The Albanian Dilema

Originally posted by vranakonti Their name was also Servs,if im not wrong!

Well yes and no. For some time in the past, the Catholic world called the country "Servia", and from that stemmed the incorrect interpretation of the word "Serv", unused often and erroneous, because Serbs was used by the people (to see examples: refer to Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh edition; or the Catholic Encyclopedia).

Originally posted by HEROI es bih. If we are to resolve the conflict in kosovo then we should not base our opinions and let alone actions of political nature in ancient Balcan history, because if we do we will have the Serbs claim of their cradle of civilasition in kosova with their old churches to back up,and the albanians with their claim of  decendance from ancient ilirian tribes and catholic churches even older then the serb orthodox ones,and like this we will get lost in a labirinth of endless claims and dissclaims.   We have to base the road to resolving this particular conflict on the origines of the conflict which is the fall of the ottoman empire,and the drwing of balcan borders by the superpowers of the time.   1912= The state of albania claims indipendence from the ottoman empire,and it claims indipendence for all albanian speaking regions including kosovo,with the presense of the kosovar delegation headed by Isa Boletini.     1913=The London Conference for the last time draws the borders and the powers come to agreement  without taking into acount the albanians regarding the albanian question.as follows   1= Kosova was given to serbia amide Rusian interference in europian affairs. 2= The decision suited well the French at the time,and was made with french and russian backing,german carelesnes and british indifference. 3=Further partition of albanian lands was not allowed by America,and up to a degree  by Austro-Hungary. 4 =and the most important point. The albanians did not and to this day dont recognise the decisions taken in 1912 by the Conference of London,so one can not say that the albanians sudenly sprung up asking for indipendence in kosovo,but to be fair this is the continuation of a strugle (and a well documented strugle) which started in 1912 as the resolt of the London Conference.   I do apologise for slipin off the topic a litle but i felt i had to make it clear that kosova conflict does not belong to ancient history.   As for the topic there is no dilema at all,many of the words that the guy uses are not slavic at all but have very perfect meaning in albanian,a meaning suited to the geografical position etc.But is true that many others of this towns have slavic names ,such as the ones starting by gora,they come from north east albania were today there are serb muslims who call themselves goran and have established their comunity there from a long time,and villages around them have names starting by GORA,GORAN ,the rest are no surprise,but it takes long time to explain and you will forgive me till nex time .all the best.

Well the Catholic Church was created in 1054. And some of the Orthodox Serb churches date practically to then.

Well the origins do not quite lie just there (the conflict was there before). If you'd like to search for the roots, you might just have to go to the very Battle of Amsfeld in 1389.

In the 19th/early 20th century the nationalist dreams of the peoples (Albanians, Croats, Serbs) on creating "Greater" states were strong and whole plans were created - regarding the "Truine Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" (including Syrmia; or the most extreme ones that go even beyond Bosnia and Herzegovina), the Greater Serbia that would be forged after the unification of the realms of Montenegro and Serbia aimed at primarily Bosnia and Herzegovina (and even parts of Dalmatia, the most extreme ones also Vojvodina; which was later switched for the *Old Serbia* ideology, at Sandzak, Metohija, Kosovo and [northern] Macedonia, the most extreme ones going to northern Albania) and the great Albanian state that would include the four Ottoman vilayets (Kosova, Shkoder, Uskup, Ioanina). There's little room for denial that all those nationalist-driven plans shared little sympathy or tolerance or even an abundance of mistrust and hatred for the other nations, especially if religious difference like with these three peoples are present, and that when (obviously) meeting the bounders of other Greater nationalist ideologies, conflicts are bound to arise (and they did, in WWII). That is why the Pan-Slavic plans that albeit nationalist were not driven by any hatred, except for a small one against the Turks and Muslims in general like Yugoslavism (accepted by Bosnian Muslims as well) ended up victorious in almost every imaginable aspect.

And for other note - yes, the Albanians did accept Serbia's sovereignty, officially in 1945 (when AFAIK their assembly in Prizren, be it pro-Serb, self-abolished Albanian regional autonomy in Kosovo even!).

There is absolutely no doubt that Kosovo would've been recognized to Serbia in 1913. Especially with the Serbian Army already controlling the whole area. Remember that there were problems in Albania itself - with Skadar being occupied by the Montenegrins. It is Austro-Hungary's fear of a stronger Serbia and its access to sea that secured an Albanian state internationally and international intervention to stop the "eating" Serbs, Montenegrins and Greeks very late in the process of division of Ottoman European possessions.

But all this is history people. We should avoid viewing history when talking about independence of Kosovo, but talk about the present issues. For my personal considerations, I don't think I see a legal, honest (or good for that matter) way to make Kosovo an independent country, with more 'tickets' on Belgrade's side, rather than Prishtina's (even despite the large amount of Western pro-independence support). Also note that I don't quite have anything against an independent Kosovo, and would most definitely greet the act if it turns out nicely.

