2003. Most decent people left the forum to escape the insanity. The rest evolved into what you see in me.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 5, 2011 21:14:27 GMT -5
A self-hating balkan-cynic?
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 5, 2011 21:25:43 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 5, 2011 21:28:22 GMT -5
That's a sad story...
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 6, 2011 1:15:43 GMT -5
It is really funny to see stuborn people in denial. Old Church Slavonic was the main language used for liturgical and administrative purposes by the Romanians until the 18th century, being still used in the Orthodox Church until mid-19th century. The most important influences were from Middle and Modern Bulgarian. You are so touchy. It wasnt OFFICIAL. Maybe we still have not found a legal document, in which it is declared as the official. However my take is it was either announced as official and the document was destroyed or it was official de facto, because it was the most used. Its probably very hard for your Roman souls but indeed Romania (a province of Bulgaria for centuries under very heavy Bulgarian influence) was the country into which our culture flourish. So was Serbia in 15 centuries. Both examples show the magnitute of the Bulgarian culture, which unfortunately was destroyed. You should be proud. As for Bulgarians being mixed: yes we are. We are not like the Romanians or Macedonians who overlook whole eras in their history so that they look "pure". In general, of all lands on the Bolkans, in Romania there must live one of the most mixed people in the world. I mean who did NOT pass through the "Roman area". Its enough if one people of one tribe made sex with one "Roman" girl. I will not bordom the people with well known facts like the detail that the proud Romanians couldnt organize their own state till 14 century, while their "primitive" neighbours the Bulgarians had it since 7th century. Add to that the fact that Bulgaria ruled the "Roman" craddle for centuries, later it was always in other peoples hands and even for centuries it was called Cumania and the sources mention only Cumans. As a whole, Romanians history is another big fairytale for the masses, talking about their so called supremacy over the surounding people, because they are "roman". However I think they are much less "Roman" than Greece or even Bulgaria. The only left over from the Romans indeed is the language which was obviously on its way to be bulgarized.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 6, 2011 3:20:03 GMT -5
Lol. When exactly have the lands of modern day Romania been ruled by Serbia? They've been a part of the Bulgarian Empires for centuries. Don not introduce irrelevant notions in the conversation. Slavic footprints were created by genuine slavs such as Serbs, Rusini (Russians), Slovaks. All those people live today in Banat and the whole region of Vojvodina. The same people used to inhabit the valeys of Romania. Bulgars were not an original slavic nation but rather a composition of the "leftovers" of slavic tribes who mostly ressembled either to Serbs (the ekavica part of your language) (or in another view the ... SCLAVENE) or Russians-Rusini-Ukranians (the yakavica (and official) part of your language) (or in another view ... the ANTES). Now, both south/central serbia, greece, bulgaria, bosna, used to be ruled by turks for 400 years... pfffff... meaningless.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 6, 2011 3:22:07 GMT -5
Why wouldn't I bring up the war? Apart from the war, I've also noticed that Serbs from Banat and the Belgrade region are more civilized than those from Bosnia. The latter are savages. you don't have a clue. There are some Bosanci Serbs who consider their kin MORE civilized than Srbijanci due to their prolonged rule by the hapsburgs, but in reality Serbs are the SAME CIVILIZED, KIND, VIVID and IMAGINATIVE, FRIENDLY nation everywhere!!! CCCC
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 6, 2011 4:36:28 GMT -5
Slavic footprints were created by genuine slavs such as Serbs. The original Serbs werent slavs also, try dagestans.
|
|