Talk:Bokelji

Not a separate ethnic group
Bokelji is a regional designation for inhabitants of Boka Kotorska, traditionally Croats and Serbs. It's really presumptuous to consider them a separate ethnic group, I've never heard of anyone claiming that before... --Shallot 23:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And again, this is a pretty large leap with little basis in reality... they don't register on the census as Bokeljs, and from what I can see those are generally what everyone else refers to as the Croats from Boka. Incidentally, my grandfather was Ante Kosi&#263; and he said that his (Croatian) ancestors migrated from Krivo&#353;ije (one of the hills overlooking Boka) about four centuries ago. I've always thought it was mildly amusing that my die-hard communist grandfather was possibly related to Ozana of Kotor, a blessed Catholic... :) --Shallot 00:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The Krivošije are not only hills but a Serb Hercegovinian tribe that traces its original ancestors from Kosovo (the Samardži&#263; family). They have remained Orthodox to this day, only a few migrants might have converted to Catholicism like your ancestors. Ozana of Kotor (Kata Kosi&#263;) on the other hand was not from the Krivošije but from Komani in Katunska nahija, Old Montenegro. She also converted to Catholicism when she moved to Kotor to served the Buci family and later became a Benedictine nun. --Igor 21:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, we're all Serbs. I almost believed otherwise for a moment there! :P --Shallot 11:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, but the Krivošije are. As usual, you can check up on whatever it is that I am saying to you and as usual you will see that I am right as I was for Bosnia, Dubrovnik, Boskovic etc. --Igor 23:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, we've seen this tactic of yours before: throw in a few fairly inconsequent factoids and then spin whole article in a fairly ludicrous direction. --Shallot 11:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Usually it takes time for you to, albeit silently, acknowledge my being right. I did not expect this time to be any different. If you are interested in drawing up your family's origins I would be glad to be of assistance. --Igor 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Except that I'm not saying that you are right, neither silently nor verbally? You're merely hell-bent on making blatant logical fallacies (even in the unlikely case that what you said is completely true, and in the unlikely case that it applies directly to the family that I descended from, that still doesn't have to mean much with regards to the ethnic identification of those people, their direct progenies, and their descendents several centuries later).


 * I like your style, in the unlikely event that what I said is true :). As I said, check for yourself. Besides, you are the one who brought up personal details as an argument, not blame me for trying to correct you when it comes to facts. Fact is, you don't even know where the Krivošije are, let alone that you should ever had visited them, otherwise neither you nor Mir Harven would be writing this BS about Bokelji being Croat Catholics. I am the one that should give up on you but then again you would proclaim victory and continue writing your nonsense. --Igor 20:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Making your opinion sound like universal fact must be fun, but it's also irrational when the opinion is biased. Anyway, I don't see why I'm still trying to argue against a propaganda tactic like that... --Shallot 16:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The anti-Croatian stuff
I see Igor and the 24.* user had a field day with the page in the meantime. It is quite indicative that the number of Croats among these people is consistently downplayed, that their Catholic faith back from early medieval times is speciously denied, and that the historic values that they have preserved in their sacral objects is conveniently shoved under the rug. I mean, okay, there are possibly some ambiguities with assigning them modern ethnic identities, but the recent changes are just plain old biased towards Igor's good old pan-Serbian propaganda. --Shallot 20:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the information that Croats made up 50% of the population, according to which census?


 * First of all I never said that Croats made up 50% of "the population", because total population these days is clearly different.


 * Sorry, that's Mir Harven's. Consider it gone. --Igor 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * With reference to history, it's pointless to talk about censa when this whole article is really about a regional group rather than a nationality -- the latest census in Montenegro doesn't even mention Bokelji.


 * Your call, I can go either way, with or without censa figures, I just like sticking to the facts, no BS. --Igor 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There's only a group referred to as "regional designation" but their numbers are comparable to the smaller minorities (since the war, the Croats are a good example of that), and the rest are Montenegrins and Serbs.


 * And not all of those (but certainly most) from the "regional designation" declared themselves as Bokelji. --Igor 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Given that "Montenegrin" can also be a regional designation, and the experience from the Bunjevci case, I don't have much reason to believe that this designation isn't skewed either. --Shallot 11:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Skewed, how so? ::: Your call, I can go either way, with or without censa figures, I just like sticking to the facts, no BS. --Igor 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Skewed as in interpreted to mean one thing, when in reality it's something completely different. --Shallot 16:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of the definition of skewed, was just hoping that you would, for once, support your baseless accusations against me. As usual, you are all talk. --Igor 20:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you provide any information about the populace's alleged Croatdom prior to the 19th century?


 * "Alleged Croatdom", heh. I'd like to hear your explanation about how exactly the medieval southern Dalmatian/Illyrian duchies were Serbian, and only Serbian. I bet it's fun. --Shallot 11:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You did not answer my question ... what else is new :). Duchies of Narentani/Pagania (Neretljani/Paganija), Terbounia(Travunija)-Konavli, Zahumlje are explicitely mentioned as being settled by Serbs in Porphyrogenitus's De_Administrando_Imperio and countless other Byzantine and even Roman sources say so. I'll write up a page on it just for you. --Igor 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * They're also referred to as Red Croatian duchies in that same work (in a different section, one that you oh-so-conveniently failed to reproduce in the Wikipedia article), and elsewhere. --Shallot 16:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Which section? :) This is a trick question, there is no such section. Shallot, get your facts straight, then come back to argue. --Igor 20:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A quick google search provided me with the footnotes section of "Croats & Serbs", book by one Dominik Mandic. First footnote mentioning the emperor is number 14,

-- ---

Reaction to the article "Croatized Bulgars"?????!?!?!!?!!?!
Whoever wrote this has no clue about Serbian history whatsoever!!!!!!!!! Serbs as a nation first appeared in articles of Claudius Ptolomy, Tacitus and Plinius in 1st-2nd centuries A.D. When they were invited to the Balkans by Heraclius, they settled along with Croats, who were another tribal nation at that time. BULGARS originate from Pamir and Turkic people of Asia and have moved to the Balkans about 50 years after it got colonized by Serbs and Croats; Bulgar tribes mixed with those Slavic peoples and became Bulgarians (Slavic speakers) but not until 9th century! Croats and Serbs have had their own tribal leaders who would later become zupans and kings of their respective nations. They did not mix a lot during the time as they were considered separate nations (like Flems and Dutch today). Same thing with the Bulgarians; even when Serbia was briefly held by Bularians Serbs have had their own kings and dynasties, so Serbia was never part of Bulgaria but more as an semi-independent or vassal state. Bulgarian language could be inteligible with Serbian but also has many differences since it was heavily influenced by Thracian, Dacian and Greek language, later also by Turkish and very much Russian. Serbian language is based on 2 dialects: ekavica and ijekavica, not just ekavica! Over 30% of all Serbs speak ijekavica, mostly in the West (Bosnia, Croatia, MOntenegro but also parts of Western Serbia and Sandzak). That is the result of the same literary school that was accepted in both Bulgaria and Serbia (Ohrid), but that's where all similarities end. Serbian and Croatian are still linguistically one language as they have always been (like Flemish and Dutch), and BUlgarian has ALWAYS been a separate language since it is not as well understood by other South Slavs (except Macedonians). So you could say that Serbs gave a large contribution to converting Bulgars into Slavic, not vice versa (since the Bulgarians settled the areas previously held by Serb tribes down to Salonica and Constantinople)! Even though Boche di Cattaro (Boka Kotorska) was under strong Catholic influence throughout most of the 2nd millenia, this does not mean that it hasn't been Serbian at the same time! It's quite the opposite actually, taking that majority of the population in that area today are Orthodox Serbs (f.e. Herceg Novi- king Tvrtko's city, one of the pearls of Serbian culture). You have to take into account that Dioclea and later Zeta were the heart of Serbian State, which was at that time religiously split; Mihajlo Bodin of Zeta might have ackgnowledged supremacy of the Pope to obtain the title of King of Dioclea, but he's considered to be one of the fathers of Serbian nation, even though he owed alligeance to the West. Stefan Nemanja, first Great Zupan, was a Catholic by birth like most of "Diocleans" but he's considered to be the greatest Serb of all times (together with other members of his own dynasty). Even today many Catholics in Bay of Kotor consider themselves to be Serbs. Citizens of this area proclaimed unification with Serbia independetly from the rest of the Western Lands after WWI.Boka managed to preserve its Orthodox caracter despite cultural assimilation due to its indented position (inland bay) and closness of Serb nation present in Herzegovina on the West and Hills in the East. "Orthodox christian presence in Boka is so obviously shallow and recent, it was visible even to my, tourist's, naked eye. What an disappointment it was, after imagining all this years that there ever was such a thing as Serb naval tradition".- Tell me, who has built Herceg Novi? Orthodox King Tvrtko, in the 15th century. Who has built the temple "Our Lady of Rocks"? Catholic Serb families from Perast. If you actually went there they would tell you the same thing. Let me remind you that at one time (Czar Dushan) Serbian Empire had outlets on 3 sees, practically controlling the entire trade on Central Mediterranean. Emperor of Byzantium Jovan Kantakuzin has critized his rival Dushan for "trading with the West" (Venice, Genoa etc), which was at that time considered immoral. He has besieged Constantinople in numerous occasions with his navy- however he never succedeed in conquering the city (maybe it was lack of naval experience), but Serbia has been a Mediterranean state throughout most of its history! Had it nor been, it wouldn'y have had an outlet to the sea at all (if she could not defend it with its navy). User:NeroN_BG

??
"There was no explicit expression of Serbian ethnic consciousness among Catholic Montenegrins (as Dioclea, then Zeta became known), particularly in the large tribes of Bjelopavlovići, Piperi or Bratnožići"- this is a ridicilous claim taking that those clans were formed as late as the Ottoman period! King of Dioclea Michael Bodin was a ruler of the Serbs and so were his successors; Nemanjic dynasty originates from today's Podgorica and was of a Serbian Catholic origin. The term "Montenegrins" did not exist prior to the 15th century and was a local delimination just as the Bokelji, Krajishnici etc. You realize how stupid that sentence is taking that Montenegrins did not exist in form of a distinct nationality before Tito (check Demographic history of Montenegro). Up until WWII citizens of Montenegro have overwhelmingly opted for Serbian origin (the number would always surpass 90%). The Censuses have first been conducted since 1855 and none of them (up until 1948) have recorded a Montenegrin nationality, which is quite strange taking that until 1918 Montenegro was a separate state. However this state governed by King Nikola defined itself as the purest of all Serb states and aspired to be the leader of the "Second Serbian Empire". User:NeroN_BG

Article plagiarized?
I see some people want to rewrite this article. That's good. However, you must first deal with the fact that the last two sections of the article have basically been copy and pasted from. I say "basically" because the term 'Croat' has been deleted and replaced by 'Bokelj' in every case. This info may be a copyright infringment (I'm not sure, the website allows some free usage), but it certainly does not speak of Bokelji, rather Croatians from Boka which this article completely distorts. --Thewanderer 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wanderer, yeah, could you help over 'ere. I think we've made a mess of the article. --PaxEquilibrium 11:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm all in favour of acceptance. I believe that they may have previously called themselves Croats, but proper statistics are hard to find. Censa indicate percentage of people with regard ethnicity, language, religion etc. according to region. When you count the number of Croats in Montenegro, it is hard to prove that the people who declared the name are or are not from the Bokeljs. If we can, then this article can be based on a community who identify as Bokeljs at a regional level like the Romania-based Krashovans do when they mostly identify as Croats at the national level. Equally, if most are insistent on calling themselves Bokeljs by ethnicity then we cannot assert that they are either Serb, Croat or Montenegrin. We can say that they are Slavic in that this is an ethnicity of an ethnicity itself, and if it can be proved, we can say that they previously declared themselves Croats (or whatever else). What is dangerous however is to return to the old disputes that they can call themselves as they choose, they are still Serbs, or still Croats etc as if to suggest that there is something concrete about being Serb or Croat when there simply isn't that. And the other thing is that if they are nationally identifying as Bokeljs on one census in contrast to a previous edition, there is every possibility that some if only few who took the name may have been Serbs or Montenegrins. Nationality moves in mysterious ways. Evlekis 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV
I haven't seen more biased article in a long while. According to people who have never even seen Boka, Bokelji were and are Serbs, we are all loyal to the Serbian Orthodox Church, Budva is a part of Boka(which is, you must agree, contradictory to the common sense), and celebrating "slava" makes us Serbs, because no one in the whole world has patron saints but Serbs... Thus, I added the POV tag.Didn't have time to revise the page, but something has to be done asap. Sideshow Bob 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Bokelji were and are Serbs, the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is little or none at all active in the Bay (which is the HQ of the Serbian Orthodox Church's activity and the Serbian institutions in Montenegro). Budva indeed is historically a part of Boka, and as a the Gulf is considered to be more of a historical entity, its residents still consider it (although it aint geographically, of course). --PaxEquilibrium 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)