User talk:HercegOX: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 16 June 2006

Jako mi je zao, ali oni koji su Srbofobi ne trebaju editirati. Izgleda da imas jedan veliki koncentrat mrznje prema svemu sto je srpsko, svemu sto podsjeca na Srbe. Samo me cudi, kako to ne mozes primjetiti.

Also, you have made a WP:PA, please do not do so again. Thank you. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srbofob je definisan kao neko ko se boji Srba. Ti to pokusavas nekog da zastrasis? Tvoje anticrnogorsko, sovinsiticko raspolozenje potpuno je neprihvatljivo. Wikipedia NIJE mjesto za takvo osjecanje. Probaj na sajtu Stormfront rasisticke organizcaije ili slicnim. Siguran sam da ces se tamo bolje osjecati.

Do not use the mechanism of projection. YOU are the one who broke the WP:PA policy, using insults unacceptable by any standard. Please stop that sort of abusive behaviour, or face consequences of your actions.

Me, brake? Please "... HolyRomanEmperor's chauvinism" and I'm the one who's insulting? :) Please, be more serious. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that Serbs should "paws off" articles related to Montenegro, call Serbia (and Vojvodina seperatly) the only Serbian state in existence and threaten not to discuss, but simply fight a revert war (and than keep that promise). How can you not see that this is all very heavy POV-ised? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also say that I should not consider about these things as I am "misinformed" - tell me, you, from London - how can YOU know the situation from over there better than me? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's cool things down. Look, I have nothing personal against you, but your behaviour, rv wars and POV as well as insluts were HIGHLY inflammatory and irritating. The first thing you did was to describe my edits as "highly foolish". Then you called me "pesky" (if you are not aware, that expression comes from the english "pest" and is as offensive as hell). Then you called me a warmonger simply because I placed some relevant info I find to be important and of interest to most. Heraldry happens to be my hobby, and since I'm Montenegrin, you can understand why I was interested in these articles. As for chauvinism, that is not an insult. Someone is a chauvinist or not. You called me a nationalist, although nothing can be further from the truth, I assure you. I simply react to other people' nationalism and the denial of the very existance of a nation I happen to be a part of. I DO consider your edits to be a serpentine way to deny the very existance of Montenegrins, and that is no POV, it is blatantly obvious.

As for the article in question (House of Petrovic), I HAVE discussed it, but you have chosen to ignore my arguments which actually dealt with the subject on another level and were untouched by yours. You either didn't read it, or failed to understand it, I can't think of a third possibility. Serbia IS the only Serbian state in existence - what's your problem with that? Vojvodina is an autonomous province within Serbia (although this may change in the future - stranger things have happened), but you should really read the Serbian Constitution. There is a clear distinction between what is known as "inner Serbia" ("uzha Srbija") and the Republic of Serbia proper, which includes Vojvodina and, Kosovo (although only de iure). Montenegro is not a serbian state given the percentage of Serbs living there and the fact the preface of the constitution defines it as a civil state, not national. As for Republika Srpska, it is a part of Bosnia, I'm sure you know that as well as I.

I do believe you are either misinformed or malintent. I would like to believe you're misinformed, rather. For your information, I am Montenegrin, from Herceg-Novi, but I've lived in Belgrade and Vienna for quite a while, currently a post-graduate (doctoral) student studying for a DPhil and am also an undergraduate studies supervisor at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Note the University of Oxford is located in the city of Oxford in Oxfordshire, not in the city of London, as you seem to believe. My family lives in Montenegro and I frequently visit. The last time I was there was on May, 21st, 2006. Does that ring any bells? ;-) --HercegOX 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Glad to see that you chilled off, mate. :0)

I apologized that I called you pesky - I was jsut repeated the way how that admin called you (I can't remember his name - Ghirhandajo, or something similiar - apologies to him!).

I trust that you're a nationalist - but know this in the future: You cannot fight fire with fire. :)))

Like I said - please define "Serbian state". If it's where Serbs are constitutional - then it's Croatia and Macedonia - if it's by official language - then it's Serbia (with Vojvodina and Kosovo), Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina (both the Serbian Republic and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) - it it's by majority population - then it's Serbia (with Vojvodina) and the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand one thing - the rift between Montenegrins and Serbs is not present. They are still one people - in many facts.

1. Montenegrins speak the Serbian language (mind the minor Montenegrin language)

2. Montenegrins are adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church (the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is virtually non-existant

