Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 15, 2012 8:47:51 GMT -5
"Did you even read anything I posted? "Bulgar" is Turkic, "Bulgaria" is Slavicised, which comes from the Turkic "Bulgar"."
NOPE, wrong. Try again your making a fool of yourself, same logic would dictate Chuvashi are Bulgarians too or even the Gagauzi from Bulgaria. Khan Asparuch founded his state in 681AD as a nation called Bulgaria.
"Because you love extreme historical revisionism so much."
Sure l do, its not historical revisionism, its actual FACT that you deny and find hard to ACEPT, right Moe. Tell me, why is there a town in Bulgaria called Srpsko Selo? Is this just historical revisionism according to your twisted pro-Bulgarian opinion Ivo?
"By the same flawed logic you exert here, then the Slavic people of Karas, Romania are Bulgarians because they write "Wolf" as "Влк" as opposed to the Serbian "Вук", same for the Serbs in Vranje, Serbia who write it as "Вълк". This would mean, using your logic, that these people are in fact Bulgarians. Do you follow this (your) logic?"
Was l talking about Vuk? I'm talking about the name BuLgarska as noted by Vatroslav Oblak because its a Bulgarianism in which Serbian populations don't say it as you may Ivo, get it.
"We weren't talking about this in the first place, every time I proved you wrong you changed the subject. Now we're talking about whether Macedonians were Serbs or Bulgarians because you couldn't prove Bulgarian was a Turkic language.
"
Ofcourse Old Bulgarian is the language of the Turks/Turkics, you must be deluded to believe otherwise Ivo. Why did Boris ban the use of Old Bulgarian when he christianised his Turkish upper ruling stratum?
I really didn't want to say it Ivo, but your pushing me to kick your backside for attempting to shamelessly PROVE Bulgars arn't Turkic/Turkish.
I want you to explain to me these East Asian Words and what they mean:
- Bagatur
- Bagatur-boila-kolober
- Boila-tarkan
- Bori-tarkan
- Ichirgu-kolober
- Kanasubigi, Iuvigi Khan
- Kanartikin
- Kana-bagatur
- Kana-boila-kolober
- Kavhan
- Khagan
- Khan
- Oglu-tarkan
- Shaman
- Tumen-tarkan
OR these PURE MONGOLIAN names:
- Alzek
- Bayan
- Dizeng
- Dukum
- Isbul (See the BUL, as in ISTANBUL)
- Okhsun (Very mongolian)
- Toktu
- Tuk
- Bulger (Again see the BUL)
- Gostun
- Kutrigur
OR even Animals:
- shegor
- beri
- dvansh
- dilom
- tokh
- etkh
- dokhs
For example Turkish *davšan* equates to Bulgar *dvansh* or Chuvashi *taok* equates to Bulgar *tokh*
"And in south-Eastern Serbia, there are Torlaks that use grammar similar to Bulgarian. Torlaks say Den like the Bulgarians, Torlaks say Zdravja, instead of Zdravlja. By your logic, south-eastern Serbs were originally Bulgarians (I don't think this, I'm just trying to show how using your logic, we come to ridiculous conclusions and this is an inconsistent way of knowing who's who."
C'mon Ivo, your being rediculous, Torlaks don't say Den, they say Dan, they don't say Korv but Krv or Mlyako but Mleko, they don't say Lyato but Leto. Torlakian and Shopi is structurally Serbian slavic, they have declensions, whereas BuLgarski is structurally like a ROMANCE langauge (Vlachs, Romanians, Aromanian etc...)
"Macedonians were influenced by the Serbs as well as the Bulgarians. You pick out the Serbian elements of Macedonian culture, and ignore the Bulgarian elements. And when your shown the Bulgarians elements you call it propaganda. You create massive contradictions."
There is nothing Bulgarian in Vardar at all, all l can find is just Serbian. Ivo, remember when l have shown you Jordan Ivanov and his lack of finding sources that contain the name Bulgaria? We only ever see the name substainally used when the Exarchos is first established in 1872.
"I wasn't arguing this, if you want to talk about old Church slavonic, discuss it with the Bulgarians."
Ivo, when you tell me you know history about Bulgaria why are shying away, c'mon buddy this is weak.
"So first it was Mongol, then it was Turkic, now it's a Romance language? You're a funny fella, Novi"
Can't you debate, so you resort to little stabs, right Ivo?
You would agree, like everybody else here that the language of the Old Bulgarians of Asparuch was the Turkic/Turkish (as seen above in this post). Everybody would agree with me that the language whom Asparuch enslaved, as you somewhere admit, the seven slavic tribes, spoke slavic and WAS structurally slavic. Turkish Bulgarian of Asparuch was eliminated by his decendant Boris about 170 years later, some Turkish Bulgarian (Old Bulgarian) vocabulary is still present in modern slavic Bulgarian. However, as languages EVOLVE, one can safely assume the slavic language of modern Bulgarian structurally resembles Romance than a structurally slavic language like modern Serbian and its sub-dialects (Torlakian/Shopi).
"Oh man, so many contradictions to keep up with. Just before you were trying to prove Western Bulgarians are Serbs through the language they speak, and trying to prove OCS is Serbian by language as well, and that Macedonians are Serbs by looking at their language. Have some integrity, please."
No, l was telling you in my last post that if we want to compare dialects or language as a base of ethnicity, if Serb or Bulgar, then according to simplistic conclusions by previous (ill-informed) travellors and falsified information propagated by Bulgars during and after Exarchos (1872 - 1912). Then by structure, like declensions, and sounds, we can safely concluded Serb and Serbian like languages spoken by peoples outside of Serbia proper can be observed in the West Bulgaria, Northern half of Vardar, Western regions of Vardar (Debar, Pologs etc....), Eastern Vardar and Pirin regions. We can also safely conclude also Old Church Slavonic as a Serbian like language. However my message to you is languages evolve, right, and modify due to proximity etc....As l have explained above, Balkan Serbs can trace their ancestry to the Sorbs of Germany, but Sorbish of today doesn't resemble their old language 1500 years ago, its Polish like and hugely different to Balkan Serbian (whom at one stage of union spoke one language). White Serbs who settled in modern Vardar during the middle ages, didn't speak a Serbian language, as spoken today in 2012, right? A Serb today, if he heard a White Serb speak from yester-year will not understand.....do you see my drift at all Ivo?
