Talk:Yugoslavs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities.If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] concept prior to second Yugoslavia

I think I patched the article up sufficiently. Information about the existence of the concept in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (i.e. prior to SFRY) would be appreciated. I recall seeing one note about how the King banned different nationalities at one point in order to quell nationalism, but I'm not sure. --Joy [shallot] 13:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] "Serbo-Croats"

I'm removing the link to "Serbo-Croats" because it doesn't have a page and unless the rationale is provided, we'll only be promulgating the existence of this confusing while fairly insignificant term. I remember seeing it once on an American (or was it Australian?) TV show and wondering why they didn't bother to check whether "Serbo-Croatian language" translates into a nationality... --Joy [shallot] 13:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Minor grammatical point

It's not that there's a difference in meaning between 'the reason why' and 'the reason that', it's just that the former is an (admittedly common) grammatical error. As Fowler puts it in a slightly different context, there's a tautological overlap between 'reason' and 'why'. I'm interested, though — what did you take 'the reason that' to say that 'the reason why' doesn't? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "the most common reasons that people declared themselves Yugoslavs included..." doesn't make sense to me. We are not talking about the reasons that they declared, but about their reasons for declaring. In other words, they didn't actually have to elaborate their decision, we're explaining their state of mind, not something that they officially said.
A replacement sentence "the most common reasons that people had for declaring themselves Yugoslavs included..." would make sense, but I don't see why that would be better than using the "why". Although, I'm not a native speaker so I could well be wrong — please explain. --Joy [shallot] 10:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your suggested replacement sentence is fine — and means exactly what my corrected sentence does. The sentence with 'why' doesn't mean anything different, it's just grammatically incorrect; the correct construction is the same for: 'it's the house that Jack built', 'the country that I visited last year has just been invaded', and 'the reason that she said that she was Irish is that she's always been told that she was born in Limerick'. But, given that your new sentence is perfectly correct and reads well, I've put it in place of the old one in order to avoid any more disagreement.
(I should explain, by the way, that despite my User name I'm not Greek but English; in fact I taught English as a Foreign Language in Oxford for many years.)
Oh well. I'll take you word for it, although I've never heard of this. --Joy [shallot]
One more important point, though. Were the reasons listed in the article given by those calling themselves Yugoslavs, or are they explanations offered by others? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, both. :) --Joy [shallot]

[edit] offensive

A discussion on why someone declared some ethnic identity is extremenly offensive. Concluding that one has declared herself a Yugoslav because she did not have strong ethnic feelings is even more offensive. Finally, saying that "most Yugoslavs switched back to traditional nationalities such" is showing historical and political ignorance as well as ethnic insensitivity on the part of the writer. Most of us did not "switch back" because one cannot "switch back" to what she never was and many Yugoslavs were claiming that ethnicity since they were born. Further, many did not have a chance to declare Yugoslav identity since many newly formed countries have deleted such an option so the choice became to refuse to declare yourself as anything or to pick one of the options. This is an example of bureaucratic ethnic cleansing, further supported by the acceptance of the erasure of an entire population and trivialisation of the people through articles similar to this one.

Can you please be a little more specific? I'm not sure what part of the article, or discussion, you find offensive and why? --Hurricane Angel 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have scoured the web looking for information about Yugoslavs in 2006. Does anyone have a link to any site which gives accurate figures of the number of Yugoslavs today, not just in the former republics but over the world? It would make a good addition to the article. So might any political movement among the Yugoslavs from one republic to the next, I am sure there are still minor political parties but finding these things is hard. Celt 16 March 2006

