Претражи овај блог

Основни подаци о мени

Моја слика

Campo Belo São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

...As you read about Bosnia and Kosovo in your daily newspapers I remind you of the words of Socrates spoken at his trial in his own defence: "I do not know what effect my accusers have had upon you gentlemen but for my own part I was almost carried away by them; their arguments were so convincing. On the other hand scarcely a word of what they said was true."....

понедељак, 28. фебруар 2011.

ΤΟ ΟΡΑΜΑ-ΒΟΡΕΙΟΗΠΕΙΡΩΤΙΚΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ

ΤΟ ΟΡΑΜΑ-ΒΟΡΕΙΟΗΠΕΙΡΩΤΙΚΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ

Κυριακή, 27 Φεβρουαρίου 2011

ΟΝΟΜΑΤΑ ΒΛΑΧΩΝ

Πολλά έχουν γραφτεί για το ποιοι ή τι είναι οι Βλάχοι και σίγουρα υπάρχουν πολλές απόψεις, λιγότερο ή περισσότερο πειστικές. Μία απλή προσέγγιση αυτών των ερωτημάτων θα επιχειρηθεί εδώ εξετάζοντας τα διάφορα ονόματα με τα οποία είναι γνωστοί οι Βλάχοι.
Θα πρέπει να εξετάσουμε τόσο τους αυτοπροσδιοριστικούς όρους και τους ενδοφυλετικούς όρους διάκρισης που χρησιμοποιούν οι ίδιοι οι Βλάχοι, όσο και τους όρους που χρησιμοποιούν για να τους προσδιορίσουν οι αλλόγλωσσοι και γειτονικοί προς αυτούς πληθυσμοί. Όπως επίσης και τους νεολογικούς όρους που δημιούργησαν οι διάφοροι κατά καιρούς επιστήμονες και ερευνητές που ασχολήθηκαν με Βλάχους, αλλά και όρους που είναι απόρροια πολιτικών καταστάσεων. Οι απαντήσεις γύρω από την ονοματολογία των Βλάχων μπορούν να οδηγήσουν στο διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στο μύθο και την πραγματικότητα.
Κανείς δεν μπορεί να αμφισβητήσει το γεγονός πως η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των Βλάχων, τόσο στο μητροπολιτικό τους χώρο ( Ελλάδα ), όσο και στη διασπορά (γύρω Βαλκανικές Χώρες), όταν αυτοπροσδιορίζονται, στην ίδια τους τη γλώσσα, κάνουν χρήση του όρου «Αρμούν-Αρμούνι», ο οποίος συναντιέται σε διάφορες φωνολογικές παραλλαγές και νεολογικούς τύπους, («Αρωμάνος-Αρωμάνοι»).
Μία τέτοια φωνολογική παραλλαγή είναι ο όρος «Ρμέν-Ρμένι», με χαρακτηριστική εκφορά του αρχικού «ρο». Αυτή η παραλλαγή χρησιμοποιείται από τον κλάδο των Βλάχων που είναι γνωστοί και ως Αρβανιτόβλαχοι, τόσο στην Ελλάδα, όσο και στην Αλβανία. Όπως και να έχει, ο όρος «Αρμούν-Αρμούνι» δεν έχει διαφορετικές καταβολές από τον όρο «Ρωμιός-Ρωμιοί» που χρησιμοποιούσαν οι ελληνόφωνοι πληθυσμοί μέχρι την νεότερη επικράτηση του όρου «Έλληνας-Έλληνες». Ο όρος «Αρμούν» είναι παραφθορά του λατινικού όρου «Romanus», όπως ο όρος «Ρωμιός» είναι παραφθορά του ελληνικού όρου «Ρωμαίος».
Ωστόσο, οι δύο αυτοί όροι είναι ταυτόσημοι καθώς και οι δύο προσδιορίζουν, ο ένας στα λατινικά και ο άλλος στα ελληνικά, τον «πολίτη» και αργότερα τον «πολιτισμικό κληρονόμο» της Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας, της μετέπειτα Ρωμανίας, της κρατικής και πολιτισμικής οντότητας που είναι περισσότερο γνωστή σε μας με το νεολογικό όρο Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία. Θα πρέπει επίσης να γνωρίζουμε πως οι όροι «Ρουμανία» και «Ρουμάνοι» είναι, μάλλον, δύο όροι νεολογικοί που υιοθετήθηκαν από τους Ρουμάνους μόλις στις αρχές του 19ου αιώνα.
