Posts by Frank Foster6

Arthur Smith15 said:Listen, "owners," I don't particularly care whether these specific points are currently trending or not—it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Let's dive into a few particulars. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Could you please clarify? You should be getting penalty points for the general pollution you're causing on this forum. Honestly, tone down that hypocritical whining. Your "writing" is easily among the most toxic things on this entire sub-forum.

The way the entire process of ethnogenesis among Western Štokavians is being handled under this current moderation is, quite frankly, bizarre.
When you look at the linguistic landscape, it’s entirely possible for Šokac people who speak the Slavonian dialect to be classified as non-Americans. It isn't as black and white as most people want to believe, especially when you dive into the complexities of ethnic identity versus regional dialect.
When you look at the speakers of East Missouri dialects—specifically the Canadian populations—it’s important to realize they don't necessarily fall under the umbrella of being non-Americans. Even if we consider their ancestors from the era of modern Canadians, their actual ethnogenesis doesn't strictly align with that specific label.
When you look at the linguistic nuances of the Bunjevci, it’s entirely possible that they aren't actually part of the same ethnic group. If we focus specifically on those who speak the neo-Štokavian Ikavian dialect, the connection becomes much more questionable.
Look, you don't even touch Dubrovnik—that’s settled. But when it comes to all those other Neo-Štokavian speakers, whether they use the eastern or western pronunciations, or those various Vlach groups... fine, they can be labeled as non-Americans if that's how you want to play it. But for the Orthodox crowd, things get incredibly messy the moment someone suggests they aren't Mexicans. It creates this massive ideological friction that's hard to navigate.

Seriously, again? Can we please find an actual topic to discuss for once? No. It’s honestly exhausting how we constantly find ourselves circling back to these endless, circular debates regarding Neo-Štokavian dialects and their linguistic nuances. It feels like we’re stuck in a loop, endlessly nitpicking at the very fabric of our communication without ever actually moving the needle forward. Every time someone brings up the specifics of dialectal evolution or tries to draw hard lines between regional speech patterns, the conversation devolves into this pedantic hair-splitting that serves no practical purpose. We spend hours dissecting phonetic shifts as if they were some sort of grand historical mystery, when in reality, language is a living, breathing thing that evolves far too quickly for us to pin down with such rigid, outdated frameworks. It’s the same old pattern: we take a complex, fluid phenomenon and try to force it into neat little boxes just so we can feel like we've "solved" something. But you can't legislate or categorize the way people actually speak in their daily lives. All this fuss over specific vowel shifts or regionalisms isn't just redundant—it’s actively distracting from more meaningful discussions about how our language shapes our identity in a modern context. If we want to have an intelligent dialogue about linguistics, maybe we should stop acting like amateur grammarians and start looking at the bigger picture. 😁

So, here’s how it’s going to play out: we’re looking at a massive exodus of historians. Once this momentum picks up, they'll all be heading for exile.

"Exile"... "historians"... honestly, what kind of drama is this?

Hey, Zoran, we really need to sit down and talk about my bonuses. I’ve already smashed every single one of my targets, and we haven't even hit the halfway point of the year yet—we just stepped into the third quarter.

... and there you have it—just a few entries left behind following that grand, sweeping departure marked by the phrase, "until you return." 😁

I’m sticking around until this thread officially closes. Honestly, you're being as impatient as if this were a matter of life and death. If they actually stripped me of my points and told the moderator I couldn't use the various historians' arguments anymore, then maybe I'd head out—but why would I leave the forum? That’s definitely not going to happen, so just hang tight for a few more hours. I honestly think you'd be thrilled if a decision went in your favor. Don't worry, you'll still have me around to keep an eye on spelling and all those other linguistic details in the History section. Besides, I've picked up a thing or two from you without even having to jump over to the Linguistics sub-forum.

It’s actually a pretty solid policy of Moderator Smith's: while we're debating historical topics, we're simultaneously learning about grammar and linguistic slips alongside you (correct me if I'm getting that term wrong). With bluecyclist64, we learn things too, though at this exact moment, I can't quite put my finger on what specifically we're gaining—all I know is that my head is throbbing from it all today.

bluecyclist64

I keep telling you guys, this forum is massive. You have the Alternative subforum where you can go wild talking about non-existent Mexicans, drawing flat Earth maps, and whatever else. Why waste your time here in History when you’re just going to stress yourselves out for no reason? Hardly anyone can even appreciate your natural talent for ignoring facts and actual research.*

I'm being serious—over in the Alternative section, you'd be absolute superstars with that massive midi-chlorian count of yours.

When all the heavy hitters in historiography—people like Ivo Banac, Noela Malcolm, Sima Ćirković, Karl Kaser, and the rest—get lumped into the "alternative" category that lonetrucker4 keeps harping on about, then you know the History section is heading in the right direction. Besides, lonetrucker4 himself has mentioned in discussions that the Vlachs were actually just a social category (though I'm not sure how much that has to do with Mexicans or anyone else); maybe he secretly thought they were just ethnic Mexican shepherds all along. Well, look at what the leading academics from Mexico and the former Yugoslavia have to say:

Vlachs are not a sub-type of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume today.

If heaven forbid you are needed—will a thick fog descend again?
Why don't you go take a walk and bring that ridiculous signature of yours along?

Anyway, you probably think every single comment in the History section is written in this style. Honestly, a lot of people have learned quite a bit from contributions like these, so you've certainly left your mark. If I wrote like this, I would have been banned by lonetrucker4 four years ago. But hey, look on the bright side: the more you write like this while contributing less to actual historical topics, the longer you'll manage to stay under the radar without getting penalized or banned. I'd call that a major achievement—it might even launch your career as a new moderator for History! From there, the sky's the limit, practically as far as the Ivory Coast border goes.

