User talk:HercegOX

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]

Heh...

...successfully calmed you down I was never angry - hence, I didn't "calm down" since I didn't need to. :)

You should not flare up the next time we have a difference of opinion, nor begin your edits with abuse

I didn't. You must understand, I had to deal with hundreds of thousands of countless vandal, pesky warmongerors - something it's very hard - or even impossible to differ annons who jump in with edits and refuse to discuss - this you cannot deny - it's exactly what you have done, брате соколе.

given your poor command of the language

Heh, I've never noticed this be4. :) Please, read my horde of articles (articles that I wrote): Doclea, Petar II Petrovic Njegos, Stefan Nemanja, Stevan Hristic, etc. and tell me - where's this poor command of the language. There r typos - and I make them on talk pages rather often - sometimes intentionally to shorten wording. I consider this highly offensive, but considering the possible rate of frustration that you've had - I understand you.

Check out User:Hipi Zhdripi, a contributive user that cannot compose a single sentence in English.

My style? Well, see the articles that I've written. As you can see, I've received a number of barnstars for them - and even more... People like my style - among them User:CrnaGora, a Montenegrin nationalist (probably the largest on this encyclopedia) that I simply adore/support in every possible imaginable way.

zealothism - please, the way you said that an ethnic group should paws off Montenegro-related articles and... well, just read some of your edits (especially this one) - and tell me, aren't those words of a heavily-driven nationalist. Just try to view not from your own personal POV - but from mine as well. Such heavy... well, "zealothism" as you called it - I really cannot understand. Note that I have never expressed similar "tendencies", to call them, like that - in my entire wiki-career. So, please do not accuse me 4 such things. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aggressive denial of the identity of an entire nation is not only nationalistic, but downright chauvinist behaviour. - that's exactly what you are doing.

I see now that you are very intellectual person. I'm sorry that I reacted this way - but you must know that I deal with some people that really do not want to discuss - but usually just vandalize pages and then leave, never returning. However, please do not misjudge me and/or underestimate me - as you seem to oftenly do so.

poor reasoning - this is exactly what you're doing in claiming this Serb=Orthodox. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I made some statement - you strongly say that this shows your lack of experience or 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. However, let me correct you - Serbs are constitutionally a national minority in Croatia. And this did not happen in 1991 - it happened in 1990. As for my side - I'm not going to insult you for such little misinformations - which you appearently enjoy to do on may account.

You mention Macedonia and oddly add the conotations of a Greater Serbia to it (by the way - a Greater Serbia was a dream of the Petrovic-Njegos family - mostly Petar I and Nikola). Why? You are also misinformed about one thing - both Macedonians and Albanians are "constitutional nations" in that country. Serbs are not mentioned. which yet again shows misinformation from your side. Let me quote the Republic of Macedonia's constituion: Во ред, Преамбулата на уставот на република македонија гласи вака:Република Македонија е држава на македонскиот народ,како и на албанците кои живеат vo nea,и на останатите народи во неa како што се срби,турци,власи итн.

Greater Serbia a national socialist (nazi) project? How can this be true? Yes, I have read the Serbian constitution - and it doesn't mention the Serbs (just like I pointed out before - you ether ignored, or more likely, missed that). However, the constitutions of Macedonia and Croatia do - and your or my words cannot change that - so I do not know why are you arguing.

I'm just saying that you must tap the phrase "Serbian state" with a careful touch. Sure, from a linguistic POV - Kosovo is both a Serbian and an Albanian state. For more explanations on this troublesome fact, see the Serbian Lands article. Your comparation with India is incorrect - as English isn't the domestic language (it's foreign) like in Montenegro. Besides, the Serbian language is the only official langage of the Republic of Montenegro - unlike the Indian in India. They are a majority in Republika Srpska, but RS is no more of a country than Vojvodina is - a lot more - the Serbian Republic is one of the two entities that make Bosnia and Herzegovina - while Vojvodina is only a "subjected" part of Serbia.

I have no problem with your usage of the word - but you must define better what you mean by "Serbian state". For instance, linguisticly, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria and Germany are all "German states", while only Germany is a "German state" if we simply derive the adjective from the word "Germany" (thus, there's your "Serbian state - Serbia"). It is because of this, that "the only Serbian state in existence..." wording confuses me. Should we say "the only Argentinian state in existence of Argentina"?

What mostly I found strange is your analogy that Serbian, Montenegrin is the same as Montenegrine, Argentinian. The following is a fact: the Serbian element in Montenegro was present for over a 1,000 years, and cannot be regarded as irrelevant. Sometimes it was overwhealming and in the rule (like during the High-Late Middle Ages or the Petrovic-Njegos's reign) and sometimes small and irrelevant (like during Fascism and Communism). Today - it's in inbetweens. As the future seems - Montenegro will no longer be the largest ethnic group - it has the lowest natality, and was gradually being replaced by the Serbian ethnic group. You keep claiming that Montengrins and Serbs aren't the same people - how can this go with all my statements of Serb having a Montenegrin brother and numerious other occasions.

Since you considered my command of the English language very poor - let me do the same - it's "speak" and not "spak". :)

It seems taht you are obviously even more poorly informed and unfamiliar with history, I'm afraid. "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. Ehm, the Serbian Orthodox Church was founded in the year of 1219 - 7 centuries before the event you described.

Let me add here that the leader of the Christmas rebellion, Krsto Zrnov Popovic is a Serb by nationality, as can be seen in his passport issued in 1920 in exile, in France. This totally undermines your claims that Montenegrins rebelled against the Serbian occupiers - it was a political, not an ethnic conflict.

When I said Weak Serbia - Strong Yugoslavia I was quoting the encyclopedic usage of the concept - among other places, from this encyclopedia in precise - wikipedia.

but you proclaim neighbouring countries to be serbian etc etc... - there, you're being abusive and utterly POV yet again. When did I claim such things? You're either purpously misinterpreting things, or have a rather bad understanding in interpreting wording. I objected your lack of understanding and definition of such a term - and no so poorly undefined from your side.

Serbs in Montenegro are indeed expected to re-declare themselves as Montenegrins. I'm not going to comment any further - it's just like a German Nazi is trying to prove to someone that Nazism is wrong. I hope that you understand. Exactly opposite - the number of ethnic Montengrins switching their nationality from Montenegrin to Serb keeps growing as well as the number of Montenegrin speakers. Soon, we'll have a fiercly Montenegrin nationalist minority in Montenegro. :) (just kidding) On the other hand, your undermining of the census seems just because it doesn't correspong your personal ideology.

Anyways, this "switching" is persicely the best proof you could ever have that Montenegrins and Serbs are one people. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on you political, democratic POV - but bear with this, the fact that the vast majority of montenegrins (avoiding Montenegrins) are mostly Serbs - is yet another good proof that you could ever have.

Now - you're contradicting yourself. You seem to accept the right of selfdetermination - but fiercly oppose the Montenegrin Serbs (your "realistic" 7% claim & similarities). You're again doing what you claim that others shouldn't do. What about the 1909 population census, that showed 95% of the population of the Princedom of Montenegro were Serbs?

Of course you were not angry, you were rather furious and out of control. Yes, you did. And you've just called me in effect, "a pesky vandal warmonger" again. But that's the lack of social grace I mentioned earlier.. I repeat I didn't refuse to discuss, you did. Look up and bare in mind that "discussion" is a 2 way street. You cannot have a "discussion" if one side simply ignores or disregards argument of the other, pouring their own which completely miss the point. And that's EXACTLY what you did. I took a look at those articles before. Most of them I find to be under a certain standard I'm accustomed to or the one I would expect from any encyclopaedia. As for your command of the english language, it is not typos I care about - we all make typos. I'm not in the least frustrated, I persistently turned your attention to some of your mistakes and that was done out of good will. I see you learned something and corrected them (e.g.. the way you abbreviate "anonymous"). They often tell me I'm perfectionist, even here at Oxford, but that's simply the way I am and that's simply a standard I would expect of an encyclopaedia - precision and correctness, especially in language, spelling and grammar. Why do you consider this offensive? One is not less valuable because one can't speak proper english. You should be thankful when someone tells you there's an aspect of your knowledge that needs improving - I know I always am. And believe you me, this one does. I couldn't care less what "others" may think; if I see a pattern of persistent mistakes, I'm going to correct them or draw people' attention to them. As for that Montenegrin nationalist you mentioned, Crna Gora, I don't know him, but that hardly recommends him in my eyes. I have nothing but hostility towards that ideology. Ideology, not the people who find it appealing. Of course you adore him. I've seen it numerous times during Yugoslav wars: nationalist of various sides get together and are best of friends between wars You have many things in common - hatred towards liberalism, cosmopolitism and democracy being some of them. You misunderstood, look again at my edits. I've never said that of an entire ethnic group. As an enemy of ethnic division, I would never say that. I've said those Serbs who cannot restrain from falsification and clearly said "not all of them", i.e. not all the Serbs. Read a couple of sentences prior to put things into context. I didn't make a single nationalist statement, on the contrary, I believe they were well-balanced and reasonable. It is you who misinterpret any sort of insistence on facts you may dislike as nationalism. Zealothism is not a bad word, btw. And it does explain and describe your behaviour in an adequate way. A certain blindness that comes to people deeply indoctrinated with a right-wing ideology. My advice is - watch out. Nationalism is like a drunken state, I've seen it on a massive scale. I've proved these tendencies in your edits for all to see. Although one might add that your edits speak for themselves in that respect.

Wrong. I've never denied the Serbian identity, or anyone else' for that matter. I simply affirmed the identity of a group threatened by your articles. It just happens to be my nation, but I would do the same for any other. I find it to be my duty as an honest man and intellectual. YOU DID persistently deny the identity of Montenegrins and you cannot escape from that. There couldn't have been any other reason for that edit war on the House of Petrovic page, nor for the claim that the new coat of arms was introduced in the runnup towards the referendum. It was simply untrue and you MUST have known that, as the same coat of arms has been present on ID cards, student books, almost every legal document, police badges etc. etc. for 13 years! 13 years, "sokole"! It is virtually impossible you've missed it, so I presumed you invented that data just to support a political agenda. I still believe this to be true.

Constitutional question: You must understand the legal difference between the notion of "constitutional nation" and national minority mentioned in the constitution. A "constitutional nation" in legal theory is the one that DEFINES the political entity/country in question, it, well, CONSTITUTES it. National minorities are other ethnic groups important enough (large enough) to be mentioned in the constitution. It is the way countries MAY be defined in the Preface, but they don't HAVE to be - I prefer the civil state ("state of citizens"), as I've made obvious earlier on. So, Serbs in Croatia are indeed not a constitutional nation and neither are they in Macedonia, as it is obvious in your quote: "Republic of Macedonia is a country of Macedonian people, as well as Albanians who live within it, and of other nations within, such as serbs, turks, Wlachs..." . When a lawyer tells you "and the other", he makes a legal full stop - the definition is over, political courtship may begin. So, Macedonia is defined as a country of Macedonians and Albanians and of course one cannot say it constitutes a "Serbian state" and it would be very wrong and very dangerous to say such a thing. When I've said "Serbs are not mentioned", please note the context. They are not mentioned as a CONSTITUTIONAL NATION, which is not the same as not being mentioned in the Constitution at all. Constitutions are about LEGITIMACY of government and national-oriented ones (such as these 2) make this claim by such prefaces: that the state is founded by the general will and therefore legitimacy of the constitutional nation(s). Same for Croatia. I wasn't wrong, Serbs are not a const. nation there, but a national minority. Serbs revolted exactly because they were reduced and downgraded from the status of a Const. nat. to the status of a national minority. That hardly means Croatia is a Serbian state. About the data of the Croatian change of constitution which caused the "Balvan revolution", I didn't check as you did, I was under the impression it was done in early 1991, but no matter. I've missed you mentioning the Serbian constitution and thought it was important to note that Serbia proper is not a Serbian, but civil state, which makes your argument of Serbian states being those that have Serbs mentioned in the Constitution obsolete, as this would mean Serbia itself is not a Serbian state. That's what I'm arguing and it's a straightforward case of deduction, as I'm sure you'll agree.

The language issue: There is no such thing as linguistic definition of countries. The word, or rather, the suffix you're looking for is "-phone". Eg., Algiers (among many others) is a Francophone country, but it is not a french state. Monaco, on the other hand, is both francophone and french (most people consider themselves to be both Monegasque and french). Comparison with India does work to a point - english hasn't been considered to be "foreign" for a very long time and now acts as a constitutional lingua franca of that great country. To this I add my own experience with Indian emigrants in Britain (a ima ih, brate, nevidjeno mnogo, ali ne bunim se, zhene im nijesu loshe ;-)), who do not consider english to be a foreign language, as they grew up as native speakers of both english and their own dialect. Notice I've also offered better examples, look up.

The Republika Srpska issue: Actually, no. Although RS has more autonomy within BH than Vojvodina has within Serbia (both are likely to change soon), RS is still no more of A COUNTRY than V is. Sure, it has some aspects of "statehood", but mostly in nominal terms - it may not influence the most important decisions even within those domains. It has very little control over its own army (the High Representative, with his viceroy-like authority may override any command and replace any commander as he pleases), nor the policies of the central bank etc. V is also a political entity (what else?), fighting for its greater autonomy. Again, we come down to legitimacy again: both RS and the Federation (muslim/bosniak - Croat federation) were created "from above". It is Bosnia-Herzegovina that guarantees the autonomy of these entities and they exist only as a part of its inner political order. Not the other way around. You may say that, legally speaking, BH created RS and F and in terms of international law existed prior to them (from intl.recognition to the Dayton agreement/Elysee Charter) - BH itself is not a federation in the classical sense. It's not like Serbia and Montenegro, where two entities, both with their own legitimacy, elements of nationhood and state prerogatives, decided to form a "state union". I insisted on "the only Serbian state in existence" because it's true and it certainly clears the way to stop any territorial pretensions towards neighbouring countries - Montenegro in the case we were concerned with. Serbian state is the one which has a Serbian majority. And the only such COUNTRY is Serbia. Of course, this may change, but is very unlikely, given the birth rate, political tendencies etc.

The Serbian element in Montenegro was never present until the annexation of 1918, at least not in the ethnic sense, as has been proved on numerous occasions. I have no wish to repeat all the proofs presented to you and, if you live in Montenegro, easily available to you.

Another english lesson: "natality" is not a word. You mean to say "birth-rate". As for the data about the birth-rate of Montenegrin ethnic group, I am convinced your sources, if there are any, are false although you may not know it. Statisticki Zavod does not calculate birth-rate according to ethnic groups. As for that brothers issue, I've already explained. A vast majority of people who consider themselves to be Serbs in Montenegro are Montenegrins, but not Serbs. I repeat, it is their RIGHT to determine themselves as they please. But the struggle now at hand is between those who were and those who were not assimilated by Serbia. Or rather, those who allowed themselves to be manipulated and misguided and those who refused to do so and stayed Montenegrins. The number of Serbs given in the last census is only temporary and a form of protest against Djukanovic. It is out of the question this number will go in any direction but down, and rapidly so, now MN is independent once again. Note the fact that serbian national parties are hardly popular - SNP is not a national party and people like Predrag Bulatovic and Zizic (no longer in the SNP, but still an important, albeit grotesque figure) are Montenegrins and refuse to declare themselves as Serbs. SNS, SNS, DSS, SRS and other petty parties of similar affiliation are permanently unable to increase their membership - exactly because their national orientation is so alien to Montenegro. The number of people who consider themselves as Serbs is dropping rapidly as we discuss.

"Spak" was an obvious typo, I'm sure you know that, moody ;-)

"Serbian Orthodox Church was founded in the year of '1219" - heh, no, it wasn't. It predecessor was. This national division of the orthodox Church is recent, it begun with national-romantic movements of the XIXth century Romanticism. The first to make this, as I've explained above, ethno-philetist heresy was the Russian Orthodox Church, in order to support the tsarist autocracy and make the assimilation of large orthodox groups, such as Ukrainians, Belorussians and possibly Georgians (as long as the influence of Bagration was significant) and Armenians, possible. The year of 1219 is the year when Serbs received autocephality for the first time, but the name "Serbian Orthodox Church" (with this national determination), appears with the re-establishment of the Patriarchate in Belgrade in 1920, I believe under the Patriarch Demetrios (Dimitrije). Note their autocephalous status was lost between XVth c. and 1830s - I have no time to give you precise dates, but it's easily verifiable, look it up and not just in Wikipedia. During all this time, the metropolitan and prince-bishop in Cetinje was completely independent and considered himself to be the true heir of the Pech throne. Do not confuse this with "Serbian Pech throne". At the time, the Church is still free from anti-christian nationalist sentiments and trappings. As I've explained above, it was a question of administrative order, not national preference. After both the Serbian state and church were re-established, a dispute between them and Montenegrins arose and it obviously never ended. Nota bene: prince-bishops of Montenegro were not ordained by any serbian church authority until 1920, but by Russians. Check the facts about their lives and where they received their titles. Two years after the annexation, in 1920, the newly established Patriarchate in Belgrade decided to subdue Cetinje - which they did - and changed the name to "Serbian Orthodox Church". I happen to know it is also when the first Theological faculty in Belgrade was founded, as I was in contact with profs and students from that faculty during the 1996/97 student protests in Belgrade. This is all really common knowledge. I'm orthodox christian, so I know this, I guess you are not, otherwise you'd be obliged to know these most basic things about church history. Also, I would like to recommend to your attention one passage from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (now in public domain), serach for "Montenegro". It says (1911, i.e. before the war and annexation):

"The Montenegrin Church is an autocephalous branch of the Eastern Orthodox communion. In 1894 it formally vindicated its independence against the claims of the Russian synod". Note also the RUSSIAN synod, not the Serbian one.

Also, take a look at the Constitution of the Princedom of Montenegro (1905), article 40.:

“Crnogorska je crkva autokefalna. Ona ne zavisi ni od koje strane crkve, ali odrzava jedinstvo u dogmama s istocno-pravoslavnom Vaseljenskom crkvom”

You might think I'm endorsing the MOC as it is under MIras Dedeic (self-proclaimed metropolitan Michael/Mihailo). I AM NOT. I am a STRONG advocate of canonic law and since I am certain the way MOC was incorporated in SOC in 1920 was uncanonic and aggressive, with total disregard of the wish of the people (which is of pivotal importance for all who are truly orthodox), I am also certain we should not respond the same way. What I wish to see is a regular, canonic and official re-establishment of the MOC, with all the churches and monasteries and all the priests, monks and faithful. It would be a painful and lengthy process and it certainly cannot be done with Amfilohije in charge, but it is possible. Stranger things have happened in the Balkans. Although, this is not my preferred choice. I would rather see etno-philetism completely abolished, but that will happen once in a blue moon.

Ahem...let me help you about Krsto Zrnov Popovic. Not only him, but EVERY SINGLE adult Montenegrin between the two wars had passports and other documents that claimed he/she was of Serbian nationality. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. And this applies to Muslims in Bosnia and Macedonians as well! You refuse to understand that it was not a free country, but a dictatorship. Montenegrins and Macedonians were not considered to be separate ethnic groups by the Kingdom of SHS/Yugoslavia and anyone who would even contemplate to self-declare in such a way would be severely punished. There was no way a clerk of the time would put a stamp on such a passport. His passport was issued by the embassy, which applied the same rules. It was BOTH a political and ethnic conflict. Sadly, Montenegrins lost and a part of the population allowed themselves to be assimilated by Serbs. This is why we still have Serbs in Montenegro. As Freud used to say, it was the case of "small difference narcissism" - Serbs succeeded in a few decades what Turks couldn't do in centuries. It wasn't until the end of WWII that Montenegrins could freely say who they were once more, but the impression of "serbhood" took root and appeared again with the events of the 1990s.

Weak Serbia - Strong Yugoslavia - I've already explained that, look up.

I'm not being abusive, you are (again). You DID proclaim neighbouring countries of Serbia being Serbian Lands, or failed to understand my very clear definition of what the criteria for this might be. Do not skip across my text, read it CAREFULLY and you will avoid your numerous mistakes.

I'm not undermining the census, I believe it needs to be interpreted in a rational manner, which I did. And I find many of my colleagues in Serbia proper agree with me. It is blatantly obvious there has to be a reason for such a shift. When something like that happens, you look at what happened between the two census and the explanation is there. Look up, I have already explained this. Now that we're moving on from wars and misfortunes and now that Serbia is moving towards democracy (hopefully), and the professionalism of its press is to increase, now that vicious propaganda machinery is to be dismantled, we will see Montenegrin Serbs turning back to the identity of their ancestors and their Montenegrin heritage.

You say : "Anyways, this "switching" is persicely the best proof you could ever have that Montenegrins and Serbs are one people". I will agree with this sentence with one addition: it should be : "...that Montenegrins and Montenegrin Serbs are one people". I agree completely. We're all Montenegrins by origin. But, as I've said too many times to mention, I fully respect anybody' decision to self-declare as they please and see fit. If you tell me you're an elf - then I'd say "OK. Can you hook me up with Arwen?" :-) . But that doesn't change your origins.

"the fact that the vast majority of Montenegrins (avoiding Montenegrins) are mostly Serbs" - this is just desperate dribble, isn't it?

It is blatantly obvious I accept the right of self-determination, as it is blatantly obvious from all your edits that you do not, nor do you believe in democracy at all. I am NOT "fiercely opposing" Montenegrin Serbs when I make the 7% assessment as realistic. I make that assessment based on the previous census data and historic events that happened between them, as well as the political situation and the deep resentment a large part of the population (including myself), has against the present Government and the party in power (DPS). I didn't just pick the percentage out of air. I am not opposing them, I simply believe this census does not give us an authentic ethnic scan of Montenegro. I also believe that independence will consequently result in a feeling of patriotism and a stronger sense of identity. You seem to want to say this is a case of wishful thinking. It is not, and neither is it my wish - I am ambivalent towards the ethnic composition of our country. It is what I have concluded will most probably happen, and with a very high degree of probability. So, it is more than an educated guess, it is a prediction based on logical conclusions and experiences of other newly independent countries.

As I've told you previously, I really have no time to continue this discussion, I've barely found this much. Perhaps we may continue on another occasion, when I might have more time to visit Wikipedia.

I think I'll end with a joke about the "Serbian Lands" idea you seem to like so much:

Poslale Srbija i Crna Gora misiju na Mars, koja se sastoji od dva Srbina i jednog Crnogorca. Tek sto su krocili na tle Marsa, jedan Srbin ubije drugog. "Sto to ucini, jado?", u cudu upita Crnogorac. "Gde su srpski grobovi, tu je i Srbija", odgovori Srbin ;-)

Sve najbolje, --HercegOX 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you received that kind of opinion - but I was rather laughing at you (no insult), not angry at all. :)))

Look at the edits on the talk page of the House of Petrovic article - I continued to dicuss to myself. So, when did I "refuse" to discuss? :D On the other hand you reverting warring without discussing was very abusive and showed a lack of good will and, just as you say, social grace. You cannot receive kindness, if you don't show at least some.

that hardly recommends him in my eyes... You completly missed my point - that recommends me.

Well, when we speak of nationalism - I cannot possible begin to disagree with you. Nationalism ruined my life (sister, home, all material ownership, etc.) AFAIC, any "nationalist" tendencies are there bursted as a result of such a grim past - which, you must understand, I work hardly to eliminate.

I deny that for which you accuse me. Whenever an anon appears (P. S. - thanks for the tip!) and starts to simply revert, making POV edit summaries and no (further) posts to the talk page - what do you expect I'm going to do. This is how we deal with vandals in wikipedia - and I apologize for this misjudgement of you, but you bore the very same characteristics of one (or at least, an abuse POV agenda pusher).

It's true, you didn't say "all of them", but just re-read your posts on Talk:House of Petrovic. If you trully think that they are from a NPOV - then you have a big problem. The biggest is that you actually believe that those words of yourse weren't aggressive/abusive, etc. Is it hard to believe that sometimes you could be wrong (it isn't to me).

I do not wish to discuss with you regarding the language & co. - because two persons discussing about a thing that they agree is impossibly. No, I didn't "check" about 1990 - I knew. Is it so hard to imagine that I possess a thing called knowledge? :0)

Your negation of a Serbian element in Montenegro before 1918 is now, very highly incorrect. The Docleii were called Serbs by Byzantine sources from the early middle ages. Duklja was for a long time either the liege over Rascia - or more frequently, subjected to it. In 1185-1360s it was part of the Serbian state. You cannot deny the presence of the Serbian Orthodox Church, or the language, either. Also, you have presented no proof whatsoever (that worths) to support the ser=orthodox theory. You constantly repeat that you did - but I presented to you Danil's Code from 1855, the Code of Laws from 1914 as well as numerious other quotations and claims - this, you cannot deny, unless you're intentionally ignoring (which seems to be the case).

"spak" - well, I couldn't resist. :)

I strongly disagree - the "Serbian Church" was used since 1219. You hav eyet again showed a great trace of lack in history knowledge. The Serbian Orthodox Church was abolished in the year of 1532, although, the Pec Patriarchate was restored ...for the Serbs... by Mehmed-pasa Sokolovic in 1557. The Patriarchate of Pec was abolished in 1766 - so the autocephalous status was not lost. And you have yet again showed lack of knowledge in history - all (or most) Metropolitans of Montenegro received their titles from the Pec Patriarchs - and even when it was abolished in 1766, they received from the Metropolitans of Karlovac. Petar I Petrovic Njegos received it from Mitropolit Mojsije Putnik in Sremski Karlovci in 1784 - only since Petar II Petrovic Njegos the Russian synod received prominence.

It's very interesting how you quote the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on Montenegro. Let me quote how it calls the Montenegrins - "Serbs" it calles the language of Montenegro "Serb language" and calls the Kingdom of Montenegro a "Serb country". It's very interesting how you pick from sources only what suites your political ideology - and not the whole thing, which is completly contradicting to everything you claim. P. S. - Could you supply me with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Montenegro. I have access to everything we discussed so far - except the Constitution itself.

I failed to understand your very llunclearll definition of what the criteria for "Serbian land" might be. As I said, refer to Serbian Lands.

It's not just desperate dribble - it's plain facts. Serbia's President Boris Tadic originates from Montenegro - as AFAIC, the majority of the 19th century population of Sumadia (Serbia). There are almost certainly a lot more Montenegrin-origin citizens of Serbia than citizens of Montenegro - for centuries Montenegrins have constantly migrated to Serbia (that's one of its main demographic problems).

Wait a minute - you resent Milo Djukanovic and his buddies? :) I'm starting to like you more and more. Hey, did you know that new elections will be held soon (because of the most recent political change)? And all polls say that Milo is falling. I have misjudged you for just another Miloshevich-style brainwashed supporter of the good ol' self-contradicting Milo Djukanovich. :)

And the other oart

No, I'm not a nationalist. I trace my origins and declare myself as: Yugoslav, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, German, Austrian, Italian, Venetian, Montenegrin, Vlach, Dalmatian, Ragusian and Bokez. It's called multi-culturalism - and I am proud of it. However, according to you, I should leave out the "Serbian" bit. :)))

You know Karadzic's family? Tell me, how are they? Where's he hiding? How is a family of a infamous War Criminal?

What? Are you saying that Montenegrins joined the partisans because of the Karadjordjeviches? Again you show lack of knowledge in history. It is against the Fascist authorities of Montenegro that they rebelled - the Partisans fought against the Axis forces, if you didn't know. The Karadjordjevic's period in the early 1920s was really bad in Montenegro, I admit that (but latter, it improved) - but it cannot be compared to the reign of Sekula Drljevic.

You again showed a great lack of knowledge in history - Stefan Nemanja was a Roman Catholic Christian. He was rebaptised onto Eastern Orthodoxy subsequently. And no, he didn't receive his title from the Pope - he assessed the "Grand Prince of Rascia" himself by deposing his brother, Tihomir, and self-declared his latter title ("Duke of the Serb Land"). Alexander Karadjordjevic spoke Montenegrin to the end of his life and considered Montenegro his homeland (in the style of Stefan Nemanja) - so your comparison with Umberto is rather, poor.

And yet again you are wrong. You should've studied the migrations more carefully (such as Jovan Cvijic). The Kosovo wave left mostly for Vojvodina, northern Serbia and Slavonia. The population of Croatia and Dalmatia - is mostly Montengrin. For instance, the Dalmatian Serb population (sometimes over 25% - now less than 1%) is from Montenegro. That can be seen, for instance, in the fact that the Serbs from Kninska krajina, Bukovica and the Kotari spoke the hyperiekav "nijesam" instead of "nisam".

Personal attacks

Tell me, when have I made them against you. You have repeatedly made against me, though. Please fully read Wikipedia:No personal attacks

You continually claim that you supported with valuable sources the new serb=orthodox theory - yet I presented to you twice valuable sources. You either intentionally ignored them because they do not correspond your political affilations - or, less likely, you missed them again: Let me requote the 1855 Danil's Code: Although there is no other nationality in this land except Serb nationality and no other religion except Eastern Orthodoxy, each foreigner and each person of different faith can live here and enjoy the same freedom and the same domestic right as Montenegrin or Highlander. Thus Nationality:SERBIAN, Religion:Eastern Orthodox. I have no idea what you mean by the 1904 census - but you probably misjudged that for the 1909 population census, that listed people by religion and by nationality seperately. Nationality:SERBIAN, Religion:Eastern Orthodox again. I cannot understand why yu speak words of such a high intellect, yet forcefully refuse to read/accept/notice clear arguements that make the new Serbs=Orthodox theory as valuable as the theory the Serbs are of Indian origin.

You constantly undermine my knowledge and attempt to insult me this way - but your knowledge in Montenegrin history seems rather poor - and your intentional negation of clear facts.

Your comments on the Royal Montenegrin Code of Laws from 1914 are the words of a desperate, lost man, disregarding something simply because it doesn't correspond his/her political ideology and essentially, wouldn't consider it true in a million years. Such opinions are not needed on Wikipedia. What I did is honor the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability - which you do not.

You mentioned something about the Romanians' religion - I compltelty misunderstood what you're trying to say. Also, please find the Collection "Рад Скупштине Црне Горе 1945-1950", issued by the Assembly of Montenegro in the year of 1986. If you turn the page 194, you will see "Након завршетка II свјетског рата званичан став скупштине Црне Горе гласи: црногорска нација је најчистија етничка група међу Србима." Or do I need to give you a scanned version of that as well??? --HolyRomanEmperor 11:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the Moldovans to Montenegrins, please. Would it be right to say "Montenegrins are Montenegrins and nothing else, just as they always were"? Also, I relied heavily on historical documents - I am aa historian. Unlike you, who refused to admit even the clearest of the facts. I won't accuse you of conducting nationalitic propaganda (although according to your logic - you are, and heavily), but I am going to accuse you of conducting propaganda against me - which is obvious from your words. I CAN be both Serb and Montenegrin if I want, as I stated before.

The Podgorica Assembly was unconstitutional and illegal - just like the seccessions of Slovenia, Croatia and Kosovo. Just like many things that happened in the world. However, it was democratic - Every district of Montenegro elected one member of the the Assembly.

The Code of Laws sure pushed for territorial demands - like was the Montenegrin general conscience back then - to unity the Serb lands. Let me quote Grand Duke Marko Miljanov Popovic: "Реците аустринскоме посланику, да каже његовом цару, кад би га Бог на добро обрнуо, па да сједини Српство: Босну и 'Ерцеговину, Црну Гору, Србију и Стару Србију, па да је то српска краљевина." By the way, let me quote Krsto Zrnov Popovic as well: "Montenegro is the land where the spark of Serb freedom was kept and preserved." written in the Voice of Montenegro from December the 10th, 1919.

Stefan Nemanja used his words alone. Yet again, I am only quoting others, not inventing anything/concluding: "Stefan Nemanja unified the Serb Land". It is as simple as that. I also suggest that you study the Christmas Uprising a little more, especially the works of a certain Dr Novica Radovic.

You again made an intentional insult/provocation by acusing me for the Macedonians? Now, I must seriously ask you - where did you load up such intense, bottomless amounts of nationalist xenophobia and hatred? Lastly, the Macedonians are a best example - tell me, how many Slavs from Macedonia, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romanians or Greeks identified themselves/were identified as Serbs because of their Orthodox religion? I'm getting an image that what you're trying to say is "Serbs was a common name for Eastern Orthodox Serbs and Montenegrins". I just don't see how you cannot see the foolishness in this false misinterpretation...

When you speak of knowledge of English sources - let me how they treat the Montenegrins. Quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Montenegro from the 1910s: "...From the seventh century the north-western portion of the peninsula began to be invaded by Slav tribes; one of these, the Serbs, settled in the territory which they still possess, and founded there several principalities (Zupanate), the most southern of which was called Zeta, or (after the ancient Dioclea) Duklja...On the destruction of the Great Servian Empire by the Turks after the battle of Amsfeld in 1389 Zeta became the refuge of the most valiant of the Serbs, who refused to submit to the Turkish yoke...Montenegro has an area of 3630 sq. miles and a population of 250,000 inhabitants, of whom the great majority are of unmixed Serb stock..."

Or what about Encyclopedia Americana from 1994? From the article on Montenegro: "The Montenegrins belong to the Serbian branch of the South Slav peoples ... They speak the Serbo-Croat language, using the Cyrillic alphabet. In religion the majority traditionally belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church."

Since you're in England, what about the English writer Mary E. Durham - she travelled all over Montenegro, Old Serbia and Serbia and wrote a book about those lands: "THROUGH THE LANDS OF THE SERB". It was published in 1904 in London by Edward Arnold and printed in Edinburgh by Morrison and Gibb Limited. This is her map of the lands of the Serbs.

You insult me when you say that I am not familiar with the subject and only intentionally quoted the source. Please read it: Montenegro: The Divided Land. It was written by Thomas Fleming of the Rockford Institute. Quoting: "Throughout the dark days of persecution and oppression Montenegrins stubbornly refused to surrender their Christian religion or their Serbian identity, and the story of their heroic resistance is one of the brightest chapters in the history of mankind's too often futile pursuit of freedom. Or, here's another British source: The Falcon & the Eagle: "Montenegro and Austria-Hungary 1908-1914" by John D. Treadway of the University of Richmond: "Ambitious for his dynasty as well as his country and incited by the nationalism of his people, Nicholas dreamed of uniting all Serbs under his aegis and sitting upon Dusan's throne in Prizren" that can be read on page 201).

Please download this .pdf: The Sabre and the Song - Njegos: The Mountain Wreath by Dr Edward Dennis Goy: "For the Montenegrins their very being related back to the great Serbian medieval state which had perished, traditionally, at the battle of Kosovo in 1389 and of whose Serbian Orthodox Christian culture they were the sole free representatives".

Please see page 774 of the National Geographic Magazine from November of 1908: It states that Montenegro is one of the two Serbians states, the other being Serbia. I cannot give you to see the edition of this magazine from May (although I can quote it): "A tale hangs by the cap. The Montenegrins are a conservative people and, like all the Serbs of the Balkans, look back to the days of the great Serbian Empire when the Slavs held most of the Peninsula. The highest point of glory was reached under Stephen Dushan, 1337-1356, who planned to keep the Turk out of Europe, but who unfortunately died at the height of his career. In 1389 the different Slav peoples made their last united stand under Tzar Lazar Gubijanovich on the plain of Kosovo. The day was at first with Tzar Lazar, but, as usual in the Peninsula, jealousies prevented a concerted action and he was betrayed by his son in law, Vuk Brankovich, who coveted the crown. He deserted to the enemy with 12.000 followers, a frightful slaughter ensued, and the Balkans fell to the invader. This fateful 15th of June is a day of mourning throughout Serb lands and the Montenegrin cap is worn in commemoration - the black is for mourning, and the red-centered crown for the blood shed on the field of Kosovo. A semicircle of gilt braid encloses the Prince's initials H.I., the circle typifying the rainbow of hope that the Turk will be driven from Europe and the great Serbian Empire again established."

This is Charles Seignobos, A Political History of Europe, since 1814, ed. S. M. Macvane, H. Holt and Company, New York, 1900, pp. 663-664; excerpt from chapter XXI The Christian Nations of The Balkans, subchapter Servia and Montenegro, passages Montenegro: "Its inhabitants, Orthodox Serbs".

But what totally makes your new theory really unfounded is this: This is how the Official Certificates of the Ministry of Interior of the Princedom and Kingdom of Montenegro looked: Ethnicity:Serbian, Faith:Eastern Orthodox, Nationality:Montenegrin. So, how can this possibly support your theory?

How about the Geography of Montenegro for the 3rd grade of Elementary schools from the year of 1899: "Сви људи, који живе у нашој домовини, јесу Срби, већином православне вјере, а има их мало римокатоличке и мухамеданске."

You asked for Catholic Serbs? Well, have a go at Stefan Nemanja. Or what about Stefan Dragutin or 99% of the Serbian Early medieval nobility? Or, if you need someone modern - have a go at Baltazar Bogišić.

but back to international sources: Read up the History of Serbia written by Harold W. V. Temperley in 1917 in London. Chapter VIII - Montenegro and her share in Serbian national development. This, and many other sources (including the Petrovic-Njegoss) call the Northern Serbs a. k. a. Serbians - of mixed stock, and much less "ethnicly pure" than the Serbs of Montenegro and Herzegovina. Although I resent the usage as it reminds me of a certain movement during the Second World War - it is what was stated by domestic people and foreigners both.

Conclusion

You have a lot more to read - much more studies to make and verify your claims and theories with sources. By the way, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Which makes Wikipedia not a place to test new theories. I trully believe that this all will make you change.

P. S. If you must know, he was sent to Goli Otok because he was a royalist - openly supporting the Kingdom of Montenegro. One day he openly spoke about the lack of freedom to those desiring to declare as Serbs in Montenegro - the next day he was in Goli Otok - never returning. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highlanders

Tell me, please - why aren't there any Highlanders? Highlanders were historically never Montenegrins. Why isn't there a Highlander people (brdjani)?

P. S. - the Herzegovinians are highlanders as well - the "Brda" stretches through Motnenegro and Herzegovina, thus the mixture of the Serb clans. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You...

...have been exposed. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]