Talk:Bunjevci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] old talk

I really don't know why I bother any more. Igor has again changed this page to favour some fictional Bunjevci that consider themselves Serbs, at the same time posting how more of them consider themselves Croats. I have listened to the leaders of both factions in an interview and the leader of the faction other than the Croat one states very clearly that they are their own ethnic group, neither Croat nor Serb. So, whatever. --Shallot 09:55, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am just staying true to the facts, no such documents refer to the Bunjevci as Croats but simply as 'Catholic Serbs' in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (German and Hungarian). Today, only a few of the Bunjevci consider themselves as Serbs, the number is unkown because they cannot be differentiated the the ORthodox Serbs in Backa. Anyways, I think the page is pretty clear and points out both sides claims while only retaining those arguments that can be supported by factual evidence not just hearsay and nationalist claims. --Igor 20:39, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Like I said, whatever, it's nonsense that they're only referred to as Catholic Serbs. I googled and read tens of definitions of where the Bunjevci came from, tens of definitions of what their origin was (Vlachs and Illyrians, too!), written both by Bunjevac common people, Bunjevac historians and by other people, from the period of 1700 until the present day. You claim to be staying true to the facts, and yet blithely remove the fact that that the Bunjevac ethnicity isn't explicated anywhere except in Vojvodina where the Serbs (mis)treat them as Catholic Serbs, or how they actually began restoring their link with the Croats ever since the latter started organizing back in the 19th century (before they also often used toponymic names, not unlike the name Bunjevac).
Accuse me of being a nationalist all you want, but at least I don't try to subtly skew the truth while pompously boasting "staying true to the facts". Pfft. I am entirely unimpressed. --Shallot 19:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] The Bunjevci are Croats...

It is crazy to talk about Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs just because Austro-Hungarians cald them like that. They were watching from the outside so it is quite reasonable that they would think of Bunjevci as Serbs, because it simplifies the thing. But now that Milosevic is gone Serbia should let go the talk of Bunjevci as a separate nation. I mean, most of them do think of themselfs as Croats, which is normal. There is still a large number of those that said they were Bunjevci because after so many years of living beside other nations here and away from the homeland many people are just or ashamed or scared to say that they are Croats... Just look at the language those people speak, and you will see that it is a dialect of Croatian language. And people that represent the Bunjevci nation idea are really funny. They never accepted to confront their ideas with the Croatian side. Enough said And of course... Isn't it a little bit weird that only in Vojvodina Bunjevci call themselves like that? In Croatia and Hungary there is not any similar problem with the Bunjevci group... They all do know that they are like Zagorci, Dalmatians and Istrian all part of the Croatian national body..

  • Hungarians never called Bunjevci catholic Serbs; what they sometimes said is that Bunjevci and Sokci are Catholic rácok, which is not the same as saying that Bunjevci ara Catholic Serbs. Rácok was the general denomination for all subgroups of South Slavic peoples living in Hungary. Later, the term rácok became increasingly used for the Serbs. In contemporary Hungarian language, to say to anyone "you are like a rác!, it is almost insulting. It has the connotation of beeing wild, always in opposition, full of himself. The old word 'rácok' certainly had not these coonotations, since the South Slavic peoples whom the Hungarians used to call rácok, were quite well established in the country, and they often were in a higher social level than the "genuin" Hungarians themselves. Consequently, there are a lot of places in Hungary, which have in their name the word 'rác'. It meant that it is a prosperous place, and this does not always mean that the history of these settlements has anything to do with Serbs. Of course, there were many Serbs in post-Mohács Hungary, and it is higly possible that most of the places were called 'rác-something', because there were Serbs. But 'rácok' were called also other mercantile peoples, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Bulgarians, for example, and also other South Slavic peoples, including the various brances of Croats. The orthodox church in Eger, in Miskolc, or in Hódmezővásárhely, for instance, is called 'rác templom', but was not built by Serbs, but by the local Greek community, the members of which came to Hungary once for the very similar reason as the Serbs did. --Veermer-- 16:30, 29 January 2006
"Rácok was the general denomination for all subgroups of South Slavic peoples living in Hungary." This is incorrect. Rácok is Hungarian for Serbs, derived from the name of the state of Rascia, Serbia Proper. The original Serbs of the south of Hungarian Kingdom (Vojvodina, Belgrade, Macva) were Rascians, and only later the name expanded to describe all Serbs, not only from Rascia, but from Zeta (Montenegro), Bosnia, Dalmatia. Hence the German term Ratzen for Serbs. It was not a common name for all South Slavs, since the term Horvat for Croats was very well known - since 1102 Hungarians have ruled Croatia. Croats were never called Rascians. Marechiel 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To call one Croat it was almost impossible in Habsburg Hungary, since there was practically no Croatia (the Habsburgs did not care about the rights of Croatian nation in the personalunion with Hungary), and, what is more, the Croatians started to call themselves Illirains. Now, how could have a Bunjevac possibly said that he would be a Croat, when it was not clear what is Croatia, what does it means beeing a Croat? It would have been a nonsense. But, with the establishment of national identity of the Croats, also the Bunjevci and Sokci peoples started to see towards West and South-West, rather than towards Sumadija and the mythical Kosovo. Why would have they looked towards Serbia? Furthermore, the idea of the so-called "Croatisation" of Bunjevci by the Catholic clergy does not explain this phenomenon completely. For instance, it would be an interesting research why did Bunjevci and Sokci people in the Socialistic Yugoslavia went for studies rather to the university of the Croatian capital, than to Belgrade, when Novi Sad was not an option. They lived in Serbian Republik, they spoke Serbo-Croatian, practically Serbian language, those times the Catholic Church had not a saying in this issues, Belgrade was closer, larger, perhaps also cheaper. The official belief was the complete communist brotherhood. And what was usually the case? The Bunjevac intelligentia instinctively prefered Croatia. ? This was also clear in 1971, when "cleansings" took place also in Subotica, and again, a lot of Serbian burocrats came to dirigate the local peoples. As to the present Bunjevci/Croats debate, what I see as an outsider is that many of the Bunjevci people left the Vojvodina region during the last wartimes, especially those ones who were educated, and now the Serbs offer to the traditionaly quite simple minded and benevolent Bunjevci to be "Catholic Serbs", or just Bunjevci, or Sokci. Is it a wonder that immediately after the Big-Serbian monomania these people are hesitating to call themselves what they are? What seems to be important from the Serbian point of view is that Bunjevci do not think that they are possible Croats. I wonder why? --Veermer-- 16:07, 29 January 2006
In the time you are referring to, the state of Rascia was even less known to Hungarians. Still, they persisted in calling both Catholic and Orthodox Serbs Rascians, and Croats Horvats. Marechiel 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

////////

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bunjevci.html

Dear, Panonian... Read this, and then stop telling LIES about Bunjevci, let them decide who they are... And just now the majority say that they are CROATIAN, and in 10 years time, even more will realize this obvious thruth..

Have a nice day.

Actually, you should stop reading suspicious web sites like that one. Besides that, you should see results from 2002 census in Serbia and you will see what they said they are. It is you who do not let them to decide who they are. I will remind you: in 2002 census, 20,012 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Bunjevci. You cannot now to speculate that they are branch of somebody else, because it is not what they declared. Have a nice day you too. PANONIAN (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC1)

And what do you think than Panion, who were all the CROATS from that year census??? Maybe fallen from Mars, or actually they were BUNJEVCI, at least the Croats from the North Vojvodina?????!?!?!?!?! You cannot ignore even larger number of Bunjevci, that feal like CROATIAN!!!

The feel of that part of Bunjevci that declared themselves as Croats is already mentioned in the proper place in this article. Try to read it all, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I can show you that majority of Bunjevci do not declare themselves as Croats. See Subotica article (Demographics section). In the Subotica municipality there are 16,688 declared Croats, 16,254 declared Bunjevci and 8,562 declared Yugoslavs. When you count together those Bunjevci that declare themselves as Bunjevci and Yugoslavs their number is larger than the number of those that declare themselves as Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that Bunjevci live only in Subotica????

Don't you think that there are maybe Bunjevci also in Croatia and Hungary, and what do they think they are?? So, the number of BUNJEVCI is definitely HIGHER than 20.000 in Serbia, because those who tell for themselves that are CROATIAN are also BUNJEVCI!!!

Bunjevci live mostly in the Subotica municipality and some neighbouring places. Declared Croats in other parts of Vojvodina are rather Šokci than Bunjevci. PANONIAN (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Serbia, all 3 nationalities: Serbs, Croats and Bunjevci are recognized as a separate ethnic groups. If we have this in mind, we can say that name Bunjevci can refer to two things:

  • 1. ethnic Bunjevci
  • 2. a sub-group of ethnic Croats

If we talk about Bunjevci who consider themselves to be a separate nationality, they are very proud to be Bunjevci (not Croats or Serbs). In fact, maybe we can have 2 articles about Bunjevci: one about ethnic Bunjevci, and another about Croatian Bunjevci (a sub-group of Croats). User:PANONIAN

I inserted the Template:Ethnic Group here; the data should be worked on and at the moment it's kind of stub. By inserting the template, I do not wish to take either position. As we all know, the ethnic classification is not exact science and it's my opinion that the template is applicable event to "sub-groups" if one regards Bunjevci as such.Duja 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree about 2 articles on Bunjevci; they clearly are one people and it's the issue of classification and self-determination whether they are a Croatian tribe or a separate ethnicity. There are similar uncertainties about Montenegrins and even more Vlachs of Serbia; the article mentions that in mostly NPOV manner. Duja 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Duja, in all these cases about Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs of Serbia, the one have only to listen what Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs think about themselves. The opinions of Croatian, Serbian and Romanian nationalists who want to assimilate these peoples is irrelevant. I very well know that all these peoples claim that they are separate distinct nations, and thus we should regard them as such. The ethnicity is nothing more than a national consciousness. If somebody believe that he is Chinese, he is Chinese, if somebody believe that he is German, he is German, etc. Same thing is with Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs. If they believe that they are separate nations, that is what they are. PANONIAN (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is entirely about self-determination. The problem comes when the group (Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs are all fine examples) does refer to themselves by a name, but they cannot decide collectively (and there are roughly equal splits in all three above-mentioned) whether the name consists a "separate ethnic group" or "a subgroup of another nation". From aside, we can pretty clearly tell whether someone is Bunjevac (in everyday sense of the word) by their name, religion, speech and lore, but what if (s)he ethnically declares as a Croat? IMO that does not make him/her less of a Bunjevac than the one who declares as ethnic Bunjevac, nor such situation would require separate articles for two groups that share pretty much everything except common self-determination.
My proposal for resolving such situation is to have one article, clearly mention the dispute in a NPOV manner and count'em all in in the Ethnic Group template, but providing separate numbers for both ethnic declarations within the template (if available). Duja 10:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"but what if (s)he ethnically declares as a Croat?"

Well, problem is that besides declaring themselves as Bunjevci, they do not also declare themselves ONLY as Croats, but also as Yugoslavs, Magyars, Serbs, etc. The view that they declare themselves only as Bunjevci and Croats is simply not correct. If some of them declare themselves as Croats, Serbs or Yugoslavs that does not mean that ALL OF THEM are Croats, Serbs or Yugoslavs. The reason why we have this article at all is because there are people who consider themselves and declare themselves only as Bunjevci, not as Croats, Serbs, etc. But, if you want to refer to "all Bunjevci", not only those who declare themselves as such, you should see an example about population of Subotica: Hungarians (38.5%), Serbs (24.1%), Croats (11.2%), Bunjevci (11.1%), Yugoslavs (6%), Montenegrins (1%), etc. Do you think that this can show "real" number of Bunjevci? Some people argue that city population is actually composed of 60-70% Bunjevci and 25-30% Serbs, since most of these Hungarians (if not all) could be a Hungarized Bunjevci, as well as most of declared Croats and Yugoslavs are actually ethnic Bunjevci. By the 1868 data, the city population was composed of 50,000 Bunjevci, 6,000 Hungarians, 3,500 Serbs, 1,300 Jews, etc. In old Austro-Hungarians censuses, Bunjevci as well as Šokci mostly declared themselves as such, not as Croats, Serbs, Hungarians, etc. The Croat nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Croats because they speak the same ikavian dialect as Croats from Dalmatia. The Serb nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Serbs because old historical sources refered to them as a "Catholic Rascians" (Catholic Serbs). But despite all of this, fact is that Bunjevci are an distinctive nation and those Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats are exactly that (Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats), while Bunjevci are not Croats who declare themselves as Bunjevci. PANONIAN (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we disagree. I'd just make two corrections:
Well, problem is that besides declaring themselves as Bunjevci, they do not also declare themselves ONLY as Croats, but also as Yugoslavs, Magyars, Serbs, etc.
But (as far as I know), most of those who don't declare themselves as Bunjevci declare as Croats, at least in Serbia. There certainly are those who declare as Yugoslav, Magyars, Serbs but I think they're in significant minority. I stand open-minded on this until I see some relevant figures though.
But despite all of this, fact is that Bunjevci are an distinctive nation
I'd use a weaker wording here and say that Bunjevci are a distinctive group. I don't oppose your position that one should use (mostly) self-determination to distinguish a group; thus, the figure of 50,000 is probably OK, as it counts in both Bunjevci who declare as Bunjevci ethnically, and Bunjevci who feel as Bunjevci in regional/traditional sense but declare that they're ethnically something else. Those who state that they have anything to do with "Bunjevci" should not be counted in. Whether Bunjevci are a distinct ethnic group is under dispute among Bunjevci themselves -- THAT makes a difference. If it weren't so, Croatian and Serbian nationalist views could be neglected (and only mentioned as a side note in the article). Certainly, the position of the ones who do declare as ethnical Bunjevci must be respected and "separate ethnic group" right assigned; however, the position of the other group must be mentioned as well. Duja 09:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahh. If you refer to the figures I inserted in the template, feel free to change them as you see fit. Thus, I propose the count for Serbia should be something like (50,000 est. [20,000 declare as Bunjevci], [20,000 as Croats]). But I don't have actual figures, especially for Hungary. Duja 09:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What I mainly object here is listing Bunjevci as a subgroup of Croats. You are right that this issue is not entirely about self-determination, but the ethnic origin of Bunjevci is also part of the problem. It is not certain whether ancestors of Bunjevci were ethnic Croats or Serbs. I have a book "Bunjevci" (Novi Sad - Sombor, 1998), written by Alba M. Kuntić, who was Bunjevac himself. According to his research, Bunjevci are descendants of Orthodox Serbs who converted to Catholic religion (The Hungarian sources also mention Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs). Also, according to some Croats, Bunjevci are descendants of Croats from Dalmatia. Since their origin is disputed, we simply cannot claim that Bunjevci are a subgroup of Croats or a subgroup of Serbs. The proper scientific manner is to treat them as a separate people, as many of them think about themselves. Despite their origin (Serb or Croat), in the Austro-Hungarian censuses they always declared themselves as Bunjevci, not as Croats or Serbs. The Vojvodinian assembly, which voted to join Vojvodina to Serbia in 1918 was officially named "the assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and other Slavs of Banat, Bačka and Baranja". So, only Serbs and Bunjevci are individually mentioned here as a nations, not Croats, who were here classified as "other Slavs", together with Slovaks, Rusins, etc. Only in Yugoslavia Bunjevci started to declare themselves as Croats. During the Socialist Federal Yugoslavia, it was forbiden for Bunjevci to declare themselves as such, and who ever declared himself as Bunjevac, was simply listed as "Croat" in census results. So, it was the policy of communist party leadership to Croatize this people (As one can see this policy was partially successful, but not entirely). As for the manner how Bunjevci declare themselves in census, it is correct that not many of them declare themselves as Serbs or Magyars, but many of them declare themselves as Yugoslavs. Also, not all Croats in Vojvodina are of Bunjevci origin. It would not be correct to simply join the numbers of declared Bunjevci and declared Croats and claim that this is a number of Bunjevci. Many Croats in Vojvodina are descendants of Šokci (and Šokci and Bunjevci are two clearly separated groups). So, the "real" number of Bunjevci might include: declared Bunjevci, Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats (which is not same with the number of Croats in Vojvodina), and Bunjevci who declare themselves as Yugoslavs, with some who declare themselves as Serbs and Magyars. I do not know is this "real" number as high as 50,000. It is better to write official number of declared Bunjevci from 2002 census, and then to put some note that this number is higher since many of them declare themselves as Croats or Yugoslavs. From where you get this 50,000 number anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

50,000 was my roughly estimated sum of 20,000 declared Bunjevci in Vojvodina + a portion of declared Croats in Vojvodina + unknown number of Bunjevci in Hungary. I admit I got this number from nowhere, as I noted in the talk page when I created it. Otherwise, I agree with you. Duja 15:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Both of you seem to have forgotten the unknown number of Bunjevci in Croatia, which could well be comparable to their number in Vojvodina. --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, the number could stay until the more correct one is listed. Just one interesting illustration, which can show how many Bunjevci declare themselves as Yugoslavs. Here is the quote from the article: "The historically Bunjevac village of Donji Tavankut had 989 Bunjevci, 877 Croats, and 600 Yugoslavs". It is very large number of Bunjevci who declare themselves as Yugoslavs, dont you agree? PANONIAN (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do note that that number is from the 1991 census, so it's obsolete for the purposes of a current head count (ugh). --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

We should to respect the official census data here. Not only most of the Bunjevci and Šokci, but also most of the Croats in Serbia declared to speak Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We should not respect the official census data here. Serbia is well known to neighbouring nations, as state that is forgering the history and current data as a mean to have casus beli when convinient. Just ask any Slovene, Bosnian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Macedonian, Bulgarian or Hungarian (or me - Croat).

Ha, ha, that's happening only into your rotten croato-nationalistic brain. Stop with your crap. The history, the true linguistic and true national facts are forged and falsified AT THE MOST in your quazi-state Croatia. Bunjevci ARE and WILL BE Bunjevci, NOT Croats. When The Catholicized Serbs (or like they call themsevles 'Dalmatians') can consider themselves as a part of Croatians, then Bunjevci will consider themselves as BUNJEVCI, and NEVER CROATIANS. Long live ALL UNITED SerboCroats. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.181.95 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 January 2006

Ha, ha, that's happening only into your rotten croato-nationalistic brain. Stop with your crap. The history, the true linguistic and true national facts are forged and falsified AT THE MOST in your quazi-state Croatia. Bunjevci ARE and WILL BE Bunjevci, NOT Croats. When The Catholicized Serbs (or like they call themsevles-'Dalmatians') can consider themselves as a part of Croatians, then Bunjevci can consider themselves as BUNJEVCI, and NEVER CROATIANS. Long live ALL UNITED SerboCroats. Cheers!24.86.110.10 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


That is ridiculous. Serbia have the largest number of ethnic minorities in the region. In Serbia, ALL ethnic groups and their languages are recognized, while some of the neighbouring countries you mentioned do not treat its minorities in such manner. And please, stop this old Croatian nationalistic story that Bunjevci do not exist as a nation. It is well known that Croatian nationalists who want to assimilate Bunjevci into Croats claim that Bunjevci are not a nation. Serbian authorities does not have intention to assimilate them, thus they are recognized in Serbia in the manner how they want to be recognized and how they declare themselves in census. They declare themselves as Bunjevci and declare their language as Serbian and that is simple statistical fact. Those Buunjevci who declare themselves as Croats and their language as Croatian are also recognized in the manner how they want to be. It is a right of CHOICE for somebody to declare himself as Bunjevac. You cannot deny this right to people. PANONIAN (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Serbs, Croats and all the inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina speak one and the same language - Serbo-Croatian. It is totally absurd to discuss the language of Bunjevci in this situation. The Croats of Vojvodina (and with them many who have Bunjevci roots) all speak ekavian ot ikavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. On the other hand they demand that they should have "Croatian" language (i.e. ijekavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian) in schools. This means that they demand that as their mother language they should learn a dialect that they never use! This is a classical nationalistic and political abuse of logic or linguistics. Thus, all discussion on the subject of Bunjevci speaking Croatian or Serbian is highly absurd. --Dultz 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already explained nicely in the article and I see little reason to rant about this at this talk page.
Yet, I cannot escape the impression that it's really a case of pot calling the kettle black if you think it's abusive and illogical for people to want their children to learn ijekavian as well as ikavian. Why shouldn't they want to do so? They apparently do so because they think it will help them interact with what they perceive as the rest of their nation. The state allows them to declare their nationality freely, but it shouldn't allow them to learn whatever languages they want? Aren't you actually ranting against the whole concept of nations here? Maybe the concept of self-determination is the target? --Joy [shallot] 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references to the Bunjevci in Hungary

In response to the reference of Bunjevci in Hungary:

1. Due to the aggressive process of Magyarization that started in the 19th Century and its intensification in the Horthy and Communist regimes, almost all of them assimilated into Hungarians.

2. Some individual families still stick to the language but these are very few in number.

3. Most people born since 1920's still speak the language but because they are not active users, the level of speech is not that high and this generation is dying out. Mixed marriages, especially after WWII contributed to this.

4. Some people claim to be Bunjevac (bunyevác), but they do not speak a word of the language.

5. Cultural groups exist in some villages.

6. The names remain, but everything else is Hungarian.

--adam300 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I added some more information on the namo of Bunjevci. I propose that it becomes a separate passage. --Dultz 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment from 82.232.35.48

What about Bunjevci that actually KNOW THEIR ORIGINS and say that they are CROATIAN... They are not among this group?? And what about Bunjevci in CROATIA?? Did you know that this ethnic group exists there also, and everyone by some miracle knows that they are CROATIAN..

Come to Subotica and ask some intelectual about the origin of Bunjevci, or ask some Bunjevac in the street of what nation is he... And let's see what he will tell you..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.35.48 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 June 2006

No, they do not KNOW their origin, but they BELIEVE in their origin. Try to notice the difference. However, there are also many of them who believe that they are not Croats. Besides that, both opinions about that are already mentioned in the article: the opinion that Bunjevci are separate nation, and opinion that Bunjevci are Croats. What you want more? PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I want the thruth... Not everyone is SERBIAN, you know. And this process of de-croatization of Bunjevci should definitely stop;.. But time will tell, not this encyclopedia... And you will see that there will be always only less of those who call themselves only Bunjevci. They are ridicolous!!!

And I can declare my self as CHINESE if I want, but that doesn'y change the fact that Bunjevci culturaly are a member of a wider gropu, that's called the CROATIAN NATION... And what about Panonian's hypocracy... He says one thing on Serbian wikipedia, and he's ok with the things on english one... i don't understand that. If Bunjevci are a nation, then tomorrow I am gonna found a new nation of MOTOKULTIVATORI... and you will se how many of us are gonna be on the next census.

There is no such thing as de-croatization of Bunjevci process. On the contrary, the opposite process of their croatization is an issue for almost a century. Large part of Bunjevci rejected these attempts of Croatian nationalists to croatize them, and they see themselves in the same manner as their ancestors saw themselves in the past - as a separate Bunjevci people. You should not say that people are ridiculous because they call themselves with the same name as their ancestors did. In 1850s, there was in Vojvodina 62,936 Bunjevci and Šokci and only 2,860 Croats. You can judge for yourself were they croatized or de-croatized. As for my "hypocracy", what you have in mind exactly? What I said on Serbian Wikipedia? PANONIAN (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous, I suggest you actually read the article whose lead section you wish to modify. --Joy [shallot] 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One more link I have to add... From one of the respectable croatian catholic newspapers in vojvodina.. http://www.zvonik.org.yu/871/ZV03.html

so see what are the people like Tamas Korhez, Andrija Kopilovic and others saying about Bunjevci, and about the problems of INTEGRATION into the Croatian corpus till now...

Please do not mention word "corpus" any more. When we start to use words like "national corpus", "homeland war", etc, we already know where that lead. For the point of view of the part of Bunjevci that do not consider themselves Croats, only relevant thing is what they say about themselves, not what Tamas Korhez or anybody else think. I read the interview with the leader of Bunjevac national community in Serbia and he said that Bunjevci are not Croats and that Croats trying to assimilate them for decades. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Then I think you should also read something from the leaders of Croatian national council... And then maybe make a comparison between the two views, and see what is more likely... However, it's doesn't matter at all. In some 10-20-30 years from today, the notion of BUNJEVAC as a national identity will not exist any more, because people will understand some things more as years go on...

Do not worry, I did read what those from Croatian national council say, and the comparison of the two views would be like this: one man have name Pera and his neighbour constantly trying to convince him that his name is not Pera but Đoka. :)) Regarding what will be after 20-30 years, we have to wait to see census results from that time period and then I could give you answer to your comment. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatdom of Bunyevs

The official site of Bunyevs gives a lot of information about them - they actually consider that they've been assimilated into Croats and they share a pro-Serbian POV at many places. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, assimilated. As if Batscherland was in Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, as if Danube Banovina had Croat administration only (and as if it later became part of Banovina of Croatia), as if Karageorgevichs, Nikola Pašić, Miklos Horthy and Aleksandar Ranković were hardline Croatian nationalists. Kamarad Walter (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And even more important, it is clearly and factualy shown that after WWII they were prohibited calling themselves Bunjevci and had to be noted down as Croats. --Dultz 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dultz, all leaders of Bunjevacs have expressed before WWII that Bunjevci are Croats (and repeated it many times). Kamarad Walter (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The link about Bunjevs above explains the whole situation. BUNJEVCI ARE NOT CROATS! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 July 2007

Interesting, since the mentioned website is run by a Serbian student and doesn't reflect the whole situation objectively.

If you by word "Serbian" consider a "citizen of Serbia of Bunjevac ethnicity" then why he would not spoke objectively about his people? There is certainly no logic in that. PANONIAN (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I expressed myself clearly enough so that there shouldn't be any room left for your deliberate interpretations. The mentioned website is as objective as your stance on the whole issue.

But the mentioned web site is made by Bunjevci themselves. So, you want to say that Bunjevci do not speak objectively about themselves? PANONIAN 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part of my previous posts didn't you understand? Maybe it's because you edited them and removed the part which included the term "Greater Serbian propaganda"? I'm sorry to tell you, but you Sir, are a hypocrite. Any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

This exactly was my point: usage of words like "Greater Serbian propaganda" (in the case when you speak about things INSIDE Serbia???!!!) and "hypocrite" are examples of non-civilized behaviour that damage the image about this web site. PANONIAN 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this article

I have come upon this article while looking at some videos at YouTube, what I found annyoing in this article is that concentrates heavily on Bunjevci community living in Vojvodina and Hungary. Bunjevci don't live just in those places but in Croatia also, in fact we can say most Bunjevci actually live in Croatia (Lika, Dalmatia, Slavonia) and some even in Herzegovina. The main issue as the article says, they don't register as a separate ethnic or sub-ethnic group. Now I have modified this text to state these things, I have no problem with Bunjevci who declare as separate ethnic group in Vojvodina but this article is about all Bunjevci not just about them. Majority of Bunjevci delcare as Croats, including those living in Vojvodina and Hungary. --No.13 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do not have data about exact number of Bunjevci who live in Croatia. And also, the fact that they declare themselves as Croats today does not mean that they are of Croatian origin. For example, Alba Kuntić (he himself an Bunjevac) in his book named "Bunjevci" (Sombor, 1998) claim that Bunjevci are descendants of Orthodox Serbs from Kosovo who later moved from Kosovo to Dalmatia and Lika where they were converted to Catholic Christianity. PANONIAN 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I couldn't care less what someone claims, I am sick of that "Catholic Serbs" crap about Croats. We know for a fact most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats, wheter it is Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary. Even in Serbia (Vojvodina) we could say most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats. This article should reflect that. If you want to create a separate article or section about those who consider themselves separate ethnic group you are welcome to do so. --No.13 09:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We do not speak here about Croats, but about Bunjevci and I just told you what an Bunjevac said about it - he is certainly more relevant to say something about his origin than you. Also, we do not know that "most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats" because we do not have exact data how many Bunjevci live in Croatia. Claim that "most Bunjevci in Croatia consider themselves Croats" would be possibly correct and acceptable, but you cannot say that for all Bunjevci if you do not have exact data about their number. For example, in Serbia, most of them do not consider themselves Croats because there is larger number of those who declare themselves as Bunjevci/Yugoslavs/Hungarians than number of those who declare themselves as Croats. Also in Hungary, Bunjevci were magyarized and it is likely that most of them declare themselves as Hungarians. So, the claim that "most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats" is correct only in the case of Croatia. PANONIAN 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
When we speak about Bunjevci we are speaking also about a sub-ethnic group of Croats. A person who declares himself an ethnic Bunjevac doesn't have a monopoly on say who or what Bunjevci are. And please read ore carefully, most people who consider themselves Croats in Hungary are in fact Bunjevci and in minor part Šokci. All Bunjevci in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia consider themselves Croats. This leads us to a logical conclusion - most Bunjevci are Croats. Those who declare as separate ethnic Bunjevci or even those who live in Vojvodina don't have the monopoly on the issue of Bunjevci. Clearer? Bunjevci live in other places too besides Vojvodina and there they almost 100% declare as Croats. This is not an article about Bunjevci in Vojvodina, this article is about Bunjevci in general. --No.13 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that most people who consider themselves Croats in Hungary are Bunjevci - Bunjevci mostly live in Hungarian part of Bačka, but in Hungarian part of Baranja there is mostly Šokac population (You also forgeting those Bunjevci in Hungarian part of Bačka who today consider themselves Hungarians - in fact we would be much more correct if we say that most Bunjevci today consider themselves Hungarians because very large number of them was magyarized and they still have their characteristic Slavic surnames. Also, where is data that show how many Bunjevci live in Croatia or Bosnia? For Serbia we have more or less exact data about Bunjevac population in Subotica and from this data we cannot conclude that "most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotica#Ethnic_groups_in_the_municipality PANONIAN 10:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also may I ask what is the base for the claim Goran Bunjevčević is Bunjevac? AFAIK he is Serb from Croatia, possibly even from a mixed Serbian-Croatian marriage. Despite his name which might suggest his origin I doubt this man declares as Bunjevac at any level, there are many Horvat(h)'s in Slovenia and Hungary yet they can hardly be called Croats. --No.13 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panonian's rationale

You say: 1. we do not know that "most declare as Croats" since we do not have exact data about their number in Croatia and Hungary, and 2. there are Bunjevci who consider themselves Serbs

1. Do have the exact numbers of Bunjevci in Serbia (Vojvodina) as well? The answer is no. Following a logical deduction if most (or absolutly all) Bunjevci in Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina declare as Croats and at least 50% of them declare as Croats in Vojvodina, Serbia (though I am ready to argue the percentage is higher than that), we come to the conclusion most Bunjevci declare as Croats. 2. Where are those Bunjevci who consider themselves Serbs? Please show me one. --No.13 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We have more-less exact data about Bunjevac populations in Serbia for region in which they live. For example in Subotica municipality, we have 16,688 Croats, 16,254 Bunjevci, 8,562 Yugoslavs, and 57,092 Hungarians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotica#Ethnic_groups_in_the_municipality If you count together all these Bunjevci that declared themselves as Bunjevci/Yugoslavs/Hungarians, you can see that their number is larger than number of those who declare themselves as Croats. Also, if you look data from 1910 census about Subotica municipality, you will see that only 39 people in this municipality declared Croatian language as opposed to about 33,390 who declared Bunjevac or 55,587 who declared Hungarian: http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=B%E1cs-Bodrog Also, as I said, in Hungary, most of Bunjevci were magyarized and they rather declare themselves as Hungarians than as Croats or Bunjevci. Also, regarding one Bunjevac who consider himself Serb (you asked for one, right?), I will mention again Alba Kuntić, who in his book named "Bunjevci" claims that Bunjevci are subgroup of Serbs. PANONIAN 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On what exactly do you base your argumentation that all those who live in Subotica muncipality are in fact of Bunjeac descent? IMO your claim is in the domain of science fiction as you have absolutly nothing to base it on. I don't care about their origin or how the state administration numbered them, I am interested only in contemporary factual state. Now, we know for a fact that all Bunjevci who live in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are Croats, we know that huge majority of those who declare as Croats in Hungary are also Bunjevci (those who are Hungarians of Bunjevac descent have assimilated long ago and have no awarness of their origins) and we have almost 60,000 Croats in Vojvodina of whom at least one third are of Bunjevac origin (an estimate of mine). The conclusion is obvious to anyone - most Bunjevci are Croats. Now I repeat, if you wish to start an article about the separate ethnic group Bunjevci or about Bunjevci of Vojvodina in general start another article or make a separate section about them, do not monopolize this article. Oh and please tell me more about this Alba Kuntić? How do you know he declares a "Serb Bunjevac"? And please show me where he does it. --No.13 10:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your question - for whom exactly in Subotica municipality you claim that he is not of Bunjevac descent? I do not say that all Hungarians or Yugoslavs there are of Bunjevac descent, but if (for example) 1,000 Hungarians and 1,000 Yugoslavs are of Bunjevac descent (and there are lot more than this), their number together with number of declared Bunjevci is larger than number of declared Croats. It is you who insist that Bunjevac is not only who declare himself as such, but everybody who is of Bunjevac descent, and in that case we simply have to count these Yugoslavs and Hungarians of Bunjevac descent. Regarding base for my claim, it is enough that somebody look telephone directory of Subotica where he will find numerous Hungarians with Bunjevac surnames. And the fact that you "do not care for something" is irrelevant because if you want to edit this article, you will have to care. Also, we do not know for "a fact that all Bunjevci who live in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are Croats" because we do not have any data about it (you cannot prove that nobody of them do not declare as "Yugoslav" or "Bosnian"). Also, the claim that "those Bunjevci who are Hungarians of Bunjevac descent have assimilated long ago and have no awarness of their origins" could be also used in the case of Croats in this form: "those Bunjevci who are Croats of Bunjevac descent have assimilated long ago and have no awarness of their origins". In another words, if you use "descent issue" in the case of Croats of Bunjevac origin you have to use it in the case of Hungarians of Bunjevac origin as well. Also, "one third of Vojvodina Croats of Bunjevac origin" is still not larger than number of Bunjevci in Vojvodina who do not declare themselves as Croats in census (besides Bunjevci/Yugoslavs/Hungarians I forgot to mention those that declared themselves as Vojvodinians or that did not declared their nationality at all). In another words, knowing these facts, we cannot conclude that most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats. Regarding separate article issue, the question whether such separate article would exist is not related to the question what should be written in this article and claim that "most Bunjevci declare themselves as Croats" cannot be proved or confirmed and not only that, but in the case of Serbian census from 2002 and Hungarian census from 1910 such claim is largelly disapproved. Regarding Alba Kuntić, since he claim in his book that Bunjevci are subgroup of Serbs, it is logical that we assume that he consider himself Serb. And what exactly you want to know about him? PANONIAN 10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that you are right, your rationale only works for Vojvodina, it doesn't work for Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary. Also the fact no one declares as separate Bunjevac ethnic in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina means they all consider themselves Croats, in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Bunjevci are only ethnic sub-group. Anyway Bunjevac who are Croats are not assimilated, they are both Bunjevac and Croats. Look for examples in Montenegro where there are Serbs who are at the same time both Montenegrins and Serbs. Bunjevci who are Croats don't have to and didn't have to assimilate into anything. I repeat to you in hope you will actually read it this time, Bunjevci don't live just in Vojvodina but in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary where they almost by consensus are Croats. Only Vojvodina has a specific case where a certain group consider itself separate group. Now since we both agree that their numbers are unknown as in Vojvodina so in general as well we must take from another point of view and that is generalization. From such point of view we look where it is all where Bunjevci live and we look at how they declare, since all Bunjevci in Croaia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declare as Croats and since huge majority of them in Hungary declare as Croats and since in Vojvodina at least 33% to above 50% declare as Croats we come to a conclusion - most Bunjevci are Croats. Also your example with the phonebook is humorous. And regarding this Mr.Kuntić, you'll have to a lot better than that. --No.13 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why you repeat "most Bunjevci are Croats" like a parrot? This is not Croatian parliament or Dinamo football match but place where you have to prove your statements, not just to repeat them to death. And did you proved it? No, you did not. You did not presented any data about Bunjevac populations in Croatia and Bosnia and since we do not have this data we cannot conclude anything about "most Bunjevci". The only way in which we can say something about "all Bunjevci" would be to have exact data about their populations in all 4 countries from which we would see how many of them declare themselves as Croats, Bunjevci, Hungarians, etc, etc. At the present momment, we have only partial data about Bunjevac populations in different countries and from this data we can say something only about Bunjevac populations within each country, without saying anything about "all Bunjevci". Of course, it would be correct that most Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia declare themselves as Croats, but for Serbia and for Hungary that would not be the case. Also, the fact that Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia do not declare themselves as Bunjevci does not mean that "they all consider themselves Croats" because there are people in these countries who consider themselves Yugoslavs and Bosnians and some of these Bunjevci could declare themselves as such (as I said, most of those in Croatia and Bosnia might consider themselves Croats, but not "all"). Also Bunjevci who are Croats ARE assimilated because historical data from Austro-Hungarian censuses show that Bunjevci in the past did not considered themselves Croats, thus for them, the adoption of Croat identity was same as assimilation. Also, the fact that only in Vojvodina Bunjevci managed to keep their identity just show the fact that they were not exposed to such agressive croatization such was the case in Croatia or Bosnia. And I do not see connection with Montenegro because Montengrins are descendants of Serbs who gained separate ethnic identity, while Bunjevci are group that originally had separate ethnic identity, but some members of this group were assimilated into Croats. Regarding phone book, why it would be humorous? - it can very well show how many people of Bunjevac origin today really live in Subotica. And what exactly you do not understand about Alba Kuntić? PANONIAN 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be offensive, I have not offended you so all I ask is the same attitude from you. I have already presented you why the statements "most Bunjevci are Croats" is true. Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina consider themselves Croats, Bunjevci in Hungary mostly consider themselves Croats and great part of Bunjevci in Vojvodina consider themselves Croats. Thus the statement is true. Bunjevci are not assimilated into Croats, it is their natural designation, Bunjevci come from the region where Croats are to this day absolute majority (almost 100%) and from the areas which are today part of Croatia and are traditional stronghold of Croatian identity. They are people who are descendants of Croats who migrated from Herzegovina and Dalmatia to northern Croatia, Vojvodina and Hungary and to that degree they are similar to Montenegrins. Some of them today have separate ethnic identity. Aggresive croatization in Austria-Hungary? How would that be when Austria-Hungary opposed Croats and sought to break them in smaller pieces to control and assimilate them better, the same what was later done by Serbian goverment in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. If anything they would be put under agressive anti-croatization. I have also answered you why the phonebook example is ridiculous, you can't judge people by their surnames only by their awarness and conviction. Regarding Mr.Kuntić you didn't answer my question, show me where did he declare himself as a Serb.--No.13 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not insulting you - I am not guilty because you behave like parrot and repeat "most Bunjevci are Croats" over and over (you repeated that in your previous post as well). And you did not showed that this stetement is true because you did not presented data about number of Bunjevci who live in Croatia and Bosnia. Regarding "natural designation" issue, all ethnic designations are artificial, i.e. they exist only in minds of people. The point is if Bunjevci in the past had in their minds only idea that they are Bunjevci and today some of them have idea that they are Croats that mean that they were assimilated into idea of Croatism. Regarding area from where Bunjevci came, do not forget the fact that some historical sources claim that all South Slavic Catholics that live in the east of rivers Vrbas and Cetina are Serbs by origin, thus the fact that they today consider themselves Croats do not say anything about their origin. Croat identity was introduced to this population relativelly recently. Regarding aggressive Croatization of Bunjevci, it did not occured during Austria-Hungary, but during Yugoslavia (in the last Austro-Hungarian census from 1910 you can see that number of Bunjevci who considered themselves Croats was negligible). And there was no "Serbian goverment in Kingdom of Yugoslavia" because Serbia did not existed in this time. Regarding phonebook, I am sorry, but if we do not speak about all people of Bunjevac origin, then we would conclude that only those who declared themselves as Bunjevci in census are really Bunjevci. You insist that we say that Croats of Bunjevac origin are also Bunjevci, so I do not see why we cannot say that for Yugoslavs or Hungarians of Bunjevac origin. As for Kuntić, I did not saw his census list, but the fact that he said in his book that Bunjevci are subgroup of Serbs means that he consider himself Serb. PANONIAN 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Panonian I didn't say you were guilty, please just calm down. I am saying that if Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina consider themselves Croats, and if those in southern Hungary (great part of them) consider themselves Croats and if those in Serbia also consider themselves Croats then we can safely assume the majority of Bunjevci (or most of them) declare as Croats. We don't have the exact numbers and that is why we must assume this position. Also I have yet to see historical sources which claim they were "Catholic Serbs", honestly that sounds like something that come out straight out from the Serbian Radical Party workshop. Croatization in Kingdom of Yugoslavia? You mean Croatiazion was promoted in a state-dictaroship controled by Serbs? Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a dictatorship especially brutal and oppressive for the Croats and you claim they were promoting Croatization?! Thats one big joke, right? As for Mr.Kuntić you have again failed to prove your statement. That is your personal opinion Panonian.

Also I made it clear I am satisfied with the changes introduced so why continue this? You don't have to prove to me anything. I have my opinion, you have yours, why not leave it at that? --No.13 09:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are talking is a complete trash. Bunjevac people are Bunjevac, and they are NOT Croats. I know many Bunjevac persons, who are offended to be called 'Croats'. Ha, ha, It's killing you, but that's a fact. Panonian does a good work on wikipedia and no intrudors like you can make him different in his noble work here. Long live Panonian and the true facts on wikipedia. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Panonian

I am content with the minor changes introduced. The article is now more neutral and doesn't concentrates itself exclusively on Bunjevci from Vojvodina. This discussion is over as far as I see it. --No.13 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Antonović

Who's Ivan Antonović? Google gives no results [1]. The first "Ivan Antonović", that has something with Bunjevci, is from your edit, Panonian, on the article from English Wikipedia. Kamarad Walter 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw man, he studied the Bunyevs! See The Croatian Bunjevci over at Croatian History. --PaxEquilibrium 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguished Bunjevci

  • After a query, nobody has provided any further evidence that Goran Bunjevčević is in fact a Bunjevac. As he was not born in Bačka or declared himself to be Bunjevac, and I haven't found any other references to this fact, I think it is best to remove this claim until further evidence. --Nylad 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Antun Gustav Matoš was not a Bunjevac, he was a Šokac from Syrmia, where he was born in the village of Tovarnik. Matoš is also a Bunjevac surname, but it is also found in among Šokci in Syrmia - you can look it up e.g. in Serbian 'White Pages' [2]. --Nylad 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Matoš told for himself that he's Bunjevac by origin (""Bunjevac porijeklom, Srijemac rodom, a Zagrepčanin odgojem""). His father was a teacher, that came from Bunjevac family from village of Plavna (in Bačka), and his mother is from city of Našice in Croatia. By birth, Matoš is from Syrmia (born in Tovarnik). Later he lived in Zagreb etc. Kamarad Walter (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The only support I have found for the claim that Josif Pančić was a Bunjevac is that his surname might be derived from Pandžić, that surname then is supposed to have come from a single villagein Bosnia or Herzegovina, which in turn is hypothesised to be the region from which Bunjevci hail. Pančić and Pandžić is not the same thing, even if it were, the fact that Pandžić is a derivation of pandža -- an ordinary word for claw or paw -- and a surname in various different regions, makes the claim that all people with the surname share the same origins less probable. Pančić was born in Vinodol, a Chakavian dialect region, not Ikavian Shtokavian like Bačka Bunjevci dialect and dialects of all other regions historically supposed to be inhabited by Bunjevci. Also I didn't find a reference that Pančić ever identified himself as Bunjevac. So I think it is best to remove this claim until further evidence. --Nylad 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Amen to that. Thanks for fact-checking and cleanup. Duja► 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)