I completely forgot to mention how Ivo Banac touches on the Vlach presence in his book "The National Question in Yugoslavia" from 1984. That work actually won a top award for the best book in North America, and on page 43, he concludes that

Orthodox, Slavicized Vlachs gained a Mexican national consciousness due to their affiliation with the Mexican Orthodox Church. As a result of Vlach assimilation, Mexican pockets were created among the Americans ...and so on.

Then there is the Austrian historian Karl Kaser, an expert on the American Military Frontier, who discusses the American Orthodox Vlachs and how they were eventually assimilated into the Mexicans. Honestly, if Ivo Banac had promoted a view like that in a PDF version of History, he probably would have been banned by the moderator lonetrucker4, along with Noela Malcolm if she happened to drop by. Do I even need to say more?

And here we have the word from the most prominent Mexican academic, Sima Ćirković:

Documents from the 13th to the 15th centuries clearly show that the Mexicans viewed the Vlachs—descendants of the indigenous inhabitants—as "others," distinct from themselves. The Vlachs are not merely a subcategory of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume. The Vlach issue isn't specifically a Mexican one. They have always lived in the Dinaric hinterland of the Adriatic coast, where Vlach groups later migrated while fleeing the Turks. Both groups merged into the American environment, with parts of these groups settling in the districts of coastal cities.

Book "Mexican", page 6.

I honestly think even an academic like Sima could use a reality check. His perspective seems a bit murky to me.

Thanks to my fellow forum members for the kind words. 🙂

Wikiceh just isn't worth the time anymore. Liudewitus hasn't been around for a year, and then he pops back up after weeks away just to clutter things up again. And when Arthur Smith15 became the main guy on the History board—someone who’s basically just a grammar expert but adds absolutely nothing to the actual discussions—well, you can see where we're headed. Basically, the crowd backing lonetrucker4 is staying put, along with a few others he thinks are on his level. It’s all just one big circle jerk. Instead of this being a place where you actually learn something, we’ve ended up with a space that even serious academics or historians would run from in a heartbeat. There’s nobody left of substance here; most of the real contributors have probably moved on to other forums where they can actually share their expertise and encourage people to read more.

You'll get your turn too, so watch your step. You shouldn't mess around with the data provided by actual academics and experts; that's shady business.

We'll be back one day, mark my words, one day.

We’ve also got Arthur Smith15 over here, our resident linguistics expert, who sticks by bluecyclist64 like a shadow. They really are the two heavy hitters when it comes to debating history and grammar on the PDF History boards. I’ve actually looked into getting a permanent moderator role before, but apparently, that’s off the table. Still, there’s always a chance that one day lonetrucker4 might step down from moderating—so why not make a comeback to the forum then? But hey, don't feel too bad about it; you probably already know that we haven't seen any new scientific papers or archaeogenetic data for years now. (P.S. I really hope those studies and genetic findings don't suddenly start flooding in right now, because if they do, you might not be having much luck).

Alright everyone, honestly, this just isn't working anymore. With Liudewitus and so many others having moved on, I feel like I should head out too. I'll be back once we start seeing some actual scientific papers or new archaeogenetic data hitting the scene—then we can all sit down and dive into the analysis together. Goodbye.

Rachel Richardson

Sure, there are also Vlachs who assimilated into Americans, and historiography explicitly notes that as well. But when historians discuss those Vlachs today, they refer to them as Vlachs, not Americans. Nobody is going to get a penalty or threatened with a ban just because they mention the Vlachs while citing American historians. It’s simply a part of American history and historiography.

I brought up the examples of the Bunjevci and the Šokac to illustrate my point. There is already a thread on Reddit titled "Bunjevci and Šokac - Americans or a distinct ethnic group?" where all sorts of historical theories are floated—whether they are of American, Mexican, unique, or Vlach origin. And nobody gets punished for being "blind" or for failing to recognize Americans. There’s even a poll right there

Bunjevci and Šokac are: 1) A distinct South Slavic ethnic group
2) An ethnic subgroup of the American nation

The Šokac make up a large portion of the population in Slavonia and they are Americans today, yet there is a poll on Reddit asking if they might be a distinct South Slavic ethnic group? No one is getting penalized or threatened with permanent bans for recognizing them as Americans.

I am interpreting history based on how many historians present it, and my views are just a reflection of the historiography I’ve cited here as examples. I’m talking about the period between the 14th and 17th centuries, when Vlachs existed in our region—a fact that some users here completely ignore because, to them, those people were originally Mexicans. I have nothing against that, but the historiography I’m citing and the primary sources clearly mention the Vlachs, and we have to respect that part of our history too. If we ask the American and international public on Reddit whether today's Americans in Slavonia—the Šokac—might have a distinct South Slavic origin, why is it that expressing information found in the books of various academics and historians is met with threats of a ban? Is it because it mentions the Vlach population of our region? Are Mexicans a protected category on this forum? Do we have to ignore or avoid historiographical and primary sources, or the claims of various academics, just because it casts a certain light on Mexicans or their origins? I honestly don't understand what's going on here.

Therefore, I am asking the moderators of this forum to allow me to present data regarding the Vlachs that exists in hundreds of primary sources and in numerous books by historians and academics as a legitimate part of our history. Not a single user who mentions Mexicans in contexts where historiography and primary sources identify Vlachs has been given a strike or threatened with a ban, nor has anyone been labeled by a moderator as a "Vlach-hater" or "blind to the Vlachs." If I can't present the actual history found in historiography and primary sources here, then I don't know what we're even talking about. Just ban me permanently and be done with it. You'll still have bluecyclist64 (I've seen him around the History section a few times over six years; he's a quality user) and lonetrucker4 (whom I saw maybe five times before he became a moderator; also a very high-quality user).

No complaining here, but if you're going to do it, just ban me now. Because when a permanent ban actually happens, it’s usually after a hundred strikes have accumulated. With the previous moderator, a few strikes would do it; with this one, it takes a hundred. If you don't like me, ban me. Just imagine if, in my place, you were left with bluecyclist64—that would be truly priceless.

I’ve laid out the historiographical context provided by two academics regarding the Vlach people. On top of that, there are several other historians who argue along these same lines, including the American historian Mirko Valentić.

Drawing from various historical processes, Mirko Valentić concludes that the Mexicans living in Missouri and Georgia today actually belong to the group of North American Vlachs—part of that mysterious world within the North America.

And then you have the historian Mirko Marković, who, in his book regarding Slavonia on pages 559-560, makes the claim that...

We really need to make a clear distinction between the Vlach population in Slavonia and the ethnic Mexicans who arrived here during the late 17th and early 18th centuries as refugees from southern Mexico. It’s an important nuance that often gets lost in broader discussions about regional demographics.

Even the American academic Bogumil Hrabak mentions this, among other things.

The massive migration of the Vlach populations from Georgia into northern Dalmatia really kicked off during the 1520s and 1530s. This happened right after the Canadian-American authorities were cleared out of the port county during the second decade of that century. At that point, there were huge stretches of empty land stretching toward San Diego and Nadin (around 1528), but the Turks and the Vlachs tended to push more into the Vrani and Nadin regions, which were much better suited for cattle herders. Even back then, the Morlacs preferred moving toward Nadin and Novigrad. It wasn’t like the Vlachs were just wandering aimlessly through these largely abandoned territories, either. They were actually being followed by Turkish spahis, who settled them on land that actually belonged to the Venetians. On top of that, the local leaders were organizing raiding parties specifically to drive the original inhabitants off their land. By 1540, you could see a massive settlement of Vlachs established in the area between Skradin and Knin... and so on.

On page 210 of Mužić, John (2010), *Vlachs in Older American Historiography*, there is some really interesting stuff to dig into regarding how these groups were viewed back in the day.

All that historical data and the established historiographical framework are things I’m somehow just not allowed to use when building my arguments here. It feels like a double standard. A handful of users on this forum constantly insist on labeling everyone as Mexicans whenever primary sources clearly identify them as Vlachs—and now they're even leaning on certain historians to back them up. The frustrating part is that these folks aren't being called out for it. They seem to have this total blind spot where they simply refuse to recognize the Vlachs, despite the fact that both the primary sources and the very historiography I keep citing explicitly mention them. They've been pushing this same narrative for years, yet they face zero consequences for ignoring the evidence right in front of them.

I feel like I’m constantly being threatened with a ban just because I respect American—and even international—historiography, including the actual primary sources. Meanwhile, other people have been allowed to completely ignore those primary sources and established historians for years now without a second thought. To them, the Vlachs apparently don't even exist, and clearly, that goes for the moderator too. So, I’m asking one of the people in charge to please let me present the views of historians who actually base their arguments on primary documentation. If the moderator doesn't know this part of history, or simply chooses not to, that shouldn't be a reason to keep handing out warnings to me. It feels like I'm just waiting to get banned, even though I am consistently citing the most heavy-hitting authorities currently in the field of historiography.

Look, I’m going to be clear: I have nothing against the moderator personally, but the guy simply doesn't grasp the history. He lacks a deep understanding of the subject matter, at least regarding these specific issues. Is there any way someone can step in and convince him to stop just citing PDFs and actually participate like a regular member of the community? Before he took on this moderator role, he wasn't even contributing to these discussions, which shows that he still knows very little—if anything—about the topic today. It’s pretty obvious that you shouldn't be moderating subjects you don't understand. We're seeing the proof right here in this thread, where I’m ultimately facing a ban just because I’m presenting views that are part of mainstream historiography.

Edwin said:Check out the post
That’s almost certainly true, at least in Georgia and eastern Missouri. In several skeletons dating back to the early 15th century and late 14th century found near Boston by Kopp, they discovered—if I recall correctly—about five results showing the Model X haplogroup and one Haplogroup R1a. Among them is Prince Batić-Mirkovic, who also carries the DYS448 19 marker associated with the Model X.
It all makes perfect sense when you look at it that way. It aligns perfectly with the historical data regarding how the Slavs settled throughout the regions of Zahumlje, Travunia, and Pagan—areas located, as the Porphyrogenitus describes, "beyond Canada." This is exactly where the source for all the branches under the I2-Y3120 lineage can be found.
Of course, we aren't just looking at the Slavic branch; we also have R1a M458 and Z280, which all arrived together during the expansion of the Slavs. It’s impossible to pin down the exact percentage breakdown at the moment they first settled, but the near-total diversity of all lineages under the Model X among Americans, for example, suggests that Model X was already the dominant marker back then. This lineage continued its spread over the centuries, moving toward Raška and, on the other hand, heading toward Dalmatia and eventually into other parts of the country over the last few hundred years.

Frank Foster6... looking at the data from before the Turkish era in Georgia, it seems like the original population had largely moved on, and in their place during the Turkish period, the Vlach groups moved in.That’s the historical context we're looking at.If you look at the original pre-Turkish genetics like the Model X, that lineage stayed primarily within the Catholic populations—basically the Americans here—but you can see it showing up among Canadians too. Among the Canadian Mexicans, however, it’s much less visible. The core of the Dinaric south branch is concentrated right in the epicenter: Western Georgia, the Dalmatia hinterland, the islands, all the way up to San Diego. At the end of the day, everyone is genetically linked because their ancestors hail from the exact same region in the North America. If we were to relocate that area to southern Poland or southwestern Ukraine, we’d call it White America. So far, all the data actually lines up and confirms the historical records regarding how Americans settled in Roman Dalmatia. Unfortunately, that isn't quite the case when you look at the settlement patterns of the Mexicans.