Ο όρος «Βλάχος-Βλάχοι» έχει γερμανική γλωσσολογική καταβολή. Αρχικά χρησιμοποιούταν για τον προσδιορισμό των Ρωμαίων ή ακόμη πιο αόριστα των λιγότερο ή περισσότερο εκρωμαϊσμένων πολιτισμικά και εκλατινισμένων γλωσσικά κατοίκων των ρωμαϊκών εδαφών. Ο όρος αυτός πέρασε στους Σλάβους και από αυτούς στους Βυζαντινούς και αργότερα στους Οθωμανούς. Εδώ θα πρέπει να διευκρινιστεί πως από τους βυζαντινούς ακόμη χρόνους και μέχρι σήμερα ο όρος «βλάχος-βλάχοι», με το βήτα μικρό, δηλώνει εκείνους τους πληθυσμούς, όχι απαραίτητα βλαχόφωνους, που ασχολούνται με τη κτηνοτροφία και κυρίως τις νομαδικές και ημινομαδικές της μορφές. Κατ` επέκταση, ο όρος αυτός έφτασε στο σημείο να δηλώνει στα νεοελληνικά και πολλές φορές και στα βλάχικα το νομαδοκτηνοτρόφο, τον άξεστο, τον αγροίκο, τον απολίτιστο, το χωριάτη. Ωστόσο, είναι εμφανές πως υπάρχει μία σαφής διάκριση ανάμεσα στον σημερινό όρο «Βλάχος», με το βήτα κεφαλαίο, και τον όρο «βλάχος», με το βήτα μικρό.
Ο όρος «Κουτσόβλαχος-Κουτσόβλαχοι», όποια και αν είναι η ετυμολογική του ανάλυση, είτε από τα τουρκικά, είτε από τα νεοελληνικά, και παρά τη χρήση του για πολύ περισσότερο από έναν αιώνα, είναι ένας μάλλον αποτυχημένος, σύνθετος όρος, ο οποίος επιπλέον μοιάζει να είναι προσβλητικός για τους Βλάχους. Χαρακτηριστική παραμένει η επισήμανση του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αθηνών Σπυρίδωνα Βλάχου προς ακαδημαϊκό δάσκαλο Αλέξανδρο Σβώλο πως: «όποιος αναφέρεται σε Κουτσόβλαχους είναι ο ίδιος κουτσοσυγγραφέας».
Αν και ο όρος «Ελληνόβλαχος-Ελληνόβλαχοι», όπως και ο ταυτόσημος όρος «Γραικόβλαχος-Γραικόβλαχοι», έχει χρησιμοποιηθεί από τα τέλη του 18ου και τις αρχές του 19ου αιώνα, δηλαδή πριν την έκρηξη των βαλκανικών εθνικισμών και των επακόλουθων προπαγανδών, είναι εμφανές πως πέρα από το δικαιολογημένο πολιτισμικό προσδιορισμό, από κάποια ιστορική καμπή και μετά εμπεριέχει και μία πολιτική διάκριση και διάσταση.
Ο όρος αυτός φαίνεται πως είχε λόγο ύπαρξης και χρήσης για όσο καιρό χρησιμοποιούνταν σε αντιδιαστολή με τον όρο «Σλαβόβλαχος-Σλαβόβλαχοι», ο οποίος με τη σειρά του χρησιμοποιούταν για τον πολιτισμικό προσδιορισμό των Ρουμάνων. Σήμερα πια, η προσδιοριστική χρήση του όρου «Έλληνας», ως πρώτο συνθετικό, φαντάζει ως πλεονασμός, όπως ίσως και στις περίπτωσεις των όρων «Ελληνοπόντιος» και «Ελληνοκαραμανλής».
Επιπλέον, η χρήση του όρου αυτού θα άφηνε περιθώρια για τη αποδοχή και θα δικαιολογούσε τη χρήση τεχνιτών όρων, όπως: «Αλβανόβλαχοι», «Βουλγαρόβλαχοι», «Ρουμανόβλαχοι», «Σερβόβλαχοι» και «Μακεδονόβλαχοι».
Με την ίδια λογική, θα έπρεπε, ίσως, να μη χρησιμοποιούμε τον όρο «Αρβανιτόβλαχος- Αρβανιτόβλαχοι», αν και η αδυναμία αντικατάστασης αυτού του όρου από κάποιον άλλον και η πιθανότατα μακραίωνη χρήση του μας υποχρεώνουν να τον αποδεχτούμε. Ο σύνθετος αυτός όρος δηλώνει εκείνους τους Βλάχους των οποίων οι πρόγονοι είχαν βρεθεί να κατοικούν ανάμεσα σε «Αρβανίτες»-αλβανόφωνους πληθυσμούς. Αυτή η συμβίωση είχε σαν αποτέλεσμα την ανάπτυξη πολιτισμικών αλληλεπιδράσεων, όπως η γνώση και η χρήση από το ένα μεγάλο μέρος των «Αρβανιτόβλαχων» τόσο της δική τους διαλεκτικής μορφής των βλάχικων, όσο και των αλβανικών. Ωστόσο, οι «Αρβανιτόβλαχοι» δεν είναι τίποτε άλλο παρά ένας κλάδος των Βλάχων, διασκορπισμένων σε διάφορα μέρη της Στερεάς Ελλάδας-Ρούμελης, της Ηπείρου, της Θεσσαλίας, της Μακεδονίας, της Αλβανίας, της ΠΓΔΜ και μέχρι τη Ρουμανία και την Αμερική, όπου βρέθηκαν ως μετανάστες. Θα πρέπει επίσης να διευκρινιστεί πως οι Βλάχοι που βρέθηκαν να ζουν στην Αλβανία δεν είναι σύνολό τους «Αρβανιτόβλαχοι».