"So Bulgarians were on the last ones ones to call their language something other than "Slavic"
Ivo, the Bulgars and the Slavs were still a segregated people upto the 10th century. This is not the point, slavic was practically one language mass from Novgorod (town of modern Russia) to Thessaloniki (Greece) even in the 10th century and writers of the time did not view their language other than Slovensk. Clement, never viewed his language other than Slav, if he saw it as a separate language (Bulgarian), he would have mention it as BULGARSK, right?
"The Chuvash are Bulgars. The Gaugaz people are Turkic. Asparuh was a Bulgar, just like Rurik was a "Rus" but considered a "Russkije" today. No Slavic blood? He wasn't pure Turkic either, just like the Serbs aren't pure slavs, they don't have much Slavic DNA, does that make them non-slavs? No, it doesn't. They're still slavs. Also, Bulgarian is a nationality and an ethnicity. Just like French is both an ethnicity and nationality."
The Chuvashi are Bulgarian, the Gagauzi are also Bulgarian. Asparuch and his Khanate was definitely a nation of Bulgarians. Anthropologists have obversed a Turkic/Turkish TURANID type, mostly present in North-Eastern modern Bulgaria (Asparuch's Bulgars). DNA analysis' have concluded Q flowing in the veins of modern Bulgars, an East Asian addition from Asparuch.
"I've been trying to find these words in the Bulgarian language and couldn't find them, I guess you should discuss this with a native Bulgarian speaker. I guess you don't check your sources before you post them. I was also trying to find "Bunar" in Bulgarian dictionaries and couldn't find it either. I'll check with Ioan or Ivo whether that's actually a Bulgarian word."
Refer to above with names, titles etc....C'mon Ivo you gotta know your ancient Old Turkish Bulgarian language?
"So now you're saying the "big, bad Bulgarians" were trying to Bulgarianise the Macedonians? This map says Bosniaks and Croats are Serbs, but the people of Macedonian are Bulgarians."
I can post the map of 814 at the death of Charlemagne. Before you answer, yes, Serbia wasn't a nation but these who drew this map saw the people as a Servian mass
"Why would they stop with Bosniaks and Croats? Why not add the Macedonians as well? Because some Macedonians were in fact Bulgarians, and some were in fact Serbs. Did you know that After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%) the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. So this proves that Macedonians weren't forced into anything, except for living in a Bulgarian and Serbian nation after the Ottomans."
Have a read and learn again Ivo:
The following is quoted from Floericke, Filov, Mintschev, Baker, Braun-Wiesbaden, Hajo Halborn, Richard von Mach, Vasil Radoslawoff etc...
In the development of the Macedonian question, the bulgarian exarchate played an extremely important part, for it was the first propagator of Bulgarian territorial ambitions among the Slavic population of Macedonia. Despite the policy of national repression to which the people was exposed, Bulgarian discontent was directed much more against the Greek bishops than against the Turks. "It is characteristic," says Kurt Floericke, "that the first steps were directed, not against the political oppression exercised by the Turks, but against the religious and linguistic persecution conducted by the Greeks. Thus, they did not leave the path of the law for an instant, but rather appealed to the pashas and the Sultan for their impartial and well-disposed mediation." Bogdan Filov remarks that Pajsije's Slaveno-balgarska istorija was the original stimulus of the Bulgarian national movement, "which took place simultaneously in Macedonia and Bulgaria and which was primarily directed against the used of Greek in the church service." "The Greek schools in Bulgaria, " wrote Ivan Minchev, "were a greater danger than the tyrannical regime of the Turks, for they were on the way to denationalizing the Bulgars."
In order to avert this danger that was threatening them from the Patriarchate at Constantinople, the Bulgars threw themselves into the arms of the Turks. The effort made by Bulgarian leaders before the proclamation of the Exarchate did not, however, bear fruit. Rich Bulgarian merchants who had awakened to the call of nationalism organized in 1840-45 an opposition to ecclesiastical oppression. In 1867, the Bulgars appealed to the Porte for permission to set up a special body for public instruction in Bulgaria. In a memorandum which the Bulgarian revolutionary committee handed to the Sultan in 1870, it was stated that the Bulgars were fully prepared to remain under the Sultans authority. "If our independance," says the memorandum, "could find recognition and confirmation under the glorious scepter of the Sultans, and if the Sultans were at the same time willing to be also emperors of the Bulgars, then why should we not offer our help and our strength to the Ottoman monarchy, as the Magyars did to Austria and the Algerians to France?....Diplomacy would then stand in astonishment when it saw a miracle where it had been accustomed to seeing a weak body. In this way, all prestext for intervention and threats from whatever power would be precluded for all time. Noit one foreign country would look askance at istanbul under the pretext of liberating the Christians, since the latter would be free and would want to remain so."
The idea behind this memorandum, with its obivious digs at Russia, is attributed by Braun-Wiesbaden to the Porte. "It was," he says, "neither a French, nor a Roman, nor a Greek, but a Turkish idea, although, indeed, completely beyond the grasp of a man like Abdul Aziz." Joseph Maria von Radowitz, whose position at that time would enable him to be well informaed on such matters, ascribed the idea of proclaiming an exarchate and the execution of this idea to Russia: "This movement [the Bulgarian movement for ecclesiastical separation from the Patriarchate of Constantinople] was a secretly fostered by Russia, i.e, by Ignatiew, whose personal idea it was, without, however, its suddenly coming out into the open. It was represented a complete turnabout in Russian oriental policy: while, until the Crimean War, the Russian slogan had been the defense of orthodoxy as a whole, now the Slavic national idea emerged for the first time as a leading principle to which the ancient Patriarchate of Constantinople sacrificed together with the sympathies of the disapointed Greeks. From now on, Russia was no longer merely the chief power behind Holy Russian Orthodoxy, but a mighty champion of the Slav national movement......Only in the summer of 1872 did this gradually become clear. Foreign diplomats on the Bosphorus did not, apparently, appreciate this as they should have done-least of all the British representative, Elliot, who spoke of it to me disparagingly. In the meanwhile, l reported it to Berlin as the biggest change for centuries in Russian oriental policy, and expressed the conviction that it marked the beginning of a future conflict between Russia and Turkey."
