Talk:Zelenaši

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't understand why putting "Montenegrin Serb" on every single Montenegro-related article that predates 1945!; it implies as if they all belonged to a national minority (that's what's "Montenegrin Serb", just like "Croatian Serb" or "Bosnian Serb"). And there's no such case - they were all Serbs before, and did not belong to one of the peoples of Montenegro. Just put "Montenegrin" or "Serb" (the first one, rather).

BTW Methodius is right Bob, some of the Greens were known for their overexcessed, even violent, Serbian ultra-nationalism (Serbian Radicals, the kind that outburst in the 1990s), completely contrary to the Whites. --PaxEquilibrium 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you and I understand all Montenegrins were Serbs back in the day. However, that is a simple fact for me, like 1+1=2. For the casual reader, everything has to made obvious. Yes it does make them sound like a minority in their own land, but the alternative gives a reader unacquainted with the subject matter the impression that they are foreigners in their own land (i.e. not Serbs at all). If we didn't put Montnegrin Serb, many readers (including many modern "Montenegrins" sadly) would think it was interethnic, whereas the conflict was political and intraethnic.--Methodius 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, "Montenegrin Serb" is fallacious. --PaxEquilibrium 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I, as a descendant of Montenegrin zelenaši and komite, am pretty well acquainted with the subject. If the Greens were such Serb patriots, why the hell would they oppose the unification then? They started as the supporters of King Nikola, but their movement radicalized up to WWII, when they were fighting for the independence, supported by Italy. Anyway, if even Pax told you "Serb Montenegrins", I think there is no point for prolonging this discussion anymore. Sideshow Bob 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

They opposed because Serbia totally diminished Montenegrin glory as the true fighter for national liberation and unification of Serbs.

After settling finally that sadly its younger baby-brother took over all its eternal 500-year fame:

a) They wanted Montenegro to be de facto autonomous within Serbia; "de facto" only for the cause of mentioning existence of an entity "Montenegro" and that HRH Nikola rules (but with no power in effect) as local King and that the royal dynasty prevails (just like Japan at the end of WWII, the preservation of the Monarchy at all costs)

b) They demanded that the Serbian Patriarchal title belongs only to the Montenegrin Metropolinates (yes, those that MOC *claims* it recreated). They demanded that the Metropolitans move to Pec, which, as the medieval Serbian Orthodox Church seat, would be in Montenegro (independent or at least de facto autonomous).

The Greens supported (just like Nikola said) that the "Serbians are not worthy Serbs", and that Belgrade corrupted Pan-Serbian all-assimilating plight will eventually bring down not only a unified Serbian state, but also entire Yugoslavia (and they were right, even up to this day).

In the end, this should not even be strange to anyone, considering that before 1945 practically every single Montenegrin was a Serbian patriot and/or nationalist, and that's not just a stereotype. ;) So any fighting about t'is is worthless... and should end before it begins.

Oh, and that "even"... what is that supposed to mean? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, even Sekula Drljevic was a Serbian nationalist (and if he was...).

Sideshow Bob, why do you consider the fascimiles biased? --PaxEquilibrium 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sekula Drljevic Serb nationalist? :) Where did you get that from? Also, where did I say facsimiles are biased, you lost me on that one...

And about even - You and me hardly ever agree on something, and when both of us are claiming the same thing, there is a very good chance for it to be right. :) Sideshow Bob 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I'm stubborn, but I'll also admit one thing - whenever people claim something, I search the arguments of the "other side", because I feel it's jeopardized and defend it. It might sometimes seem that me and you disagree, but AFAIK it's not (only defending the "other cause", whatever that was). And AFAIK, if you just see through, you will notice that we hardly had any "fights". ;) Except that time when you appeared on wiki, when your actions were not quite nice (but duh, it's beginners' beginning, you'd be surprised that my first edits to wiki more than a year ago would seem very much like trolling, so there's nothing new there; beginners catch on in a few weeks [or months, in my case] and all is well). :) --PaxEquilibrium 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in 1918 he supported the Podgorica Assembly and around 1919 was a strong supporter "all of us Serbs unite, but conditionally, in a nice way". He also made similar arguments, as the Montenegrin Federalist Party was over the years losing its "Serbian character", but not completely. ;) However the last time he mentioned "Serb" is, if I recall, sometime in 1938. Later on after 1941, I remember reading his statements that yes, Montenegrins are Serbs, but only because they were Serbianized, and in 1944 (when he was in Zagreb), he just said Montenegrins were Croats brainwashed by Serbs.

This is the main reason why the Serbian Radicals (Aleksandar Vucic) on one occasion claimed: "The only nationalists in Montenegro are Serbian nationalists as seen always through history; those nationalists that try not to be Serbian nationalists have to search a foreign nationalism, like Croatian, always the one opposing Serbian ideology, as a domestic Montenegrin nationalism is - impossible, as seen in WWII and today with DANU". He actually used this as a "proof" for the fabrication of the Montenegrin nation separate from Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critika1

As I understood, the Greens were quite volatile Serbian nationalists, in contrast to the civic non-national whites... (today it's vice-versa, the pro-Montenegrins are for severing links with Serbia and pro-Serbs for a united state with Serbia ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 13:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So the fierce Serb nationalists wanted Montenegro to have the key role in the unification of South Slavs, but the civic, non-nationalist group wanted Montenegro to be annexed by Serbia? It might be just me, but I don't see any sense in that claim...(Not to mention that Greens/komite were resurrected in WWII in a struggle to create an independent Montenegro). Sideshow Bob 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you understand the ";0)" at the end of my sentence. Basically, it's not logic at all. Then also keep on mind that the greatest Serbian nationalists in Serbia became collaborators for the Nazis, with the somewhat moderate ones joining the Chetniks.

I think the point is that nationalism is never rational. Tomorrow Serbian nationalists might commit genocide with an attempt to exterminate all Belgraders, Croatian nationalist could decide to blow up Zagreb... anyway, I think we've just saw similar examples in WWII... not sure if it's more disgusting or tragic... and no one says leading whites weren't Serbian nationalists too, to an extent. --PaxEquilibrium 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Grb petrovic njegosa.jpg

Image:Grb petrovic njegosa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)