Talk:Montenegrin nationalism

Complications
The Ramet sources are largely inadmissible in what they attempt to substantiate. It would appear that any Montenegrin sentiment whatsoever amounts to a form of nationalism. As with so-called Serbian nationalism, it seems nobody is allowed to wish anything for their nation without being branded "nationalist". As a good Serbian friend of mine recently said in response to western reports that labelled those demonstrating against the extradition of Mladić as "nationalist" that the only way you can be Serb and not "nationalist" is to surrender to their international detractors, admit all accusations made against them even versus solid facts, and vilify all operations taken in the name of Serbia from 1991 onward including the Preševo Valley conflict - or implement the opposite by giving credence to all opponents including potential. You do get a handful of Serbs who believe Vojvodina and Belgrade should be split between Hungary and Croatia, Preševo and surrounding area should join an independent Kosovo, Sandžak should be independent with the rest of the country carved by Bosnia, Bulgaria and Romania. Some outsiders glorify them being non-extremist and neutral with a liberal outlook, I personally think they're off their nut and their thoughts are treachery.

One look at the statistics on the 2006 referndum and even a novice mathematician will deduce that a greater figure voted pro-union than the percentage of Serbs; it is very possible to be both Montenegrin by ethnicity and in favour of the Serbian union. Ask my associates in Kolašin, all declare Montenegrin and have never called themselves anything else, and all voted pro-union. Be that as it may, they are not nationalists either. They never subscribed to the attempts on Herzegovina for example. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing the Ramet sources. It says that Montenegrin nationalism that supports union with Serbia is Serbian nationalism in Montenegro - that is confusing. Also, as Evlekis says, it is possible for a Montenegrins to support union with Serbia without being Serbian nationalists, and without identifying as Serbs. Indeed during the Yugoslav Wars, the Bulatovic government mixed support of union with Serbia with Montenegrin irredentist claims to Dubrovnik. Of course not everyone who identifies as a Montenegrin is a Montenegrin nationalist.--R-41 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nicely deduced. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think whatever happens we all need to be clear about a few things. The Montenegrin-Serb question is one that produces many responses and nothing is clear. I admit that even from the first revision of the article, there were many valid points (including some from Ramet) except one needs to establish what is nationalism and what is plain identity. If there be an extremist continuum of sentiment, we and the commentators themselves merely resort to original research when deciding at which point of this imaginary line does sentiment begin to amount to nationalism. A good example is Kosovo. If given the choice for a peaceful final status, any Serb will tell you that it should be in Serbia and any Albanian will choose independence. It is not the case though that all two million ethnic Albanians in Kosovo are nationalist. So by the same token, a Serb from Eastern Slavonia or a Croat from Herzegovina are not necessarily nationalists for wishing their land were part of a wider nation state. I would say it is more down to how hard they will press to achieve these goals. It if is a "death or glory" approach such as between 1991 and 1995 then this is certainly hardline nationalism.

Be that as it may, and not to go off-topic here, we need to remember a few things on the leading question. The 1909 census revealed a majority in Montenegro declaring Serb and with a significant number of Croats but I don't believe "Montenegrin" registered. It was independent from 1878 but for the purpose of nation states, this could have been a situation akin to Greece and Cyrpus whereby two independent countries have an ethnic Greek majority. Just as Greek right-wing nationalists favour a single state uniting Greece and Cyprus (and other places) and will do so whether he be from Greece or Cyrpus, it is fair to suggest that any all-out Serb from Montenegro may have had the same aspiration. The point was that neither in 1878 when Montenegro achieved independence nor decades later when the ethnicity emerged was it ever the case that all Serbs from Montenegro favour Serbian absorption of Montenegro. It makes sense that they would wish to be in union with Serbia but Montenegro exists for a reason too and a great many ethnic Serbs from Montenegro identify locally and proudly as Montenegrin Serbs, they love their Montenegrin homeland and their affiliation is to that territory. The trouble is that the idea that people now call themselves Montenegrin by ethnicity causes confusion! So you have a continuum as such: 1) Outright Serb nationalist (no Montenegrin entity sought); 2) Montenegrin Serb-pro union 3a) Montenegrin Serb (anti-union - independent Montenegro favoured); 3b) Ethnic Montenegrin (pro-union); 4 Ethnic Montenegrin (pro-independence); 5) Outright nationalist Montenegrin.

In this list, 3a and 3b both link 2 and 4 but are not connected to each other. The interesting thing about the population of Montenegro is that most of the population fall into one of the six categories. And so unclear is it what makes you fall into either group that you get familes where siblings identify differently. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I am not a person of descent from the Balkans, and I live in Canada, I could provide an example of the difference between non-political patriotic feelings and nationalism. The second last sentence of this will be a humourous example for Canadians. A non-political patriotic Canadian may be proud of their country's achievements or its history - such as its efforts in the two World Wars, but not have political attachment to it; a Canadian nationalist on the other hand believes that Canadian identity is part of politics, they advocate political independence and political distinction from the United States. Humourously - a crazy Canadian nationalist may even bring up irredentist claims to the US state of Alaska in opposition to the Alaska boundary dispute settlement. Nationalists typically are political in nature and bring culture into politics, unlike people who have general patriotic feelings but do not bring these into politics.--R-41 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I get the full picture. Mind you, for all the discussions I've had with users on political and nationalist issues, I don't normally even raise the word "patriotism" because although some people use patriot and nationalist interchangeably, there is a world of difference between one and the other. It would be difficult to be nationalistic without the initial feeling of patriotism but you can certainly be a Candaian patriot without laying claim to Alaska. It is said that the patriot rallies around the flag and is characterised by his passion for his nation without the need to grieve over unredeemed land or historically unfinished business. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No reference / Suggest removing
THis article is totally pointless. There is no single reference about it even in Montenegrin language. If not deleted, maybe article should be renamed into "Montenegrin patriotism", that would make some sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.115.222 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Different stages
There must be pointed out that there have been different, separate, stages or ideas of "Montenegrin nationalism". The introduction claims that it is an ethnic nationalism, however, it is nowhere stated that historically the Montenegrins have been viewed of as an ethnic Serb community. One cannot equalize the nationalism of 1919 with that of 2006.--Z oupan 22:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WW2
Despite it is referenced, claims that clans opposed to union with Yugoslavia successfully revolted and on 13 July 1941, declared Montenegro an independent kingdom to be neutral in the war is utter nonsense. Montenegrin Green declared that Montenegrin kingdom is restored on 12 July, and didn't say nothing about Montenegrin neutrality. On contrary, it emphasized ties between Italy and Montenegro. Day latter, partisan 13th July uprising has begun. However before the kingdom could be organized, Italian forces occupied Montenegro. Italian army occupied Montenegro during April/May of 1941. The majority of the Greens opposed Italy's control over Montenegro and engaged in combat with Axis forces. I never heard that Greens engaged in combat with Axis; on contrary they were part of Axis quisling forces. They first got task to fight partisans, than fought against chetniks. The Greens opposed the Yugoslav Partisans because many of their recruits were from the pro-Serbian White clans. No, Greens opposed partisans because partisan wanted socialist republic within Yugoslavia, that is exactly opposite to Greens aims. And many Greens (save their leaders) joined partisans. Source: Radoje Pajović: Kontrarevolucija u Crnoj Gori: četnički i federalistički pokret. --  Bojan   Talk   10:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)