This was the setting in which the Bulgarian Exachate was born. Without doubt, the Russians exerted great efforts toward its creation, since they believed that in this way they would secure a powerful means of realizing their policy in the Balkans. The Porte on the other hand which understood better than the Russians what was going on thereby acquired a new weapon with which to smash the unity of the Balkan christians. Serbia, who was ill informed and prompted, as ever, by sentiment for the slavic cause, interpreted the proclamation of the Exarchate as a gain for the Slavic world and for Orthodoxy. The Serbian government, through its envoy in istanbul, and Metropolitan Mihailo personally - who was very favorably disposed toward the Bulgars-welcomed the creation of the Exarchate in the belief that its influence would be confined to ecclesiastical matters and that a much happier time was thus ahead for the Slavic population in the south of the Peninsula. A true pan-Slav, completely devoted to the Russians and to Orthodoxy, and one of the main leaders of Slavophilism in the Balkans, Metropolitan Mihailo made great efforts to secure recognition of the Exarchate, for he was anxious to preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church in the Balkans, which was being subjected to heavy attack, both by propaganda of various kinds and by materialistic ideas.
The Bulgars, on the other hand, understood the matter quite differently. Still without a state, they tried to exploit the Exarchate for the realization of all their national ambitions, which sprang from the influence of Venelin and that nebulous romanticism which had seized their leaders of the time. Some of these leaders were, in any case, little concerned about the church; what did concern them above all was the realization of their national ambitions and the formation of a Bulgarian state at the first opportunity. Richard von Mach was far from the truth when he wrote that the firman of March 11, 1870, by which the Exarchate was established, marked "the beginning of a new national development of the Bulgarian people." Mintschev commented that this firman "belongs to the greatest moral victories attained by the bulgarian people during the nineteeth century." Dr Vasil Radoslavoff wrote: "The Constitution of the Bulgarian Principality contains a special provision whereby the new Bulgarian state constitutes an essential part of the Church and is subordinate to the Holy Synod, regardless of where the latter shall have its seat." In the light of all these circumstances, it is not surprising that the first five Bulgarian bishops, in a letter to the Bulgarian nation, urged the people, not only to remain loyal to the Sultan, but to redouble their loyality and submission."
For the Bulgars, the most valuable gain was the official recognition, throughout the territory of the Exarchate, of "bugar-mileti" as well as "urum-mileti." The former term was intended as designating all those members of the orthodox church who remained loyal to the Patriarchate but who did not feel themselves to be Greeks. From the practical or political point of view, this was the first official recognition of the Bulgarian nationality. On the other hand, the serbs in Old and southern serbia suffered a twofold setback: since they had no national Church of their own, it was impossible for them to be entered in the population register as a separate nation, and, divided as they were between Exarchate and Patriarchate, they were thrown into conflict among themselves. "With the creation of the Exarchate," says Carl Ritter von Sax, "the Bulgarian name once more acquired official significance."
The edict establishing the Exarchate opened up considerable opportunities for spreading Bulgarian influence in all the Serbian lands under Turkish rule. The opportunities were amply exploited. Under the pretext of introducing Church services read in slav and liberating the people from the authority of the Greek bishops, there began a bitter struggle for the Bulgarization of areas that had never been Bulgarian. "those who declared themselves for the Exarchate were Bulgars, those who acknowledged the Patriarchate were Serbs. It was scarely possible at that time to trace any linguistic borderline." Bulgarian agents, many of whom were from Macedonia and had been converted to the Bulgarian cause, inundated the whole of Macedonia and, under the aegis of the Exarchate, engaged in the work of bringing the people over to their side. On January 14, 1899-i.e, at a time when relations had become well defined, Freiherr von Marschall reported to the German Chancellor von Hohenlohe that all Bulgarian commercial representatives in Macedonia were merely revolutionary agents: “This is especially true,” he said, “of the agent Rizov in Skoplje, where he has organized a central depot for the Macedonian-Bulgarian movement. The same is essentially true of Bulgarian diplomatic representatives, who consider their chief task to be the conducting of propaganda for a Greater Bulgaria.”
Article 10 of the above-mentioned firman required that at least two thirds of the total Orthodox population in any area should decided in favour of the Exarchate, that it be included in the area of the Exarchate and that it be given the right to ask for Exarchate bishops and priests. Taken all in all, this edict subordinated to the Exarchate the dioceses of Pirot, Nish, Custendil and Samokov, all of which had previously come under the Patriarchate of Pech. The omission of all reference to Skoplje, Veles and Stip in the edict is conspicuous. “In Macedonia and eastern Thrace,” says Richard von Mach, “i.e, in those areas that are today under direct Turkish administration, not one diocese was originally subordinated to the Bulgarian Exarchate.” Later, however, they too were included in the Exarchate and received bishops appointed by the Exarchate.
In their efforts to obtain this two-thirds majority, Bulgarian propagandists did not scruple in their choice of methods. Referring to their work in Southern Serbia, Theodor von Sosnosky wrote: “What these methods were the Greeks, Serbs and Turks of this unhappy land felt on their own backs. By plunder and arson, rape and murder, armed bands tried to make them come over to the Bulgarian side. The obvious consequence of this terrorism was that other nations retaliated according to their strength. In this manner, one band raged against another.” “Their terrorism,” says Hugo Grothe of the Bulgars, “brought them more enemies than friends. If power were to come into their hands today, there would be a danger that everything non-Bulgarian would be persecuted ten times as bitterly as it was when Bulgaria was in Turkish hands.” “The fear in Macedonia.” Wrote H.N.Brailsford, “is more than an emtion. It is a physical disease, the malady of the country, the ailment that comes of tyranny.”
For a long time, the Turks tolerated this conduct on the part of the Bulgarian missionaries, for their old hatred of the Serbs had been exacerbated by the Serbo-Turkish war of 1878. “It is understandable,” says Heksch, “that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime. This circumstance was exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could only expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools, and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed. In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian……During the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra. If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, then they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular with them that, for example, male children are sometimes christened ‘Srbin’ [Serb]. The Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich, is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia.”
Scarcely any serious scholars have considered that a vote for the Slavic church was a declaration that one was a Bulgar. “If,” says Hugo Grothe, “during the church plebiscite of 1872, two thirds of the Christian Slavs voted for the Exarchate, this was by no means a confession of their Bulgarian decent.” Brailsford remarks that the inhabitants of Southern Serbia of that time were Bulgars, “because free and progressive Bulgaria has known how to attract them.” The Exarchate was laboratory in which they were nationally transformed: on these grounds, Brailsford says that the Exarchate clergy were “missionaries of the Bulgarian idea.”
It is not, therefore, too much to say that the Bulgarian Exarchate was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria, which, as D.Rizov says, “remained the national and political ideal of the entire Bulgarian people.” “Present-day Bulgaria,” wrote Paul Dehn, “is considered by politicians as a torso, and they will not rest until they resurrect their country within the frontiers, more or less, of the San Stefano treaty, including, in particular, the Aegean ports, since Varna, on account of the expensive and time-wasting passage through the Bosphorous and Dardanelles, is insufficient.” In order to consolidate the territory for this dreamed-of state, the Bulgars, as Hermann Wendel pointed out, set about the Macedonian Slavs with deliberate and well-organized propaganda and a program for spreading Bulgarian education. “Teachers,” says wendel, “not only taught the children to read and write, but instilled into them the Bulgarian national outlook. Thus, the Bulgars emerged, not as the initiators, but as the exploiters, of a movement which, in the form of the awakening of the ‘unhistorical nationas,’ was bound inevitably to appear one day.” “The new state,” says Jirechek in reference to Bulgaria it was hoped to create, “was supposed to embrace the area from Basicko lake and the port of Kavalla, and in the west to unclude Pirot, Vranje, Debar and Kastoria. These frontiers were never realized, but for the Bulgars they remained as a formulated political ideal.”
Thus the Exarchate, as it was envisaged by Bulgarian ecclesiastical and popular leaders, was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria-a hastilyt formed conception that was to become the tragedy of the Bulgarian people. Bulgaria, in the form in which it was carved out by the Russians at San Stefano, was intended to serve the Russians as a fulcrum in the Balkans, as a springboard toward domination of the Mediterrean. “Such a Bulgaria,” says Dr Alexander Redlich, “was conceived, not as an independent country, but as a Russian province, which would, formally speaking, remain under the sovereign power of Turkey. It was intended to become a Russian Egypt and to keep the route open for Russia to Istanbul. In this way, Russia became the territorial neighbour of Turkey, which her next blow would destroy,” In the view of H.W.V. Temperley, San Stefano Bulgaria fulfilled all Bulgarian ambitions: it was presented as an ideal for succeeding generations, and maps of it were in every school. “The realization of these frontiers,” he says, “was the aim of the whole of subsequent Bulgarian policy.” Wolfgang Windelbandstates that it was an attempt to achieve undisputed Russian control in the Balkans, “and St. Petersburg reckoned on Europe’s bowing before a fait accompli, the force of which has always been attested in the history of diplomacy.”
In the calculations of those who hankered after a Greater Bulgaria, Macedonia played an essential role. “Bulgaria,” wrote D.Krapcev on March 24, 1915, “will never renounce her claim to Macedonia. Sooner or later, in one way or another, it will become an inseparable part of our state. Enormous sacrifices have been paid for it, and, if necessary, yet more will be made when a suitable opportunity offers itself. The proper moment and the means….will be determined by the Bulgarian government.”
The congress of Berlin made it impossible for San Stefano Bulgaria to remain as it had been carved out: instead of bowing to Russia, Europe threw her plans into confusion. The regions of Pirot, Vranje, Leskovac, Prokuplje and Nish were annexed to Serbia, but Southern Serbia continued to be subjected to Bulgarian propaganda, which, after this setback, merely redoubled its efforts. “That the congress of Berlin left Macedonia under Turkish rule,” says Gilbert in der Maur, “was the result of complete ignorance and indifference to human dignity, a disgrace for the century in which the Italian and German nations, on the basis of the national principle, emerged as states.” Von Radowitz did not believe that the Russian negotiators were convinced of the permanency of their achievement. “If they had been, then they would have been under an illusion as regards the world situation.” Bismarck appears to have foreseen the possibility of such a development in Balkan relations. In his Memoirs, he wrote “It is not possible impossible that in the distant future all these tribes [the Orthodox peoples in the Balkans] will be forcibly annexed to the Russian system; that their mere liberation will not make them supporters of Russian authority has been proved primarily by the Greek people…..The liberation movement continued, and the same thing happened with the Rumanians, serbs and Bulgars as with the Greeks: all these peoples readily accepted Russian assistance in their liberation from the Turks, but, when they had won their freedom, they did not show the slightest disposition to accept the tsar as the Sultan’s successor.”
From fear of the Russian danger-a fear that at that time was justified-the great powers continued to enslave a section of the Balkan Christians, on whom Bulgarian propaganda descended with renewed fervor, persisting in its attitude that what had now proved impossible of attainment would nevertheless one day achieved.
"All you've done is prove that some Macedonians named their sons "Srbin" but not why. You speculated why, which has no validity. My reason has as much credibility as yours."
