My own experience has found that ethnic Macedonians are the most yugonostalgic, which might be understandable since 1) they had linguistic autonomy outside the acrimonious quarrel over "Serbo-Croatian", and 2) they avoided the wars. But all this is anecdotal and I can see how others might have very divergent experiences.
I encountered a lot of Yugonostalgia especially amongst the more secular muslims of Bosnia. Hell, I went to a museum that had a photo op for "Your picture with comrade Tito"! https://imgur.com/a/7cMCgjH
Relax nothing will happen to you.
It is fascinating that nationalist Serbs and nationalist Croats think that Yugoslavia was a mistake and benefited the other side?? Someone must be wrong I guess.
Muslims want their own Greater Bosnia, and Republika Srpska to be only a bad memory.
Hence, the patriotism of Serbs in Bosnia is naturally stronger, to counter a threat to the existance of their "entity".
This is true that Ethnic Bosnians want their own state. Also, it's racist to call Bosnians Muslims instead of Bosnians. Please correct yourself.
That was the intention of the people gathered around Bujan Conference [0] during WWII. But their decision was replaced with another one later which was more "marxist".
This is what Kosovo had in Yugoslavia, and this is what Kosovo should have in Serbia, for ethnic Albanians.
Sure, there's different dialects. But most languages that are old enough have those.
Austrian High German is different from German High German is different from Swiss High German.
For example, Austrians refer to bread rolls as "Semmeln", while Germans call them "Brötchen". Austrians tend to avoid the Preterite in spoken language, while Germans use it pretty frequently etc etc.
"Ich holte mir eine Tüte Brötchen" vs "Ich habe mir ein Sackerl Semmeln geholt", for a practical example.
And yet we consider it the same language.
Source: Am Bavarian, we're officially nearly a fourth of Germany and the Austrians talk like we do ;)
More seriously, I couldn't tell you if anything about tenses is written (and differently) in Austrian school books, or if it's just the dialect creeping up.
What I can tell you that your example sounds kinda made up, although of course I know it's proper German.
Also, the M in BCMS is Montenegrin, the latest made-up language, not Macedonian (which is separate). Seems like not even the defenders of linguistic seperatism can keep up with the insanity ;-)
The Torlak dialect of Serbian is so transitional to Bulgarian/Macedonian that it could fairly be called a dialect of the latter. Even outside that dialect, it's not at all unusual to see Macedonians and Serbs in general converse, each person speaking his own language.
Similarly, the Croatian dialect spoken in the northwest of Croatia (which has become increasingly fashionable after independence) is transitional to Slovenian and there is greater mutual intelligibility than with standard Croatian.
Maybe, but it adds no argument to the issue of the same lang vs different langs. There's no clear purely linguistical distinction between dialect and language. As an old joke goes a language is a dialect with an army. In other words when it has a separate political status, and governed by a separate body - it's a language, no matter how similar it to other languages. The reason is that a literary/official language is defined by rules, and as rules are defined by separate entities, existing differences will be preserved, and new will emerge, and multiply eventually.
I'm from Bosnia, and while there are people who pay lip service to the idea that they miss Yugoslavia, in 95% of cases, these same people didn't vote for political parties that wanted to preserve Yugoslavia. Instead, they voted for nationalistic parties. Now that they've been disappointed by those nationalistic dreams (as it turns out, politicians/criminals don't actually care who they are robbing), they say they miss Yugoslavia. However, they still vote for the same political parties that advocated for independence.
> I agree with you on the ethnic Albanians though - they never made sense in Yugoslavia, the state of the South Slavs. Kosovo should be part of Albania and the Serbs need to shut up about it already.
Kosovo was part of Serbia before Yugoslavia came into existence, and it will be again. Last time, it took us a few hundred years to return; this time, it will happen much faster.
Go back to your nationalistic hole and learn history. Are you going to say Bosnia should be part of Greater Serbia? Maybe Bosnian Kings want their region back (Serbia). In any case stay away from here spewing nationalistic garbage.
By the way, regarding Bosnian kings, here's[0] the first Bosnian king, Stephen Tvrtko I, who claimed to be the heir of Serbia's Nemanjić dynasty. According to the same Wikipedia article:
> In early 1377, Tvrtko successfully plotted with the Travunians to take over Trebinje, Konavli, and Dračevica, marking his final conquests of the Serbian lands.
So, it appears that Serbs lived in that area long before Bosnia had its first king.
Bosnians in Bosnia called themselves and still do Bosnians but do omit the "dobri" these days.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C5%A1njani The term good Bosnian (dobri Bošnjanin / добри Бошњанин) was not a geographical reference for the inhabitants along the Bosna River, but it was referred to the population of the entire medieval Bosnia, regardless of religion, which can be seen in various charters of the 14th and 15th centuries during the reign of ban Stjepan II Kotromanić, ban Tvrtko I Kotromanić, King Stjepan Ostoja, etc. In these charters, Bosnian rulers mention good Bosniaks as witnesses.[4
> In early 1377, Tvrtko successfully plotted with the Travunians to take over Trebinje, Konavli, and Dračevica, marking his final conquests of the Serbian lands.
This is exactly what I said, Bosnian King Tvrtko, you omit the part of Tvrtko being Bosnian, living in Bosnia speaking Bosnian language conquered Serbia. Do Bosnians get Serbia now?
No one, except for you, has mentioned 'dobri.' Furthermore, you seem to have overlooked the fact that Tvrtko considered himself the heir of the Nemanjić dynasty, which was Serbian.
Interestingly, you also assert that Tvrtko conquered a part of Serbia, specifically Trebinje, which is now part of Bosnia. I'm not sure this supports your argument very effectively.
Bosnians speak of themselves as Bosnians, that's it. Bosnians have been in Bosnia from time immemorial, as long as there were people in Bosnia they called themselves Bosnians.
>No one, except for you, has mentioned 'dobri.' 'Dobri' meaning 'good', is what Bosnians were described by others and still do. >Furthermore, you seem to have overlooked the fact that Tvrtko considered himself the heir of the Nemanjić dynasty, which was Serbian. Tvrtko declared himself heir of Nemanjic dynasty to secure his position.
No one wins with this endless reaching back in to history. if you search long and hard enough everyone can find some valid (well, "valid") reason to be upset with pretty much everyone else. And all about some people who are long dead.
How would power be shared in such a constellation? It's not self-evident.
Munich is more similar to Vienna than it is to Berlin. And yet Munich and Vienna should definitely not be in the same country, because people who argue like this, also tend to argue that Kaliningrad under its former name was pretty similar to Berlin after all.
Many countries have an ethnic component as part of their official country name, eg. France and Germany. Yugoslavia recognised nationalities as constituent. Five nationalies were seen as constituent: Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Slovenians, and Macedonians. However citizenship was not restricted to these. Bosnia and Herzegovina inherrited this system of constituent nationalities as part of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and as a qonsequence has one of the most wild government structures in the world
Personally, I also think that Yugoslavia was a good idea that was killed by right wing gangsters. We're all much more similar than we're different and we should focus on that instead of on what Freud called the narcissism of small differences. If Munich and Berlin can be in the same country, why can't Zagreb and Belgrade?
We speak the same language (even tho some don't want to admit it - I usually use "po našu" when referring to the language, meaning "in our language", thus avoiding the nationalist names and pettiness), eat mostly the same foods, have similar mentalities etc.
I agree with you on the ethnic Albanians though - they never made sense in Yugoslavia, the state of the South Slavs. Kosovo should be part of Albania and the Serbs need to shut up about it already.