[edit] An invented ethnicity: Yugoslavs

Apparently now users on wikipedia have invented a new ethnicity. I suppose people in Switzerland should be listed under the "Swiss" ethnicity too. Yugoslav is a designation that was created by the Yugoslavian census. It does not count as a modern day biological/cultural/or any sort of ethnicity. Hence, it does not merit an infobox. 72.144.60.37 07:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is an Internet Troll and there is no reason for response to his post. PANONIAN (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Panonian, this is a fine example of Ad Hominem attack. Argument is either valid or not, regardless of who wrote it.
Hiding behind "Troll! Troll!" is not a good way to contribute to wikipedia. I suggest that someone do respond to this, if you don't want to look like you don't have answer to this. --Ante Perkovic 12:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
But he is Troll. Denying the right of people to identify themselves as Yugoslavs is a clear example of trolling. How would you feel if somebody tell you: "no your ethnicity does not exist, you are not what you claim, but something else"? PANONIAN (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And also, I do not see what kind of answer I can give to person that claim that "users on wikipedia have invented a new ethnicity"? It is obvious that such person never read this article, never saw results from Yugoslav censa, never met somebody who consider himself Yugoslav, etc. The second claim that "Yugoslav is a designation that was created by the Yugoslavian census" also come from the person that have no idea how census is performed - the census does not "create" designations, but only register what people say about their ethnicity. In 1981 census, number of people who stated their ethnicity as Yugoslav was as high as 1,209,024! How they could be listed in census results instead as Yugoslavs? The Yugoslav designation was created by people who declared themselves as such, not by the census. Furthermore, Yugoslavs are recognized as separate ethnicity by the authorities in Serbia, thus one sockpuppet with 4 edits on Wikipedia certainly do not know more than people who work in the statistical office of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
But, he got the point. Being "Yugoslav" is merely a political statement, not nationality. Noone is being "yugoslav" because his ancestors were yugoslavs. Those people "decided" to be yugoslavs (mostly because they couldn't decide whether they will be Serb/Croat/Bosniak/Macedonian... like the father or Albanian/Serb/Slovenian/... like the mother. "Yugoslav" is just another name for people not wanting to declare that they belong to some specific "real" nation. The "swiss" comparison is valid. --Ante Perkovic 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
There are no "real" ethnic groups. All of them are invented to some extent, and all of them are political statements to an extent. Zocky | picture popups 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zocky 100%. There is really no such thing as "natural" or "real" nations. All of them are invented and artificial. I do not know much about the "swiss" case because I am mostly interested in things in eastern half of Europe, but if the "swiss" case is same as Yugoslav, they should have table too (of course, we do not discuss the "swiss" but Yugoslav case here). PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yugoslav was an ethnic designation not a biological/cultural descented ethnic group. "Serb" and "Croat" is an ethnic group because the Serbs are culturally, linguistically, genetically, and historically tied as a people. Same with Croats. "Yugoslavs" is just, as Perkovic mentioned, a declaration. It's not a real ethnic group anymore than "United-States-ian" is. 72.144.114.25 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Panonian, despite you calling me a "troll" and claiming that I "..never read this article, never saw results from Yugoslav censa, never met somebody who consider himself Yugoslav..have no idea how census is performed - the census does not "create" designations, but only register what people say about their ethnicity..." I still haven't attacked you for being slightly "POV-pushing" in your edits.

Also, I said that "Yugoslav" is a census creation meaning that the term only originated from the Yugoslavian census - not that the census "invented" it. I'm saying people invented it and some users are now pushing it for a real ethnicity. 72.144.114.25 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs are no different than any other group that speak Serbo-Croatian language. Serbs and Croats are "artificial" as much as Yugoslavs in this case. If you do not recognize them it is your personal opinion, and Wikipedia is not place to present it. PANONIAN (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs aren't defined as a legitimate ethnicity anywhere. No more than "American" is a legitimate ethnicity for people in the United States. 72.144.114.25 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ante, you still believe that this user is not troll? PANONIAN (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I will give answer to him (no matter of wikipedia policy "do not feed a troll"): so, mister anonymous, who should define who is "legitimate ethnicity" and who is not? You perhaps? One interesting book I have named "Lexicon of the peoples of the World" (Mile Nedeljković, Leksikon naroda sveta, Beograd, 2001), list all these peoples whose infobox you removing as separate ethnicities, and the author of this book certainly know more than one sockpuppet on Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, Americans are quite "legitimate" ethnic designation in USA. See the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I know that - thats why I brought it to your attention. It's paralleled. People can't ethnically be "American" unless they were Native Americans. Yet, the ethnic designation is still on the census. Much in the same way, Yugoslavs are an ethnic designation on the census - but in what way are they possibly an ethnic group? Maybe if you had someone who had a Croatian grandfather, Macedonian grandmother, Serbian grandfather, and Slovenian grandmother - I guess that could loosely qualify as a "Yugoslav" - in a very silly way though. 68.212.177.48 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You are a troll and a vandal. You will be blocked. Good bye. --serbiana - talk 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, that is an example of fine, well sourced argimen ;). --195.29.145.162 07:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The only definition of ethnicity that covers all the world's peoples is ethnic identity - i.e. what those people think they are. If there are two persons who think they are X in the ethnic sense, they have a common ethnic identity (i.e. both think they are X), which makes them members of the ethnic group X.

But, even based on other criteria, Yugoslavs are no less genetically, linguistically, culturally and religuously related than e.g. Germans. Zocky | picture popups 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Yugoslav was an ethnic designation not a biological/cultural descented ethnic group. "Serb" and "Croat" is an ethnic group because the Serbs are culturally, linguistically, genetically, and historically tied as a people. Same with Croats. "Yugoslavs" is just, as Perkovic mentioned, a declaration. It's not a real ethnic group anymore than "United-States-ian" is."