BECAUSE THEY ARE SERBS.
NOPE, wrong. Try again your making a fool of yourself, same logic would dictate Chuvashi are Bulgarians too or even the Gagauzi from Bulgaria. Khan Asparuch founded his state in 681AD as a nation called Bulgaria.
"Because you love extreme historical revisionism so much."
Sure l do, its not historical revisionism, its actual FACT that you deny and find hard to ACEPT, right Moe. Tell me, why is there a town in Bulgaria called Srpsko Selo? Is this just historical revisionism according to your twisted pro-Bulgarian opinion Ivo?
"By the same flawed logic you exert here, then the Slavic people of Karas, Romania are Bulgarians because they write "Wolf" as "Влк" as opposed to the Serbian "Вук", same for the Serbs in Vranje, Serbia who write it as "Вълк". This would mean, using your logic, that these people are in fact Bulgarians. Do you follow this (your) logic?"
Was l talking about Vuk? I'm talking about the name BuLgarska as noted by Vatroslav Oblak because its a Bulgarianism in which Serbian populations don't say it as you may Ivo, get it.
"We weren't talking about this in the first place, every time I proved you wrong you changed the subject. Now we're talking about whether Macedonians were Serbs or Bulgarians because you couldn't prove Bulgarian was a Turkic language.
"
Ofcourse Old Bulgarian is the language of the Turks/Turkics, you must be deluded to believe otherwise Ivo. Why did Boris ban the use of Old Bulgarian when he christianised his Turkish upper ruling stratum?
I really didn't want to say it Ivo, but your pushing me to kick your backside for attempting to shamelessly PROVE Bulgars arn't Turkic/Turkish.
I want you to explain to me these East Asian Words and what they mean:
- Bagatur
- Bagatur-boila-kolober
- Boila-tarkan
- Bori-tarkan
- Ichirgu-kolober
- Kanasubigi, Iuvigi Khan
- Kanartikin
- Kana-bagatur
- Kana-boila-kolober
- Kavhan
- Khagan
- Khan
- Oglu-tarkan
- Shaman
- Tumen-tarkan
OR these PURE MONGOLIAN names:
- Alzek
- Bayan
- Dizeng
- Dukum
- Isbul (See the BUL, as in ISTANBUL)
- Okhsun (Very mongolian)
- Toktu
- Tuk
- Bulger (Again see the BUL)
- Gostun
- Kutrigur
OR even Animals:
- shegor
- beri
- dvansh
- dilom
- tokh
- etkh
- dokhs
For example Turkish *davšan* equates to Bulgar *dvansh* or Chuvashi *taok* equates to Bulgar *tokh*
"And in south-Eastern Serbia, there are Torlaks that use grammar similar to Bulgarian. Torlaks say Den like the Bulgarians, Torlaks say Zdravja, instead of Zdravlja. By your logic, south-eastern Serbs were originally Bulgarians (I don't think this, I'm just trying to show how using your logic, we come to ridiculous conclusions and this is an inconsistent way of knowing who's who."
C'mon Ivo, your being rediculous, Torlaks don't say Den, they say Dan, they don't say Korv but Krv or Mlyako but Mleko, they don't say Lyato but Leto. Torlakian and Shopi is structurally Serbian slavic, they have declensions, whereas BuLgarski is structurally like a ROMANCE langauge (Vlachs, Romanians, Aromanian etc...)
"Macedonians were influenced by the Serbs as well as the Bulgarians. You pick out the Serbian elements of Macedonian culture, and ignore the Bulgarian elements. And when your shown the Bulgarians elements you call it propaganda. You create massive contradictions."
There is nothing Bulgarian in Vardar at all, all l can find is just Serbian. Ivo, remember when l have shown you Jordan Ivanov and his lack of finding sources that contain the name Bulgaria? We only ever see the name substainally used when the Exarchos is first established in 1872.
"I wasn't arguing this, if you want to talk about old Church slavonic, discuss it with the Bulgarians."
Ivo, when you tell me you know history about Bulgaria why are shying away, c'mon buddy this is weak.
"So first it was Mongol, then it was Turkic, now it's a Romance language? You're a funny fella, Novi"
Can't you debate, so you resort to little stabs, right Ivo?
You would agree, like everybody else here that the language of the Old Bulgarians of Asparuch was the Turkic/Turkish (as seen above in this post). Everybody would agree with me that the language whom Asparuch enslaved, as you somewhere admit, the seven slavic tribes, spoke slavic and WAS structurally slavic. Turkish Bulgarian of Asparuch was eliminated by his decendant Boris about 170 years later, some Turkish Bulgarian (Old Bulgarian) vocabulary is still present in modern slavic Bulgarian. However, as languages EVOLVE, one can safely assume the slavic language of modern Bulgarian structurally resembles Romance than a structurally slavic language like modern Serbian and its sub-dialects (Torlakian/Shopi).
"Oh man, so many contradictions to keep up with. Just before you were trying to prove Western Bulgarians are Serbs through the language they speak, and trying to prove OCS is Serbian by language as well, and that Macedonians are Serbs by looking at their language. Have some integrity, please."
No, l was telling you in my last post that if we want to compare dialects or language as a base of ethnicity, if Serb or Bulgar, then according to simplistic conclusions by previous (ill-informed) travellors and falsified information propagated by Bulgars during and after Exarchos (1872 - 1912). Then by structure, like declensions, and sounds, we can safely concluded Serb and Serbian like languages spoken by peoples outside of Serbia proper can be observed in the West Bulgaria, Northern half of Vardar, Western regions of Vardar (Debar, Pologs etc....), Eastern Vardar and Pirin regions. We can also safely conclude also Old Church Slavonic as a Serbian like language. However my message to you is languages evolve, right, and modify due to proximity etc....As l have explained above, Balkan Serbs can trace their ancestry to the Sorbs of Germany, but Sorbish of today doesn't resemble their old language 1500 years ago, its Polish like and hugely different to Balkan Serbian (whom at one stage of union spoke one language). White Serbs who settled in modern Vardar during the middle ages, didn't speak a Serbian language, as spoken today in 2012, right? A Serb today, if he heard a White Serb speak from yester-year will not understand.....do you see my drift at all Ivo?
