yes
no
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,898 Given: 2,620 |
They are hating west mostly becouse of 1999 Nato bombing Belgrade. That's the reason of their hate.Originally Posted by Stears
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Envy & hatred go togheder in this case.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,898 Given: 2,620 |
I don't think that they are envy for Gay prides. But, whatever..
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Historical pseudo-science has brought much misfortune to Dubrovnik. It has unfortunately not restricted itself to the laboratories. The results of pseudo- science were used in justifications of the Serbian military attack on Dubrovnik (1991), and in all probability even led to the very decision to attack the city.
Each nation has had its own specific development, its own rises and falls, its own shine, but its own delusions as well. 4 The Serbian nation showed its greatest aggressiveness during the Romantic period. The primary expression of this aggressiveness was Vuk Karadzic's theory that all shtokavian speakers are Serbs. Historically, Croats have been speakers of three dialects, named chakavian, kajkavian, and shtokavian for the variants of the interrogative pronoun cha, kaj, and shto 'what'. Serbs, on the other hand, have historically been speakers of two dialects in addition to shtokavian: Eastern shtokavian and Torlak. Early Croatian literature was written in each of its three dialects; its modem literary and linguistic standard, however, is based upon shtokavian. The acceptance of Karadzic's theory, which ignored all other essential and decisive factors in the genesis of nations, produced the powerful expansionism of the Serbs. Serbs, that is, were not satisfied by the development of the core from which they emerged, and they attacked the foundations upon which other nations were created, including that of the Croats. This was obviously a romantic illusion that had no chances of success, but it brought misfortune to Croats and other nations, not to mention Serbs themselves.
According to this theory, even shtokavian Dubrovnik was supposed to be a Serbian town. Even the historical context of the time was in Serbs' favor, pushing Dubrovnik into the lap of Serbia. We must not forget that the fall of the Dubrovnik Republic after Napoleon's shakedown of Europe, and the end of centuries of autonomy, traumatically affected the citizens of Dubrovnik. It was a shock for them to come under Austria's rule. Psychologically, they considered themselves to be under occupation by a foreign state. Meanwhile, on the other side stood Serbia, recently freed from Turkish rule, which as such could have been a stronghold of pan-Slavism in the South Slavic region.
Dubrovnik was also attacked internally. The fall of the Dubrovnik Republic brought with it the end of the city's religious exclusivism. People of Orthodox confession were allowed to immigrate freely. In 1857 one percent of the population was already Orthodox, while in the twentieth century this segment of the population grew to more than seven percent.5 Because these newcomers settled mainly in urban areas, their influence was greater in the city of Dubrovnik. The dissatisfaction of the people of Dubrovnik with their loss of independence, coupled with their view of Austria as a foreign body and the above-mentioned changes in the demographic structure, lead to the strengthening of Slavophile currents among the Croatian people, the most extreme phenomenon of which being the so called Serb Catholics .6
The wheel of history was thus turning in the advantage of the Serbs, not the Croats. In spite of all this, Dubrovnik still did not become Serbian, and for one reason alone: it did not belong to the Serbian corpus in terms of religion, culture, or civilization. There was no way that the Catholic "Latin" from the coastal Konavle region could identify with the Orthodox "Vlah" from the immediate hinterland, who had been a constant threat to his life and property for centuries. Even the townspeople of Dubrovnik, who were initially friendly toward pan-Slavism. soon "cooled off" to the idea when they sensed that the Serbs did not understand it in the same way when they figured out that behind this idea lurked expansionism. Therefore, in Dubrovnik no critical mass emerged that could successfully impose "Serbianness." This was endorsed by Orthodox Serb arrivals and part of Dubrovnik's intellectual elite who, under the influence of Miklosic, accepted Karadzic's theory and in contact with Belgrade found their own advantage. But neither the common people nor the rest of the Dubrovnik intellectual elite ever accepted this idea. One very indicative report is that of Vlaho Bogdan, Court Secretary of the Habsburg Ferdinand IV, Grand Duke of Tuscany, published in Narodni list, no. 78 (October 20, 1885), in which he reviews Serb Catholic emphasis on Dubrovnik belonging to the Serbs:
"I know very well when, and by whom, the Serbian label was attached to Dubrovnik. That which our immortal Medo Pucic wrote for Talijanska antologija in 1867 was not authoritative for many reasons, one of which is that, although his was a life of honor and uncommon virtues, he lacked that blessed consistence and sang as a 'Slav,' a 'Yugoslav,' an 'Illyro-Slav,' and finally, as a 'Serb.' This, of course, was natural for him, but neither for him nor for anyone else was it natural to name all of Dubrovnik Serbian. Organize for God's sake a plebiscite, and then you will hear the true voice of Dubrovnik laughing at your face. If it were not for his ardent patriotism and great poetic gift, his christening of Dubrovnik with the Serbian name would bring him little eternal fame... From 1850 until 1860 and before that time, except for Medo Pucic (perhaps) and those true Serbs who came here in search of a better living, in Dubrovnik there was not a Serb to be found".7
The "Serbianness" of Dubrovnik, as an idea, already met its demise in the same century as when it was conceived, and it was destroyed in the twentieth century, in the first Yugoslavian state, especially after the Croatian representative and leader Stjepan Radic was killed on the floor of the Yugosalivian parliament in Belgrade.
But Serbian romanticism, of course, was not destroyed, but merely lost its foothold in Dubrovnik itself. Serbian politics and its product, historical pseudo- history, did not give up their claim to Dubrovnik. Since Serbia never controlled Dubrovnik legally or in the real sense not even during the period of Austrian rule, nor later in the Yugoslavian period, and since they had no positive legal basis for the acquisition of Dubrovnik, all they had left was the romantic imposition of historical criteria. Related to this was the creation of false dilemmas (Whose is Dubrovnik, Croatian or Serbian? Whose is the literature of Dubrovnik, Croatian or Serbian?) and the tactic of supporting these false dilemmas while waiting for an appropriate historical moment to change a wish into a reality.
To be sure, it was a false dilemma, because Dubrovnik did not derive its affiliation from some romantic view of history, but from actual and legal fact. Dubrovnik is a city in the Republic of Croatia, Dubrovnik is legally a city in the Republic of Croatia Croatia did not take it from anyone else by force, Croatia did not fight a war in order to get Dubrovnik, Croatia did not occupy and conquer Dubrovnik. These are decisive facts. Dubrovnik's place in the Croatian corpus can be confirmed by listing all of the arguments from historical proof to ethnic characteristics, just as the Serbs or any other nation have the right to search for their connections with Dubrovnik. But these arguments are not decisive; they are only explanations of particular historical events and processes, and not criteria according to which Dubrovnik could be considered Croatian, Serbian, or anyone else's.8
However, with the creation of false dilemmas, the history of Dubrovnik became politicized. Because of this, historians have not devoted their complete energy to researching the phenomenon of the Dubrovnik Republic, a small but significant state that survived in between great empires, a state that brought forth many prominent people, successful artists and scientists, a state that, thanks to its administration, has left us excellent archives, making it possible for us to follow microscopically all significant component parts of life over a long period of time beginning in the middle ages. Instead. their energies have been focused upon proving who Dubrovnik belongs to. Thus numerous Serbian historians began to search for clues proving Dubrovnik to be Serbian. Every Cyrillic letter found in the Dubrovnik Historical Archives became a proof of "Serbianness" in Dubrovnik. Individual segments of history in which the medieval Serbian state expanded toward Dubrovnik, capturing surrounding territories (but never the city itself), became decisive and even more important than the more long-term chain of events before and after this expansion. The short-lived Orthodox presence that occurred on the territory of Dubrovnik as a result of this expansion was new and further proof of Dubrovnik's "Serbianness'', much stronger than the long-term religious affiliation of the region both before and after Evidence was seeked out in joint families, baptismal feasts. personal names, surnames, and individual statements. At the same time there was such animosity among Serbian historians toward the terms "Croatia", "Croats". "Croatian", and ''Croatian language" that it would be difficult among numerous books and articles, to count on one hand the works in which at least some of these terms are mentioned even once. The basic goal was to prove that Dubrovnik is Serbian, and that, because it is Serbian, it is unjustly Croatian. Consequently, this injustice must be corrected.