Επιπλέον, ένα πολύ μεγάλο μέρος των «Αρβανιτόβλαχων» είναι γνωστοί και με τον όρο «Φαρσαριώτης-Φαρσαριώτες» ή «Φρασαριώτης-Φρασαριώτες». Ο όρος αυτός έχει τοπωνυμική προέλευση καθώς σύμφωνα με ισχυρές παραδόσεις και ενδείξεις ένα σημαντικό μέρος των «Αρβανιτόβλαχων» ξεκίνησε τη διασπορά του στη Νότια Βαλκανική προερχόμενο από το χωριό Φράσιαρη της Πρεμετής ή από τη γύρω περιοχή του Νταγκλί στη Βόρεια Ήπειρο - Νότια Αλβανία. Ωστόσο, ο όρος αυτός δεν γίνεται αποδεκτός από το σύνολο των «Αρβανιτόβλαχων, καθώς διάφορες ομάδες υιοθετούν άλλους όρους και πάλι τοπωνυμικής προέλευσης, όπως οι όροι: «Κεστρινιώτες» (από το χωριό Κοστρέτσι), «Ζαρκανιώτες» (από το χωριό Ζάρκανη), «Κουρτισιάνοι» (από το χωριό Κουρτέσι), «Γκουμπλιάροι (από το χωριό Κομπλιάρα), «Πλεασιώτες» (από το χωριό Πλεάσα), «Κολωνιάτες» (από την περιοχή της Κολώνιας), «Μουζακιαραίοι» (από την περιοχή Μουζακιάς), «Τσαμουρένοι» (από την περιοχή Τσαμουριάς-Θεσπρωτίας) και «Μιτσιντόνοι» (από το χωριό Κεφαλόβρυσο-Μετζιτιέ Πωγωνίου). Σε κάποιους δε από τους Αρβανιτόβλαχους δίνεται το όνομα «Ντότανοι» με σκωπτική διάθεση, λόγω της συχνής χρήσης της λέξης «ντότ», που σημαίνει «δεν, δίχως, όχι».
Επιπλέον, πολλοί από τους «Αρβανιτόβλαχους» και κυρίως στην Ήπειρο και τη Στερεά Ελλάδα είναι γνωστοί με τον όρο «Καραγκούνης-Καραγκούνοι ή Καραγκούνηδες». Θα πρέπει, ωστόσο, να επισημανθούν δύο ακόμη θέματα:
α). Οι «Αρβανιτόβλαχοι» που προσδιορίζονται ως «Καραγκούνηδες» δεν ταυτίζονται με τους ελληνόφωνους αγροτικούς πληθυσμούς της δυτικής πεδινής Θεσσαλίας που επίσης είναι γνωστοί με αυτό τον όρο.
β). Η εξαφανισμένη, εδώ και έναν αιώνα, ομάδα των «Μαυρόβλαχων», γνωστή και ως «Μορλάκοι», που έζησαν κατά μήκος των ακτών της Δαλματίας και στην άμεση ενδοχώρα, αποτελούσε μία λατινογεννή γλωσσική οντότητα ανεξάρτητη των «Βλάχων-Αρμούνων».

