|WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
In the John's book "The case of General Mihailovic", he said that The Montenegro were serbian state, and that his place of birth was place with exclusively serbian folks.John declared himself as a Serb.Bearing in mind his opinion, John is serbian writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Oxford National Dictionary of Biography doesn't specify his ethnicity, but implies that has family had lived for a long time in Montenegro. His father, Petar Plamenatz, was at one time Foreign Minister of Montenegro. None of this proves anything, but I would like to see a more precise reference if we're going to say that he was a Serb. Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You should read the Book that I have mentioned. These Book is a evidence. And you should know that Montenegro was a separete State of serbian volk. In that time they declared themself as Serbs. Just read a book: The case of General Mihailovic, written by John Plamenatz und you will understand how John himself declered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "...hence we have such a large guerrilla activity in the Serbian areas of Yugoslavia, in fact in Serbia and Montenegro, as well as the Serbian minority in Croatia, which belongs to the Axis..."
"...first time it happened, not in Dalmatia, but in Montenegro that the Serbs of Italians get a weapon with the exclusive aim to use it against Communist.."
"...The entire sequence of events in old Montenegro is very interesting. There is practically no Catholics or Muslims, because this region is one of the cleanest Serbian und Orthodox area..."
"...More reckless would attempt to resolve the Yugoslav question without taking into account the wish of the vast majority of Serbs. Mihailovic was the only leader that truly believes in Serbia and Old Montenegro.."
"...Serbs, who are already much before 1914 have two independent states created their own efforts..."
- I see what you're saying. The question is, when we say "John Petrov Plamenatz was a Montenegrin political philosopher...", how to we mean the word "Montenegrin"? As an ethnicity, or as a nationality? I think it pretty clear that Wikipedia standard is: as a nationality. For instance, we often say "So-and-so-person was an American...", but there is no such ethnic group as "American". Similarly, we will say "Faroud Muhammed Benali is an English footballer..." if he was born in England, even if he is of Pakistani extraction. (We might also say ""Faroud Muhammed Benali is an English footballer of Pakistani ethnicity..." or something.)
- If you say that Montenegrins are ethnically Serbs, fine; I don't know anything about it and I'll take your word for it. You say that Plamenatz defined himself as a Serb in his writings, and I believe you, but he was presumably speaking either ethnically or perhaps politically (the Serbs and Montenegrins shared the same cause at the time, and their being ethnically similar (or maybe identical) might have prompted him to speak of the groups he was associated with as "Serbian".
- If Plamenatz wasn't a Montenegrin, I don't who was; and if he wasn't a Montenegrin, nobody was (or is); and if you are making the case that there is no such designation as "Montenegrin", you would have to explain why it would not also be true that there is no such designation as "American", which I think most people would reject. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I dropped out of sight of the fact that in English Nationalitj has meaning belonging to the state and not the nation. In Serbo Croatian speaking Nationalitj word means belonging to an ethnic group, r is the peoples living in different states under the occupation of Turkey, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Venetian Republic. But then you should have seen that in John Plamenatz born in the Kingdom of Montenegro, which was incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbia and together they entered its statehood in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This means that from his birth he was a citizen of 3 countries. And more, citizen of England. Of course, John is a Montenegrin in terms of territorial affiliation. Serb in terms of ethnic affiliation.
Serbian people are not united and made one of his country, just like they did the Germans, Italians and so on. So they had at the start of its two states, Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Montenegro. To say that John is not a Serb, is the same as saying that Goethe was not the Germans, because he was born in Hessen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
THROUGH THE LANDS OF THE SERB, by Mary E. Durham. In the book, the English author included Montenegrins.
Knowledge of the Law, textbook published in 1914, the Kingdom of Montenegro, chapter The People, The People and Subchapter State Territory, page 105, first passage:
"......IV. The People
1. The People and the State Territory
A country’s total population, united under a state’s jurisdiction, makes up a people in the political sense, irrespective of whether or not it stems from a common tribe. Thus for example, we say ‘American People’, which implies all citizens of the United States disregarding different ethnic origins. That can also be applied to the French, German, Russian people and so on. Therefore, the concept of a ‘people’, in the political sense, does not overlap with that of ethnicity because the former is far more inclusive that the latter.
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.
Accordingly, in order to avoid a detrimental and often dangerous misunderstanding, one should carefully distinguish an ethnographic people from a political people. For example, the formulation ‘Montenegro is for the Montenegrins’ should be understood as opposing Montenegrins to foreign citizens, with all Montenegrin citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity, remaining equal before the State.
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.
The Montenegrin Kingdom’s surface is 18,000 sq. km and home to some 500,000 inhabitants.
The sovereign territory is indivisible and unalienable. Montenegro’s borders cannot be drawn back......."
This is odd. The article had his birth/death dates as January 15, 1912 – July 1975. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has May 16, 1912, – February 19, 1975. Same year, but different dates in both cases. I don't know if the birth date could be explained by the old style/new style difference (although I thought only Russia was affected by this) or the records in Montenegro being sketchy, but why the difference in death dates? In any case, I have gone with the Oxford dates, but I wonder where the previous values came from. Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Serbian or Montenegrin?
Sorry, But I'm having a little trouble understanding why Plamenatz is being described here as Serbian rather than Montenegrin.
- Is the case being made that there is no such thing as a "Montenegrin", there are only Serbians who happen to live in a part of the world called "Montenegro" (and therefore, I suppose, articles such as Montenegrins and List of Montenegrins etc. are invalid) or
- Is the case being made that Plamenatz, in particular, was not Montenegrin (and therefore would not belong in the otherwise valid article List of Montenegrins)?
It seems like it's the former case that's being made, e.g. with the reference to THROUGH THE LANDS OF THE SERB, by Mary E. Durham and so forth, if I'm understanding this correctly. If that's the case: that's silly, It's an idiosyncratic position, and cut it out. Just stop it.
If it's the latter case that's being made, could someone explain to me why he's Serbian when:
- He was born and grew up in Montenegro, and
- his family had lived in Montenegro for generations, and
- his father was Foreign Minister (a post that states don't usually given to foreigners and that would generally indicate integration an into a state's ruling elite and therefore into that state, at the political level at least).
Maybe there is a simple explanation. I don't know what it would be, though. If it's a matter of his family having emigrated from Serbia X generations ago, I think it'd be debatable that members of the family remain Serbian forever, and I'd like to see some proof that his family didn't intermarry with Montenegrins and adopt Montenegrin customs and so forth. "Montenegrin of Serbian extraction" might be an OK compromise, if this could be demonstrated to be true. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)