3. Serbs aren't defined as a people of Montenegro. As we have defined it here, through Tito's concept "Weak Serbia-Strong Yugoslavia", there shouldn't be any Serbs in Montenegro - thus, they are a non-constitutional nation. A Serb needs 16,000 ballots to enter governmental institutions - while a Montenegrin, an Albanian, a Croat, a Muslim or a Bosniak needs 8,000 - no wonder the current Miloshevich-style Montenegrin government is so anti-Serbian propagandist. According to my opinion, it was a way to make Serbs self-declare as Montenegrins - not to lose their rights. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now - you might have not heard that it was suggested that Serbs become a constitutionalized national minority (they form around 35% of Montenegro's population - and 1% minorities have more rights) - however, this was soundly refused, claiming that "Serbs in Montenegro are not in any possible imaginable way different from the Montenegrins" - even the pro-docleid side refuses to admit that. Even you must admit that Montenegrins and Serbs are one people under one name. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another fact is that the population of Montenegro constantly switches its nationality - in 1948, 90% were Montenegrins - that number fell to 40% by now, and is continuously dropping. The Serbs on the other hand, increased from 3% to 30%. You have very weird images - Slobodan Milosevic (a pure Montenegrin - the Milosevics are a centuries old Montenegrin "clan") is a Serb (previously Yugoslav) by self-declaration - yet his own brother (the one that's in Russia) is a Montenegrin by nationality. Besides, Montenegro wthroughout the history gave much more Serbs than all other nationalities altogether. Did you know that Radovan Karadzic was a Montenegrin? --HolyRomanEmperor 08:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Obilic - the poetic murderer of Murad I on the Battle of Kossovo - was a Serbian nobleman from Montenegro. The first person that permanently united the Serbs was Stefan Nemanja - a Catholic Serb Montenegrin. King Alexander I Karadjordjevic was most definately a Montenegrin. Now, let us not forget Vasilije, Danilo, Danilo II, Petar I, Petar II, Nikola - they're all Serbs from Montenegro (and Montenegrin rulers). The most famous Serbian general, and certainly a mastermind of combat that modern Balkans never saw - Zivojin Misic - was from Montenegro. The most famous geographer - Jovan Cvijic - is of Montenegrin blood. Nikola Tesla draws origin from Montenegro, etc. The list is far too humongous to continue... Lastly, the only Serbian blood of which I am comes from Montenegro - so, if Montenegrins (those) weren't Serbs, then I have no Serb blood at all - and I know what I have been tough and generations passed on. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that there is not a single Montenegrin who hasn't got someone over in Serbia - my uncle, from Cetinje, is a Montenegrin by nationality. However, he tells me that that's only because of traditions - and has nothing to do with a Montenegrin ethnicity - which in his heart, doesn't exist. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm quoting the Assembly of Montenegro, formed subsequently with the formation of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and Allied liberation: Црногорска нација је најчистија етничка група међу Србима. This was backfired by Tito's claims "Montenegrins are Serbs that are different from other Serbs". After that - you know how royalists suffered during the Communist regime. My great-uncle was a politician, promoting Serbian nationalism that openly spat on the Communist Party saying "Stop destroying the Serbdom of Montenegro!" - he was dispatched to the Goli Otok - as were hundreds who didn't want to give up their origins/traiditions/culture/language/selfdetermination. He even wrote a book about it. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, during world war II - the first place where a Chetnik rebellion (first liberational movement of Eastern Europe) erupted was in Montenegro. However, unlike in Serbia or NDH where the Chetniks found a way of communication with the Nazies, Sekula Drljevic - Montenegro's fascist dictator, and strong endorser that Montenegrins are Serbinized Croats - started to massivly execute them. The revenge was so fanatical, that he chased for relatives, family, friends - and mass executions started (aside the Romas and Jews). By the end of the war, 15% of Montenegro's population was decimated in Drljevic's "purges". --HolyRomanEmperor 08:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you refused to discuss - because francly, this claim Serb=Orthodox is as ridiculous as the Indian origin of Serbs, or Egyptian origin of Croats. Now, like I presented to you - the Danil Petrovic-Njegos's Code from the 1855 Princedom of Montenegro clearly differs: Serbian nationality...religion...Eastern Orthodox.

Additionally, you also ignored the 1914 Kingdom of Montenegro Code of Laws:

When it comes to the people of our fatherland, we could never utilize the term ‘Montenegrin people’ in an ethnic context because the Montenegrins are ethnic Serbs and a Montenegrin ethnicity does not exist. Aside from that, within Montenegro’s borders reside citizens of non-Serb ethnicity, yet this does not prevent them from belonging to a political Montenegrin people.

Montenegro’s borders encompass its sovereign territory. That area is but a fraction of what is denoted as the Serb Lands, which are inhabited exclusively or mostly by Serbs yet politically separated among several states. Two present-day independent Serb kingdoms sprung from those Lands: Montenegro and Serbia. The third portion is in Austria-Hungary and a part in Bulgaria.

Apart from that, I showed to you some other "holes" - like Moslem and Catholic Serbs or people openly saying "nationality is mine Serbian" - according to your logic, it would be "nationality is mine Orthodox". :)) --HolyRomanEmperor 08:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 21st? That reminded me - before you start now judging anything, I am a strong supporter of Montenegro's most recent independence.

For instance, I noticed you saying "how can we allow this forgery?" refering to the langauge in Montenegro - the Serbian language has always been and is the language of the Montenegrin people. Today, a small minority (20%) speak the Montenegrin language and they belong to the pro-docleii side and are in a minority - so presenting their POV (as you seem to do) is most definately POV when compared to 65% Serbian-speaking Montenegrins. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you said

Montenegrins are Montenegrins and nothing else, just as they always where. why this is heavily POV and insulting towards all the Serb Montenegrins.

1. The 1920s inner conflict was not regarding nationality - in fact, not serbo-montenegrin conflict was a nationalist problem. It was because Belgrade has become the Pan-Serbian Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church - unlike Pec, which (we) Montenegrins fought to restore so fiercly. Let me quote:

Црногорски народ, који је у својим вјековним напорима засновао српску државну мисао и створио прву политичку државу и омогућио својим несебичним и јуначким подвизима да се ослободи српско племе испод турског и аустриског ропства, ослободио је и Пећ, сједиште српског патријарха. Самим ослобођењем Пећи, оживјела су и реална патријаршиска права пећског митрополита. Црна Гора је хтјела да именује једног патријарха опет у Пећи, али како још тада није био ослобођен један велики дио нашег народа који се налазио под аустриским ропством, тај је акт био одложен. Чим се Црна Гора васпостави, митрополит пећски има бити проглашен са свима његовим историским правима за патријарха цјелокупне српске православне цркве. Тога се права Црна Гора као вјечно слободна српска држава и као ослободитељка Пећи неће смјети никада одрећи. У противном она би се огријешила и према свом народу, који није никад дозволио да се са њеног амвона чује проповјед заробљеног олтара.

Србијанци су ових дана прогласили карловачку патријаршију за свесрпску, и дају јој ону власт, коју је некада српски патријарх имао за вријеме силног Цара Душана. Познато је да је Цар Душан године 1346. основао у Пећи српску патријаршију, која је доцније, пошто је већи дио српске државе пао под ропство османлиско, пала у руке Турака. Због насиља турских потоњи је патријарх пећски Арсеније Чарнојевић год. 1690. устао с народом на оружје противу турске владавине. Послије неуспјеле побједе над Турцима, он је са огромном масом народа и са народним првацима, одступио у некадашњу Јужну Угарску, гдје је привремено заузео мјесто сједишта у Сријемским Карловцима, у нади да ће брзо доћи прилика да се опет поврати у своју освештану патријаршиску пријестоницу у Пећи. Између осталих идеала, које је српски народ вјековима гајио, он није никад напустио ни ту идеју да опет васпостави српску патријаршију у Пећи, јер је увијек сматрао карловачке насљеднике пећског патријарха Арсенија Чарнојевића само као митрополите карловачке, а титула патријарха само као да им је једно историско почасно звање. Овакав положај митрополита карловачког сматрале су и остале српско-православне митрополије, па и сама београдска влада, док су се сада прихватили тога посла да речену митрополију ставе у ранг патријаршије. Иначе да су је сматрали патријаршијом не би било нужде да се то проглашење врши, него би се и самим политичким ослобођењем српског народа и српских цркава проширила власт патријарха карловачког, да је он посједовао право српског православног патријарха. Према историском праву наше цркве једино митрополиту пећском припада право да буде патријарх цјелокупне српске православне цркве.

This is from the La Voix de Montenegro, 24 September 1920. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whites vs Greens

I am now getting that you never actually know about the Greens and the Whites.. The Greens were pro-Serbs, while the Whites were the "dukljano-montenegrini" always. Ever since the Slavic migrations, Montenegro has been a divided land - in the early ages of Duklja, one side supported Rascia's suzeiranity - while the other, separatist, didn't. In 1185-1189, when Stefan Nemanja went to subdue his homeland and make a unified Serb Land, a part of the nobility stayed with Prince Michael - while others joined Nemanja. Throughout the ages, the Whites have fought for control (and managed to seize some, many times), and in the following periods - Whites were mostly Catholics and Greens Orthodox Serbs. With the dawn of nationalism and the modern ages, there was no trace of the Whites - with the strong pro-Green Petrovic-Njegos dynasty. However, King Nikola became a "White" after (by the way - his own people dethroned him), but still not anything ethnic - but rather the fact that the SPC is not seated in Pec (on Montenegrin soil). The Whites have had (and have) two periods of their rule - Fascist Montenegro and present-day Montengro. Communist Montenegro was a very nice mixture between the two. It's disappointing, however, that Milo Djukanovic and his league - former harsh Serb nationalists - became Whites themselves (they were Greens).

You should read a book written by an English writer "Montenegro: a Divided Land" - check it out - you will learn a lot of things. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I compltetly forgot about Grand Duke Marko Miljanov - and the fact that there isn't a single Serbian family - Karadjordjevics originate from Montenegro, Obrenovics are Montenegrins, the Nemanjics are Montenegrins, only the Lazarevics (who come from Kosovo) are "SerbIAN". Even the Mrnjavcevics and Brankovics are Montenegrins (regarding the fact that the Orthodox population of Montenegro and Herzegovina belong to one people - just like they always did, until the Communist border (refer to Serb clans) as well. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are even weirder mixtures - the Greens being Serb nationalists, but fighting for an independent Montenegro in 1919-1941, etc.

Oh, and I completly forgot about Grand Duke Marko Miljanov - and the fact that there isn't a single Serbian family - Karadjordjevics originate from Montenegro, Obrenovics are Montenegrins, the Nemanjics are Montenegrins, only the Lazarevics (who come from Kosovo) are "SerbIAN". Even the Mrnjavcevics and Brankovics are Montenegrins (regarding the fact that the Orthodox population of Montenegro and Herzegovina belong to one people - just like they always did, until the Communist border (refer to Serb clans) as well. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased indeed to see I've successfully calmed you down, although there are still few pockets of resistance, as D'Estaing would say. You should not flare up the next time we have a difference of opinion, nor begin your edits with abuse. Remember that. I am also now officially convinced you are an adolescent. I don't mean this in an offensive way, there's nothing wrong with being young, on the contrary. But the style, the zealothism, the lack of social grace, an obvious identity crisis, poor reasoning and the fact you seem to consider trivialities to be important enough to "explain" them to others all point in that direction. Remember, trivialities might be new to YOU or your schoolmates, but there is very little chance they are for most of others. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I fail to understand why you insist on editing the english version of wikipedia, given your poor command of the language. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, not all of us have to speak english, but makes me believe you are unable to realise your own limitations. Another characteristic of adolescence is the identity crisis and the way you insist on affirming your own identity, especially irrelevant aspects of it, even if it contradicts the facts. Let me warn you - it is a psychologically dysfunctional way of dealing with it. And the idea of making your national identity the most important one is a very bad move on your part, in my opinion. Finally, I would like you to understand I took some of my (precious, let me tell you) time to answer this flood of confusion as an act of courtesy. I am over my head with work and teaching and I usually don't engage in unpaid teaching at all. Since you're now a citizen of my country, I'm answering your "cries in the wilderness" as a favour. But it's unlikely I will have the time to do so again.