Όροι όπως «Μπουρτζόβλαχος», «Καράβλαχος», «Αγριόβλαχος» «Γκόγκας», «Λατσιβάτσης και «Τσιομπάνος» έχουν σκωπτική και μάλλον προσβλητική χροιά και η χρήση τους σίγουρα αντενδείκνυται. Ο όρος «Τσίντσαρος-Τσίντσαροι» με τον οποίο ήταν και είναι γνωστοί οι Βλάχοι που βρέθηκαν ως πρόσφυγες ή μετανάστες, από τα τέλη του 18ου αιώνα, τόσο στις περιοχές της Σερβίας, όσο και στα εδάφη των Αψβούργων στη Βοϊβοντίνα, την Κροατία και την Ουγγαρία, έχει επίσης σκωπτικό περιεχόμενο, αν και στην πορεία ο όρος αυτός απέκτησε μία ταξική και μάλλον τιμητική διάσταση.
Βέβαια, υπάρχουν πολλοί άλλοι όροι που χρησιμοποιούνται ανάμεσα στους Βλάχους με σκοπό τον προσδιορισμό των διάφορων ομάδων που συνθέτουν το πολυσύνθετο μωσαϊκό τους. Τέτοιοι είναι οι όροι όπως: «Γραμμουστιάνοι» γνωστοί και ως «Τσίποι-Τσίπιανοι-Τσίπηδες» (από το χωριό Γράμμουστα ή και την περιοχή του Γράμμου), «Μοσχοπολιάνοι» ή «Σκουμπουλιάνοι» (από τη Μοσχόπολη και την περιοχή της), «Μπιτουλιάνοι» (από το Μοναστήρι ή την περιοχή της Πελαγονίας), «Ζαγοριάνοι» (από την περιοχή του Ζαγορίου), «Μότσιανοι» (από την περιοχή του Ασπροποτάμου ή της Νότιας Πίνδου γενικότερα) «Βεργιάνοι» (από την περιοχή της Βέροιας), «Σεαριάνοι» (από την περιοχή των Σερρών), «Μπασιώτες» (από το χωριό Βωβούσα) και ένα σωρό άλλοι όροι τοπωνυμικής κυρίως προέλευσης.
Μία ιδιαίτερη ομάδα είναι αυτή των «Μογλενιτών Βλάχων» ή «Βλαχομογλενιτών», οι οποίοι κατοικούν σε έξι χωριά ανάμεσα στους Νομούς Πέλλας και Κιλκίς και έναν ακόμη που βρίσκεται πίσω από τα σύνορα στο έδαφος της πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβικής Δημοκρατίας της «Μακεδονίας». Επισημαίνεται πως ο όρος «Μογλενίτες Βλάχοι» ή «Βλαχομογλενίτες», αν και τοπωνυμικής προέλευσης, είναι σίγουρα νεολογικός και ουσιαστικά άγνωστος, τόσο στους ίδιους, όσο και στους γειτονικούς βλαχόφωνους και αλλόγλωσσους πληθυσμούς. Επιπλέον, οι «Βλαχομογλενίτες», σε αντιδιαστολή με τους υπόλοιπους βλαχόφωνους πληθυσμούς, είναι οι μόνοι Βλάχοι που χρησιμοποιούν αυτοπροσδιοριστικά τους όρους «Βλάου-Βλάσι», δηλαδή «Βλάχος-Βλάχοι», στη δική τους βλάχικη γλώσσα.
Έντεχνος, νεολογικός και σίγουρα πολιτικός είναι ο ρουμανικός όρος «Μακεδορομάνοι» ή «Μακεδόνες». Επιπλέον, ο όρος αυτός είναι άδικος για τους Βλάχους καθώς ιδιαίτερα οι μητροπολιτικές τους εστίες εκτείνονται πολύ πέρα από γεωγραφικά όρια της Μακεδονίας, στη Θεσσαλία, την Ήπειρο και την Αλβανία.
Τελικά, ο όρος «Βλάχος-Βλάχοι» μοιάζει να είναι ο επικρατέστερος και πιθανά ο ορθότερος για τον προσδιορισμό των Βλάχων. Και αυτό γιατί οι ίδιοι οι Βλάχοι προτιμούν να χρησιμοποιούν αυτόν τον όρο όταν αυτοπροσδιορίζονται στα ελληνικά. Επιπλέον, ο όρος αυτός γίνεται κατανοητός και είναι σε χρήση και στις υπόλοιπες βαλκανικές γλώσσες, σε αντιδιαστολή με τον όρο «Αρμούν-Αρμούνι» ή «Αρωμάνος-Αρωμάνοι» που είναι άγνωστος πέρα από τους κύκλους των ειδικών και βέβαια τους ίδιους τους Βλάχους.
Άρθρο του Αστέριου Κουκούδη με θέμα Τα ονόματα των Βλάχων που δημοσιεύθηκε στο περιοδικό του Αρχείου Ελληνικού Χορού και της Διεθνούς Οργάνωσης Λαϊκής Τέχνης.

Πηγή: http://greeksurnames.blogspot.com/

0 σχόλια:



Watermark πρότυπο. Powered by Blogger.


недеља, 27. фебруар 2011.