Originally posted by HEROI even the most nationalistic view point in albanian politics includes the serbs minority in a democratic kosovar state that respects human rights.in fact there is no ultra-nationalistic political party in the albanian side.just to point that out.What you have is a 90% albanian population who wants indipendence after a long strugle for equal rights under a state that did not respect them,and all as a result of a conference 90 years ago without taking into acount the population of this particular region.   But lets not turn the topic in a kosovo topic.   all the best.

I disagree a little. For example, the greatest (and ruling) Democratic League of Kosovo is a very brilliant an democrat Kosovar party that I simply adore (almost as much as the Reformist Ora Party), but its earliest early 1990s actions must not be forgotten. Although it has nothing to do with the present, the party initially in its origins did base on the creation of a new Albanian Yugoslavian constituent republic that would include all Albanians living in SFRY, with the most extreme alternate demands being an outright and direct Greater Albanian state in the Balkan peninsula. I'd reckon that nationalist. Perhaps it's parallel in Serbia is the Democratic Party (today), but the party did pass through significant changes to a purely and clenely democrat political party without controversial individuals (which might be the most important thing, including a brilliant President), much like several other ex Yugoslavian parties.

And I am not fond at all of the (second, gladly) Democratic Party of Kosovo, much, much more than with the Democratic Party of Serbia, whom I also do not like because of its old style views. The party's president is a very vicious person. And I doubt its without intolerance for the Serbs (or other non-Albanians for that matter). Remember that this party openly supported unification of Kosovo with Albania. Thank god it's in opposition.

And I almost got no comment regarding the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo. I am sad that LDK uses it to receive parliamentary majority for a government. The party's president is a disgusting criminal "gangster who has the blood of many innocents on his hands" (quoting ICTY chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte).

In the end, also remember that the Serbian Radical Party and the Socialist Party of Serbia both highly support the minorities and their rights and even includes members belonging to practically every single minority group in Serbia (even the Albanian). SRS is without doubt an ultra-nationalist party. Even the most horrendous wolf can cloak itself into a sheep. So yes, the PDK and AAK are ultra-nationalist (although LDK isn't). And by the way, there are minor extremist parties in Kosovo that openly, still today, support a Greater Albania.

Even some of my favorite, Ibrahim Rugova and Veton Surroi, have made peculiar remarks - like demanding the international community to make Kosovo independent after the mass 2004 anti-Serb riots. Basically, "We can't stop them. Grant us what we demand, or we'll kill them more". I was very shocked by such threats of violence. I wonder what would happen if Serbian Republic's Prime Minister Milorad Dodik said that "he won't be able to stop the Bosnian Serbs to kill the smaller in number Bosniacs and Croats, and that RS must become independent to stop that".

But in the end, I think that it's actually still a plus for Belgrade - because Belgrade in power has new men, democrat parties clean of record that were in opposition in the 1990s, whil Fatmir Sejdu lets the very same old nationalist 1990s Albanian figures remain in power in Kosovo - the greatest shock to myself being Agim Ceku's appoint for Prime Minister last year! I'll be damned if he's... *1990s clean* to call it.

Originally posted by vranakonti I also dont doubt in the illyrian roots of the Albanians.Indeed i like much more the term Dardania than Kosova,because it sounds very Albanian to me,much better than Kosovo,Kosmet ecc. But as i have already said in this topic it is a quite Romantic claim,but enough well-grounded or at least not less the the serbian ones.Otherwise i think that the Vilajet of kosova is a good example.It was sparsely populated by non albanians but it was mostly populated from albanian.And originally the region was much bigger than the actual.I don't know what do you mean with later stage but for what i know Albanians and serbs fought together for the last time during the austrian-turkish war(on teh austrian side).You speak about the serbian oppression but i must remind you that they were allowed to build their churchs to practise their religion and to wrote their language(Albanians not).So i guess that the version that desribes them as oppressed from albanians is quite incorrect. However i agree with some of your conlusions,and i think that the "key" historical moment of the kosovar history is "The albanian insurgence",and the immediatly following "Balkan war". As you said the region is the heart of both nation but its albanian populated and so it was when the Balkan borders were arbitrary decided.And i consider The second fact more realistic than the the first.   About the serb-serve parallel,it was just a joke!

The fights to which you are referring occurred during the Morean War, practically two centuries before the existence of the Vilayet of Kosova. The Serbs supported the Albanians only in the beginning of their rebellions (in 1878 and in 1911). During the period of the existence of the Vilayet of Kosova, over 200,000 Serbs (Serbian sources say even more, closer to 400,000) were driven off by state-organized Ottoman purges in an attempt to ethnically cleanse the area, desperately trying to keep the last Ottoman possessions in Europe. They were not allowed to practice their religion (which was abolished and turned into an Ottoman puppet a long time ago) or speak their language - you are referring to a period far before the existence of the Kosovar Vilayet. All that occurred was done secretly, behind the Ottoman authorities that did not fulfill their 1839 promised rights which equalized the Christian peasants to the Muslims. The brief 1908-1909 (enforced by the Great Powers) liberal period of freedom for the Serbs was very short indeed. For after 1909, the Cyrillic and the word "Serb" was legally banned. And remember that in that period the Sultan gave numerous rights to the Albanians (at least more than the Serbs, which already became that which were Jews in Nazi Germany).

I also would like to note that Kosovo and the surrounding territories were not so fully Albanian-populated as pointed out. Statistics and censuses conducted throughout the 19th century show that Albanians maintained numerical superiority mostly, but they formed less than half of the total population (be it just under) forming only relative majority, while the Serbs were lagging behind them only for several percent. It is only after this expulsions when the Serbs were "outlawed" by the Ottomans in the second half of the 19th century that the Albanians have become in absolute majority. For instance, a good change is noticed in some parts of western Kosovo ("Metohija" bits), which in the beginning of the 19th century had a small numerical superiority of Slavs, in the beginning of the 20th century being exclusively ethnically pure and practically populated solely by Albanians.

Originally posted by Yugoslav Originally posted by vranakonti nd for other note - yes, the Albanians did accept Serbia's sovereignty, officially in 1945 (when AFAIK their assembly in Prizren, be it pro-Serb, self-abolished Albanian regional autonomy in Kosovo even!).   Come on,we now how that assembly was organized,they were almost all serbs,just few of them were albanians and they approved everything by claping their hands.       If I recall, the greatest number were ethnic Albanian Tito's Partisans. Are you sure we think of the same thing? None-the-less, the Kingdom period was undoubtedly seen as occupation by the Albanians - but in the Republican era, they were integrated (up to Milosevic's era) into the Yugoslavian integrity (even one Yugoslavian President of the Presidency was a Kosovar Albanian) and the Kosovar Albanians had very high mandatory rights, those that in some cases even exceeded those of the Serbs (from the 1970s to Milosevic's hijacking). Whatever you say, you cannot deny that the Albanians accepted Communist Yugoslavia (at least mostly) as their mother-state (unlike the Regal one). Do you not agree?

Yugosllav.Albanians were willing to accept the territorial integrity of yugosllavia,but not yugosllavia as their motherland,Miloshevic asked Veton Surroi a very important question in the Hague,when Surroi did not accept this theory,he (*Milloshevic) asked Surroi wether he was grown up thinking that Kosova was indipendent and Surroi answered that he was grown up thinking that Kosova was his motherland.So there is a very important element,in that Jugosllavia itself becomes a contradiction with a recognised Albanian population in it.( Albanians are not Slav people,but Albanians).And another very important factor that you should understand clearly is that Albanians are not economic,or political imigrants (or any type of imigrants) in Kosova,nor are they a peoplefactory as was sometimes portrait by Serbian propaganda.They are un anfortunate people who have been living in Kosova for as long as they can remember,and have been strugling for as long as they can remember (a well documented and historicaly preserved strugle) for recognition.How could a people who were imprisoned,and were made to feel ashamed in the eys of other yugosllav people ,with a hundred ridicolous (and entirely fictious) names atributed to them by Yugosllav (serbian) media,feel Yugosllavia is their motherland?A people who had to resist a assimilation proces with the worst kind of propaganda to endure made up by people blind from super-inferior race ideas,with surnames like MALI becoming MALIVIC and KRASNIQI becoming KRASNIQEVIC.How could they have been living in their motherland?

I do apologise,but JUGOSLAV has posted many mesages on the kosovan question and therefore i felt the need to respond to what i see as being not correct information.

Originally posted by sunnyspot The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages is very clear about the matter. Modern Albanian has no connection to ancient Illyrian. In fact, it 'had' more in common with Thracian.

Originally posted by sunnyspot Abusive ?? r u being funny ?   The Cambrigde Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages calls the link between modern Albanian and ancient Illyrian ''conjecture''. Look it up. The modern Albanians are ''making up ancient Illyrian words'' as they go - because only a very small handful of authenticated Illyrian words are in existence. Go figure.   Now you produce an ancient word for 'Pear' and connect it too a modern Albanian word that sounds the same ??   You call for an Illryian origin. I've never heard of an "Illyro-Thracian" origin before - and you speak like you know what that is ?!   Ah, your nationalist dribble is all too clear. I'll stick with the Cambridge Encyclopedia as a general guide, if you don't mind on exactly what langauge the Modern Albanians actually speak - if you don't mind !!   sunnyspot

Nevermind sunnyspot. keep going with your conjuctural cambridge encyclopedia. But I ll give you a tip, if you dont know nothing on some issue, you have to read much before of posting, if you dont want to get ridicule.

lets keep the posts informative not personal