"So Bulgarians were on the last ones ones to call their language something other than "Slavic"
Ivo, the Bulgars and the Slavs were still a segregated people upto the 10th century. This is not the point, slavic was practically one language mass from Novgorod (town of modern Russia) to Thessaloniki (Greece) even in the 10th century and writers of the time did not view their language other than Slovensk. Clement, never viewed his language other than Slav, if he saw it as a separate language (Bulgarian), he would have mention it as BULGARSK, right?
"The Chuvash are Bulgars. The Gaugaz people are Turkic. Asparuh was a Bulgar, just like Rurik was a "Rus" but considered a "Russkije" today. No Slavic blood? He wasn't pure Turkic either, just like the Serbs aren't pure slavs, they don't have much Slavic DNA, does that make them non-slavs? No, it doesn't. They're still slavs. Also, Bulgarian is a nationality and an ethnicity. Just like French is both an ethnicity and nationality."
The Chuvashi are Bulgarian, the Gagauzi are also Bulgarian. Asparuch and his Khanate was definitely a nation of Bulgarians. Anthropologists have obversed a Turkic/Turkish TURANID type, mostly present in North-Eastern modern Bulgaria (Asparuch's Bulgars). DNA analysis' have concluded Q flowing in the veins of modern Bulgars, an East Asian addition from Asparuch.
"I've been trying to find these words in the Bulgarian language and couldn't find them, I guess you should discuss this with a native Bulgarian speaker. I guess you don't check your sources before you post them. I was also trying to find "Bunar" in Bulgarian dictionaries and couldn't find it either. I'll check with Ioan or Ivo whether that's actually a Bulgarian word."
Refer to above with names, titles etc....C'mon Ivo you gotta know your ancient Old Turkish Bulgarian language?
"So now you're saying the "big, bad Bulgarians" were trying to Bulgarianise the Macedonians? This map says Bosniaks and Croats are Serbs, but the people of Macedonian are Bulgarians."
I can post the map of 814 at the death of Charlemagne. Before you answer, yes, Serbia wasn't a nation but these who drew this map saw the people as a Servian mass
"Why would they stop with Bosniaks and Croats? Why not add the Macedonians as well? Because some Macedonians were in fact Bulgarians, and some were in fact Serbs. Did you know that After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%) the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. So this proves that Macedonians weren't forced into anything, except for living in a Bulgarian and Serbian nation after the Ottomans."
Have a read and learn again Ivo:
The following is quoted from Floericke, Filov, Mintschev, Baker, Braun-Wiesbaden, Hajo Halborn, Richard von Mach, Vasil Radoslawoff etc...
In the development of the Macedonian question, the bulgarian exarchate played an extremely important part, for it was the first propagator of Bulgarian territorial ambitions among the Slavic population of Macedonia. Despite the policy of national repression to which the people was exposed, Bulgarian discontent was directed much more against the Greek bishops than against the Turks. "It is characteristic," says Kurt Floericke, "that the first steps were directed, not against the political oppression exercised by the Turks, but against the religious and linguistic persecution conducted by the Greeks. Thus, they did not leave the path of the law for an instant, but rather appealed to the pashas and the Sultan for their impartial and well-disposed mediation." Bogdan Filov remarks that Pajsije's Slaveno-balgarska istorija was the original stimulus of the Bulgarian national movement, "which took place simultaneously in Macedonia and Bulgaria and which was primarily directed against the used of Greek in the church service." "The Greek schools in Bulgaria, " wrote Ivan Minchev, "were a greater danger than the tyrannical regime of the Turks, for they were on the way to denationalizing the Bulgars."
In order to avert this danger that was threatening them from the Patriarchate at Constantinople, the Bulgars threw themselves into the arms of the Turks. The effort made by Bulgarian leaders before the proclamation of the Exarchate did not, however, bear fruit. Rich Bulgarian merchants who had awakened to the call of nationalism organized in 1840-45 an opposition to ecclesiastical oppression. In 1867, the Bulgars appealed to the Porte for permission to set up a special body for public instruction in Bulgaria. In a memorandum which the Bulgarian revolutionary committee handed to the Sultan in 1870, it was stated that the Bulgars were fully prepared to remain under the Sultans authority. "If our independance," says the memorandum, "could find recognition and confirmation under the glorious scepter of the Sultans, and if the Sultans were at the same time willing to be also emperors of the Bulgars, then why should we not offer our help and our strength to the Ottoman monarchy, as the Magyars did to Austria and the Algerians to France?....Diplomacy would then stand in astonishment when it saw a miracle where it had been accustomed to seeing a weak body. In this way, all prestext for intervention and threats from whatever power would be precluded for all time. Noit one foreign country would look askance at istanbul under the pretext of liberating the Christians, since the latter would be free and would want to remain so."
The idea behind this memorandum, with its obivious digs at Russia, is attributed by Braun-Wiesbaden to the Porte. "It was," he says, "neither a French, nor a Roman, nor a Greek, but a Turkish idea, although, indeed, completely beyond the grasp of a man like Abdul Aziz." Joseph Maria von Radowitz, whose position at that time would enable him to be well informaed on such matters, ascribed the idea of proclaiming an exarchate and the execution of this idea to Russia: "This movement [the Bulgarian movement for ecclesiastical separation from the Patriarchate of Constantinople] was a secretly fostered by Russia, i.e, by Ignatiew, whose personal idea it was, without, however, its suddenly coming out into the open. It was represented a complete turnabout in Russian oriental policy: while, until the Crimean War, the Russian slogan had been the defense of orthodoxy as a whole, now the Slavic national idea emerged for the first time as a leading principle to which the ancient Patriarchate of Constantinople sacrificed together with the sympathies of the disapointed Greeks. From now on, Russia was no longer merely the chief power behind Holy Russian Orthodoxy, but a mighty champion of the Slav national movement......Only in the summer of 1872 did this gradually become clear. Foreign diplomats on the Bosphorus did not, apparently, appreciate this as they should have done-least of all the British representative, Elliot, who spoke of it to me disparagingly. In the meanwhile, l reported it to Berlin as the biggest change for centuries in Russian oriental policy, and expressed the conviction that it marked the beginning of a future conflict between Russia and Turkey."
This was the setting in which the Bulgarian Exachate was born. Without doubt, the Russians exerted great efforts toward its creation, since they believed that in this way they would secure a powerful means of realizing their policy in the Balkans. The Porte on the other hand which understood better than the Russians what was going on thereby acquired a new weapon with which to smash the unity of the Balkan christians. Serbia, who was ill informed and prompted, as ever, by sentiment for the slavic cause, interpreted the proclamation of the Exarchate as a gain for the Slavic world and for Orthodoxy. The Serbian government, through its envoy in istanbul, and Metropolitan Mihailo personally - who was very favorably disposed toward the Bulgars-welcomed the creation of the Exarchate in the belief that its influence would be confined to ecclesiastical matters and that a much happier time was thus ahead for the Slavic population in the south of the Peninsula. A true pan-Slav, completely devoted to the Russians and to Orthodoxy, and one of the main leaders of Slavophilism in the Balkans, Metropolitan Mihailo made great efforts to secure recognition of the Exarchate, for he was anxious to preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church in the Balkans, which was being subjected to heavy attack, both by propaganda of various kinds and by materialistic ideas.
The Bulgars, on the other hand, understood the matter quite differently. Still without a state, they tried to exploit the Exarchate for the realization of all their national ambitions, which sprang from the influence of Venelin and that nebulous romanticism which had seized their leaders of the time. Some of these leaders were, in any case, little concerned about the church; what did concern them above all was the realization of their national ambitions and the formation of a Bulgarian state at the first opportunity. Richard von Mach was far from the truth when he wrote that the firman of March 11, 1870, by which the Exarchate was established, marked "the beginning of a new national development of the Bulgarian people." Mintschev commented that this firman "belongs to the greatest moral victories attained by the bulgarian people during the nineteeth century." Dr Vasil Radoslavoff wrote: "The Constitution of the Bulgarian Principality contains a special provision whereby the new Bulgarian state constitutes an essential part of the Church and is subordinate to the Holy Synod, regardless of where the latter shall have its seat." In the light of all these circumstances, it is not surprising that the first five Bulgarian bishops, in a letter to the Bulgarian nation, urged the people, not only to remain loyal to the Sultan, but to redouble their loyality and submission."
For the Bulgars, the most valuable gain was the official recognition, throughout the territory of the Exarchate, of "bugar-mileti" as well as "urum-mileti." The former term was intended as designating all those members of the orthodox church who remained loyal to the Patriarchate but who did not feel themselves to be Greeks. From the practical or political point of view, this was the first official recognition of the Bulgarian nationality. On the other hand, the serbs in Old and southern serbia suffered a twofold setback: since they had no national Church of their own, it was impossible for them to be entered in the population register as a separate nation, and, divided as they were between Exarchate and Patriarchate, they were thrown into conflict among themselves. "With the creation of the Exarchate," says Carl Ritter von Sax, "the Bulgarian name once more acquired official significance."
The edict establishing the Exarchate opened up considerable opportunities for spreading Bulgarian influence in all the Serbian lands under Turkish rule. The opportunities were amply exploited. Under the pretext of introducing Church services read in slav and liberating the people from the authority of the Greek bishops, there began a bitter struggle for the Bulgarization of areas that had never been Bulgarian. "those who declared themselves for the Exarchate were Bulgars, those who acknowledged the Patriarchate were Serbs. It was scarely possible at that time to trace any linguistic borderline." Bulgarian agents, many of whom were from Macedonia and had been converted to the Bulgarian cause, inundated the whole of Macedonia and, under the aegis of the Exarchate, engaged in the work of bringing the people over to their side. On January 14, 1899-i.e, at a time when relations had become well defined, Freiherr von Marschall reported to the German Chancellor von Hohenlohe that all Bulgarian commercial representatives in Macedonia were merely revolutionary agents: “This is especially true,” he said, “of the agent Rizov in Skoplje, where he has organized a central depot for the Macedonian-Bulgarian movement. The same is essentially true of Bulgarian diplomatic representatives, who consider their chief task to be the conducting of propaganda for a Greater Bulgaria.”
Article 10 of the above-mentioned firman required that at least two thirds of the total Orthodox population in any area should decided in favour of the Exarchate, that it be included in the area of the Exarchate and that it be given the right to ask for Exarchate bishops and priests. Taken all in all, this edict subordinated to the Exarchate the dioceses of Pirot, Nish, Custendil and Samokov, all of which had previously come under the Patriarchate of Pech. The omission of all reference to Skoplje, Veles and Stip in the edict is conspicuous. “In Macedonia and eastern Thrace,” says Richard von Mach, “i.e, in those areas that are today under direct Turkish administration, not one diocese was originally subordinated to the Bulgarian Exarchate.” Later, however, they too were included in the Exarchate and received bishops appointed by the Exarchate.
In their efforts to obtain this two-thirds majority, Bulgarian propagandists did not scruple in their choice of methods. Referring to their work in Southern Serbia, Theodor von Sosnosky wrote: “What these methods were the Greeks, Serbs and Turks of this unhappy land felt on their own backs. By plunder and arson, rape and murder, armed bands tried to make them come over to the Bulgarian side. The obvious consequence of this terrorism was that other nations retaliated according to their strength. In this manner, one band raged against another.” “Their terrorism,” says Hugo Grothe of the Bulgars, “brought them more enemies than friends. If power were to come into their hands today, there would be a danger that everything non-Bulgarian would be persecuted ten times as bitterly as it was when Bulgaria was in Turkish hands.” “The fear in Macedonia.” Wrote H.N.Brailsford, “is more than an emtion. It is a physical disease, the malady of the country, the ailment that comes of tyranny.”
For a long time, the Turks tolerated this conduct on the part of the Bulgarian missionaries, for their old hatred of the Serbs had been exacerbated by the Serbo-Turkish war of 1878. “It is understandable,” says Heksch, “that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime. This circumstance was exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could only expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools, and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed. In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian……During the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra. If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, then they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular with them that, for example, male children are sometimes christened ‘Srbin’ [Serb]. The Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich, is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia.”
Scarcely any serious scholars have considered that a vote for the Slavic church was a declaration that one was a Bulgar. “If,” says Hugo Grothe, “during the church plebiscite of 1872, two thirds of the Christian Slavs voted for the Exarchate, this was by no means a confession of their Bulgarian decent.” Brailsford remarks that the inhabitants of Southern Serbia of that time were Bulgars, “because free and progressive Bulgaria has known how to attract them.” The Exarchate was laboratory in which they were nationally transformed: on these grounds, Brailsford says that the Exarchate clergy were “missionaries of the Bulgarian idea.”
It is not, therefore, too much to say that the Bulgarian Exarchate was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria, which, as D.Rizov says, “remained the national and political ideal of the entire Bulgarian people.” “Present-day Bulgaria,” wrote Paul Dehn, “is considered by politicians as a torso, and they will not rest until they resurrect their country within the frontiers, more or less, of the San Stefano treaty, including, in particular, the Aegean ports, since Varna, on account of the expensive and time-wasting passage through the Bosphorous and Dardanelles, is insufficient.” In order to consolidate the territory for this dreamed-of state, the Bulgars, as Hermann Wendel pointed out, set about the Macedonian Slavs with deliberate and well-organized propaganda and a program for spreading Bulgarian education. “Teachers,” says wendel, “not only taught the children to read and write, but instilled into them the Bulgarian national outlook. Thus, the Bulgars emerged, not as the initiators, but as the exploiters, of a movement which, in the form of the awakening of the ‘unhistorical nationas,’ was bound inevitably to appear one day.” “The new state,” says Jirechek in reference to Bulgaria it was hoped to create, “was supposed to embrace the area from Basicko lake and the port of Kavalla, and in the west to unclude Pirot, Vranje, Debar and Kastoria. These frontiers were never realized, but for the Bulgars they remained as a formulated political ideal.”
Thus the Exarchate, as it was envisaged by Bulgarian ecclesiastical and popular leaders, was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria-a hastilyt formed conception that was to become the tragedy of the Bulgarian people. Bulgaria, in the form in which it was carved out by the Russians at San Stefano, was intended to serve the Russians as a fulcrum in the Balkans, as a springboard toward domination of the Mediterrean. “Such a Bulgaria,” says Dr Alexander Redlich, “was conceived, not as an independent country, but as a Russian province, which would, formally speaking, remain under the sovereign power of Turkey. It was intended to become a Russian Egypt and to keep the route open for Russia to Istanbul. In this way, Russia became the territorial neighbour of Turkey, which her next blow would destroy,” In the view of H.W.V. Temperley, San Stefano Bulgaria fulfilled all Bulgarian ambitions: it was presented as an ideal for succeeding generations, and maps of it were in every school. “The realization of these frontiers,” he says, “was the aim of the whole of subsequent Bulgarian policy.” Wolfgang Windelbandstates that it was an attempt to achieve undisputed Russian control in the Balkans, “and St. Petersburg reckoned on Europe’s bowing before a fait accompli, the force of which has always been attested in the history of diplomacy.”
In the calculations of those who hankered after a Greater Bulgaria, Macedonia played an essential role. “Bulgaria,” wrote D.Krapcev on March 24, 1915, “will never renounce her claim to Macedonia. Sooner or later, in one way or another, it will become an inseparable part of our state. Enormous sacrifices have been paid for it, and, if necessary, yet more will be made when a suitable opportunity offers itself. The proper moment and the means….will be determined by the Bulgarian government.”
The congress of Berlin made it impossible for San Stefano Bulgaria to remain as it had been carved out: instead of bowing to Russia, Europe threw her plans into confusion. The regions of Pirot, Vranje, Leskovac, Prokuplje and Nish were annexed to Serbia, but Southern Serbia continued to be subjected to Bulgarian propaganda, which, after this setback, merely redoubled its efforts. “That the congress of Berlin left Macedonia under Turkish rule,” says Gilbert in der Maur, “was the result of complete ignorance and indifference to human dignity, a disgrace for the century in which the Italian and German nations, on the basis of the national principle, emerged as states.” Von Radowitz did not believe that the Russian negotiators were convinced of the permanency of their achievement. “If they had been, then they would have been under an illusion as regards the world situation.” Bismarck appears to have foreseen the possibility of such a development in Balkan relations. In his Memoirs, he wrote “It is not possible impossible that in the distant future all these tribes [the Orthodox peoples in the Balkans] will be forcibly annexed to the Russian system; that their mere liberation will not make them supporters of Russian authority has been proved primarily by the Greek people…..The liberation movement continued, and the same thing happened with the Rumanians, serbs and Bulgars as with the Greeks: all these peoples readily accepted Russian assistance in their liberation from the Turks, but, when they had won their freedom, they did not show the slightest disposition to accept the tsar as the Sultan’s successor.”
From fear of the Russian danger-a fear that at that time was justified-the great powers continued to enslave a section of the Balkan Christians, on whom Bulgarian propaganda descended with renewed fervor, persisting in its attitude that what had now proved impossible of attainment would nevertheless one day achieved.
"All you've done is prove that some Macedonians named their sons "Srbin" but not why. You speculated why, which has no validity. My reason has as much credibility as yours."
BECAUSE THEY ARE SERBS.