Today

Today

Canada: People for such a time as this in the Balkans

Canada: People for such a time as this in the Balkans

Time to Reconsider Partition For Bosnia

Time to Reconsider Partition For Bosnia

Free Republic
Browse · Search

News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time to Reconsider Partition For Bosnia
European Institute ^ | 2/25/2011 | Ted Galen Carpenter

Posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:02:54 by bruinbirdman

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned the feuding ethnic factions in Bosnia and Herzegovina that if they did not resolve their differences, their country was in danger of missing its opportunity to join the European Union and NATO and become a vibrant part of the modern, democratic West. Unfortunately, there are few indications that her message will be heeded. The elections that took place shortly before Clinton’s visit once again confirmed that Bosnia is a fragile, artificial political entity with little prospect for improved viability. Most media accounts in the United States and Europe highlighted the victory of the supposed moderate candidate, Bakir Izetbegovic, son of Bosnia’s controversial first leader, for the Muslim seat on the country’s collective presidency. But that focus was misplaced for two reasons.

First, some caution is warranted about the extent of Izetbegovic’s moderation. He does seem less extreme than many other Muslim political figures (including Haris Silajdzic, the incumbent he defeated) in the Muslim-Croat subnational entity that makes up one half of Bosnia’s convoluted political structure. It remains unclear, though, just how much different Izetbegovic’s views are from those of his father, and some experts on the region remain skeptical.

Second, election results in the Serbian subnational entity, the Republika Srpska, and for the Serb seat on the collective presidency indicated that ethnic nationalists remain in control. The re-election of Milorad Dodik as president of the Republika Srpska is especially significant, since Dodik has stated repeatedly that the RS ought to be able to secede from Bosnia and form an independent state.

Consequently, even if Muslims and Croats might be in the mood for compromise, there is little evidence that the Serbs share that attitude.

The bottom line is that Bosnia seems no closer politically to being a viable country now than it was fifteen years ago when the U.S-brokered (and largely U.S.-imposed) Dayton accords ended the civil war that had cost more than 100,000 lives. Extinguishing that bloody conflict was no minor achievement, but it did not alter the reality that Bosnia and Herzegovina remained an unstable political amalgam of three mutually hostile ethnic groups. The country was politically dysfunctional from the moment it seceded from the disintegrating Yugoslav federation, and the Dayton Accords did not solve that problem.

The United States and its European allies used Dayton as the launching pad for the most ambitious nation-building mission since the rehabilitation of Germany and Japan following World War II. But continuous frustration has dogged the effort in Bosnia, and political paralysis has been the defining characteristic over the past fifteen years. To the extent that the country has functioned at all politically, it has been at the subnational level, that is, the Republika Srpska and the Muslim-Croat Federation. The national government has remained weak to the point of impotence.

Indeed, most real political power has resided with the UN high representative, an official who has often ruled like a colonial governor. Over the years, high representatives have repeatedly disqualified candidates for elections, removed elected officials from office, and imposed various policies by decree.

The country’s economic development has not been much better. Although there are showcase projects (especially in the capital, Sarajevo), the overall economy has remained moribund. Bosnia’s unemployment rate is an astonishing 43 percent, and much of the economy consists of inputs from the international community—both in the form of direct foreign aid and the money that international officials in the country spend in the course of performing their duties. Absent those expenditures, Bosnia would scarcely have a functioning economy at all.

The extent of economic freedom also leaves much to be desired. Two respected annual surveys of global economic liberty (one by Canada’s Frazer Institute and the other by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal) underscore the dismal situation. The former study ranks Bosnia 110th, between Nigeria and Sri Lanka, while the latter places the country 111th, between the Philippines and Mozambique. Being in such dubious company is not a minor point, since there is a strong correlation between economic liberty and economic growth. Bosnia’s anemic standing on the former does not bode well for the latter in the future.

Fifteen years after Dayton, Bosnia still lacks a meaningful sense of national cohesion or even a national identity. If allowed to do so, the overwhelming majority of Serbs would probably vote to secede. Most Croats also would likely prefer to end their status as Bosnia’s smallest and least influential ethnic bloc and choose to merge their territory with neighboring Croatia. In other words, Bosnia is a country in which a majority of the population does not want the country to exist. That is a good operational definition of an unviable state.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Milorad Dodik described the creation of Bosnia as “a mistake.” Although Dodik is not the most admirable character, given his extreme nationalist views, he is correct on that point. It was a dubious approach for the United States and its NATO allies to insist that three mutually antagonistic ethnic groups stay together in a state that only one faction, the Muslims, regarded as legitimate—and did so only because, as the largest group, they were confident that they would control the government.

The Western powers might well have been wiser to have facilitated a partition of Bosnia when the civil war first broke out. It is time to revisit that option, as radical as such a step might seem.

