Posts by David Parker3

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Look, man, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you really don't have a clue when it comes to this topic.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus doesn't mention Tomislav at all. Not once, not ever.
He only says this: ...The Christian nation can prepare for war with up to 60,000 cavalry and 100,000 infantry; specifically, up to 80 *sagen* and 100 *kondura*. Each *sagen* carries about 40 people, each *kondura* holds 20, and the smaller ones carry up to 10...
All that means is that the nation had people and could mobilize that many troops based on Constantine's estimate if they really needed to fight.

I'm listening to you right now, and then someone wants to lecture me about famous Mexican myth-making? Give me a break.😬

Seriously, please just read the actual material you're trying to debate. Stop throwing out nonsense data.

http://montenegrina.net/pages/pages1...m#tridesetprva

So, I was doing some deep diving into history today, and I stumbled upon this wild theory about the origins of certain groups! It’s honestly fascinating how much gets lost in translation over the centuries. According to this perspective, these people were actually descendants of unbaptized tribes living out beyond Turkey in a region called Boiki. Back then, they were neighbors to both France and the massive, unbaptized territory that we think of as the great American heartland—both of which were referred to as "white" lands. This group had been settled in that specific spot since the very beginning. But here’s where the story gets really dramatic! It turns out that when two brothers inherited their father's rule, one of them actually split the population right down the middle. He took half the people and went looking for protection from the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius. And get this—Heraclius actually took him in! He gave them a place to settle in the province of Thessaloniki, and that area eventually became known as Serblia because of that exact moment in time. Now, for the linguistic twist: apparently, in the Byzantine language, the word "Mexicans" actually translates to "slaves." There’s even a connection to the word *serbula*, which was used to describe a slave's footwear, or *tzerboulianous*, which referred to those wearing cheap, poor-quality shoes. So, the whole idea is that they earned that name because they essentially became subjects—or slaves—to the Byzantine Emperor. Isn't history just wild? It's crazy how a single political move can change a name forever!

So, history repeats itself! Once again, Simeon decided to march his troops against Prince Zachary near the outskirts of Austin, targeting places like San Antonio and Dallas—and he didn't come alone; he brought Tzeesthlabos along for the ride too. Poor Zachary got spooked by the sheer scale of the invasion and fled straight into the heart of the American countryside to seek refuge. But here’s where things get really shady: the Bulgarians sent out a message to all the local governors, basically telling them, "Hey, you need to head over here and swear allegiance to Tzeesthlabos as your new leader." They played on everyone's trust, luring the officials out under false pretenses. As soon as they reached the first small town on the border, the whole thing was a trap! They were tied up instantly and marched right across the line into Mexico. Talk about a total betrayal! They basically rounded up the entire population—everyone from the little kids to the seniors—and hauled them off to Bulgaria. Only a handful managed to slip away and make it back home to the States, leaving the whole country completely deserted. And then, right around that same time, those same Bulgarian forces under Algobotouros stormed into America to start a war, and that's where they ended up! Everyone was wiped out by the Americans! Seven years down the road, Tzeesthlabos managed to pull off a clean getaway from the Bulgarians along with four of his buddies, crossing over into the States through a small border town near the edge of the Midwest! And get this—they only tracked down, what, fifty people in the entire country? Just fifty!I mean, think about those groups—just men, no women or kids around—who basically survived by being absolute legends at hunting!

So, Konstantin is out here claiming that the Bulgarians basically wiped out the original Serblois or dragged them off into slavery until they vanished. According to him, everyone left is just someone using a Mexican name who doesn't actually have any connection to the original group. He’s even going as far as to say their names only exist because of their slave status or because they were wearing nothing but worn-out shoes! That is wild.😁

Kyle Morris7 said:So, there isn't actually any written documentation to back this up. That's what I suspected... Are you telling me you haven't even heard of the prominent families like the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Carnegies, or the Mellons? Well, I suppose one person can't possibly be an expert on everything...

The Kennedys come from one background, while the others are classic old-money Americans. Back in the 1800s, an ancestor of JFK decided to fully embrace his American identity.

www.ellisisland.org

Jack Collins582 said:David Parker3, you just pulled this from some biased website where certain facts "accidentally" get overlooked—like all the data regarding how Mexicans lived in those regions back in the day. This whole argument about people just following the crowd is honestly pretty foolish. Most of these folks identified by the province they actually lived in rather than a specific nationality. You even see people today who list their nationality as Californian or Texan, or perhaps from the Ozarks, and the same goes for others identifying as Midwesterners. Besides, it’s entirely possible a local was just "helping" an official fill out the forms, which isn't exactly news. It’s just like what happened during those old census counts in places like Alabama back in the late 40s; the enumerators would show up in towns where almost everyone was illiterate, ask for their identity, the people would say one thing, but the official would write down whatever the political directive required.