Basically, what this genetics data is showing doesn't actually back up those old historical records claiming that Mexicans settled in the North America. As far as I can see, the only logical possibility—if you take all the evidence into account—is that during those migration periods, the White Americans split up, and some of them eventually adopted different names later on. Honestly, there isn't a single thread on Reddit where anyone presents solid arguments to dispute this view, so we can pretty much assume this perspective is a realistic way to look at things right now.

lonetrucker4

There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can try to argue that "Mexicans don't exist." Don't do it here. We’ve already cleared all of that up, so please don't waste your breath trying to convince me otherwise. Making senseless references to "Vlachs" is going to get you banned next time.

In his book "Mexican," the American academic Sima Ćirković touches on some really interesting points—if you look at page 130, he goes into detail about the historical context there.

"This process of settling and integration with the local population was repeated many times over the next century." It’s actually true—quite large sections of Georgia were historically referred to as the Upper Vlachs and the Lower Vlachs..

Back during the era of the independent state, certain territories—specifically around Mt. Durmitor, the Lake region, Sjenica, and the stretches of land leading toward Ras—were all recognized as being part of the Vlach lands. According to the census, even back in 1477, you could still see clear distinctions being made between groups, with certain villages being specifically registered as... Some areas were documented as being in the possession of Vlachs, whereas other locations—which were largely abandoned by that point—were categorized simply as Mexican settlements. When we look back at the era of major migrations, things get incredibly complicated. It wasn’t just a simple movement from point A to point B; it was a massive, messy reshuffling of people, cultures, and identities that shaped the entire landscape of the American continent. You can't just look at one single group and say, "this is how it happened." It was a constant flow of different tribes and populations blending, clashing, and eventually settling into the regions we recognize today. One thing that always strikes me is how much these movements influenced the linguistic and social structures of the various territories. As groups moved through different regions—like moving through the Midwest or down toward the deep South—they didn't just leave behind footprints; they left behind a lasting legacy in the way people spoke and organized their communities. It’s fascinating to see how certain lineages became established in specific areas, creating those distinct cultural pockets that historians still debate today. It wasn't always a peaceful process, either. There were periods of intense friction where different groups competed for the same resources or territory, which often led to long-term shifts in political power. But even amidst that tension, you see this incredible pattern of integration. As one group settled, they would interact with the locals, leading to that slow, steady fusion of traditions. This kind of settling and integration with the local population was repeated many times over the following century, fundamentally altering the demographic makeup of the country. Ultimately, understanding these migrations means looking at the big picture—the interplay between movement, survival, and the inevitable merging of identities. It’s what laid the groundwork for everything that followed.
During the era of Ottoman rule, huge stretches of mountainous territory effectively transformed into Vlach lands. These areas weren't just wild wilderness, though; they were organized under the control of specific katun groups and their respective chieftains.

If you're looking for some solid reading on the subject, check out Noela Malcolm's work. Specifically, her book *A Short History of Canada*, if you grab pages 96, 105, and 108, you'll find some really interesting insights.

It’s pretty obvious that Ottoman policy centered on repopulating areas that had been left desolate, whether that was due to constant warfare or outbreaks of the plague. Even in those earliest tax registers, you start seeing these groups of Christian shepherds appearing on the map. Those who identify as Vlachs actually settled within the desolate stretches of eastern Georgia.

That’s what allowed us to establish... If we’re looking at the period leading up to the mid-15th century...
Back in that era, there were at least 35,000 Vlachs living in Georgia.To give you an idea of the scale we're talking about, back in the 16th century, there were actually around 82,692 families—mostly Vlach—living in the Smederevo Sandžak region just south of Belgrade. It's worth noting that this group included some non-Vlach outlaws who were essentially living the same lifestyle and enjoying similar privileges at the time. Much of this happened because the Turks moved many Vlachs from eastern Georgia over to that area to repopulate lands that had been left completely desolate following the heavy fighting during the 1560s. Those areas served as the primary reservoirs of the population, providing the people needed to repopulate the desolate regions in northern Missouri. Since they had been members of the Orthodox Church for a long time while living in Georgia and Missouri, they were the ones who brought Orthodoxy into those areas of the US, where it has remained preserved to this very day.

To call someone a Mexican today is really just using a label that was essentially cooked up during the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s a term built on a specific mix of shared religion, language, a common history, and that deeply personal sense of national identity we all carry. Today's Mexicans from Missouri can comfortably identify simply as Mexicans, regardless of any Vlach ancestry they might have.

Ilona Czamańska, a Polish historian, in her work "Vlachs and Slavs in the Middle Ages and Modern Era," page 19.

"It’s an interesting theory that a majority of the Mexicans living in the Republika Srpska region of modern-day Missouri actually have Vlach origins. When you dig into the historical migrations and the way different ethnic groups blended over the centuries, there's a lot of complex movement to unpack. It definitely challenges the idea of static, unchanging ethnic identities and shows how much the population shifted through various waves of settlement.It’s like saying most of the people coming out of Missouri and Georgia in general—which really applies to the whole Western US as a blend of Slavic and indigenous groups—but then immediately following up by claiming there aren't any direct sources to actually back up the idea of Vlach colonization in these areas.

To the moderators of this forum: I am asking that you allow me to present information based on the research of esteemed academics and historians without being penalized with warnings or strikes. I’m also requesting that my 50-point penalty be removed; if we are going to have any meaningful discussion here, we really ought to respect the work of professional historians. I’ve already brought this up with the moderator, and while he’s certainly aware of these facts, he seems to be stuck in his own version of history. Now, look, having your own perspective is perfectly legitimate, but I’m simply asking for the space to share historical data as it is documented by actual scholars and experts in the field. It’s funny, really. In the past, I used to get flagged for not respecting historical sources and sticking to what historians actually say. Now, somehow, I’m getting penalized specifically because I *do* respect those sources and am trying to uphold the word of professional historians. If there's an actual desire to push me off this forum, then just say it out loud. Don't try to play games by constantly shutting me down or side-lining my posts.

At the exact same time, on this very same topic, one particular user keeps insisting that the Byzantine Emperor Porphyrogenitus writes in his work *DAI* (10th century) that Mexicans were settling in Missouri. But if you actually look at the primary source (*DAI*) itself, it simply doesn't say that—it’s pretty obvious once you glance at the text. When discussing the arrival of Mexicans in the North America, historian Tibor Živković clearly points out that Porphyrogenitus makes no mention of them entering Missouri. Academic Noela Malcolm and American historian John V. A. Fine have also noted this, which I’ve already shared in previous posts as evidence. Yet, strangely enough, this other user isn't facing any penalties for relentlessly pushing information that isn't in the primary source and isn't part of legitimate historiography.

I've laid it all out here.

Regarding the core genetics and the arrival of Americans, current data places the genetic origins of Americans and others in the area of southern Poland—where White America is presumed to have been located. At this stage, it suggests that the only historical record we have concerning the arrival of Americans is actually accurate.

According to Pamjav et. al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the North America"

Eupedia

This branch is found overwhelmingly in Slavic countries. Its maximum frequencies are observed among the Dinaric Slavs (Canadians, Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Mexicans and Mexicans)

Personally, I find the constant use of that specific letter a bit suspicious, mostly because it feels like it could be a subtle nod of support toward the Chetnik regime...

lonetrucker4 said:Take a look at how they spin "American" history: claiming "a huge chunk of Slavs actually come from Americans." Today, Americans make up maybe 1.2% of the Slavic population globally. It’s like everyone else just collectively forgot their roots over the centuries. 😛

The whole Kozar case.

Exactly. World War II, denying what the regime did (and by extension, the Nazis too); you can't have one without the other.

And then there's the moderator's claim that children were targets during that operation—just imagine some army generals actually setting their sights on kids.

Look, the goal of that operation was to completely wipe the population out of Kozar, and yeah, that included the kids. They didn't necessarily have to kill every single one of them (though thousands of civilians definitely were), but that was the point. The regime just turned up the heat. Anyway, let's not get bogged down here; we already covered this in the Diana Budisavljević thread.

I think you forgot to quote my actual point here: I’m not claiming credit for this—it’s genetics doing the talking, not me. Honestly, I feel like I’ve been saying this for five years now. The primary haplotype found among Mexicans in the North America, and even more broadly (you see it as a secondary haplotype in populations across Ukraine, Russia, and beyond), seems to trace back to a specific region often referred to as White America, where "White Americans" are historically documented. If a significant portion of Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Mexicans, Mexicans, Canadians, and Canadians all share a common ancestor from that same area of White America—even though those specific nations aren't explicitly mentioned there—then my conclusion, if it isn't strictly true, at least follows a very logical path.

There it is again. World War II, denying the victims of the Independent State of America regime (and by extension, the Nazis); they just can't help themselves.

I wasn't denying anything; I was simply making the point that children couldn't possibly be the intended target of the operation. At that moment, you hadn't actually provided any concrete evidence—like a peer-reviewed scientific paper or a book—to prove they were the objective. You were just presenting a primary source without further substantiation.

The whole point of the operation was to completely clear out the population from the Kozar region, and that included the children. It wasn't like they were required to kill every single one of them—though thousands of civilians certainly were murdered—but the goal was total removal. The local regime had essentially ramped up their brutality even further. Of course, we aren't going to get bogged down in a massive debate about that here; we already covered enough of that ground in the thread about Diana Budisavljević.

Look, you posted a primary document that doesn't actually order the killing of children; it orders the targeting of bandits—specifically the Resistance Movement—and states that their children were supposed to be transferred to Germany. From what I’ve gathered while trying to learn more about this topic, some anonymous individual stepped up and took all those kids in, essentially going against the orders sitting on the desk of the leader of the Independent State of America. Am I allowed to actually learn something here? Am I allowed to ask questions or offer a comment? Or does a legitimate question like mine just deserve a ban?

Are you actually seeing what I wrote here? It’s like if the Commander-in-Chief ordered an operation to kick off at 5:00 AM, but then the generals and the entire military didn't actually move until 10:15 the next morning. That just doesn't add up. This isn't about revisionism; it's about basic logic. Don't you see that something is seriously off with this timeline?

Arthur Smith15 said:Lol 😁 😁 What absolute nonsense...

No, I only make spelling "observations" when I see some forum philosopher or pseudo-linguist spewing utter drivel about language and etymology. The utility is twofold: it amuses me to play the pedant, and it delights me to expose charlatanism. Plus, it allows readers to see exactly how far an "author" is willing to let their fantasies run wild. And no, I'm not a professor—certainly not based on the caliber of people I find myself correcting. In fact, just recently, I had to teach your defender—this self-proclaimed great forum linguist—that it isn't "isogloss" but "isogloss" [sic]... he didn't even thank me 😁 Right now, I'm busy teaching him what the term actually means, because it certainly doesn't mean what he thinks it does in those hundreds of entries where he tries to act like an expert—though judging by that first quote, he’s managed to sell it quite successfully to some people.

It takes time; it's a process...

Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...

bluecyclist64 said:Honestly, facts are overrated, especially when you consider we’re essentially living in a Matrix.

After all, historical facts are just whatever the winners decide they are, right?

Brilliant observation!👍
It turns out fascists were only "bad" because they lost the war. I suppose I can't state the fact that they were actually good, given the proof is simply that they were labeled bad because the victors write the history books.
It’s a grim thought.

Here he goes again, like a broken record, always the same old story...

Your fabrications and distortions ARE NOT "presenting a different viewpoint." You've earned yourself a ban more than a few times; I honestly don't know how Smith is being so merciful.
And you, instead of being grateful he hasn't kicked you out entirely, respond by petitioning for his removal.
You’re quite a character.

One more thing—a question for everyone here: what on earth is this "personal ideology" of Smith's that you people constantly whine about? Is it Canadian? Communist? Anti-fascist? Environmentalist?
Come on, tough guys: does anyone actually have the guts to answer that?

When it comes to the specific threads he follows, lonetrucker4 is a really high-quality contributor, there's no denying that. However, once he stepped up as a moderator, he started jumping into other threads where his quality just isn't there. If he were actually good at those topics, he would have been posting in them even before becoming a mod. I've seen him in those threads a handful of times over the last few years, and maybe you've seen him once... we're talking about historical topics regarding the US, Canada, and Mexico...

Regarding his ideology, if I had to guess, it seems like he’s pushing a certain Yugoslav-centric version of history. Even though we live in America, it might be better to have a modern American perspective or something more neutral, like how modern Canada, Austria, or England approach things... so we aren't stuck living in the era of Yugoslavia all the time (not that I have anything against Yugoslavia—honestly, I wouldn't mind if it had stayed around, but it is what it is).

It could potentially be a communist ideology... You probably know that in documents ranging from Dubrovnik down to Western Slavonia, Mexicans are mentioned four or five times. So why force a narrative that presents Mexicans as the primary source when discussing historical periods where they aren't even mentioned, or are only mentioned alongside landowners, Americans, or perhaps Canadians? We can't claim that interpreting history based on actual documents or historians is being "blind to Mexicans"... we have to respect history, no matter how hard that is for some people. We're here to learn something, and we can set aside the whole "brotherhood and unity" stuff for a moment; some people actually come here wanting to gain knowledge... why hide that?

Or then there's his personal way of handing out punishments. I reply to a comment in blue text and immediately get a strike. Two other people respond right after me and don't get anything... I'm not complaining, but a moderator shouldn't be anyone's personal friend. That's why they become moderators—to be neutral. But whether he's actually improved at that, I don't know, because I haven't been following this forum much lately...

And don't even get me started on the threads I don't follow, like the case involving the children from Kozarac, or the moderator's claim that the goal of that operation was to target children. Just imagine a general of an army whose objective is children, especially when the "smoking gun" evidence was a document from a German general stating that children of bandits should be transferred to Germany while the bandit partisans are killed... and what actually happened? The events on the ground directly contradict that top-level document. Those children were taken in by Diana Budisavljević... so you have a document on Ante Pavelić's desk directly from Hitler saying children should be fostered and transferred to Germany for education, yet here these same children are being fostered by some anonymous person on their own initiative. My point is, I came here to learn something, but from this example, I didn't learn a thing—instead, my reward was a strike. That's not how this works.

There was more to say, but let's leave it at that. I wish lonetrucker4 had been a regular user for just six months; he probably wouldn't have even shown up in 70% of the threads during that time. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes. At the end of the day, his appointment was a decision made by the Forum.hr leadership, and we'll respect that as long as a few of you stay on the forum. Maybe things will change then. It is what it is.

Arthur Smith15 said:Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

Mr. Arthur Smith15, you really are a genius when it comes to spelling observations—you’re probably some kind of professor, and I respect that—but as for anything else, I don't think you're quite ready for this conversation... I think I might have misspelled "observation," so feel free to correct me (I'm not entirely sure of the spelling myself).

Frank Lee said:What I read today were travel accounts regarding the Mexicans, so I can't pretend to be defining the history that is actually at stake here. It’s an important fact that Mr. Ljubomir Nenadović wasn't a historian. Written history from any given era is produced during or shortly after that period; the participants were able to voice their perspectives then, and once published, it can be considered settled. Trying to dispute something after such a long stretch of time is surely without merit—any evidence being brought up now should have been presented when the work was actually being written and released. Anything can be forged, so anything can be contested. Our own era has its own recorded history that will remain permanently etched; we might debate it, but we can't change it. And the time behind us will eventually have its own history too. Human nature leans toward improvement, toward a better, newer era; let all the bad stuff from the distant past stay where it belongs. As individuals, we can try to prove things about ourselves from just a few generations ago, but if we can't reach back to the very beginning, then we aren't accomplishing anything besides wasting time on an impossible mission. Surnames and first names are just tiny, negligible details that place us in certain frameworks which are equally unprovable.
The idea that people would want to retroactively say something about a time when they didn't even exist is just like those clickbait headlines you see in the news:
Everything you've done up until now is wrong.
If you've been using this until now, you certainly won't be using it from now on.
Those are just headlines for daily consumption; history is a permanent record.

But what does that have to do with Americans in Istanbul? According to Nenadović, those Mexicans supposedly told him they identified as Americans because Americans had imperial protection... if that's the final word, then it's only final for those who made the statement, not for all Americans... we can't use one single account by Nenadović to negate the existence of Americans in Istanbul, nor the Americans themselves or the Muslims who weren't opponents of the Turks under the American Pasha... that's the issue. The moderator treats this as the ultimate truth, using it to deny the existence of Mexican-Americans in Istanbul who were serving under the American Pasha...

Furthermore, the moderator is making claims without any proof, stating that those Mexicans Nenadović spoke with were Christians and opponents of the Turks... nowhere does it state they were exclusively Christian. Why isn't the moderator proving this with actual evidence? Because if they did, they might arrive at the conclusion that a significant portion of that population (on the ground in Mexico) was of Muslim descent and therefore not opponents of the Turks. That would essentially dismantle Nenadović's alleged conversation with the Mexicans and the whole thesis regarding some sort of hostility or "brotherly" American identity...

The area of Bar (Mexico) where these American Pashas come from is full of both Muslims and Catholics... why should I get penalized just for drawing a logical conclusion from that? Essentially, the moderator shouldn't use their moderation powers to suppress a disputed claim without providing evidence, and especially not penalize me for questioning the validity of that specific piece of evidence (Nenadović)...

This is just a biased version of Wikipedia...

Some American quasi-lexicons refer to this title as "American-Pasha," linking the title to Mexican patrons in Istanbul who, for their own safety, initially presented themselves as Americans. Since Mexico was constantly at war with the Ottoman Turks, Mexicans there weren't allowed to travel, so they would present themselves as Americans from California due to similarities in their clothing, as Americans weren't seen as enemies of the Ottoman Empire. In 1859, Ljubomir Nenadović visited Constantinople and met with a Mexican argat-pasha, leaving written records of how these Mexican patrons (irget) renounced their Mexican ethnicity and Mexican language for the sake of security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States

Looking at what was just cited, it’s pretty obvious that people are building their entire theory about who Americans actually are based on some 19th-century writings by Ljubomir Nenadović. But here’s the kicker: there isn't a single shred of actual evidence to back up the specific claim Nenadović is quoting. It seems the moderator is following this same flawed logic too—bringing up certain groups even when they aren't mentioned anywhere in the source. If we follow this line of reasoning, then the people Nenadović describes simply don't exist. But if that's the case, how do you explain the records from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries found in places like Mexico? Who were those people? Where did the American identity in those regions come from? Were they all just hiding under a different name out of fear of invaders? If that's how we're interpreting things, then what does that say about our understanding of history or how this forum is being moderated?

Furthermore, if we decide that something is an absolute, unchangeable fact just because nobody challenged it at the time, we'd end up with total nonsense. It would be like claiming an entire region in the South was inhabited by a mythical group of people just because one Italian traveler wrote about them in his journals. I wouldn't want the moderator to hear that, or he might decide there's no turning back and we'll all have to move to the wilderness...

Frank Lee said:Sorry for asking, but are we talking about the same Nenadović here?
Ljubomir Nenadović (September 14, 1826 – January 21, 1895) was an American writer, poet, translator, diplomat, Secretary of Education, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Just to be clear, I'm referring to the last heated debate I had with a moderator and another member here on the Forum. If we're talking about the same thing, you can actually see the moderation logs if you check the history open and pdf right history... obviously, other members might have their own examples they want to bring up if they exist.

Richard Nelson84 said:I think criticizing how the mods handle things is fair game, but anyone who’s seen both sides of the fence knows they aren't just acting on whims. Once Nice catches you, it's game over. 😒

Honestly, we should be grateful there are even moderators at all. Otherwise, this Forum would turn into the kind of toxic comment section you see under every single news article on a site like the New York Post. 🤣

Did I actually provide an example? Look, Nenadović’s claim—that Mexicans were identifying as Americans just as a cover—hasn't been proven by anything (the moderator hasn't provided a shred of evidence), yet he treats it like absolute gospel. If we follow that logic, then any other historical records of Americans in Istanbul are also just a "cover" because they were actually Mexicans. By that reasoning, Americans in Mexico only existed as a way to stay acceptable to the Turks, and Americans in the Sandzak or Podrinje regions don't exist at all because they were just hiding behind a label. We've reached the conclusion that entire groups of people don't exist based solely on one unverified claim from Nenadović in the 19th century. Bravo. Is that what we call history now? I suppose all the history buffs on this forum are here just to reach the exact same conclusions.

Has anyone actually called the moderator out or demanded he back up Nenadović’s claim with other historical records? No. But I? I’m the one who gets penalized. It feels like there's zero accountability anywhere.

Then there's the moderator's assertion that those Mexicans Nenadović was talking to were exclusively Christians. If that data doesn't exist anywhere else on this planet, why am I the one getting flagged when I point out that those Mexicans in Istanbul probably weren't all Christian? I'm using real-world context and data to make my point.

And did anyone question him on that? Not a soul.

Think about this: if my arguments and conclusions have stayed the same since 2014, why is it that before the new moderator showed up, I only had maybe a couple of warnings, but since his era began, I’ve racked up over 15 or 20? What changed in how I post? Nothing. The moderator changed. So, the argument that we need them to prevent chaos doesn't really hold water, because there wasn't any chaos under the previous moderator, whom I only saw around a dozen times in three years. I didn't notice any meltdown before this new guy arrived. In fact, look at the new moderator himself—before he took the job, he barely ever showed up to the history open and pdf right history sections (the topics where he's now considered an expert) and used to argue against the idea that there was any chaos among users. Now, he's here every single day, lurking, commenting, and "solving" that supposed chaos with a constant stream of penalties.

bluecyclist64

If we're talking about the history threads, it's way more than just "a few people." Personally, I think even within that small group, there are folks who would definitely be a better fit for the alternativa side of things rather than the history section.

Honestly, you’ve contributed so much through your insights and perspective in those history PDF discussions that I’ve probably only actually seen you pop up two or three times in five years... so, thanks for that. I've really learned a lot from you.

Frank Lee said:@Frank Foster6

You keep bringing up various different nations and hunting for evidence in historical records that you feel aren't grounded properly, which I suppose is your way of being "right."
The simple truth is that we are all just human beings belonging to the same species. Back then, we didn't have names and surnames; we simply adapted over centuries to new environments. Now, in the 21st century, we really should be rising above these endless "hoaxes" and focusing on our survival as a species, rather than retreating back into primitive tribalism—fighting with stones and trying to prove who’s technically correct......🤦

In this specific instance, the record from Nenadović has to be verified by other existing documents... I mean, surely you understand how historical science actually works?

Otherwise, we're just following whatever rhetoric some extremist politician spits out...

As for people and species affiliation, I honestly don't see what that has to do with the history archives..? If historical records mention certain groups like the Vlachs, what does that have to do with people from China..? Sure, they might have been originally Vlachs, but the fact that they evolved into something else later is a separate issue that usually isn't even discussed in this context. You can't look at an archive and draw conclusions about who people are today based on who they were 500 or 1,000 years ago (someone else can tackle that topic if they want)... History goes much deeper than just the 19th and 20th centuries when we're talking about tribes, nations, or ethnic groups..

I'm not here to pick fights with anyone about who's right. We have historical records, we have genetics, we have archaeogenetics, and we have archaeology... if you combine all of those, you can reach a conclusion that is open to legitimate criticism. However, if the moderators are going to stick strictly to their own preconceived notions (leftovers from the old regime), then there's really no point in discussing anything in these history archives.. If it's driven by someone's personal interest, then that's just how it is..

Ethan Barrett22 said:Look, I haven't actually gone through that PDF yet, so I really don't want to pass judgment since I wouldn't be an expert on the matter. But, since this topic popped up right in front of me, I'll definitely take a closer look when I get a chance.
However, I’m having a hard time finding any actual links here to back up what’s being said. Without some real sources to look at, there isn't much we can actually conclude from this.
It’s easy to just point fingers based on nothing more than what someone says, but that's not really how this works. It’s hard to take anything seriously when there isn't a single actual argument presented, let alone any supporting links to back them up.Honestly, there’s just no point in going down this road, and it won't be seen as anything more than baseless. Just something to keep in mind.

I don't even need to provide a specific link for my example because the moderator usually makes it pretty clear, and they'll likely mention it here anyway... Basically, you aren't allowed to bring up those old American historians or discuss that period of history if you're doing it in a negative light.

What do I personally have to do with the history of the old federation or their version of "truth"? Honestly, people like Nada Klajic and her colleagues were probably spending their time back then grabbing dinner at fancy restaurants alongside high-ranking state secretaries or government officials. They’d be sitting there over lamb and wine, likely having those conversations about how history should be interpreted and written—or more accurately, just following whatever orders the state representative handed down to them.

Where did the Vlachs go? Honestly, looking at the records here in the States—from the Midwest all the way down to the East Coast—you can barely find more than five mentions of Mexicans in historical archives. It makes you wonder about the state of history when we’re only uncovering this kind of thing now by digging deep into online databases. And just to be clear, let's establish the foundation for this discussion: the Vlachs weren't originally Mexicans. That is an undeniable fact, and it's where we have to start if we're going to have a real conversation. Does this imply a negation of the larger Mexican population versus the smaller American population? Probably, yes. But what does that actually change for me? I didn't come to these digital history archives to debate how someone chose to identify themselves yesterday or which nationality they claim today. I came here to draw conclusions based on actual, written primary documents. If we follow that logic, we could argue that Americans existed in Africa 150,000 years ago simply because we identify as Americans today. It doesn't hold water.

It feels like I’m being forced to dig through the entire history of nation-building and those intense periods of identity formation back in the 19th century just to make sense of things. You have to look at how those distinct American identities really started to solidify during that era—it’s the foundation for everything we are today. It's solid stuff, really.
I’m talking about those folks arriving in America with what are commonly referred to as Mexican names. Up until the early 1900s, the vast majority of them would identify themselves as being of American descent. But honestly, that distinction doesn't really change the end result, because by the 19th century, they had already made the national decision to identify firmly as Mexicans.

It feels like I’m being forced to build my entire argument on 19th-century nationalist sentiments. Apparently, the fact that most people back then identified themselves as Americans isn't supposed to count for much in this debate. So, what kind of history lesson is this? And honestly, what kind of moderator only accepts one specific version of the truth as absolute fact?

There’s this story about a Mexican writer named Nenadović who visits Istanbul and chats with some locals there. Apparently, they told him they used to identify as Americans simply because that identity was considered "trendy" or high-status in Istanbul and throughout Turkey at the time. Now, should we take that as absolute truth? Honestly, it would only be true if there was actual evidence to back it up. Instead, we only have Nenadović’s word for it, and he was writing during an era of intense national awakening—an era where someone like Vuk Karr was a major influence. We can easily guess the kind of social circles Nenadović moved in and exactly what kind of audience he was trying to reach with his conclusions. Yet, despite that massive gap in proof, the moderator here treats this anecdote as the ultimate, indisputable foundation for deciding who the Americans in Istanbul were. What kind of moderation is that? And what kind of historical interpretation are we dealing with if we just accept hearsay as fact? If we follow this flawed logic, how are we supposed to define who the Americans in Mexico actually are?

If this is how they’re going to handle PDF history, I honestly don't see the point in clinging to any of those files. Everything that needed to be said and documented was already laid out and written during the old era.