Of course, decisions to partition political entities or dissolve states lacking the requisite cohesion are not panaceas. Some of those efforts prove successful, while others do not. Czechoslovakia’s “velvet divorce” and, for the most part, the dissolution of the Soviet Union are examples of the former. Britain’s move to partition India on the eve of that country’s independence, and the UN edict to partition Palestine are examples of the latter.

But trying to force unity on the populations of bitterly divided countries usually produces even worse results. The numerous civil wars based on racial, ethnic or religious differences that have plagued the international community over the decades confirm that point.

If a new policy is not adopted, Bosnia will, at best, be a perpetual international political and economic ward. It is certainly not a fit candidate for membership in the European Union anytime in the foreseeable future—unless the EU were, unwisely, to dilute its standards for membership. The European Union has enough headaches already with weak members, such as Greece and Portugal, that have serious economic woes, or like Cyprus, unresolved territorial issues. The last thing the European Union needs to do is to embrace an even weaker, more troubled candidate.

Worse, Bosnia is a political time bomb that might detonate at some point and cause another crisis in the Balkans. Western policy makers simply ignore reality when they insist that Bosnia continue to exist in its current incarnation. Washington and the EU powers should withdraw their objections to a partition of the country. In particular, if voters in the Republika Srpska choose to establish an independent state, or to merge with Serbia, the United States and its allies ought to respect that decision. They should even consider guiding the process to ensure that the dissolution of the country proceeds peacefully. Keeping a vegetative Bosnia on international life support does not serve any legitimate purpose.

Indeed, facilitating Bosnia’s peaceful downsizing offers a potential bonus—a tradeoff that could help resolve another festering problem in the Balkans, the status of Kosovo. Serbia’s leaders are still smarting from the decision by the United States and the leading EU powers to encourage and recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. Belgrade continues to insist that it will never recognize the independence of that breakaway entity, and more than half of the member states of the United Nations still decline to do so as well.

It would be politically difficult for any Serbian government to change that position, but there is the possible framework for a compromise solution. If the West offered Belgrade the prospect of gaining the Republika Srpska (as either an independent state of ethnic brethren or as part of an enlarged Serbia) in exchange for a willingness to accept Kosovo’s independence, it would be a tempting offer. That would be especially true if the Western powers sweetened the offer by agreeing to boundary adjustments regarding Kosovo, allowing the heavily Serbian enclave in the north to remain with Serbia.

There is, of course, no guarantee that Belgrade would endorse such a comprehensive package of territorial adjustments. But new policies on the part of the United States and the European Union are badly needed. That process must begin with respect to the issue of Bosnia. Leaving policy on autopilot, or vainly insisting that the discordant ethnic communities in that country (somehow) create a unified, effective, and cooperative national government—and a viable economy--is an increasingly discredited strategy. Some new thinking is long overdue, and all options, including partition, need to be on the table.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: balkans; bosnia; yugoslavia

1 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:02:57 by bruinbirdman

To: bruinbirdman

Gee why not destroy the Serbs and be done? Let’s support jihadists Bosnians and cut our own throats.


2 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:09:45 by Mmogamer (I refudiate the lamestream media, leftists and their prevaricutions.)

To: bruinbirdman

If the U.S. is ever stabbed in the back, it will be a Serb that deserves to do it. We have treated these people like dirt. They help us during WW 2, we reward them with a sell out to the Eastern Bloc.....under the thumb of the Croat/Muslims that stabbed them in the back, that were considered WORSE than the Nazi SS. Then, we backstabbed them again by siding with the Muslims and Croats and bombing their civilian population, destroying their bridges, and then melding them into another nation that wants them both dead and gone.


3 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:17:03 by runninglips (government debt = slavery of the masses)

To: runninglips

A 2nd generation American Serb worked for me, set me straight. I was not paying attention to much news way back then. You’ve got it right. Clinton had us on the wrong side. It’s too, too bad. But if we get a good Congress and President, we could get back on the right path.


4 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:31:28 by PieterCasparzen (Huguenot)

To: bruinbirdman
Never going to happen, no matter how much water for Serbs this guy carries.

Three reasons why:
1. Srpska's today territory was with about 48% Bosniaks pre war, and Serbs were found to have committed genocide on Bosniaks.
2. If the Bosniaks are left alone, they'll become an Islamic emirate. No one wants that.
3. Croatia doesn't want Serbia on that long and hard to defend border. Bosnia will serve as a buffer. In fact Croatia threatened to wipe Srpska out if they declared independence (specifically forbidden by Dayton.)
Map for reference

4. As a bonus, no one is itching to have a strong Serbia, certainly not Germany, US, UK, Italy or France.

5 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:39:15 by mewykwistmas

To: bruinbirdman

“There is, of course, no guarantee that Belgrade would endorse such a comprehensive package of territorial adjustments. “

Ha! Serbia has been told: Kosovo or EU and if you choose Kosovo you get none. They chose EU of course but are trying to keep the North of Kosovo, getting Srpska would be 1000 times better for them, so who is he kidding.