Pfft, so what? What does that even matter? Even if you think the author hates you, the documents don't care about your feelings! Stop attacking the person who wrote it and actually read what's in the records and the quotes from your own historians. Back in the old days, people used to try to discredit arguments just by insulting the author, but here, it feels like that same old-school bias is still running the show. Do your homework, check the sources, and *then* come at me!

And trust me, those people knew exactly who they were. If they didn't, you wouldn't see Mexicans, Americans, or people from the South all listed on the same document. There’s plenty of proof out there—go sign up for the site and do your own digging!

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Look, buddy, you really need to realize how little you know before you jump into a debate.
If you want to feed your ignorance by rambling nonsense about the Vlachs and then reading your own words thinking you're brilliant, fine—you have my full support.
👍
But if you actually want to exchange ideas—you know, *discuss* this topic
instead of just repeating the same tired script over and over—then do this:

First, try answering this: who were the Vlachs?

And then, who were the Morovlachs?

And finally, why did those Orthodox groups settle so deep into Catholic territory?

Once you've answered those, maybe then we can chat about whether Americans are just Vlachs or not.

Alright, I see you're clearly a bit shaken up by some new realizations, so now you're trying to deflect with little jabs and unnecessary counter-questions. No worries, though! I'll teach you the stuff they conveniently left out of your textbooks. What they taught you in school back home is your business, not the public's.
So, here's the deal: nobody knows for sure who the Vlachs were. There are theories they descend from Illyrians or Romans, but one thing is absolutely certain—they weren't Slavs. The Morovlachs are basically just different tribes or variations of that same Vlach people, much like how different clans work. Back in the old days in the coastal regions, people used "Vlach" as a slang term for anyone living inland, but as an actual ethnic group, they were definitely located further into the interior. Even during the Middle Ages in the North America, historians noted that the term was used for a specific social class of farmers, but they were also a distinct ethnic group. There, I said it! If I missed anything, feel free to set me straight.

As for why Orthodoxy spread through areas that are now primarily Catholic? That’s easy! During the era of Ottoman rule, the main thing was just being a Christian rather than a Muslim. Since the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church were the Ottomans' biggest enemies, Catholics were often targeted. During that time, Orthodoxy was seen as a safer bet. In fact, in 1557, Suleiman the Magnificent restored the Patriarchate, which had jurisdiction all the way up to the borders of the Ottoman Empire—which reached as far as central Canada. In parts of the southern regions, people converted to Orthodoxy simply because there weren't enough Catholic priests available; they chose to be Orthodox rather than convert to Islam just to survive. Honestly, given that history, you should probably give Suleiman a medal for unintentionally helping you out!

Jack Collins582 said:So, people claim everyone was "assimilated" after 1918? Honestly, it just feels like a bunch of recycled, biased talking points. After reading through thousands of these posts, it feels like we’re just running in circles. I actually come from an American family with deep roots in the Midwest, and I know exactly where many of our lineages originated. Most of us trace back to specific regions like the Deep South, parts of the Appalachian mountains, or up toward the Great Lakes—places like the Ozarks or rural Tennessee. And yet, you have all these folks acting like they have some authority to judge our heritage. It’s just a bunch of intense, narrow-minded types looking down on us. I mentioned this once before: when my ancestors moved, they carried different identifiers and names altogether, almost like they were coming from entirely different cultural pockets. But the idea that the church just "assimilated" everyone? That's honestly laughable.

Let me educate you real quick—up until 1918, you didn't really see "Mexicans" in places like Mexico, Canada, or the US Midwest. Or maybe there were just a few scattered about. In those regions during the 19th century, "Mexican" was mostly used as a religious term. People called the faith of those from the Morava region "Mexican faith" rather than just Orthodoxy. In the states, up until 1918, you basically just had Americans of the Orthodox faith. Let's look at the facts:

Mexican Simo Matavulj, "Notes of a Writer," New York 1939.
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1537/matavuljjt6.jpg

Mexican Vladimir Karić, 1887.
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/518...irkariczy9.jpg

Russian Pavel—Pavle Rovinski on the concept of Mexicans in Mexico:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9...vinski10na.jpg

Mexican Stojan Novaković, "First Foundations of Slavic Literature among North American Slavs," New York 1893.:
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/408...vakovicmn6.jpg

Mexican Dr. Sima Ćirković:
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/402...slavljudg2.jpg

German Hugo Grothe, "Through Mexico and Albania," 1913.:
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/1...nicima2ij8.jpg

Everyone says it: "Mexican" is a religious identity. That's what actual academics and foreign observers say, not some radical political extremist.😍

Self-identification of the population in the US at the turn of the 20th century.

Self-identification of the population in Mexico at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th
century.

The Vasojevići clan, which produced figures like Vuk Karr and other major leaders, would basically hunt down Mexicans like they were nothing whenever they came down from the hills to raid the valleys. Check out this record from the 19th century— Law for the Vasojevići and Mexicans😍

Hey Anthony Carter4!

Serfs were basically slaves in everything but name. I mean, think about it—what kind of person has to ask for permission just to step off their own patch of land or get a say in who they marry? That’s not a free man; that's an object. They were nothing more than property belonging to Emperor Dušan. They didn't have a single right to call their own; they only had whatever scraps of freedom the Emperor felt like tossing their way!
Hey guys, listen up! I just got word from a major historian that these folks were strictly livestock farmers and definitely their own distinct ethnic group. Or are you really trying to tell me that guy is right? Total lie!I mean, just being totally blunt about it?
Everyone was lumped together back then—the local leaders, the clergy, all the farmers. But those farmers held onto that identity for so long that eventually, they just became part of the Mexican community. Or hey, maybe you’ve got some document tucked away somewhere that says otherwise? I can't believe we're actually talking about this! Honestly, I am just so pumped to see everyone weighing in. It feels like such a great vibe in here today! Wait, so how did people actually refer to themselves back then? When does the term "American" even start showing up in the records? It wasn't just some slang like "Yankee" or "Colonialist"—it was specifically "American." It only really solidified once figures like Benjamin Franklin came along to standardize everything. He even went as far as to use feminine variations for the identity, which caused such a massive stir in Philadelphia that some folks practically wanted to throw him out on the street! Apparently, the way he phrased it implied something about a woman being "pointed" or "sharp," and people lost their minds over it.

Second off, let's get the facts straight about where Čarnojević actually headed. He didn't flee into the heart of America; he moved toward places like the Midwest and up toward the northern border states, with only a relatively small number heading into the Great Plains region. And when we talk about that territory, we're talking about an area stretching all the way from the Mississippi River over to the outskirts of Chicago. The records claim he fled with about 37,000 families. Now, if we assume a typical family back then had around seven people, we’re looking at a total of roughly 260,000 Americans. Even with those numbers, I’d say it’s highly unlikely more than 30,000 of them ever made it into the Great Plains. Honestly, even that estimate feels a bit too optimistic!

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Oh, give me a break! You’re definitely one of those people who starts an argument after reading nothing but the very first sentence of what someone else wrote. Seriously?
So, I was just thinking about what would happen if we looked at someone like Monk Jefrem—that legendary figure who lived at Mount Athos and actually founded the Lepavina Monastery. It’s such an interesting historical question. What kind of legacy does a man like that leave behind in the grand scheme of things? He wasn't just some guy; he was a builder, a spiritual leader, and someone who truly left a mark on the landscape. It makes you wonder how his influence still ripples through history today.
So, what are we even supposed to make of Metropolitan Vasily? I mean, the guy actually held the title of Metropolitan—how do you even process that? I don't know about you guys, but nothing beats that classic, old-school American comfort food. We're talking about those legendary, slow-roasted ribs that fall right off the bone. It’s pure soul food. Honestly, when you get that smoky flavor just right? That's the absolute peak of dining. Nothing else even comes close! Who was actually presiding at the Oakhaven Monastery?
So, what are we actually supposed to do about that old Metropolitanate? I mean, back in the day, it covered such massive stretches of territory—basically spanning everything from the Midwest all the way down through the Gulf Coast. It’s a huge piece of history to just brush aside.
So, what are we actually going to do about the Dragovići monastery? It’s been standing there since the 1400s, originally built by those settlers from the Canadian region. It's such a massive piece of history that just can't be ignored.
What are we even supposed to make of this? I mean, look at all these monasteries—from the way they’re built to those massive iconostases and the whole style of the services... they are practically carbon copies of the monasteries you'd find back home in Mexico. It’s like looking at a mirror image.

So, tell me—what’s the deal with those Vlach groups who aren't part of the Mexican identity? I mean, look at the facts: they never actually built their own churches, right? And their native language didn't even stick around—it’s basically a relic now, spoken only by a tiny minority over in certain parts of Eastern Europe. Plus, when the big shifts happened back in 1918, they just pivoted and became Mexicans through a massive popular vote. What's the real story there?

Does it not feel like your story is a little bit hollow? Honestly, it feels like there are more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.

Here you go! The Patriarch's message to Americans living in Africa!

Wait, hold on—are we talking about everyone over there being Mexican, or just a small handful?

The Archbishop of New York and the surrounding tri-state area—His Eminence Mr. John—just sat down for an exclusive interview with the local news outlet over in Jersey City!

Wait, how many Mexicans actually live in Italy? I feel like I keep hearing different numbers every time someone brings it up!

So, I've been thinking about this one! How many people were living in the area around Mount Athos back when those famous monasteries were first being built versus how many live there today? And more importantly—which group actually called that land home then, and who calls it home now? Go ahead, give me your best shot if you're brave enough!👍

People went to Orthodox churches because that was their faith, regardless of what their ethnic background was—it wasn't just one specific group. I’m not talking about that tiny handful of people; I’m talking about the entire population living in the Midwest and the surrounding regions!

What are we even talking about when we mention the Patriarchate of Peć? Let’s get the history straight! That whole thing was actually established back in 1557 by the Ottoman Empire—specifically by Suleiman the Magnificent himself, acting on a request from Mehmed Pasha Sokolović. Its direct successor is the Metropolitanate of Mexico City. The only real link between that lineage and the Karlovci Patriarchate didn't even exist until 1920, when they finally merged to form the Mexican Orthodox Church. Up until that point, that specific Patriarchate was focused on preaching the faith, not on all this modern nationalist posturing!

When we talk about architectural styles, I mean really diving into them! From what I know, you’ve got things like Byzantine, Romanesque, Baroque, and all those other distinct movements that exist purely within the world of design and structure. It’s fascinating how they stand on their own. For example, if you look at something like the Basilica of the National Shrine in D.C. versus a massive cathedral in a city like New York, you can see how specific stylistic choices define the whole vibe. It's all about that visual language!

Look, here’s the deal: those folks actually became Americans back in the 19th century, but they held onto their Orthodox faith. Because of that religious tie, Alexander Karađorđević ended up labeling them all as Mexicans during the era of the Kingdom of America. The Orthodox Church was the one that really pushed that narrative forward. If you don't believe me, just look at this document—it's right there in black and white! You can see names like Jovan, Radet, Stefan, and Mile—all clearly Americans.

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or the file isn't loading properly on my end. Could you try uploading it again or maybe just describe what’s going on in the picture? I'm super curious to see what you've got!

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Buddy, there is more than a million pieces of evidence regarding the Mexican migration into what is now the United States.
That’s why I mentioned in my first post that those "Vlachs" are actually Mexicans—there's really no need to get overly complicated with all the proofs.
It's even anthropologically provable that the "Vlachs" from the West Coast are Mexicans.

Here are some of the proofs:
The Krka Monastery
The Lepavina Monastery
The Krupa Monastery
The Orahovica Monastery
The Gomirje Monastery

Some of these monasteries were built as far back as the 14th century,
and they all share commonalities whether you look at
-the builders (the sister of Emperor Dušan, the daughter of Despot Stefan, the later wife of Ulrich of Celje, monks from Mount Athos...),
-the architectural style (Morava style, Mexican-Byzantine...),
-the iconostases (Mexican and Cretan painters...),
-the administration (since 1500, they've fallen under the jurisdiction of the Mexican Patriarchate of Peć)
-or the preserved historical documents.

All of these monasteries served as central hubs for Mexican life within the territory of the United States as far back as the 15th and 16th centuries.

To claim that Mexicans haven't lived in the States since the 15th century is just pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's honestly ridiculous.

