Ex-rebel Leader Elected Kosovo PM

BBC World News ^ | 12-03-04 | BBC

[GeraldP]

"The basis of the map is the situation around 1910"

[DTA]

I can recommend site specializing in type of history you are interested in.

There are many experts there who claim that Alexander the Great and Ptolemys of Egypt were Albanian dynasty

I have no inclination to such type of literature, cold facts are good enough for me.

Speaking of the map above, it is enough to see distribution of Greeks (e.g. Smyrna) to see that something is wrong with the map.

Map was made in 1923, allegedly use data from 'around 1910' yet show 1910 data inconsistently.

[DTA]

Gerald, here is a sample what can be found in historical atlasses. I understand it is painful to look but you are grown up man. If you can't you can always revert to the dreams of imagined glorious past.

EUROPE AROUND AD 800. No Albanians in sight.

EUROPE IN AD 900:

CRUSADES:

EUROPE IN AD 1200

BOUNDARIES OF SERBIA IN THE MIDDLE AGES:

DISSOLVING OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

LONDON CONFERENCE AND BUCHAREST TREATY:

KOSOVO BORDERS:

BALKAN BORDERS 1917

[DTA]

Gerald, here is a sample what can be found in historical atlasses. I understand it is painful to look but you are grown up man. If you can't you can always revert to the dreams of imagined glorious past.

EUROPE AROUND AD 800. No Albanians in sight.

EUROPE IN AD 900:

CRUSADES:

EUROPE IN AD 1200

BOUNDARIES OF SERBIA IN THE MIDDLE AGES:

DISSOLVING OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

LONDON CONFERENCE AND BUCHAREST TREATY:

KOSOVO BORDERS:

BALKAN BORDERS 1917

[GeraldP]

DTA, you talked about hard facts, yet you come back with nothing. We are talking ethnographic boundaries here, yet you show me historical geopolitical maps. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference between the two.

Since you seem to know little about history, besides whatever propaganda you are regurgitating back from srpska-mreza.com, let me give you a quick summary.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Albania came under the administration of the Byzantine Empire up until the Ottomans gained their final foothold in the Balkans. Skenderbeg was able to establish an Albanian entity, but this lasted no more than 70 years, and after that Albania was under the occupation of the Ottomans until 1912. Thus as you should well be aware of, historical geopolitical maps show no Albania except for those around the 15th century.

Here you go wiseguy:









Europe Historical Maps

[GeraldP]

[DTA]

GeraldP,

Due to printing limitations, demographic maps may or may not represent the actual historical facts. For example, territory with 51% of Vulcans can be represented with the same solid color as territory with 80% Vulcans thus giving impression that only Vulcans inhabited the whole area.

That is the case with your map showing Shqiptars inhabiting whole of south Serbia way up to Nish "around 1910". You know that this is historical nonsense.

On other hand, historical borders of countries can not be easily manipulated on maps. But this is also possible. Let's first establish the facts.

You say that country under name ALBANIA existed for 70 years before it fell under Ottomans?

You gotta be kidding. INSTITUTE FOR POLICY AND LEGAL STUDIES in Tirana, provided : the following timeline :

1190: Princedom of Arberia (the name of Albania in the Albanian language).

XIV c.: Three independent Albanian Princedoms are created (respectively, of Balshaj, Topia and Gjin Bue Shpata).

1443 – 1468: George Kastriot Skanderbeg leads the Albanian Resistance against the Ottomans. Due to his contributes on protecting Christianity; Pope Clement VI gives Skanderbeg the title of " Champion of Christianity".

1444,Mar.: At Lezha Convention is founded the League of Albanian Princes, a political and military alliance against the Ottomans.

The map you provided is fraudulent. There was no ALBANIA at that time. If there was one, there would be no need for Lezha Convention when principalities congregated.

Applying 19 century romantic view of history and 21 century technology does not work well. Frauds become quickly recognizable.

The playing with the names is the key component of this propaganda ploy. One time, Shqip is the name of the people, and Shqiperia is the name of the country. Next time, it is Arberia. Third time, it is Albania. Then "Albanian" is used to describe anyting belonging to Shqip or Arber or Illyrian.

This bizzare logic is comparable to Italians claiming being descendants of The Incas because Incas lived in Latin America, Latin was the language in Roman Empire and Rome is in Italy.

If you insist on ethnographic maps, here is one for you:

Albanians were mentioned for the first time in 1081

Ask the Turks where ARNAVUT ("those who did not come back") lived at that time.

[GeraldP]

"1190: Princedom of Arberia (the name of Albania in the Albanian language).

XIV c.: Three independent Albanian Princedoms are created (respectively, of Balshaj, Topia and Gjin Bue Shpata).

1443 – 1468: George Kastriot Skanderbeg leads the Albanian Resistance against the Ottomans. Due to his contributes on protecting Christianity; Pope Clement VI gives Skanderbeg the title of " Champion of Christianity".

1444,Mar.: At Lezha Convention is founded the League of Albanian Princes, a political and military alliance against the Ottomans."

Unless you are dealing with an empire, such as Servia or Byzantium, the only other way to define a nation in this time period, is a number of princedoms such as the ones mentioned above. It is then quite correct to define a region named Albania based on these princedoms. The fact that they came together under a common cause, is a tribute to Skenderbeg's leadership.

Now, how do we know that the people of Albania at the time were Albanians, as we define them today? Quite simple - a large percentage of the population fled across the Adriatic to Italy and populated many villages, a number of which still maintain the Byzantine rite to this day, and speak a form of archaic Albanian, 5 centuries removed from modern Albanian.

As I mentioned before, they do not call their language Shqip or themselves Shqiptar. Their ethnonym is Arbresh, same as it was 5 centuries ago. This along with the archaic Albanian spoken in Greece, Arvanitika, indicate that Shqiperia, Shqip, Shqiptar are recent linguistic developments. Now the term Arberia is much closer to the accepted origin "Albanoi" then the Turkish "Arnavut". In fact the alternative would make no sense, why would Albanians adopt a term used by the Ottomans, whom they had had only less than a hundred years of contact with?

Thus, if one accepts the Albanoi origin then the natural evolution of names for the Albanian people is evident. Illyrian (Albanoi) -> Arber (Arvanite, Arbanasi, Albanian) -> Shqiptar

http://www.foia.state.gov/MMS/postrpt/pr_view_all.asp?CntryID=1
http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/balkan/ehamp.html
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Louvre/6820/albania1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites
http://www.uoc.edu/euromosaic/web/document/albanes/an/i1/i1.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/icurkovic/Arbanasi.html
http://www.omda.bg/imir/studies/alban_id1.html

[DTA]

GeraldP,

I am not disputing Geographical name Albania in antiquity, you are pulling straw man argument here. Equating ancient georgaphical term Albania with modern day Albania and Illyrians with present day Albanians is the same as if equating ancient Egypt to present day Egypt and claiming that Arabs living in Egypt are ancient Egyptians.

We must differentiate between "PEOPLE", "NATION", ANCIENT GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES and PRESENT DAY COUNTRIES. Mixing them up is either sign of poor faculty or deliberate obfuscation.

"PEOPLE" is community of individuals defined by the common language, blood lines, ancestry, heritage and shared values). "NATION" is entity of politicallly organized citzens of a state.

Although sometimes overlapping, the terms are not synonims. Distinction between 'people' and 'nation' is somewhat blurred in English language so less educated can not grasp the difference. Like in Orwell's newspeak, if there is no term, idea can not be communicated.

The main difference is that People can not be created out of political will, while nations can, with a strike of a pen. Nations also can be erased with a strike of a pen while peoples have to be assimilated or murdered.

There are several cases to consider:

1. In U.K. English, Welsh and Scots are peoples and they formed British nation. Every U.K. citizen is Briton, but not every Briton is Englisman. This is easy to understand. In the middle ages, there was no British nation, because the nation is concept of modern age. Nor there was Great Britain as a state. Yet, there was a Britain as a geographical term, as well as Brittany in neighboring France.

2. In France, French nation was created in modern age of French people and minorities who are not French (e.g. Corsicans). There was no French nation in the middle ages, there were only French people and other people living in France.

3. There was no Italian nation in the middle ages, nor there was a country called Italy. There were only peoples of similar ancestry living in GEOGRAPHICAL Italy in numerous principalities and kingdoms.

4. In Central Europe, German people live in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Yet, German people living in Germany belong to German nation and German living in Switzerland are members of Swiss nation. Remember HItler's "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Fuehrer." He did not say "Ein nation, ein Fuehrer", his intention was to be Fuehrer of all Germans, regardless of their nationality.

There was no German nation in the middle ages, there was no single country called GERMANY, there were many principalities populated by German people. Yet there was geographic GERMANIA in ancient times.

5. There was Serb people in the middle ages and Serbian state. But there was no Serbian nation in the middle ages. Serbian nation was 19century creation, in the process similar to Mazzini's Italian project.

I hope that you now understand that Albanian NATION could not exist in The Middle Ages because THE CONCEPT OF NATION did not exist at that time.

Albania was created in 1913. Shqiptars living in Albania are part of Albanian nation. Others who are not Shqiptars (Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Turks, Tzinzars) are also members of Albanian nation, but are not Shqiptars.

And here is where the name trick and logical fallacy kicks in. Albania is called Albania for external use only while it is called Shqiperia for internal use. All non-Shqiptars are forced to declare themselves as Shqiptars, and they are not. It is the same as if Serbia forced Shqiptars to call themselves Serbs. And guess what, Shqiptars in Serbia call themselves ALBANIANS while speaking to outside world, and call themselves Shqiptars when speaking among themselves.

The problem was that in the last 90 years in albania All of them got killed or assimiliated, so according to CIA factbook there is no more than 2% of Non-Shqiptars living in Albania today although they comprised almost 50% of Albania population in 1913.

These are the facts.

I do not dispute that principalities in present day Albania were populated by Shqiptars around 1400. I dispute the map which bundles principalities together under same border and fraudulently call this country Albania because it is not true. It is the same as if AD 1400 showed German principalities bundled together and called GERMANY, England, Scotland bundled together and called Great Britain and Kingdoms and principalities on The Apenines bundled together and called ITALY.

I do not dispute that the name ALBANIA existed in ancient manuscripts. it was GEOGRAPHICAL TERM like Macedonia, Germania, or Illyria.

What I dispuite is the fraudulent equation of use of terms ALBANIA in ancient times and ALBANIA today to mix up the difference and brzen claim that Shqiptar=Illyrian=Albanian

I also dispute the use of the term NATION in the middle ages. It is as if we describe stones thrown with catapults as UAVs and then write of the role of air power supremacy in the middle age military strategy.

I also dispute the drawing conclusion by homonymic similarity.

One of the funnier examples is when Shqiptars figured out that their "Kosova" claim is ridiculous to any Slavic or German speaking person (Kosovo Polje/Amselfeld), they tried to explain that Kosovo comes from Shqip word "kos" meaning - yoghurt. Sort of English claiming the name of Croatian port Split comes from "banana split".

This mess was concocted by the Austrians in 19th century. I must admit that this hoax was masterfully pulled off and very well executed during the times of Enver Hohxa and Ramiz Alia. Kadare is boring as writer but he did an excellent job of disseminating fraud and innoculating varius history departments in the West.

Many people will not read the fine print. But some people read the fine print first. That is what this historical fraud is all about.

[GeraldP]

>>>And here is where the name trick and logical fallacy kicks in. Albania is called Albania for external use only while it is called Shqiperia for internal use. All non-Shqiptars are forced to declare themselves as Shqiptars, and they are not. It is the same as if Serbia forced Shqiptars to call themselves Serbs. And guess what, Shqiptars in Serbia call themselves ALBANIANS while speaking to outside world, and call themselves Shqiptars when speaking among themselves.

I feel like I am talking to a brick wall here, so I will repeat it for a third and final time and hope it might sink in. "Shqiptar" is a term that has only been used for 2-3 centuries. Prior to that Albanians refered to themselves as Arber, thus the name used by foreigners and the name used by Albanians themselves coincided and still do for the Arbresh, Arvanites and Arbanasi.
There was no such thing as Shqip or Shqiptar in 1400, the ethnonym was Arber.

>>>What I dispuite is the fraudulent equation of use of terms ALBANIA in ancient times and ALBANIA today to mix up the difference and brzen claim that Shqiptar=Illyrian=Albanian

The term is first used by Ptolemy and pertained to the Illyrian tribe Albanoi. Today's Albanian is the offspring of Illyrian with a significant influence from Thracian (read the linguistic studies,I gave a link to a good one above and here's another one that argues for a completely Thracian origin instead http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/vg/vg.html ).

This is what you're aiming at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/albanians.html

[DTA]

GeraldP,

You say "Shqiptar" is a term that has only been used for 2-3 centuries". That was a good one. Perhaps you should start stand up comedian career:-)

From the document you provided "Even recent history is checkered: Shqiptar first appears in the fourteenth century"

Fourteenth Century was 1301-1400, six to seven hundred years ago.

The most logical explanation of the name "Shqipt-ar" is that it comes from the word SHQIPTIM/SHQIPTOJ =to speak. It is analogous to Slavic people calling themselves SLOVENI (speakers) and calling Germans NEMETZ(mutes, i.e. non-speakers of Slavic language). But of course, idea of SHQIPT-AR coming from the SHQIPONJA (Eagle) instead of SHQIPT-IM/SHQIPT-OJ = speak sounds more romantic and provides more wiggling space for kooky theories.

Your claim that Shqiptar name is 2-3 centuries old is fabrication made on the fly to protect fraudulent claim of noble Illyrian ancestry being exposed.You twist the arguments,like five year old caught with a hand in a cookie jar.

GeraldP, "Illyrian - Albanian" hoax is meant for people who have no knowledge nor ability to crosscheck references. This type of deceit can not stand close examination.

It conforms with Mark Twain's remark that before the truth get out of bed, the lie goes around the world.

Words "Shqiptar" and "Arbresh" do not have any linguistic similarity with "Albanoi". One has to be delusional to find the same root. Because you claim something to be true it does not mean it is true.

But since you prefer delusion to reality, what can I say. It's a free world.

[DTA]

ping post #30-32

[GeraldP]

>>>But since you prefer delusion to reality, what can I say. It's a free world.

Well, I might very well be delusional, after all "reality is merely an illusion". However in this current discussion I feel like I am talking with a little kid, who latches on to something and beats it to death (are we there yet?).
Yes the term "Shqiptar" does appear first in the 14th century, however as I keep explaining over and over and over to you, it is a term that took root only after the emigration of the Arbresh, 17th century at the earliest, 18th by most accounts.

You say Arbresh bears no resemblance to Albanoi? Well, it just goes to show that not everyone can do etymology. Albanoi->Arbani->Arbëri (Arbëni in gheg dialect), hell I'm not a linguist and I can even see it.

So wiseguy... why don't you publish your own paper quoting Mark Twain and comparing the Illyrian-Albanian connection to an Inca-Latin connection, and expose Albanian history for the hoax it is? I am sure you will get quite rich for rectifying this big mistake that virtually all of the world's enyclopedias and history textbooks are making.

[vooch]

Gerald

All this Illyrian obession makes one think that thou protesth too much

BTW - that 1910 linguistic data is from a German nationialist root source - you'll note that according to the data Germans were the majority in vast areas of Eastern Europe and even extending beyond A-L in France.

[GeraldP]

>>> All this Illyrian obession makes one think that thou protesth too much

There are many academic papers out there that raise legitimate arguments regarding Albanian history. As a scientist myself I cherish those, for what is history but a science and a scientist is content with relevant data even when it contradicts his views.

None of the objections expressed so far, however, have anything to do with this quest for knowledge. Rather it is a quest for geopolitical capital, based on nothing more than someone's aversion of anything Albanian/Shqiptar.

[GeraldP]

Personally I agree with this guy:
http://members.aol.com/Plaku/illyrian.htm

[followerofchrist]

I love Mark Twain.

[followerofchrist]

Sometimes ethnic groups break away from the whole because their religion differed slightly. Possibly they originated as a sect of a religion who stuck with themselves and interbred until they were a "people." We see this in today's Mennonite type groups, who are probably a little different ethnically than the whole.

Not a theory, just a thought.

[DTA]

GeraldP,

This guy has nailed it:

"We have to be proud not for what our (often mythic) ancestors have done, but for what WE are doing NOW, in order to prepare a better FUTURE for the next Albanian generations."

This is a statement of true patriot and true nationalist. This kind of thinking would bring prosperity not only to Albania but to the entire Balkans. But how many Albanians except of Anna Oxa subscribe to it? I would say, not many. Seems it is easier to glorify mythic Shqiptar Alexander The Great and mythic Shqiptar Skenderbeg than spend time in working on something gainful. Seems it is more thrilling to quarrel with Greeks, Macedonians and Serbs about appropriated history and create bad blood than spend time in building ecconomic links, culural excnage and Balkan goodwill.

Albania is 90+ years old. It is hell of a lot of time. Albania is slightly younger than Norway and older than Finland. Too much time was spent on building useless bunkers and too much money was spent to propagate Illyrian hoax. If that effort was spent wisely, Albania would look differently today. If there is no rapid mindset change, even oil profits will go into the thin air.

So, I do not know what this discussion was all about. I talk of facts, you talk of myth. This is ASTRONOMY and ASTROLOGY talking. Even in Albania no serious linguist will sign off Illyrian-Albanian connection because Illyrian belonged to CENTUM branch of Proto Indo European LANGUAGE while Albanian belongs to SATEM branch.

is not descendant of

Albania needs a myth. "An Albanian dream" of prosperity, not Albanian dream of past glory that never was to justify present land grab. Insistence of Illyrian myth and recently on Dardanian one in order to exterminate all others in Kosovo leads nowhere but misery to Serbs, Turks, Goranis and Albanians alike.