6 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 08:42:50 by mewykwistmas

To: bruinbirdman

Is it any surprise that Clinton, the rest of the Democrats, and yellow journalism led us into that pointless adventure? I still remember leftists both here and in Europe beating their chests and shouting in mad delight that we had involved ourselves in a war (well, Bosnia and Kosovo) where we had no economic, strategic, or cultural interest. That was their talking point, and they were PROUD of it!


7 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 09:31:52 by Chiltepe

To: PieterCasparzen

The damage Clinton did in that conflice will never be undone, here’s how:

Firstly even if we did get a Pro-Serb President (which I would like to see), and did all these suggested-the other one, and far reaching policy that Clinton intiated was to make an ENEMY of Russia-Remember back then Russia was a ~free~ truely Democratic Republic, Yeltson was our ally, untill Clinton made him an enemy over Bosnia & Sebia (Yeltson even had a pro-American vice P.M. which is what Putin took over to gain power), If we hadn’t interfered would Putin have become their new President/P.M? would he be our ally, and not have turned against the WEST?

That my friends was Clinton’s worst political move (foreign policy wise), 2nd was treacherously selling military and other secrects to Chicom) in exchange for funding his re-election strategy!


8 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 12:07:32 by JSDude1 (December 18, 2010 the Day the radical homosexual left declared WAR on the US Military.)

To: PieterCasparzen
You’ve got it right. Clinton had us on the wrong side. It’s too, too bad. But if we get a good Congress and President, we could get back on the right path.

There's no way any Congress or any President would "get back on the right path" on this issue. The U.S./NATO policy in the Balkans is a non-partisan affair. I had the whole "neo-con" wing of the GOP picked as a bunch of frauds back in the late 1990s when they were clamoring publicly for the Clinton Administration to take military action against Serbia. These people are nothing but a bunch of big-government globalists who see the creation of weak quasi-states as an integral part of our foreign policy.

9 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 14:39:51 by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")

To: JSDude1
See my Post #9. This goes way beyond the Clinton administration. Many of the strongest supporters of an anti-Serbia U.S. policy ended up in key positions in the second Bush administration, too.
10 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 14:41:31 by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")

To: PieterCasparzen

My brother in law was born in Yugoslavia. He is a nice enough guy, and has fit into the family for over 25 years. He is a Croatian, and HATES Serbs. His family from that area were constantly calling and telling him of the atrocities committed by the Serbs, and of how the U.S./UN/NATO needed to come in a “fix” things. I too was ignorant, until I did a little online investigating. The copious amounts of documentation on WW 2 shocked me deeply. I asked my B.I.L. about some of it, and his vitriol also seemed out of place. Essentially, he made excuses for being Nazi out of the need to fight the Russians. He was born in ‘38, and his family actually was alive and active during the war. Any further personal inquiries by me will not happen though. The hatred for the Serb “race” is not different to that of the Muslims for the Jews.


11 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 19:06:05 by runninglips (government debt = slavery of the masses)

To: Alberta's Child

IMHO...

It’s just very politically correct to oppose any supposed “strong man”; it’s an easy stance to take, whether one is Dem establishment or Repub establishment. The establishment has not yet returned to publicly acknowledging the Judeo-Christian roots of western civilization and the war that islam is waging on the west. Once they do, any western nation that resists will truthfully be understood as resisting an invasion.

Also, of course, Serbia has ties to Russia from back when Russia was a Christian empire. Since conservatives can get caught up in being anti-Soviet, it’s easy for them to dismiss Serbia out of hand as an enemy.

Instead, they should be focusing on the Christian aspect; Christians and conservatives should be actually helping Russia return to being a Christian nation.


12 posted on subota, 26. februar 2011 20:08:58 by PieterCasparzen (Huguenot)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

субота, 26. фебруар 2011.

βλαχόφωνοι Έλληνες: An interesting view on the origin of the word "Armanus" for the Aromanians - Vlachs

βλαχόφωνοι Έλληνες: An interesting view on the origin of the word "Armanus" for the Aromanians - Vlachs

An interesting view on the origin of the word "Armanus" for the Aromanians - Vlachs