You did not apologise - until now. Nevertheless, your apology is accepted. I realised immediately you didn't know what "pesky" means, although that didn't stop you from using it. Yes, I've noticed you often repeat what others say. I'll give you yet another free advice - do not do that in the future, it shows the lack of character, among other things. But I understand you're easily impressionable. Do not engage in abusive behaviour and personal attacks in the future and all will be fine.

You are so utterly wrong. I could be no further from nationalism than I am now and have a personal resentment and outright hostility towards nationalistic ideologies, which I am professionally concerned with. I do not consider my national identity to be an important part of my general human identity. Again, you either do not read or fail to understand the points I'm making elsewhere - note my answer in the Talk page of Coat of arms of Montenegro, where I mentioned (in passing) national identity as a product of modernity and also referred to poststructuralist philosophy which deconstructed the notion of nationalism. I know you are probably unfamiliar with such such complicated literature, but try and understand that not all notions are written in stone and most are arguable and shaky at best. You're in for a world-shattering experience once you learn how postmodernism changed the way these notions are perceived, used, coded and decoded. You may expect to hear about this once you get to university. Or not, depending on your choice of studies. Nota bene: aggressive denial of the identity of an entire nation is not only nationalistic, but downright chauvinist behaviour. I understand it seems confusing to you - I believe your sentiments are genuinely nationalistic, but you fail to recognise them as such because of the bad reputation of that ideology and the fact it's socially unacceptable behaviour, especially given our recent history. I've already said that building up that part of your identity is a BAD move on your part. It is a dead end, dear. As for my part, stating facts and correcting politically motivated falsehoods is hardly nationalist, I believe it is my duty as an intellectual.

Now we're getting to the part you seem to be most confused with. Serbian state is the Republic of Serbia an no other. This is the way politicians in Serbia proper refer to it. I trust you have never been in Serbia and are not familiar with the sentiment there. I happened to live in Belgrade for 12 years (1990-2002, lived in "Proleterskih brigada", now "Krunska" - people in Belgrade know what that means) and engaged in the political and intellectual life of the capital. Believe me, every relevant source will tell you that Serbia is THE Serbian state, and the only one in existence at that. Even the editor of NSPM admitted this in a debate we had at Kolarac people's university. Now, the thing is you are misinformed or draw your information from disreputable sources or (possibly) school debates. Serbs are NOT a constitutional nation in Croatia and have not been so since 1991. Socialist Republic of Croatia has been defined as the republic of Croatian, Serbian and other nations who live therein. But the change of constitution after the HDZ came to power was exactly what provoked Croatian Serbs to revolt. You presume they are a "constitutional nation" (an outdated and unacceptable category in the post-modern world), which shows you're not aware of the reasons of, nor causes of the war fought in that part of our former homeland and that you are also unfamiliar with the political structure of that country today. As for Macedonia, this is also untrue and you are poorly informed, to say the least. Macedonia was defined as a country of Macedonian people, since it gained independence. This way of defining a country in the preface ("preambula") of any constitution is not only outdated but constitutes a generator of crisis and instability and shows the lack of democratic capacity within a country. They also show a country is thorn between various nationalistic sentiments and has an identity crisis of its own. Most modern, developed and successful democracies are civil, rather than national states. However, Macedonian constitution has been amended after the honest brokership (a diplomatic term) of the European Union which ended unrest and open revolt by the huge Albanian minority there. Today, both Macedonians and Albanians are "constitutional nations" in that country. Serbs are not mentioned. Again, it seems you lean on an old nationalist sentiment of Macedonia being a "Serbian" state and a part of Greater Serbia, a project tantamount to national-socialist (nazi) projects of the past. You also fail to understand the majority of people in Serbia proper believe what I've just said - but this is probably due to the fact you're unfamiliar with Serbia itself. You should stop consorting with Serbian nationalist within Montenegro, as they are poorly informed about Serbia and have only a romantic, hyperbolic delusion of it. Not even Serbia proper is defined as having Serbs as a constitutional nation - it i still a civili state, at least de iure. And of course, neither Croatia nor Macedonia mention Serbs in this context - why should they, when Serbia itself doesn't do it? Try reading the Serbian constitution, especially the preface. And TAKE YOUR TIME, do not rush into conclusion, as you often make poor judgements. How can you define a country as "Serbian" given the official language? It is pure nonsense. English language is official in India, but that doesn't make the country a british or english state. Official language in Kosovo is both albanian and serbian and all the parliamentary proceedings are held in albanian, although translation is obligatory. If one would accept your definition, which is unheard of anywhere else, Kosovo is both albanian and serbian, at best. As for Bosnia, your reasoning here is even worse than before - it is hegemonist, aggressive and darn right stupid to define it as serbian because serbian language has an official status there - but only together with 2 other languages, bosnian and croatian. Serbian language is just one of 3 languages in use and Serbs are a minority with the country. Now we come to the majority of population and you finally seem to have vaguely understood the point - Serbs are a majority in Serbia and Vojvodina, i.e. in the Republic of Serbia as a country, although Vojvodina, given its autonomous status (a status it has because of its minorities and economic strength), deserves to be mentioned. They are a majority in Republika Srpska, but RS is no more of a country than Vojvodina is. It is a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, although it seems it will be abolished in the near future. I, for one, think the unequal development of the 2 entities in Bosnia and the fact RS is so underdeveloped and poor compared to the Federation can only be amended by completely defining Bosnia as a unitary, civil society with no national political entities whatsoever. Be that as it may, RS is not a country. Ergo, Serbia (with Vojvodina, but without Kosovo, whose status is disputed and which is under the UN administration) is the ONLY Serbian state in existence. This is simply a fact and your refusal to accept it is really a sad display of Greater Serbia sentiments, whether conscious or subconscious. Serbs in Serbia proper have no problem with this - why should you?

You must understand - Montenegrins never considered themselves to be Serbs in the ethnic sense and they are not the same people. As you may check, soon as they were free from the oppression of the Karadjordjevic regime, they enthusiastically redefined themselves as Montenegrins once more. You will not persuade a single Montenegrin to give up his nation for another - Turks tried it, Croats tried it, Serbs tried it and they all failed. Your confusion stems from the fact the serbian failure is recent. Be that as it may, the largest ethnic group in Montenegro is, of course, Montenegrins.

1. Montenegrin language will not be a minor, but major within the next few years. People are not defined by the language they speak - Austrians speak german, Belgians speak french and dutch, while Canadians, Americans, Indians etc. speak english, but that doesn't make them a part of the english nation. Also, the problem is that we've never had a unified name for our language, which is an important part of our Balkan tragedy and foolishness. I am convinced that bosnian, croatian, montenegrin and serbian languages are one and the same language, linguistically. But it isn't just a serbian language, nor was it invented by the serbs and given to those who couldn't spak. Croatian influence on the serbian language, for example, is historically most important and underapreciated.

2. This is a question of the internal canonic organisation of the church. Serbian Orthodox Church didn't exist before the Cetinje throne was "unified" with the patriarchate in Belgrade after the First World War and annexation of Montenegro. This was done without any respect and by declaration. Note that the SOC also denies the existence of Macedonian Orthodox Church - does that mean Macedonians are Serbs? You are obviously poorly informed and unfamiliar with history. The problem is historically this: after the Turks closed down the seat in Pech, Cetinje became the only rightful heir of the patriarchate. But, the liberation of Serbia from turkish authority empowered the serbs to claim authority over church issues. This is why Montenegro responded by proclaiming the Montenegrin Orthodox Church to be autocephalus, as can be seen in the constitution of the Kingdom of Montenegro. It was recognised by the Patriarch in Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church. Anyway, you fail to understand - religious affiliation doesn't make a nation. It has nothing to do with it, pure and simple. Ukrainians are not Russians just because the ROC claims Episcopal authority over them.

3. Of course Serbs are not defined as a constitutional nation in MN, nor as a national minority. And they never should be. Not them, nor any other nation. Montenegro is defined as a CIVIL state in the constitution - please read it - and I am convinced that having national minorities within a civil state is a case of contradictio in adjecto. It is not a titoist concept, as you think showing how misguided you are, it is a product of liberal democracy and the advance of civili society from the late XIXth century untitl our age. The concept you are trying to quote - "Weak Serbia - Strong Yugoslavia" was mentioned by Slobodan Milosevic in his speech during the 8th Session of the Communist Party of Serbia (the infamous "Osma sednica"), when he staged a constitutional coup in Serbia. He did it in order to stir up the national sentiments of the Serbs. It shows you are utterly confused and manipulated with - you accuse the Montenegrin government of Milosevic style, although they're the ones who decisively contributed to his downfall, you claim to be an "internationalist", but you proclaim neighbouring countries to be serbian etc etc? Adolescence, as I've already noticed... Yes, a Serbs needs twice as much ballots to enter the parliament, and so does a Montenegrin - and that is a good thing too and considered to be an example for the entire region. It is called positive discrimination, or affirmative action (in the US). It is not a "conspiracy" against the Serbs (or Montenegrins, who are equally affected), but a way for minorities who cannot get their fair representation otherwise to be represented in the parliament, as they indeed should be. Why this doesn't apply to Serbs and it wouldn't be applied even if they'd reach a national minority status? Because of their numbers, of course. The rule is not that ANY national minority should get positive discrimination, but only those that have a hard time being represented because of their small numbers. The idea of Serbs losing their rights in MN is silly and a part of SNS propaganda. These people are too ignorant to deal with and unaware of what politics is or should be, really. Besides, the number of Albanians and especially Muslims and Bosniacks in the parliament is very small indeed - too small for them to have a direct influence, but simply a passive one. I believe they should get more representation in order to reflect the needs of their constituencies better, at least until we see a new constitution. Serbs in Montenegro are indeed expected to re-declare themselves as Montenegrins. It is a general opinion of political analysts in Serbia proper that the last census in Montenegro was unrealistic, done out of political protest against a government I have no sympathies for, btw, and a case of residual effect of wars we've had in the 90's. This effect is expected to fade away and we shall surely see a downfall in their numbers once the people stop to be bullied into declaring themselves as Serb.

I do admit Serbs in Montenegro and Montenegrins are one people under one name - Montenegrins. The number of people who moved from Serbia to Montenegro during the ages is very small indeed and Serbs who may claim Serbian origins live in Serbia and Serbia alone, as Serbs in Bosnia are by origins Orthodox Bosnians, as endemic to the country as other Bosnians are. It is only their religion that made them define themselves as "Serbs", just as Bosnian Croats never came to Bosnia from, say, Zagreb, but defined themselves according to their roman-catholic faith. But they all have the RIGHT to determine their nationhood as they like, and they are to be considered to be who they SAY they are. However, historically and genetically, if you like, Serbs from Serbia proper are the only ones to be considered Serbs by origin. Serbs in Montenegro are Montenegrins by origin, who came to define themselves otherwise due to political events that took place in the XXth century, but I fully accept they right to self-declare as Serbs, Mongols or Hobbits, if they like. It comes down to the RIGHTS issue. On the other hand, a vast majority of Montenegrins who moved to Serbia was soon assimilated and I accept their decision as well, although a very large proportion of the population in Serbia is of Montenegrin origin and therefore not Serbs by origin at all. This was not the case with everyone - those who moved to Metohija before it was taken from Montenegro by Serbia still declare themselves to be Montenegrins. You've surely heard numerous times of "Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo and Metohija". They moved there after the First Balkan war, when everyone except Albanians in Montenegro considered themselves to be Montenegrin. And they refused to be assimilated by either Serbs or Albanians, which is admirable indeed. Serbs may become a national minority in MN, as you suggest, but I very much doubt the new constitution will have minorities. In political theory, it is a contradiction to have a civil society with national minorities. I am a strong advocate of pure meritocracy without special national rights, although minorities must be protected as they are a social fact. Social doesn't mean political per se.

Indeed, a small nation as ours was constantly influenced and bullied by others and this was reflected in the census. In the previous census (1991), there were only 7% Serbs, and I think this is realistic even today. 7%, not 3%, as you state. The current census is a product of warmongering and war psychosis which engulfed the country during the 90's, and which is still vivid in the popular imagination, but in time, one can expect that people are going to identify with their own country now it is independent. It is the way of things and has always been so throughout human history. The US is a blatant example, as well as Austria, Australia etc.

Again, you're totally wrong. These are not weird images. Milosevic is - was of Montenegrin origin, but he was assimilated in Serbia. It was his right to become a Serb, Mongol or whatever and he did it. If the people declare themselves as Martians, then they're Martians and there's nothing more to say about it. It is not unheard of - Napoleon was of italian ancestry and still became the french emperor. About Karadzic: I happen to know him and his brother Luka well. They are not Montengrin, but Serbs FROM Montenegro. You constantly fail to see the difference. You are unaware of who you're talking to and I repeat, you believe things that are common knowledge to be important to mention only because they're new to you. Karadzic moved from Niksic to Sarajevo and stayed there. Their entire family, (I happen to know them well) is Serbian, but they make a clear distinction between Serbs and Montenegrins. Unlike you. That makes you more of a nationalist then them and you are so unspeakably confused as well - you claim not to be a nationalist, but you speak of "serbian boood" etc. Try reading Emmanuel Levinas and you might understand this ideology of land and blood is the cause of some of the worst episodes in european history,. It is pure nationalism and in effect probably racism as well, as the final consequence of this line of thought. One question: are you anti-semitic as well? I suspect you are, as it is a stipulation of your claims, their inevitable consequence. Read Hanna Arendth for more insight and reasons for this claim. You might not see it, but it's there. Once you go down this ultra-right wing path, there's no turning back.

Even if people you mention, insolently trying to explain who they were although it is general knowledge, were from Montenegro, that would say nothing about Montenegrins. But you're wrong about most of them. This sort of Serbian nationalism by Montenegrin Serbs always had a connotation that was on the verge of insult to the people in Serbia proper. They despise and laugh at you, while you believe yourself to be superior to them, although you are actually subservient, fighting for their cause and against your homeland. Stefan Nemanja was from Podgorica, but not a catholic (I presume you mean roman catholic), although he received his title from the Pope. The Great Schism was not as decisive in those early centuries after the Church was divided. At the time, there WERE NO NATIONS in the modern sense. It is the feudal state and allegiance to a feudal lord that defined people, not their "blood" or nationhood. Nation is a product of modernity. Rulers came from all different sides - Normans ruled over England, but that doesn't make the english a part of the french nation. Examples are too many to mention. Obilic was not from Montenegro. Alexander Karadjordjevic neither, as I've explained elsewhere. Alexander's MOTHER was princess Ljubica (aka Zorka) Petorvic-Njegos, but nationality is determined by the father (Peter I). Alexander was as much of a Montenegrin as Umberto of Italy was, whose mother was princess Jelena (Elena), of Montenegro, Queen of Italy. Petrovic-Njegos family is montenegrin, as they clearly say they are, even today. Alexander spoke with a heavy Cetinje accent beacuse he was born and grew up there and picked it up from his mother as well. I know Albanians who speak montenegrin with a heavy Podgorica accent, so what? It doesn't make them less Albanian, just as Alexander was clearly a Serbs. Misic is from Serbia and doesn't have a single trace of MN ancestry. Even his name is derived from "Misha", which is the way it is pronounced in Serbia alone. Mishovich family would be Montenegrin (from MIsho). I don't know where you've heared Tesla draws origin from MN, but it's false - I have never been to a part of former Yugoslavia where people didn't try to convince me Tesla was from there and there alone. Tesla was a croatian serb, a subject of Austria-Hungary, then a citizen of the United States. As it is the case with other Croatian Serbs, his ancestors came from Kosovo after the event we all know as "Velika Seoba Srba". As for yourself, from what you've stated, I may conclude this: your ancestors came from MN to some other parts of former YU (Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo?) and, given the practice of all orthodox people being considered Serbs by religion, assimilated into the Serbian ethnic community as well. This was passed on to subsequent generations. Now you've returned to your ancestral land, but with a different identity, or at least different to those who started their journey from Montenegro elsewhere. You may have "serbian blood" by the female line, I don't know and I don't care. I would say you're of Montenegrin origin, then, but it is for you and you alone to determine who you are and overcome this identity crisis. It is for you and you alone to decide, it is your right to be who you want to be. National identity is a matter of CHOICE, not just of genetic heritage. It has been so throughout history and this is how nations were created and died. There is no such a thing as a "pure" Serb, Montenegrin, German or whatever. IT is ridiculous to think in those terms, as you do, and shows a nationalistic disposition. My advice would be to let more important aspects of your personal identity develop. National identity is not that important. But that doesn't mean you are free to intrude and force your identity onto others. Especially not the Petrovic-Njegos family, who says its nationality is Montenegrin and nothing else: see my answer in the Talk page and get hold of the book I mentioned there ("Who is Who in Montenegro").

The Asemby of Montenegro never made such a claim. The Communist Party had one good aspect: it tried to destroy nationalism and, sadly, failed. Montenegrins were free to determine who they really are after the WWII, but if your great-uncle was sent to Goli Otok, chances are he was a Stalinist. Noone was ever punished for being a Serb in Montenegro. But hundreds were killed for being Montenegrin, especially after 1918. As for the book, well, they do say that paper tolarates all... Re-establishment of Montenegrins as a nation was already done on November the 29th, 1943. The main reason why a vast majority of Montenegrins joined the partisans was to fight the corrupt and opressive Karadjordjevic regime which killed boys in prisons (Sedam sekretara SKOJ-a), burned down Montenegrin towns, tortured patriots, destroyed the montenegrin church and denied their very existance. MN was the only region in Europe where railroads were being destroyed by the state instead of being built and our products had a price fixed at 1/8 of the price of the same product from Serbia. Montengrin officers were degraded even if they were accepted to the army of SHS (my own grand-grandfather became a captain although he was a montenegrin colonel who fought against the Austrians in order to save the Serbian army - he resigned promptly), while Croats were upgraded (a major would become a colonel etc). Systematic rape of montenegrin women by the Serbian army and gendarmerie in the late 1918 and again following the Christmas Uprising hardly helped, don't you think? What Serbia has done to MN should be regarded as an example of disgrace and, in the words of a great US president who said it on another famous event, will live in the history of shame and infamy. It is with great sadness we remember these events, not with hatred or revenge.

Take a look at the two last examples of census in Serbia: the number of Montenegrins fell from 140.000 in the 1990's to 70.000 in 2000's. It is a fall of 50% every 10 years. One must note that social, political and media pressure these people are exposed to are overwhelming. Montenegrins are an object of popular ridicule and jokes, so it is only too natural the children renounce their own heritage. Those Montenegrins who renounce their true identity are given positions (the same was done by the Ottomans in the past), while others do not have even the most basic human, cultural and religious rights. That is the rate of assimilation - 50% per decade and this is probably what happened to your ancestors as well. Montenegrins in Serbia do not have any rights allowed to other minorities and do not have a national minority status. Serbia does not allow them to build even one church of the MOC, where they could pray to our Lord without having to look at Serbian flags and national symbols. What do national symbols have to do with the message revealed to us in the Holy Bible? This right is also denied to Macedonians and even Romanians, while the most bizarre eastern cults are allowed to flourish freely. As indeed they should - freedom of religious affiliation is either absolute or non-existent. I must conclude therefore that in Serbia it is non-existent

Serbs in Montenegro are so endangered, their numbers actually rose dramatically. :-)

Chetniks were collaborators and traitors who never fought a single significant battle against the Axis - try naming ONE. 15% of Montenegro was decimated during the civil war, not by any "purges", that is a lie.

You have so many ridiculous prejudices it's hard to describe. Serb = Orthodox in the old days, as can be seen even from your treatment of Macedonians. Note the fact they were considered to be Serbs too, at least by the bloody Karadjordjevic regime and they still are by some villainous nationalists. You are propagating a very dangerous form of historic revisionism, that claimed thousands of lives throughout former Yugoslavia. Your rhetoric is just a copy of the darkest radical ideology. YOU refused to discuss as you've chosen to ignore the obvious and well supported facts I mentioned. The very idea of Montenegrins being Serbs is grotesque - they were NEVER so, as can be read in so many works by eminent historians (look at my previous discussions), as well as in historic documents in Montenegro, works by Petrovic-Njegos etc. Of course, it is a matter of interpretation and Serbian conquerors forced the false interpretation of history. They have partly succeeded, but only temporarily, as Montenegro found itself anew at last. Try going to Central library at Cetinje and take a look at documents from the age: there is no mention of Serbian nationality. The code of 1855 says: Nationality: MONTENEGRIN. Religion: SERBIAN. Also the census of 1904 claims the same.

The Code of Laws you're mentioning has been proved to be a forgery. It is so even to an untrained eye: it is hardly a legal article, but an essay written post festum. The very language it uses is hardly standard legal language, it reads more like a political pamphlet which it actually is. It also contains territorial pretensions against K und K and Bulgaria, that would've been a diplomatic scandal of the 1st rate. You are highly indoctrinated and unable to think clearly.

You are unable to understand my argument, obviously. Why would it be "nationality of mine is orthodox"? What a ridiculous notion, that cannot be concluded from what I'm saying at all and what is now general knowledge in Montenegro. Nationality: Montenegrin. Religion: Serbian. That's what they used to say, those are the terms they used at the time. And show me a Catholic Serb and I'll show you a white crow. Nonsense.

Yeah, I guess youre ALL strong supporters of Montenegrin independence NOW. Hahaha. You learn so quickly. ;-))

"Pro-docleii" (which is very bad english, btw) is an expression you've heard from serb nationalists who resent the history of Montenegro - I myself am very proud of Duklja and its history. Montenegrins speak Montenegrin, what is more natural than that. Serbs are now unable to enforce their own language and culture onto us. The constitution is soon to be amended and people will be able to say without fear that they speak Montenegrin. Note what I've said above - I believe that, linguistically, bosnian, croatian, montenegrin and serbian are one and the same, but we do not have an umbrella expression for it.

"Montenegrins are Montenegrins and nothing else, just as they always were". How can this be insulting to anyone, silly? It is insulting when you try to deny the right of a person to self-determine in any way he or she likes. It is HEAVILY POV and INSULTING and tantamount to chauvinsim to claim anything else.

You are so utterly confused - you can not be a Serb and a Montenegrin at the same time, just as you cannot be Swedish and Italian at the same time. You may be of MIXED origin, but that is something else completely. In the sense you're a citizen of Montenegro, OK, but that same right have all the other citizens, Albanians, Croats etc.

You fail to see what Serbian propaganda did after the WWI and you persistently quote propaganda, instead of concentrating on historic documents. Anyone who cares about historic accuracy must dismiss your quotes as irrelevant, or relevant in the way they show the extent the serbian aggressor was prepared to go. Furthermore, the very idea of a "serbian orthodox church" was regarded as a part of ethno-philetistic heresy by some within the serbian church itself, which is something I would agree with. As I've explained earlier, Pech belonged to Montenegro and Montenegrin Orthodox Church was the right heir of the Pech throne. Serbs simply destroyed the MOC by force.

You fail to see that trivialities you mention are known to all - e.g. Whites and Greens. it is a division known to every child in Montenegro, a country that received you as a refugee. A country you seem to hate deeply, although you should show some gratitude for what you've received, at least by respecting it. You are also highly insolent by presuming I don't know about "Zelenasi" and "Bjelasi", a conflict instigated by Karadjordjevic dictatorship in order to divide Montenegrins (divide et impera tactics). It sadly continued even after that regime escaped from the country, by robbing the national bank first. You are also ignorant about the concept of nationhood and this is the reason your conclusions about the middle ages are invalid. There is no such thing as the concept of a "unified serb land" back then. There is a feudal lord who fights for his own dominion and tries to keep other lord as loyal as possible. Nationhood and nationality doesn't even exist as a notion at the time. The division is a XXth century division - there are no Greens and Whites in the mdl ages, and who ever told you that, is a big-time liar. You are also confused about the sides: Greens were pro-montengrin, whites were pro-serbian, not the other way around. These names come from national symbols - green of Petrovic-Njegos dynasty and white of the serbian dynasty (serbian eagle is white, unlike montenegrin golden). You are simply INVENTING stuff. King Nikola wasn't dethroned by his people, he went into exile after Austria-Hungary defeated the montenegrin army, which fought to protect the Serbs. Serbs showed their gratitude by occupying the territory, holding an illegal and illegitimate "Podgorica Assembly" (a "great people's assembly", an "institution" unheard of in the history of law and clearly without any legitimacy) and simply performing an annexation the country, leaving the king in exile. That is the biggest scandal of the XXth century - an allied country, that gave the lives of its best and the brightest to save an endangered Serbia, was destroyed by that very same Serbia. There was also no such thing as Fascist Montenegro - you simply fail to comprehend the concept of fascism. Montenegro wasn't industrialised so no fascism could exist there. There was a collaborationist government, but it never had the support of the Green (pro-montenegrin) party nor the dynasty, as can be seen from the life of Prince Michael Petrovic-Njegos. Please refer to my previous explanations in the other articles.

I suggest you read some of the literature I mentioned. As for english writers, you are very insolent to suggest them to an Oxonian, especially if you don't even know the name of the author and therefore don't even know the content of the book in question. I suspect you only mentioned it to make your weak argument appear more solide, which is a case of intellectual dishonesty. Don't do that.

The idea of Montenegrins and the people in Herzegovina being one is simply a POV, unsopported by facts or the sentiment of the people. Try going to Trebinje, Bileca, Nevesinje or Gacko (herzegovinian towns) and ask anyone - they will certainly not consider the montenegrins to be the same as them. Although they are akin. I am not saying Montenegrins and Serbs are not akin as say, Norwegians and Swedes or more likely, Germans and Austrians. But no Austrian will consider himself to be German. The border between MN and Hercegovina was always there, you are simply misinformed.

You refuse to understand who you're talking to - as you refused to understand the way my arguments elsewhere anticipated yours. This is something that you will learn to do if you ever engage in the study of logic or methodology, which is essential to have a successful debate. Finally, I repeat my answer is an act of courtesy - I am not, like you, on summer vacation and do not have the time to instruct any anonymous person, especially if he/she is unwilling to learn. I suggest you read relevant literature on the subject - try some books, not everything can be found on the internet as this may develop an intellectual laziness in the future. Most of all, do not trust everything you hear or read just before you think it supports your stand - do a little research instead. I am not prepared to guide you through it, nor would I have the time. Instead, try learning and thinking more and come back to me once you've made that Gestalt-turnaround that surely awaits you in the independent Montenegro.

P.S.: I see it took you over 2h to write THAT (see History)? Man! ;-) Regards from Oxford --HercegOX 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]