Independence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Great. Then who's next?

---

Yorkshire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

What? Transyvania, Wallchia and Moldavia? I know about this. Romania as a "nation-state" for want of a better word didn't exist until 1859 when Cuza was made Domnitor.
How far back would you like to go? Dacia? The Getae? The Vlachs? .

---

You obviously know nothing. No matter how far you want to go the daco-roman element is present here. In our nation and in our language. In your opinion who inhabited those 3 principates and what language did they speak?
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The point with all of this, is that the Albanian peoples of Kosovo have existed there for longer than half of the nations of Europe anyway. For then to get independence should they demand it, is probably reasonable.

---

Well, well...A little bit more and we'll find out that albanians of Kosovo are the navel of the earth. :laugh: Anyway any paralel between romanians and albanians is useless. Like Serbia and Albania, Kosovo was part of a pashalyk. T, W and M weren't included in the ottoman empire but had to pay tribute to the sultan. We stayed christian unlike albanians who were converted to islamism, turks had interdictions to build mosques on our teritory, we had romanian kings, the oficial language was romanian, we had our own laws, we were free to declare war to the neighbours, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

You obviously know nothing. No matter how far you want to go the daco-roman element is present here. In our nation and in our language. In your opinion who inhabited those 3 principates and what language did they speak?

---

What is your definition of a nation pray tell, and why doesn't it apply to Kosovo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

What is your definition of a nation pray tell, and why doesn't it apply to Kosovo?

---

I shouldn't answer you until you tell me if you're related to Mr. Roller. :laugh: But since I have a sympathy for you I'll have a try. Please excuse my poor english, I don't know if the final result will make sense.
Nation = Permanent community of people, with a common history, based on a community of language, teritory, economic life and psychic factor, which manifests itself in specific peculiarities of national culture and in the conscience of a common origin and destiny.

The answer derives from the definition. The so called kosovars are more albanians than a new nation and the new state Kosovo is more of Albania 2. I'm not sure but I tend to think they don't have continuity on that land, they don't speak a diferent language, they even wave the albanian flag, their economic life is more related to the albanese way of life ( infractors ), their origin is not different.

Mixing the concepts of nations and stateformations are a quite common mistake. To ignore them is an even bigger. Just look at all problems caused by the 1878 congress in Berlin where the colonial west-countries in a final act of brute Laizzes faires politics, which had dominated Europe througout the 19 century, splitted the continent of Africa between themselves without thinking twice regarding the ethnical, religious and other bonds that constitutes nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

You obviously know nothing. No matter how far you want to go the daco-roman element is present here. In our nation and in our language. In your opinion who inhabited those 3 principates and what language did they speak?

---

First, archaeologists say that Geto-dacians were not romanized. They stayed under Roman sovereignty for a while and then dissolved in the waves of incoming Germanic, Slavic and Turkic tribes. The ancestors of modern day Romanians were the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes and migrated to their new homeland from Moesia and other territories south of Danube in 8-9 centuries A.D. assimilating local Slavs on their way.

Second, I am not sure about Valachia and Moldova, but Transylvania had a very mixed Szekely/German/Romanian population. Hungarian was the official language, Old Slavonic and Greek were used in Orthodox churches, German and Romanian were spoken and maybe used in self-government. I do not dispute current sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, but for 16-17 centuries its unification with Valachia and Moldova was a rare exception, not a rule.

Rudy, I'll answer this tomorrow cos in 10 min I'll go home.

There's Albanians and then there Kosovar Albanians :rolleyes: Lets invade a country and then create an independent state from a piece within it.

BTW, the Serbs were the only group to kick out the Nazis without external help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

First, archaeologists say that Geto-dacians were not romanized. They stayed under Roman sovereignty for a while and then dissolved in the waves of incoming Germanic, Slavic and Turkic tribes. The ancestors of modern day Romanians were the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes and migrated to their new homeland from Moesia and other territories south of Danube in 8-9 centuries A.D. assimilating local Slavs on their way.

---

It depends pretty much on which archeologist says that.
I've never heard a Romanian archeologist advance that theory up to now. I also do have my doubts that archologists of other nationality ever came to search for Geto-Dacic traces in Romania, because during the communist regime that wouldn't have been allowed and almsot everything was excavated in that period.

Also I base my theory about Romanians being descendants of the Geto-Dacic population because of the words of Dacic origin that are present in the Romanian language.
I think that if the modern Romanians are the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes that migrated from Moesia and other territories south of Danube than there shouldn't be words of geto-dacic origin in our language.
Studies based on language do show a coherent way of developement of the Romanian language based on the Latin and Geto-Dacic languages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Second, I am not sure about Valachia and Moldova, but Transylvania had a very mixed Szekely/German/Romanian population. Hungarian was the official language, Old Slavonic and Greek were used in Orthodox churches, German and Romanian were spoken and maybe used in self-government. I do not dispute current sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, but for 16-17 centuries its unification with Valachia and Moldova was a rare exception, not a rule.

---

I was born and lived 21 years in Transylvania, more precisely in the district of Harghita where more than 80% of the population is of Hungarian origins (more precisely Szekely).
I studied for several years in Brasov (Kronstadt in German) where a somewhat larger German speaking community (Sachsen as they are called in German).
Sachsen were never the majority in any of the Romanian districts, ever.
For many centuries Transylvania was under Hungarian and Austro-Hungarian domination.
All this time the population was in majority (and there you can count on at least 80%) composed of Romanian peasants.
They tried many times to free themselves but every time the authorities ended it in blood baths.
80+% of Romanians can not mean anything else than the obvious thing that Transylvania was not Hungarian, neither Austrian or Turkish.

What is interesting is that the very first Romanian cultural stream was started in Transylvania in the 19th century, it is called "Scoala Romaneasca". They were the ones that triggered the awakening of the Romanian nation that was ruled for centuries by Hungarians, Austrians and Turks.

To sum it up, I've seen many different history books (published outside of Romania) about what happened on the Romanian territory but most of them are based on theories with little support to it, simply because they never investigated it.

I'm sure that gadjo_dilo will add a lot more to this tomorrow when he get's back to work! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

The answer derives from the definition. The so called kosovars are more albanians than a new nation and the new state Kosovo is more of Albania 2. I'm not sure but I tend to think they don't have continuity on that land, they don't speak a diferent language, they even wave the albanian flag, their economic life is more related to the albanese way of life ( infractors ), their origin is not different.

---

Hang on,
They aren't trying to derive independence from Albania but from Serbia. If what you've said is true, then they shouldn't have been part of Serbia in the first place but part of Albania and certainly not part of Serbia now.
Kosovo is trying to split from rule under Belgrade, not Tirana.

Did you forget this? Or does it make sense that they still be part of Serbia? (or ever should have been)