The few Croatian historians of Dubrovnik were unable to match the powerful Serbian historiographical school that developed beginning with Jorjo Tadic and the generation of skillful experts that he trained. In fact, taking into consideration Serbian historiography as a whole, this Dubrovnik group was probably one of the strongest and most noteworthy. Many important Serbian academicians built their scientific careers on the study of Dubrovnik. Croats were weaker, and only a few individuals (Vinko Foretic, Josip Lucic, Trpimir Macan, and Vladimir Koscak) succeeded in sustaining some kind of balance and preventing Dubrovnik historiography from becoming completely Serbianized .9
To be sure, in such a power relationship, the Croatian historiography of Dubrovnik exposed its weakness. Because they did not have a large number of quality historians with the ability to use the power of argument and a large quantity of publications to expose the absurdity of the gross politicization in the works of some Serbian historians, the small number of Croatian historians found themselves in an unnatural defensive position. Sometimes, by joining the pointless discussion and attempting to prove the "Croatianness" of Dubrovnik, they would only strengthen the false dilemma that was imposed upon them.
Modern Croatian historiographv should not be allowed to fall into this trap in calling upon history to prove that Dubrovnik belongs to Croatia. For Croatia and Dubrovnik this is a ridiculous and unnecessary discussion. The Serbs who imposed the discussion will have to come to terms with it by themselves until they do that until they discard their romantic view of history and politics from their historical science laboratories they will not be a serious partner to Croatian historiography. That is, however, their problem. Croatian historiography of Dubrovnik must dedicate its energy towards constructive ends: it is essential that we have more researchers of Dubrovnik's past, that we are dedicated to the systematic and thorough study and publication of the abundant records held in Dubrovnik's rich archives. And on the basis of this preliminary work, we must utilize the power of fact and reason in order to analyze everything that comprises the history of Dubrovnik. We must openly discuss all basic elements that follow this history. We must even explain the significance of the Serb Catholics, as well as that of the Orthodox presence in certain parts of the Dubrovnik region in the Middle Ages, etc. We should not be silent about these issues, and must not suppress them. On the contrary, it is necessary to speak out and put things in their right place, according to the strictest scientific criteria. In this way Croatian historiography of Dubrovnik will receive complete affirmation and respect, and only in this way will it be able to uncover and neutralize the one-sidedness of one segment of Serbian historiography.
Modern Croatian historiography will exhibit its strength by just valorization of the results of Serbian historiography of Dubrovnik. It would be a great mistake to discard everything that that school has produced in the past decades. Among Serbian historians have been highly qualified scholars whose research was exclusively a product of their scientific curiosity, rather than political goals. Miodrag Popovic, to mention one, had the courage to state that the literature of Dubrovnik comprises a constituent part of Croatian literature, and that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the literatures of Dubrovnik and Serbia belonged to two completely different cultural and historical traditions.10 We must not make unnecessary generalizations and allow ourselves to hate those who we should respect. Croatian historiography must critically review the works of Serbian historians and argumentatively and impartially sift out what is good and acceptable from what is a forgery that must be rejected. *** This work is an analysis of exactly such a forgery, a book by Jovan Vukmanovic about the Konavle region. A typical example of how a romantic approach to science can lead to pseudo-science, Vukmanovic's book would not even deserve to be reviewed were it not for the fact that it bears the label of the highest scientific institution in Serbia. However, this book passed through the reviewing process of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and is printed as a publication of that institution. For this reason it is from the scientific point of view a first-class scandal.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 11,269 Given: 13,631 |
Is this Rv12anal, butthurt Servian mythomaniac reading Great Servian nnonsense from Vuk Karadžić book? Seems so. Like Stears wrote, Dubrovnik subdialect was a mix of Jekavian and Ikavian or simply (i)jekavian. It is also evident by Croatian Vatican Prayer Book written around 1400s whose matrix is Chakavian-Ikavian with some ijekavian words.