The subject is, of course, huge, so we will give a brief explanation in the space of a small article of a paper. First of all, the name ‘Vlachoi’ was given to them by other people. The Vlachs usually call themselves ‘Armani’, except ‘Moglenites’, who call themselves ‘Vlasi’.
Most scientists believe that the name ‘Armanus’ emerged from the Latin Romanus with the prosthetic ancient Greek ‘A’. Armanu
A tireless researcher, ‘Giorgos Exarhos’, who studies the Aromanian-Vlach issue, without political and national expediency, giving respect to professional and amateur Vlachologists (scientists or not) and drawing tens of thousands of sources in his books, especially in his book , ‘Ellinovlachoi’ tome ‘Kastaniotis’ publications Athens 2001, differentiates and considers that the word results from the words ‘Arimanni – Armannia’ that were political-miltary terms and expressed the way of social organization of northern Italy by the Lombards (8th century AD), a fact that leads to the ascertainment that the same way of social organization in Eastern Roman Empire also existed in Romagna, from the 4th AD century.
Giorgos Exarhos is based on T. G. Kollias’ views, Professor of History (History of the Middle Ages, Athens, 2nd edition p. 383-384 University Press).Exarhos insists that if Kollias gave us the Latin sources from which he derived the information we will have extremely strong evidence that the name came from the word ‘Arimanni’.
Professor Kollias, in a few lines, states that ten hundreds of military groups (with the name «Arimannia" under the orders of a Centurion) settled in significant military locations.
These groups had classes: The upper class consisted of predominantly liberal warriors (Latin: Arimanni, Exercitales). Their equipment (of Arimanni army) was proportional to their income. The lower class of the population included slaves and ‘freedmen’ = about to be free (Latin: Aldiones. Most of them were free in-person, but ‘attached in land’ and subject to the custody of a Master). All these non-free and half free (freedmen) with insufficient income cultivated small pieces of land.
The fact that all main Aromanian-Vlachs’ settlements are alleys, musties and lookouts (vigles), and passes of great military importance, fully confirms the labelling (pointing out) of the historian (Kollias): "… groups of warriors (Arimanni) established by hundreds in some important areas…”
It is sure that Aromanians-Vlachs do not come from these soldiers, but by the mountainous, native people of Pindos, who served in the Roman army were enlatinized linguistically like Gauls (Galatians), Spaniards, etc. Besides, it is well known that "there was a ‘Macedonians Legion’ composed of Macedonians mainly mountainous who ,because of their of infertile land ,accepted willingly to rank in the Roman legions, where they learned the corrupt military language of Romans, as their (military)service lasted for about two decades. After their release from the army the settled in the place of their origin, ‘taking with them the Roman language’ (Stilpon Kyriakides, magazine‘Makedonika’, 5, 1961-1963).
Ηundreds of Greeks (Thessalians, Acarnanians) have also fought with Romans in Sicily, where Pretoria ‘L Lefkulos L. Licinius’ fought against Athinionas’ slave rebel (see Diodorus Sicilius, Library of historical relics).
Moreover, as Gustav Fr. Hertzberg states in his book ‘History of Greece during Roman domination’, P. Carolidis’ translation, Athens 1902, tome A, p. 419, and a lot of Greek people ( craftsmen, owners of taverns, merchants, priests, diviners, artists ,sculptors, painters, actors , athletes, swordsmen ,cooks, barbers, miracle-workers, doctors, scholars, teachers of youth, etc.) travelled to Rome to seek wealth and happiness.
From the previous reports, it is proved that Thessalians Akarnanians, Macedonians and other Greeks for military and peaceful purposes, were found for long periods with the Romans, which means that they were and enlatinized in customs and language. When they returned to their home countries, they carried to their places the elements of Latin language, so a Greek-Latin language was created, namely the Armanian-Vlach language of-Greek territories.
(Such a phenomenon takes place right now in Greek island Carpathos. The majority of Carpathians have lived many years in America. Coming back to their homeland, they speak, now, not the idiom of Karpathos but a mixed language of Carpathian Greek and American English, a language that they themselves have called "Amerikanocarpathia" So, for the formation of this "language», which you hear whenever and wherever someone is in the villages of Carpathos, there was no need of residence movement of Americans there).
Finally, Thessalians, Macedonians and Acarnanians, being warriors (Arimanni), after their return to their birthplace, it is reasonable to accept that they joined the "upper class, which consisted of free people , par excellence warriors (Arimanni, Exercitalis) as we mentioned before..
This privilege status maintained throughout all period of Romagna (the Byzantine Empire) in all populations of Arimanni-Armani and then the Ottoman Empire has granted the same privileged status, too. It is not accidental The economic and administrative autonomy of all Aromanian-Vlach settlements of Greek territories in during Turkish rule is not casual, nor it is a coincidence that they came under the protection of Valide Sultan, ie Queen Mother(of Sultan).

Yannis Tsiamitros, teacher of traditional dances.
The original article is in Greek and the translation
in English is by Yannis. Tsiamitros, too) published
in local paper “LAOS’, Town Veria, Greece on 20-02-2010

0 σχόλια: