|
Post by Shmajser on Apr 2, 2008 5:35:29 GMT -5
Stickinthemud illyria.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=bosniahercegovina&action=display&thread=1207042119Before the rise of general nationalism in Europe, the overwhelming majority of Europeans had regional and local identities, not ethnic ones. Bosnia is no special case. 'Ethnic identities' are superficial at best. Bosnia used to be divided into provinces between its nobles as it adopted Western European feudalism when it was incorporated into the Hungarian kingdom. I agree, that was the case in the Balkans as well, actually in Bosnia, nationalities were first introduced in the mid 19-th century. That is nearly a century after the same process tok place in Europe, but that is beside the pont, the term Bosniak is by itself a ethno-regional term, THERE WAS NO SERBIAN OR CROATIAN national awareness not even in a medieval sense of the word . To equate catholics and orthodox christians with Serbs and Croats is stupid, to call people living in Bosnia anything else but Bosniaks is ridiculous since they have no connection with those wild savage tribes that ceme in the 7-th century(if they came in that time period at all), only the name, they don`t know for certain where Serbs and Croats came from, they don`t know for sure how they looked, what language they spoke, what God or Gods they believed in. All we know for certain is that they were not Slavs, all linguists confirm that, according to D.A.I the term Serb is the name for a slave, a Croat simply means "one who owns much land". There is no archeological evidence of any proto Croatian or proto Serbian tribes in Bosnia No trace of their existance at all!!! Do you think it is more reasonable than for the Catholics and Orthodox christians to identify with some barbarians they don`t know almost nothing about, or with the country they live in? Bosna=Bosnjaci
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Apr 4, 2008 15:12:54 GMT -5
Ciao Zeko ;D'
Entire thread dedicated to me, i am flattered.
Idon't think its really an absurd notion for Catholics and Orthodox peoples respectively in Bosnia to declare themselves Croats and Serbs. The precedent of ethno-nationalism is already set in Bosnia and even the Muslims have adopted a specifically Bosnian ethno-nationalist identity called Bosniak. I am sure you're aware of Bosniaks in regions outside of Bosnia declaring themselves ethnically Bosniaks as well. Its even a more ridiculous notion for one to deny another person's freedom and liberty to declare himself what he wants.
Well it is kind of absurd since they know virtually nothing about them, it`s like me identifying with Sioux Indians, so to you it is logical for the catholics an orthodox christians to identify with some savage non-slavic Asian tribes, they lost all connection to a long long time ago, only the name is passed on to them, the name they carry with great pride and at the same time 99,99% of them don`t even know what those names actually mean. Even to this day the are convinced that the language they speak is Serbian or Croatian, how can non-Slavs speak a Slavic language, oh Zeko can`t you see how lost they are. I am sure Croats an Serbs from Turkey or Iran spoke Slavic yeah right HAHA. Did you know that back in 1911 some catholic peasants didn`t know what word Croat even means, do you trust me when i tell you this? Matica Srpska didn`t even mention Serbs in Bosnia back in 1825, why is that? Serbs were those people who belonged to the orthodox church it was just a religious affiliation back than.
As far as the history goes and the 'savagery' of the medieval Croats and Serbs I would question that deeply. I concede that the majority of historians ( including myself) believe that the Croat and Serb names are not Slavic in origin. There is also compelling evidence to link the Croat and Serb name to the ancient Persian civilization but in the end I think its really unimportant. I also don't believe that being 'Turkic' or Asiatic implies savagery necessarily. Certainly the Western Europeans considered non Christian 'newcomers' barbarians but that doesn't imply that they were in the pejorative sense of the word. Heck, by the 7th century, Europe was unofficially divided between the Western Church and the Eastern Byzantine rite and both sides considered the other uncivilized.
Dude it`s the 7-th century most people were savages back than, even the Romans, anyway at that time many tribes were incorporated in the Roman society and took up Roman names, numerous Roman military leaders were of Gothic origin like Strabo(not sure about him) the Croats were invited to defeat the Avars, not because they were good in fine arts, there are no records of Serbs fighting the Avars. So i see no problem in calling them barbaric or savage. I am note sure about the Slaves(Serbs) but i am almost certain that the Croats were of Turkic origin, we have only a slight indication that they are from Persia, but that is not enough, the word Croat according to Karatay consists of two words KUR - BAT and is connected to Turkish historical names like Kur-Sad, Kur-Han, Kur-Tegin... I am sure you are aware of that story about 5 brothers and two sisters from the D.A.I Klukas, Lobel, Kosenc, Muhlo, Hrvat and sisters Tuga and Buga, those names are Turskish 100% and can easily be traced in Turkish language KŸlŸk, Alpel, Kssenci, Mugel Korvat and 2 sisters Tugay and Buga, do you think that these similarities are a coincidence? It is also mentioned in the D.A.I that the Croats intermarried with the Turks, which could possibly suggest that they were somehow related, don`t you think. Mr. Karatay suggests that a tribe of Oguric union, a Turkic group coming to Europe just after the collapse of the Hun Empire, second half of the 5th century, were driven by the Avars from the northwest of the Caspian sea to Galicia, south of Poland. A few years later the Avars came just to their south, in today's Hungary and Slovakia. That Ogurs became champions of resistance to the Avars, and organized local people(Slavs) Anyway Serbs and Croats don`t have an official theory about their arrival, their language, culture, appearance. The issue of their origin has been subject to hard debates, but their roots are still "officially" not known. i am afraid if they don`t take up a Bosniak identity they will continue to be people without an identity in Bosnia.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Apr 4, 2008 15:30:56 GMT -5
7-9th century Croatia: When the people identified as Croats dispatched the Avars there came into existence two territories identified with the word 'Croatian' ( some argue three) in the form of Dalmatian Croatia and Pannonian Croatia. Pannonian Croatia in the north was conquered from the Croats by the Franks just as soon the Croats took it from the Avars. This was probably the single most important event in Croatian history. The Franks made a run for the south ( Dalmatia) but were unable to hold it mainly due to other problems presenting themselves in the Frankish Empire. Dalmatian Croatia remained relatively autonomous but still formally under Byzantine rule. The Dalmatian coastal cities were almost 100% populated with Latins, Greeks, Vlachs and formal citizens of the Empire. The Croats and Slavs were settled around the cities in the Dalmatian hinterland and inwards in Bosnia. Because of Frankish rule and close proximity to Latin cities, two important factors affected Croatia for the rest of its existence. One, the Catholic Church by way of the Roman priests administering to Croats and Slavs the Western Christian faith. The Croats and Slavs under them came into communion with the Western Church. The Frankish rule introduced into Croatia and Slovenia contractual feudalism which would play an important role for the rest of Croatia's existence. The Latin city-states would be monumentally influential.
In the D.A.I Constantine reports that Croatia land was divided into 11 zupas Livno, Cetina, Imota, Pliva... he than lists where other Slavic regions were. Zupas like Livno, Imota , Pliva bordered with Bosnia Large parts of what was to become ex-Yugoslavia was under the rule of the original Slaveni, those areas included Bosnia and Duklja(Montenegro)
|
|
stickinthemud
Membrum
Economist, Historian, Philosopher
Posts: 131
|
Post by stickinthemud on Apr 12, 2008 3:25:21 GMT -5
A name doesn't have to 'logical' since it can just be practical. Slavic speaking Russians identify with a Viking name so it doesn't really matter. I'm really curious to what exactly you mean by 'savage' and why would assume Asians were savages? A large part of the European population migrated from parts of Asia ( Eurasia) so I don't know whats so intrinsic about the dirt on European land that abolishes the term 'savage.'
I don't see how this is relevant in the least. There are no records showing that Croats, Serbs, or Bosnians spoke anything else but Slavic as their native language in the span of their presence in the region. Surviving medieval documents from all those people indicate a Slavic language and modified alphabet.
.
Well it begs the question , if the Romans and 'civilized' Europe was also savage and barbaric, who bestowed the name 'barbarian' or 'savage' on the people unless it was just historians writing centuries later? You see, its not the actual terms of 'savage' or 'barbarian' that I actually question, its your intent behind those words since Asians are apparently savages too. Those terms were commonly used by the Churches in that period to describe non-Christians and by the earlier Roman Empire to describe non-Romans. Gentile is a nice word for barbarian which the Jews used to make reference to non-Jews. That is the true meaning behind it. However, once the people were christianized it doesn't fit the definition anymore.
I don't see how this is important in the least and I'm not certain why you perceive ancient origins of names or people important to whatever point you're trying to make. Societies change everywhere as well as their names, language, customs,religion, and culture. This can be the result of wars, trade, diplomacy, or whatever. History of societies is not static.
By Turks it was referring to Magyars since it designated a geographical position to the north. Many people intermarried with Maygars( Hungarians) so relationships did exist.
That could be the case and sounds plausible.
On the contrary, there are many 'official theories' but different ones are accepted and rejected mostly depending on one's modern nationalistic and political orientation. Remember, these are small nations caught in the middle of large expansive empires in the past and caught between the crossroads of great religions. Furthermore, they are local rivals and each history is told from a particular point of view of the other so naturally much confusion and uncertainly would arise in a situation like that. You do realize that even in the United States there is an official accepted history yet it is not all factual. I don't think the peoples of Bosnia are without identity. Each of the three major groups are well known and well established in that country and I see no evidence to the contrary. Of course, one of the biggest problems over there is not so much a case of self-identity but rather requiring a pledge to a national government as well and thats where I see the biggest problem that is yet to be resolved.
|
|