What makes you an expert for dialects of Serbo-Croatian language when you are not even speaker of that language?
At first, Dubrovnik was a Latin speaking city. Dubrovnik was slaviziced after Turkish conquest of Herzegovina, Bosnia and other South Slavic countries when masses of Slavic speaking refugees sought protection under the walls of Dubrovnik city.
The Latin speaking population becomes tiny minority over the time and gradually adopted Slavic language. Dialect in Dubrovnik is the same as a dialect of Serbian eastern Herzegovina. It is called Eastern Herzegovinian Shtokavian ijekavica. Dialect was traditionally spoken by Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs of Croatia, parts of Montenegro and in western Serbia as you can see in this map of dialects of former Yugoslavia.
After Vienna literary agreement in 1850 Croats adopted as literary language Shtokavian ijekavica dialect because of political reasons and because that dialect is the most perfect and suitable for literature out of all dialects. So, they practically adopted Serbian language and abandoned own Croatian language.
That is why Serbs and Croats speak the same language today. That is why the Croats could claim Dubrovnik literature as own despite the fact that citizens of old Dubrovnik NEVER considered themselves Croats. There are many documents that confirm it. Despite the fact Croatian nationalists searched for traces of Croatian national identity in old Dubrovnik, there are no such things.
Citizens of old Dubrovnik, had only local identity. They were aware that they originated from mix of Latin speaking population and neighboring Serbs. They become "Croats" when South Slavic Catholics embraced Croatian national identity and nationality became to be associated with religion affiliation (Croats = Catholics, Serbs = Orthodox). Even in the 20th century when such process was finished, the intellectual elite of Dubrovnik (prominent writers, artists, scientists) considered themselves Serbs Catholics. Many of member of this movement originated from old Latin speaking noble familes from Dubrovnik, but still they were aware that Latin speaking minority was mixed with Serbs.
Serb Catholic movement in Dubrovnik:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serb-C...t_in_Dubrovnik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatica...an_Prayer_Book
Today's standard Croatian dialect is considered as part of East Herzegovinian dialect only because of 1800s unification of language. Real Serbs (those form Serbia) speak ekavica and East Herzegovinian language was a middle point.
But, what does this Dubrovnik movement have to do with the actual Serbs? Serbs were not even allowed to enter the Ragusan Republic before Dubrovnik lost its hundreds year old independence in 1808, just for you being Orthodox. This was an artificial movement by a small part of Dubrovnik and its greater area (in the last decade of the 19th century around 1000 people of Dubrovnik area identified as Catholic Serbs) who unfortunately in large part were Dubrovnik intellectuals inspired by pan-Slavic ideas and independence from Austria. Almost all Slavic nations at the time (Croatia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, B&H) admired Serbia for being a purely independent nation and Serbia played a big part in pan-Slavism. Dubrovnik population dreamed of one unified Slavic nation trying to distance themselves from Austria with Serbs playing an important unifying role. Just for your info, pan Slavist Ante Trumbic, one of key politicians in the creation of Yugoslavia soon gave resignation and expressed regretted the end of Austria-Hungary. He realized that it is impossible to be in the same state with people like yourself. Also, many factors contributed to this movement including Servian propaganda machine and the vicinity of Montenegro, not that the same propaganda was not tried in the rest of Dalmatia. From the letters of one Dubrovnik writer to Juraj Strossmayer who described the events that were happening in Dubrovnik it is clear that Great Serbian propaganda took place in Dubrovnik. These Serb Catholics even won an election in 1890. because of the unrest in Croatian parties and harmony on Serb Catholic and Autonomists side. In the next election Croats saw their big fucking mistake and the was the last of this movement. It is not like deep down you don't know this, but you can't fight against that inborn Servian mythomania because of which you were massacred and expelled during the 20th century.
Is it possible that you just fuck off from croatian matters and stop thinking about Croatia for at least one day?
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 601 Given: 1,113 |
"Like stears wrote". LOL. So, stears became expert for Dubrovnik subdialect now.
The most famous philologists thought that the language of Dubrovnik has been always Serbian.
Here are some quotations:
Milan Resetar, the most famous philologist from Dubrovnik:
„Zato ja još uvijek tvrdim, kao što sam tvrdio pred pedeset godina da se u Dubrovniku nije nikada govorilo, ni u njemu cijelom ni u jednom njegovom dijelu dalmatinskim čakavsko-ikavskim govorom nego uvijek samo hercegovačkim štokavsko-jekavskim. Ali ko dijeli srpstvo od hrvatstva mora priznati da je Dubrovnik po jeziku bio uvijek srpski." (Najstariji dubrovacki govor, 'Pristupna akademska beseda', 7. III 1941. godine, Arhiv SANU, Istorijska zbirka br. 14 456, str. 52.).
Natko Nodilo, Croatian historian, university professor and rector of the University of Zagreb :
"U Dubrovniku, ako i ne od prvog početka, a ono od pamtivjeka, govorilo se srpski: govorilo - kako od pučana, tako od vlastele; kako kod kuće, tako u javnom životu i u općini, a srpski je bio i raspravni jezik. (JAZU, Zagreb, 1883. sveska 65, strane od 92. do 128).
Dubrovnik was receiving immigrants from all sides, including the Dalmatia, but the primary dialect was dialect of the closest neigborhood. It was Serbian East - Herzegovinian Shtokavian dialect. The most famous scholars of the former Yugoslavia agreed on that matter.
On each map of dialects in former Yugoslavia, in any encyclopedia, in every textbook.... published in former Yugoslavia, Dubrovnik was in the area where this dialect is spoken.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatian nationalists started with croatization of Dubrovnik, changing well known facts and hysterical searching for even slightest indication of Croatian presense in old Dubrovnik to the extent that it has become their obsession. On the other side, well known facts about Dubrovnik became "pseudoscience" and Serbian propaganda.
The origin of the population of Dubrovnik was predominantly Serbian, but every Serb had to take the Catholic faith to continue life in Dubrovnik. It is interesting that Croatian chauvinists in attempts to prove how Dubrovnik was Croatian usually mention unhuman intolerance of the Catholic Church. It seems everything they touch become evidence of their stupidity and primitive mindset of stone age savage.But, what does this Dubrovnik movement have to do with the actual Serbs? Serbs were not even allowed to enter the Ragusan Republic before Dubrovnik lost its hundreds year old independence in 1808, just for you being Orthodox.
You're just exaggerating. What to say about the obsession of your friend stears. Is it possible that your life is so boring that you remember every my discussions with you and your friends. Circle of your friends wrote tons of lies about Serbs... I rarely reacted to this lies.... but if I react I am "obsessed" with Croats according to you, while your friends are healthy minded people. Interesting. I will certainly stop with this discussion now. Really, who cares about this matter on this forum except a few ex yugos and this lunatic stears.Is it possible that you just fuck off from croatian matters and stop thinking about Croatia for at least one day?
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 11,269 Given: 13,631 |
Koga briga što hrvatski jugoslavisti 19-og stoljeća kažu. To može biti briga samo srpske mitomanijačke lezbače kao što si ti."Like stears wrote". LOL. So, stears became expert for Dubrovnik subdialect now.
The most famous philologists thought that the language of Dubrovnik has been always Serbian.