Genetically and linguistically different, you say? As different as let's say a German with a Berliner accent and a Deutscher with a Munchen accent? We can skip the language details because we both know how different the languages are, but can you show me your genetic research on Serbs and Croats. I would prefer both DNA and mitochondrial DNA sources. --Hurricane Angel 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL Where did I say say that Serbs and Croats are genetically and linguistically different? 72.144.150.20 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
And now to conclude this ridiculous discussion with official sources published by the Statistical Office of Serbia: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf According to this official document, 80,721 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Yugoslavs in 2002 census and in this document they are listed in a table which had this title: "Stanovništvo prema nacionalnoj ili etničkoj pripadnosti po popisu 2002" (English translation: "Population by ethnicity or nationality in 2002 census"!!!!). If Statistical Office of Serbia treat here Yugoslavs as an ethnic group, then they are ethnic group. People who work in the Statistical Office certainly better know what is a definition of an ethnic group than one kid that even do not know how to register nickname on Wikipedia. Every further comment is futile. I rest my case here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On wikipedia, we use a policy WP:CITE. Unless you can site a reference that claims "Yugoslavs" is an ethnic group. The statistical office of Serbia does not register people purely as ethnic groups. In fact, most censuses don't. Even the United States census has American as a designation. Good luck finding a reference claiming "American" is a legitimate ethnic group. You're ignoring what is said on this page even! "Yugoslav was an ethnic designation used by some people in former Yugoslavia, which continues to be used in some of its successor countries." "Czechoslovakian" and "Soviet" is an ethnic designation too, but neither are ethnic groups. Unless you can cite a reference which specifically says Yugoslavs is a legitimate historical ethnic group, the infobox is inappropriate. You can hide behind your "Troll! Vandal!" accusations all you wish. 72.153.53.193 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I already cited my source and I will repeat it: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf If you do not know to read Serbian, learn it, but Yugoslavs are listed there as an ethnic group, so they are ethnic group, thus your "opinion" about the subject is COMPLETELLY IRRELEVANT. Got it? PANONIAN (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, census results in Serbia do register only ethnic groups in this listing: people that did not declared their ethnicity are listed in the line "neizjašnjeni i neopredeljeni" (meaning in English: "did not declared or stated their ethnicity"). PANONIAN (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just one question for the Anonymous user 72.153.53.193: exactly what makes a group of people a "legal ethnic group"? And what is anybody anyway if not a statistic of a designated ethnic group? Do you really think there is anything more concrete about being Russian, or Irish, or Turkish? Take the term "legal" and consider the world's largest recognised stateless nation, the Kurds. They occupy large sections of four big countries. Three of those four governments (Syria, Turkey and Iran) never recognised the national claims of these people in the past, whether they do or not now is something I don't know. However, had Iraq not given the Kurds some form of autonomy in the early 70s, would that mean that so-called Kurds are not a legal ethnic group? As for "designated ethnicity", tell me, which people ethnicly affiliated to the Germans but originating outside of German territory (not descending from an earlier diaspora) call themselves German? In Vienna they declare themselves Austrian, so if areas accross the border into Bavaria had been absorbed into Austria before becoming a part of the modern German state, would those people (remember, never having lived in what you know as the Federal Republic of Germany) still claim to be ethnic-Germans living in Austria? If so why? What would they share in common with Hanoverians some hundreds of kiloemtres north, but have so different from the rest of Austria, itself a small country? All this according to you makes "German" (and others, too many to mention) ethnic designations as well. --Evlekis 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A very real Ethnicity

Without political fueds, Yugoslav would be the MOST realistic ethnic group for the Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks. With this said, there is no difference between the three other than religion and preference of alphabet (i.e; cyrillic / latin). The only reason this ethnicity does not exist realistically is because politics has prevented it from thriving.

I agree but on the whole, it is neither here nor there. Each of the three nations have a religion synonymous to the name but that doesn't truely stop one of its members from converting, nor one from another religion accepting the other's nationality, but if the Muslim chooses to be Muslim-by-Nationality as many still do, nor having accepted Bosniak, then it will be strange for him or her to be Roman Catholic and still pertaining to the original religiously inspired nationality. The key difference is down to ideology, there are those who strongly feel that difference in religion, linguistic variation and history should not necessarily prevent people from embracing those ethnicly affiliated to them to create a nation. Therfore, supposing a Mostar-based Catholic wishes to be Yugoslav, as shall we say a Muslim living among Gorani along the Serb (Kosovar)-Macedonian border belt may also choose, they are automaticly national affiliates regardless what their family members and local friends may think. Suffice it to say that the Muslim's neighbour's (a declared Goran) reluctance to accept the Mostar-based Catholic as a member of his nation does not fictionalise the dreams of the pro-Yugoslav neighbour, but rather alienates himself from his pro-Yugoslav neighbour. One's nationality is only what one declares. As democratic people, we must respect this.Evlekis 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

[edit] SERBS??!?

Ok, i consider myself a Yugoslav, and am technically 1/4 serbian, and i dont understand what being a Serb has to do with being a yugoslav, as you will note someone had added this as a part of being serbian on the right hand side of the Yugoslav page, can we please remove this?

[edit] More

There's more to a Yugoslav people than presented dully in this article - the origin dates back far beyond. And the fact that the majority indeed were "Yugoslavs" fro twenty years isn't relly emphasized. --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yugoslavs Abroad

This one is difficult, I am very interested to see the source which speaks of tens of thousands of Yugoslavs in the South American countries. The reason that it appears odd is that those countries have similar economies to our Modern eastern European microstates (lies, filth, government corruption, empty promises, puppets to the US, rich presidents and poor normal people etc). That is not to say that they could not have ended up there some other way though. The interesting point is that each country has its own manner in carrying out its census and I see that in the UK, one is categorised by his declared ethnic group which doesn't always correspond to ones chosen nationality. What I'm simply saying is that there must be a few numbers here and there in every country where there remains a Yugoslav diaspora who declare themselves Yugoslavs. Naturally, most will choose their modern republic or more familiar affiliation (eg. Serb if Orthodox from Bosnia etc), but it would be interesting to estimate the number of Yugoslavs from the diaspora countries such as Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and the UK. The question is, how?! Evlekis 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

[edit] Photo strip

I have added a photo strip for the people who helped form Yugoslav identity. Reisender 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lepa Brena, Ljudevit Gaj

I think thats a very good idea, but Ljudevit Gaj and Lepa Brena should be added to the Photo Strip, too. They had the strongest feelings for the yugoslav nation.

Many people had strong feelings for the Yugoslav nation but the photo strip can only have so many faces. These tend to be those who were more instrumental in the country actually being what it was. So Gaj maybe, Brena though is just a modern celebrity; there must be thousands like her even if it is not immediately clear. The problem with the strip is Vuk Karadzic. I could be wrong but the literature I have read about him makes him sound more Serbian than Yugoslav, meaning that his linguistic reforms were in the name of Serbian and his vision of a larger state meant incorporating Bosnia and much of Croatia on the grounds that those people were Serbs; I could find this easily enough but it is all secondhand (ie. written in English by analysts). Evlekis 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Actually Vuk Karadzic's works contributed to the formation of Serbo-Croatian, and the photo strip shows the people who contributed to Yugoslav identity. Vuk Karadzic is an essential figure in the formation of a union. Also, much of the Croatian language is based on Karadzic's formation of the alphabet. 68.118.250.233 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not what it should show. Many people contributed to Yugoslav identity without being Yugoslavs themselves. // estavisti 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs means "South Slavs" and those people fall under that category, especially Vuk Karadzic.

That's disingenuous and you know it. If the two terms were synonymous, we wouldn't have two articles on the two topics (see: South Slavs). "Yugoslav" is also a political identity, which doesn't exclude national identities like Serb, Croat etc. You'll notice that this article is about the ethnicity (it uses the ethnicity infobox). There is no evidence that Vuk considered himself to be of Yugoslav ethnicity, although he did believe in South Slav unity (not the same thing).
All I'm saying is that we should discuss this before deciding whether to insert it or not. You ramming it in by reverting repeatly is just annoying and not conducive to an atmosphere of cooperation. I won't revert or edit it for now, but I suggest you don't see that as you having "won the argument". // estavisti 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We're having a discussion here. Now the point is that Vuk Karadzic was living in a time when the ethnicity was being formed (obviously he couldn't be something that was not created YET) but he was for the idea, thus his works were used to unify the Croat-Serb people. He was a supporter of the union and we know what that leads to. Also, in the book A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples it is clearly stated that the union meant to combine the "one and same people" who were dispersed into different "tribes." From what we know, Vuk Karadzic supported the Yugoslav ethnicity by being for such union. He himself being of the "serb tribe" would make him a Yugoslav, having believed in such cause.

Well, you seem remarkably uninformed... And we're discussing this after you rammed your change through, but anyway... It's your opinion that "Vuk Karadzic was living in a time when the ethnicity was being formed". Do you have any sources to back up that claim? He was "for the idea"? What idea? You don't even specify. What is A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples? Who wrote it? Who published it? How do I know it's a reputable source, and not something you just made up? Even if I take what you say at face value, what can some book say, against the man's own works? Take a look Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. Every work has the word "Serbian" in the title. Take a look at these reputable sources that refer to him as a Serb - Encyclopaedia Britannica, University College London, Microsoft Encarta etc. On the other hand, we have your opinion that he belonged to the Serb "tribe", which is - frankly - offensive bullshit. Are you even serious? --estavisti 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? Have you read the Vuk Karadzic page? Do you know what the Illyrian Movement was all about? No! The book is written by Fred Singleton BEFORE the civil war. Also, please do not attack me with your over worded sentences. Vuk Karadzic was for the idea when the Yugoslav Identity was taking shape. And yes, those who supported this idea saw this unification process as something similar to what the Germans had gone through. Please read the book, you can find it on Amazon.

Number of reputable, verifiable sources you provided? Zero. One book which was written during the Communist period. And you don't even provide quotes from that one book. What may be "clearly stated" in your eyes may be nothing of the sort to others. Number of points you answered? Zero. The fact remains, I listed three credible, reputable sources that list him as a Serb. His work deals with the Serbian language - not the "Yugoslav" language, not the "South Slav" language, not the "Serbo-Croat" language, but the Serbian language. It's not disputed that he had pro-Yugoslav leanings. However, that is a political orientation, not an ethnicity, and so his inclusion in the pictures of famous Yugoslavs is misleading and incorrect, and merely an expression of your political opinion. // estavisti 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he is a Serb, but being a Serb can qualify you to be a Yugoslav , as many have proclaimed themselves to be. Also, his serbian works were used to link serbo-croatian .. please read up on that. He is a big figure in the unification of the language of former Yugoslavia.

As the strip should show people who themselves identified as Yugoslavs, Vuk Karadzic is a Bad Idea. Nikola 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Nikola. I have revised the strip. Reisender 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Goran Bregović is arguably the most famous self-identifed Yugoslav. Duja►
There is another problem with all of this. Many people were proud Yugoslavs during the time of the country and in the end, some of those played a part in its disolvement. Here is an example: take the Montenegrin speaker of Parliament Ranko Krivokapic. He has said on RTCG that during the time of Yugoslavia, he was one of its biggest supporters but without the 4 out of 5 republics, there was no point in Montenegro being united with Serbia. Now just supposing that he became who he is but 80 years ago, the likelyhood is that he wouldn't be here today, and being known of course, he could have been on that photostrip. So what is to say that Ljudevit Gaj would still have supported a united South Slavic ethnic group had been fortunate to still be alive in 1992?! And the other thing: it is known that people today declare their nationalities as Yugoslav (I have family who do this though I don't personally), and it is primarily on them that the article is written, but, from 1945-1991, each citizen of Jugoslavija had his own internal nationality, I doubt "Yugoslav" was actually applicable then because it had to correspond to one of the six republican adjectives, or Muslim, otherwise a name for a people based outside of Yugoslavia (ie. Romanian, Albanian, Italian etc). My point is that "internally", Goran Bregovic could have been a Serb, or Croat (probably not a Muslim unless that was his faith which I don't believe was) and he STILL could have been a proud Yugoslav. I am not against the photostrip, only it is difficult to establish what really is what. Ragusan 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

> To correct you, during Yugoslavia the ethnic group "Yugoslav" was allowed and many people did proclaim themselves as that.

I only said I doubted it was used. All right I know it was once upon a time widely used. The first census showed 85% or so as Yugoslav with hardly an entry for Serb or Croat etc. The other 15% were mostly other nations (Albanians etc). I just didn't think it was used after 1945. My point was that many who believed in the cause whilst it was active did abandon it when it came to supporting an independent republic. I mean, if the overall percentage of Yugoslavs from all six former republics today is about 0.1% (an estimate is difficult because they hardly register in Slovenia, Croatia or Macedonia), then there MUST have been millions more proud Yugoslavs during the SFRJ. No way does 0.1% control 99.9%, not even with all the military and oppression. Please don't think I am in any way against Yugoslavs or people who choose that name! Ragusan 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

> You're right, but the ethnicity has no faults.. this is something political now. The people who lived can only be viewed on the times they lived, not in another century, etc. So, what I am saying is that Yugoslav is no longer used because of political fueds.

At long last we have statistics from Croatia. 176 is better than nothing! Jordovan 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/u/g/Talk%7EYugoslavs_bec4.html"