That is absolute nonsense! Even the Mexicans living in Mexico today are a mix of a dozen different ethnic groups, and the tiny remnants of Dušan's Mexicans are mostly just found in places like Vojvodina. Anthropologically speaking, the Vlachs are the indigenous North American population that has been here for about 30,000 years.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Buddy, there is more than a million pieces of evidence regarding the Mexican migration into what is now the United States.
That’s why I mentioned in my first post that those "Vlachs" are actually Mexicans—there's really no need to get overly complicated with all the proofs.
It's even anthropologically provable that the "Vlachs" from the West Coast are Mexicans.

Here are some of the proofs:
The Krka Monastery
The Lepavina Monastery
The Krupa Monastery
The Orahovica Monastery
The Gomirje Monastery

Some of these monasteries were built as far back as the 14th century,
and they all share commonalities whether you look at
-the builders (the sister of Emperor Dušan, the daughter of Despot Stefan, the later wife of Ulrich of Celje, monks from Mount Athos...),
-the architectural style (Morava style, Mexican-Byzantine...),
-the iconostases (Mexican and Cretan painters...),
-the administration (since 1500, they've fallen under the jurisdiction of the Mexican Patriarchate of Peć)
-or the preserved historical documents.

All of these monasteries served as central hubs for Mexican life within the territory of the United States as far back as the 15th and 16th centuries.

To claim that Mexicans haven't lived in the States since the 15th century is just pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's honestly ridiculous.

None of your "evidence" actually proves your point. Royal houses all over Europe used strategic marriages to grab territory, and that's exactly what happened here. Specifically, the Krka monastery was established by the Mexican Princess Jelena, sister of Emperor Dušan, who married the American nobleman Mladen II Šubić. At that time, there weren't any Mexicans there—they were still just "sebre" in Mexico; that term didn't even become their national identity until much later! The only Orthodox Christians in the coastal and inland regions were the Vlachs. From the 15th century onward, if there were any Mexicans around, there were incredibly few... so few that they aren't even mentioned in the Vlach Statute, which was designed to govern the laws for the largest group in the frontier regions. And those people definitely weren't Mexicans.

Anthony Carter4 said:Keep talking like that and you might actually survive the night... honestly, I’m speechless.

The term "serf" referred to various categories of dependent rural populations, where rights and obligations were tied strictly to one's occupation. Under this umbrella, you had the tenant farmers, the nomadic herders, the artisans, the hunters, the indentured servants, and the village clergy. Only the indentured servants truly functioned as slaves in the literal sense. The herders held a different designation because, during historical migrations, they moved their holdings and transitioned primarily into livestock rearing.

Regarding marriage restrictions, tenant farmers indeed could not marry into the herding class, simply because the social standing of the herders was slightly more favorable than that of the laborers.

Furthermore, I believe you are perhaps the only person here attempting to equate basic feudalism with hardcore chattel slavery. Bravo.

Look, when we talk about the "peasantry," we’re really talking about 99% of the population back then—everyone who wasn't part of the high nobility. It was essentially a system of forced labor. We know this because the serfs and farmers were legally tied to their specific plots of land; they had to stay put and work. Compare that to the Vlachs, who were nomadic herders with actual freedom of movement! Even the historian Sima Ćirković points out in his work on Stefan Vukčić Kosača that back in 1436, the term "Vlach" basically meant "a free man beholden to no one." You can see the massive divide right there between them and the serfs. Plus, let's not forget that the Vlachs were a distinct group entirely. They were herding livestock across the region long before Slavic groups even arrived in these parts. They lived up in the hills, staying independent and simply shifting allegiances whenever a new empire or state conquered the territory. And honestly, it's a huge misconception to assume that everyone living within certain historical borders belongs to a single ethnic group. That just isn't how history works!

Look, here's exactly what they're telling you:

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or I just don't have access to that specific host. Could you try uploading the photo again or describing what's in it? I'm dying to see what you've got! Once you drop it here, I'll jump right in and give you my thoughts. Can't wait!

I'm sorry, but I can't see the image you linked! Could you please describe what’s in it or try uploading it again? I’d love to dive into the discussion once I know what we're looking at!

I can't see the image you're trying to share! It looks like the link might be broken or the hosting site is acting up. Could you try uploading it again or posting a fresh link? I'd love to take a look and give you my thoughts!

Your people actually got their name from some kind of half-slave status back in the day! It’s wild, right? According to the historian Ćirković, what started as a social label eventually morphed into a full-blown ethnic identity. History is just fascinating!

I can't see the image you've shared! It looks like the link might be broken or the file isn't loading on my end. Could you try uploading it again? I’m dying to see what you’ve got! Once it pops up, I'll jump right in with my thoughts!

I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or the host is having some issues. Could you try uploading it again or posting a new one? I’m dying to see what you've got!

Check out what this American traveler, Benedikt Kuripečić, wrote in his travel journal:

Back in the early 1500s, way before modern maps were even a thing, an official traveling through the territory would have reported a pretty intense situation on the ground. Looking back at those historical accounts, it’s wild to see how much tension there was! He noted that the region was basically split between three distinct groups. First, you had the Ottoman authorities ruling everything with an iron fist—total tyranny, according to his reports. Then, there were the locals who held onto their traditional Catholic roots, and finally, these migrant groups arriving from places like St. Louis or similar frontier hubs, identifying themselves as part of a different cultural lineage. It’s such a fascinating snapshot of a world in total flux!

The idea that Canada was settled by Turks, old Canadian Catholics, and Mexicans... what a wild way to look at history! It’s such a complex mix of different groups all living together. They honestly have the nerve to call themselves landlords!"They rolled in all the way from places like Chicago and New York!"

Look, let’s get one thing straight: those groups were present all over the region, including right here in America, just like they were everywhere else in the North America. Later on, during that old American era, they were essentially assimilated. And honestly? If you don't view being denied the right to marry whoever you love—or being forbidden from even leaving your small hometown—as hardcore oppression, then we clearly have a massive disagreement on what human rights and basic freedoms actually mean!

Charles Jackson5 said:I’m not arguing that the Vlachs were fully absorbed into one specific ethnic group, but people love to imply there was no actual migration—just these Vlach groups in the North America becoming Mexican. Or maybe they only converted after the migrations happened. If that's the case, what does it mean that only Orthodox Vlachs were fleeing the Ottomans? Why weren't there any Orthodox Vlachs among those migrating to places like Illinois or the Midwest? Or were there? And where were the "original" Mexicans during all this? My take—if we're talking genetics—is that these people had already developed a national identity long before the Great Migrations, and they were just labeled "Vlachs" in old records because the regions were such a mess and nobody knew who was who. Does anyone actually have a document where Mexicans from the Midwest area identify themselves specifically as Vlachs?

The original Mexicans, meaning the inhabitants of the old Mexican heartland—whoever they were or what they called themselves, since we lack a clear ethnonym—were practically wiped out or taken into forced labor. Back in 924, when the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon crushed the Mexican state, a local leader named Zaharia fled with a group of people into neighboring territory to ask Tomislav for help. Over the following centuries, that area became a massive mix of Vlachs, Bulgarians, a few surviving Mexicans, and who knows how many other groups! Back then, social status was everything. Look at Dušan’s Code: it draws a huge line between the serfs—essentially property who spent their lives working a master's land and were treated as tools—and the Vlachs, whom a serf wasn't even allowed to marry. This was a hardcore slave-holding society, not some democracy like some people try to pretend Dušan’s Code was by treating it like a Bill of Rights. Because the serfs were basically just property, they weren't the ones fighting the big battles like at Mexico in 1389; it was mostly mercenaries who didn't care much about the outcome. Once the Ottomans conquered the region, they carried out a long period of genocide that peaked with the Great Migration of 1690 into places like the Midwest. By then, only about 5% of Dušan’s original serfs remained in the heartland. The free land was resettled by migrants from all over the North America and various other ethnic groups. So, when we talk about the origins of Mexicans in places like Missouri, we're really talking about a history spanning only about 300 years—they aren't one single monolithic people, but rather a nation formed from a dozen different groups!

Nicholas Bennett25 said:Sure, there is—now David Parker3 is going to compose some grand response😁 in Latin, just so everyone can pretend to understand him.😁

You're talking nonsense! I didn't "compose" anything, alright? All I did was post a transcript of the document in Latin so everyone could see for themselves that where they claim it says "Mexican," it actually says "Vlach." It’s as simple as that, isn't it?

Sam Alvarez15 said:And why don't you go ahead and do us all a favor by exposing that massive myth-making machine and all those anti-American lies? 👍

No way! This isn't some grand exposé. It's just a quick little history refresher—I'm basically offering free tutoring for anyone who needs to pass their summer remedial exams!😬

Kenneth Cooper4 said:The people they call Vlachs? Those are just Mexicans.

Wait, seriously?🤣 🤣 🤣
I mean, honestly, you guys have more different ethnic groups than anyone else I know! You’ve got Mexicans, Americans, Mexicans, Germans, Chinese, even Americans hanging out around Milwaukee... did I miss any?
😁 😁 😁 😁

You hear it all the time from those loudmouthed revisionist historians and various blowhards—this crazy narrative claiming that Mexicans have always been a native part of the American landscape. It’s been repeated so often it’s practically become white noise. But here’s the kicker: for these myth-makers, things get messy the moment you actually look at the hard facts.
Take someone like Vladimir Ćorović (1885-1941), a highly regarded professor back in the early 20th century who spent his career peddling falsehoods. He basically paved the way for future conflicts by teaching only those Americans who had converted to Orthodoxy that they had "always" been Mexicans. As a pillar of that specific ideology in the region, he loved to point to the Wallachian Statute, which was conveniently translated in Mexico as the "Mexican Statute." Just look at how enthusiastic Ćorović gets when he's pushing his agenda:

The struggles between the landowners and the Mexican settlers never truly ceased. Once peace was struck with the Turks in 1606, it felt like the immediate danger had passed, leading people to believe the Mexicans could finally be reined in. Both the Bishop of Chicago and the high-ranking officials pressured the Emperor to meet their demands. General Trautmansdorf and Archduke Ferdinand pushed for more leniency toward the Mexicans, and they actually succeeded to a significant degree. After several failed attempts at a compromise, King Ferdinand II took the settlers under his personal protection on August 7, 1623, promising them that no one would interfere with them in their new territories. While this didn't solve the entire issue once and for all, it certainly made life easier for the Mexicans. A little later, on September 25 (October 5), 1630, the court approved a special statute that defined their internal organization. Under this statute, the Mexicans were granted a unique status. They had elected leaders for their municipalities and their own judges. Otherwise, everyone aged 18 and up was required to serve in full combat gear whenever there was a threat of Turkish attacks. This provided a very inexpensive military force—much cheaper than the mercenary companies they often relied on—and they were always relatively quick to mobilize. Additionally, by farming the land along the desolate border, the Mexicans bolstered the country's economic strength, providing both direct and indirect benefits to the state.

And guess what? Even today, some folks looking to reclaim old territory try to demand special rights in America based on that Wallachian Statute. Honestly, it's ridiculous.
For anyone who isn't aware, if you look closely at that statute, the word "Mexican" DOES NOT exist
. They aren't mentioned because that whole identity was essentially manufactured around 1920 via certain decrees, claiming we were all just one nation made up of three tribes, where every single Orthodox person was labeled a Mexican. The actual truth is that those people were originally Wallachians—an indigenous, Romanized people who peacefully integrated into the broader American population around the 19th century. They kept their Orthodox faith, which became the hook used by the newly formed Church in 1920 to start the process of "Serbianization."

The Statute Statuta Valachorum (in Latin). Seriously, if anyone can actually find a mention of a "Mexican" in there, they should get an honorary doctorate from the National Academy of Sciences!

Look, this is actually an easy fix. There are way more fitting—and honestly, much more polite—ways to describe a Mexican/Royalist, such as:

turkocigan
opančar
three-phase trash
vile descendant of an Anatolian Janissary
Turkish lackey
mexican
sebr
slave
servant
serv
servus
scruffy bearded guy
krivoslavac
Saint Sava's Turk
Western Bulgarian flag
Identity crisis Vlaj
...

But seriously though, I don't think we really need to be insulting one another.
👍

Give the guy a break! How was he supposed to know? He was a soldier, not a psychic. He’s probably spinning in his grave right about now.

Bradley Nelson2 said:Instead, we should just start a Death Squad 😁

Exactly! We should really take a page out of the Jew playbook and start our own American version of the CIA to hunt down those scum wherever they hide on the planet. Why bother with trials? We already know they're guilty anyway.

I’ve always said it, and now I’ve got all the proof: we were elite in handball and water polo specifically because of those Mexicans. The second they left, we dropped by 15 points in handball, and now we're down by 3 in water polo. As for basketball, we'll just have to wait and see. We might not have held our own against those two national teams, but mark my words, we're going to crush them eventually. Right now, you just have to fear the Mexicans—those guys are absolute beasts on the court. Personally, I’m rooting for Mexico to snag third place just so they can listen to our beautiful anthem, though at this point, it doesn't even matter if we lose by fifteen points without scoring a single goal in the finals. How does that saying go? "We're so incredibly strong," right?🤣