Here are some quotations:
Milan Resetar, the most famous philologist from Dubrovnik:
„Zato ja još uvijek tvrdim, kao što sam tvrdio pred pedeset godina da se u Dubrovniku nije nikada govorilo, ni u njemu cijelom ni u jednom njegovom dijelu dalmatinskim čakavsko-ikavskim govorom nego uvijek samo hercegovačkim štokavsko-jekavskim. Ali ko dijeli srpstvo od hrvatstva mora priznati da je Dubrovnik po jeziku bio uvijek srpski." (Najstariji dubrovacki govor, 'Pristupna akademska beseda', 7. III 1941. godine, Arhiv SANU, Istorijska zbirka br. 14 456, str. 52.).
Natko Nodilo, Croatian historian, university professor and rector of the University of Zagreb :
"U Dubrovniku, ako i ne od prvog početka, a ono od pamtivjeka, govorilo se srpski: govorilo - kako od pučana, tako od vlastele; kako kod kuće, tako u javnom životu i u općini, a srpski je bio i raspravni jezik. (JAZU, Zagreb, 1883. sveska 65, strane od 92. do 128).
After neoshtokavisation it became close to East Herzegovinian dialect. Also, over the centuries due to Herzegovina and Montenegro proximity Stokavism which was also an integral part of Dubrovnik started to have a greater impact then Chakavism It can be seen on literature from that area how Chakavism over time slowly disappeared and Stokavism took hold. But, yeah lets claim that Serbs massively took over Dubrovnik since that is the most easier thing for a mythowomen to claim. On one hand you are talking about post Ottoman immigration on the other hand you are posting Croatian yugoslavist historians claiming that Servian was spoken in Dubrovnik from ever and ever.Dubrovnik was receiving immigrants from all sides, including the Dalmatia, but the primary dialect was dialect of the closest neigborhood. It was Serbian East - Herzegovinian Shtokavian dialect. The most famous scholars of the former Yugoslavia agreed on that matter.
On each map of dialects in former Yugoslavia, in any encyclopedia, in every textbook.... published in former Yugoslavia, Dubrovnik was in the area where this dialect is spoken.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatian nationalists started with croatization of Dubrovnik, changing well known facts and hysterical searching for even slightest indication of Croatian presense in old Dubrovnik to the extent that it has become their obsession. On the other side, well known facts about Dubrovnik became "pseudoscience" and Serbian propaganda.
The origin of the population of Dubrovnik was predominantly Serbian, but every Serb had to take the Catholic faith to continue life in Dubrovnik. It is interesting that Croatian chauvinists in attempts to prove how Dubrovnik was Croatian usually mention unhuman intolerance of the Catholic Church. It seems everything they touch become evidence of their stupidity and primitive mindset of stone age savage.
With this alternate history style bullshit and putting words in other people's mouth I can claim that all Serbs are Croats and you wouldn't be able to say anything about it.
It is hard not to remember. For a period of time your butthurtness started and bumped many threads and discussion.You're just exaggerating. What to say about the obsession of your friend stears. Is it possible that your life is so boring that you remember every my discussions with you and your friends.
Whatever they wrote it was because of those two Serbs, Serbo Makeridov and that Canadian Serb guy (not Dick). Are you telling me that if they react they are obsessed with Serbs?Circle of your friends wrote tons of lies about Serbs... I rarely reacted to this lies.... but if I react I am "obsessed" with Croats according to you, while your friends are healthy minded people. Interesting
I doubt you will stop. Mythomania is in your blood. In the meantime just fuck off and care about your own country.I will certainly stop with this discussion now. Really, who cares about this matter on this forum except a few ex yugos and this lunatic stears.
Last edited by Insuperable; 10-11-2017 at 11:42 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Yes, I have right to write about the matter, because I'm learning croatian language and the history,. but not from the chetnik sites.
Dubrovnik area wes never part of Serbia , and people there have nothing to do with orthodox hillybilly sheperds (Serbians) who lived in relative promixity. They hated you.
My croatian ancestors were from area of the Republic. so i'm interested in the local history.
Check mate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bosna i Hercegovina
Северна Македонија
Bosna i Hercegovina
Srbija
Hrvatska
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks