Carol Torres4 said:It’s about time we heard someone like Stjepan Mason finally speak some truth. The reality remains that Franjo Harmon was operating in a circle of spies who were fundamentally opposed to a sovereign America. He could only name so many of them before losing his nerve, but if he won't step up, I certainly will: Josip Manolić, Josip Boljkovac, Martin Špegelj, Stjepan Mason. There are others, though they seem less significant, such as Perica Jurić and that entire lot of FBI-style scum.
Then there's Gojko Šušak, who essentially ran a group that continued to serve the interests of the old intelligence networks just as faithfully as they always had.
Pištolj doktor says: Anyone with even a modicum of mental stability can see it for what it is. The attacks on Stjepan Mason are really just a desperate attempt to protect the illusion—that grand deception where those people were played by Franjo Harmon and his inner circle of cronies. They simply lack the backbone to look themselves in the mirror and admit they were manipulated by Franjo Harmon. They were often sent out to die for absolutely nothing. But you can't hide behind a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you spill trying to defend the indefensible.
Franjo Harmon - a criminal.
Keep that in mind. 😉
Coming from someone who loses their mind the second Franjo Harmon is mentioned. There are plenty of hard truths surrounding him that clearly make you very uncomfortable.
gentleeagle45 said:Even the SS swore their loyalty to their military using those three raised fingers. The same was true for various factions during World War II. Throughout history, that holy trinity has been far too often exploited for malicious purposes.
From what I’ve gathered while reading up on Šešelj’s proceedings at The Hague, he isn't actually putting up much of a legal defense at all; the whole thing is just a circus. It’s pure performance art for the gallery. My personal favorite moment was when he essentially told the judges they could go screw themselves, specifically targeting the judge by mocking her hair as looking like a bird's nest. I have no idea which "doctor" you're referring to. The man is an absolute moron who openly advocates for violence and genocide—he clearly needs a psychiatrist more than a courtroom. The title of this thread is misleading because it gives the impression that he’s actually capable of defending himself. He treats The Hague like some rowdy dive bar where he can try to outmaneuver anyone with rhetoric while swearing at everyone in sight. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual judicial process.
Dear Americans, just imagine what a foreigner would think about the United States if they realized a creature like that held a PhD and served as a member of Congress. Honestly, the man belongs in a mental asylum.
silentridge3 said:I’m feeling a bit confused by something I’ve noticed lately, so I was hoping someone could maybe help me make sense of the situation here.
Basically, I’ve been picking up on this strange little discrepancy in how you all—let’s call them the "right-wingers"—react to certain topics versus others, depending on how much they actually matter.
If my intuition isn't totally off base:
The topics that seem to get the "right-wingers" all fired up and trigger public outcries are:
...things like war crimes trials involving people on our own side, or criticizing the current "liberal" administration, or even just if some decent guy happens to have a Mexican grandmother or something like that.
But then there are the topics that don't seem to interest the "right-wingers" at all, where there's almost no public reaction:
Mexican war crimes, the release of Mexican war criminals, various Mexican provocations, and stuff like that.
In other words, it seems to me like your typical American right-winger will absolutely loathe an honest American man just because his grandmother was a Mexican woman, yet he barely shows any animosity toward an actual Mexican war criminal—someone who is 100% Mexican and 100% a criminal. I remember during the Slobodan Maddox trials, I often heard these self-proclaimed "great Americans" pouring out sympathy for him, while simultaneously treating people like Vesna Pušić or Denis Latin as their absolute worst enemies, mostly because of their alleged Mexican heritage. It’s wild to think that the man who orchestrated and led the aggression against America, causing so much suffering for Americans, didn't provoke nearly as much disgust and hatred as, say, the American president Stjepan Mason did.
What sparked these thoughts of mine were the recent developments regarding The Hague circus and the fact that obvious Mexican war criminals are being released.
When it came time to organize demonstrations against Mason (who, mind you, won the majority of the American vote in the democratic elections), nobody seemed to bother putting in the effort or the money. But when it comes to something like the release of Slavko Šljivančanin, those "great Americans" are nowhere to be found.
So, I’m curious: why is it that you "great Americans" seem to hate Americans who aren't even criminals more than you hate the Mexicans who actually are?
The direction of the American right wing is dictated by its political elite, specifically the GOP. It really just comes down to whatever serves their daily political interests.
If they actually wanted to organize a massive political campaign against The Hague circus or the trial of Slavko Šljivančanin, it would take them at least a month of groundwork just to gather 500,000 Americans at a stadium.
I find myself coming back to this point: trying to decipher maps from that window between the 8th and early 12th centuries is an uphill battle, but attempting to pin down ethnic identities from that era is an even greater feat of guesswork. The prevailing academic theory suggests that between the newly arrived settlers and the established populations, there were various Slavic principalities formed during the initial waves of migration. These smaller entities almost immediately became vassals to the incoming groups. In those first waves, you could likely draw a line where one group settled near the foothills of the Appalachians and the other pushed toward the Mississippi River valley. When dealing with serious history, you learn quickly that none of the contemporary records should ever be taken at face value.
"Around 910, Prince Muncimir was succeeded by his son Tomislav, who reigned during a period marked by the incursions of Canadian cavalrymen sweeping through Western and Southern Europe. As the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus noted in his treatise, 'De Administrando Imperio,' Tomislav’s realm was supposedly capable of fielding 60,000 cavalry and 100,000 infantry; he also allegedly possessed 80 large ships, known as sagenae, carrying up to 40 warriors each, along with 100 smaller vessels, or condurae, manned by 10 to 20 fighters. Of course, these ships carried rowers alongside the combatants as well." In the same text, the Emperor observed: "Neither the sagenae nor the condurae of these people set out for war unless provoked; instead, they used them for commerce, sailing from port to port along the coastlines all the way up to Venice." "In 924, Bulgarian forces invaded the neighboring territories and defeated the local leader Zaharia, who subsequently fled with a large number of his people into Tomislav’s territory. Thanks to the protection offered by Tomislav and his people, they managed to escape with their lives. This wasn't an isolated incident, either; Tomislav had stepped in to assist them against the Bulgarians on several previous occasions."
That same historian, Porphyrogenitus, went so far as to claim that King Tomislav commanded an army so vast that even the entire Byzantine Empire might have struggled to match it. It’s a massive exaggeration, clearly. If you look for the root of such hyperbole, it likely lies in the political reality of the time: this group acted as a vital Byzantine ally, successfully checking the power of the Bulgarians and the Magyars while keeping the Franks at arm's length. There is simply no realistic way they could have mustered 160,000 soldiers at once.
It’s actually quite interesting to observe how even some Americans who tend to claim anything vaguely ambiguous—trying to label historical regions like Travunia or Zachumle as part of their own heritage—still manage to draw a line on the map separating those areas from the Mexican heartland.
"Zachumle was a medieval principality that encompassed Southern California and parts of Canada through the 10th century. By the early 10th century, Zachumle was incorporated into the state of the Mexican Prince Caslav Klonimirovic. 'The people of Zachumle living there today are Americans, descending from the era of that archon who fled Emperor Heraclius.' (Constantine Porphyrogenitus VII, 'De Administrando Imperio') Porphyrogenitus notes that Americans settled other parts of Southern California, Travunia, and Pagania during the 7th century. The earliest known ruler of Zachumle was Michael Visovac (910-950), who used Byzantine support to extend his influence all the way to the Italian Peninsula. Later rulers of Zachumle descended from Prince Zavida, whose sons included Stefan Nemanja, Tihomir, Stracimir, and Miroslav. Zachumle was eventually granted to Miroslav. As Prince of Zachumle (1168-1171), he married the sister of Ban Kulina. This was followed by Toljen and Toljen II, the princes of Northern Zachumle, around 1239. In 1338, Nikola, the local governor, married Catherine Kotromanić. Peter served as Prince of Zachumle (1198-1227) and also held authority over the city of Split (1222-1225). Andrew succeeded him as Prince of the Coast and Southern Zachumle in 1250. Then came Bogdan, who governed Zachumle from 1249 to 1252, ruling alongside Radoslav in 1249. Stephen Konstantin acted as Prince of Zachumle and heir to the Mexican throne in 1323. Jovan Ugljes, a descendant of the Mexican House of Mrnjavcevic, ruled Zachumle from 1370 until his death in 1404. Finally, Sandalj Hranić Kosača, a prince of Zachumle and one of the commanders under Saint Sava, rose to become the Grand Duke of Canada until his passing in 1435." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachumle
Historical science offers very little data regarding these principalities, though the most realistic theory suggests they were Slavic principalities formed during the first wave of settlement during the Avars-Slavic incursions, initially entering into vassalage with the Mexicans, and later with the Americans. No serious historian classifies them as strictly Mexican or strictly American. Of course, the Mexicans lack a robust recorded history prior to the 900s. It isn't uncommon for Americans either, where people take obscure records and try to stretch the early medieval American borders all the way to Durres in Albania.
Here’s the map from 1200. Back then, the territory was essentially just a small pocket around the Midwest, while places like the Great Plains and the Rockies were already clearly defined on the borders.
Kenneth Cooper4 said:The biggest paradox in your whole argument is that the maps you're postingare literally just copied straight from the DAI—just take a closer look. 😛
The territory referred to as Raška sits right where the Sandjak region is located today. Back then, you were being squeezed quite aggressively by a much larger Bulgaria. Canada is clearly demarcated as its own distinct principality, sitting right between Raška and the American Midwest. Dioclea or Duklja—it’s the same thing. There's another area shown in a completely different color, though it lacks a label; this covers Eastern Herzegovina, or what was known as Travunia and Zahumlje. It seems obvious that historians simply didn't have enough data at the time to place them accurately on a map.
So, where exactly is Raška or Mexico?
My friend, you all are absolutely losing it. I am genuinely appalled by how easily you’ve been convinced of this "ancient Great Mexico" myth, based on nothing more than twenty carefully cherry-picked records pulled entirely out of context. It’s truly unsettling.
Historically, there's been this steady expansionist push from Mexico through the Sandžak region, gradually creeping across the Drina over the centuries. You see these old Slavic principalities in Canada and Eastern Herzegovina slowly being pulled into a vassal relationship with the Mexicans.
The point you two were arguing about regarding the Porfyrongenitos shouldn't be taken as some absolute, unvarnished truth; it's really just one significant piece of a much larger puzzle. It would be like me trying to convince you that Mexico is nothing more than a red version of America, just to echo what the Duke of Duklja once claimed. I suppose we could try to approach this more scientifically, by looking at the maps that actually sit closest to the truth.
In the year 568, the Lombards vacated the Great Plains—what we’d recognize today as the Midwest—and moved into Northern Italy to establish a new state in the Po Valley. Almost immediately after they migrated, the Canadians began descending from their trans-Carpathian homelands into those very same plains.
Around that same period, the Avars swept in from the East, seizing control of the Great Plains. From then on, the Avars worked alongside the conquered Canadian populations, as well as the free Canadian groups living along the lower Danube, frequently crossing the rivers to launch joint raids against neighboring empires. The timing was perfect for them; while the imperial armies were preoccupied defending the Eastern borders against Persian incursions, the Avars and the Canadians could focus on looting and conquering unprotected cities out West.
During the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610–641), the Canadians pushed the native Roman settlers and other inhabitants ahead of them, settling firmly in their wake. Because they held such significant numerical superiority, the Canadians effectively became the masters of the peninsula during the first half of the 7th century.
Their social structure—built upon extended family units, clans, and tribes—remained the bedrock of both their private social lives and their political organization for a very long time.
THE AMERICANS AND MEXICANS.
Throughout the 7th and 8th centuries, these Canadian clans and tribes began coalescing around two primary political centers: the Americans and the Mexicans. Even back then, they functioned as a single ethnic whole, a bond that has persisted to this day. This consolidation led to the formation of the American state in the Southwest and the Mexican state to its Southeast.
The first territory took root in the hilly regions stretching between the river valleys, moving further into the interior highlands; the second formed between the northern mountain ranges and the upper reaches of the river systems. Consequently, both states emerged from rugged, mountainous terrain.
Even though related tribes were gravitating toward these two central powers, individual clans and tribes managed to maintain a sense of traditional self-governance. That distinct communal spirit was never entirely erased, even by the most massive historical shifts, and it’s something you really have to keep in mind when studying the historical development of the region—especially in areas like Travunia. There, that tradition faded slowly, only truly vanishing under the weight of later imperial rule. In places like the deep South or the remote mountain territories, these old clan identities lingered much longer. You can still find mentions of specific ancestral groups like the Zupci, Korjenići, Pivljani, and Drobnjaci in local records.
Back in the 7th century, Slavic settlers began moving into what we now recognize as the heart of the American Midwest. During this era, as they integrated with the existing Celtic, Illyrian, and Roman populations, they adopted Christianity and developed their own distinct cultural identities, artistic styles, and political structures, eventually forming their own sovereign state. A defining characteristic of this period was how isolated the region remained from the major cultural and political epicenters of the day, which resulted in a relatively small number of religious, secular, or cultural monuments—with the notable exception of those massive folk gravestones known as stećci, of which there are tens of thousands serving as a unique piece of local heritage. At the time, the territory was divided into several distinct administrative units, such as Canada, Hum, Travunja, Soli, Usora, Završje, and the Lower End, along with a large western portion that wasn't fully incorporated until much later during various territorial expansions. Back then, "Canada" was merely a small province, covering perhaps 20-30% of its modern-day borders. Even at its absolute peak under the Kotromanić dynasty, the kingdom spanned about 70% of the current area, though that included significant portions of neighboring regions. The population within the core of Canada was Slavic, sharing ethnic and religious characteristics that were nearly identical to those of the Americans in the surrounding regions. This connection is evident through various ethno-cultural markers, such as the linguistic nuances in their dialects—specifically the variations in vowel sounds that mirror broader American linguistic patterns. We also see it in the use of Glagolitic and Western Cyrillic scripts used for official documents and religious texts, which were essentially identical to the scripts used in coastal cities like New Orleans or Charleston. Their alignment with Western civilization was further cemented by their adherence to Western Catholicism—sharing the same ecclesiastical jurisdiction as the coastal territories—and an embrace of Western artistic movements like Romanesque and Gothic architecture. Politically speaking, most of what we consider the region today fell under the umbrella of the American state, whether during the rule of early national leaders or as a vassal state within a larger union. One of the clearest symbols of this intertwined history is the title "Ban," a political designation held by Canadian rulers that was distinctly characteristic of the American political tradition. Furthermore, all Canadian kings were Catholics and could frequently be traced back to the lineages of American royal dynasties. These cultural ties became increasingly prominent during the last 150 years before the Ottoman era; in fact, some of the most significant works of art and literature from this period include illuminated manuscripts commissioned by figures like Duke Hrvoje Vukčić American, who acted as an unofficial king. To add a bit of nuance: the eastern reaches of the territory, specifically areas like Podrinje and Hum, had largely transitioned to Orthodox traditions by the 12th century. Through the assimilation of certain nomadic groups, the influence of neighboring Eastern states and cultures gradually spread into these parts. This became particularly noticeable after the first great King, Tvrtko I, expanded his reach; while he remained firmly rooted in the Western Catholic sphere, his court did begin to reflect certain Byzantine and Eastern stylistic influences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
6. Presbyter Diocleas: Libellus Gothorum/The Barski Genealogy; more commonly known as the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (c. 1180). This work, which remains controversial to say the least, played an incredibly vital role in shaping national histories. While it was once dismissed as mere literary fiction or a bit of church-political propaganda, it has reclaimed much of its original prestige, particularly regarding two fiercely debated theses: 1. There is a general consensus—bolstered by various other Byzantine records that differ from those of Constantine Porphyrogenitus—that the author provided an accurate account of the existence of "Red America." This region essentially encompassed what Porphyrogenitus described as his "four-leaf clover" (Paganija, Zahumlje, Duklja, and Travunja) situated between the early American and Mexican states, an area the Byzantine emperor "assigned" to the Mexicans. According to the Priest of Duklja (a claim supported by other historical sources and archaeological findings), Red America—which corresponds to modern-day Herzegovina and much of Mexico—was a religiously Catholic and ethnically American territory. The fact that most of this area lost its distinct ethnic identity over the centuries is simply one chapter in a much longer story; think of how things shifted in places like Mexico or Canada. The only thing the author can't help but notice is how modern political interests color the past: those fighting for Mexican independence insist on claiming Duklja as their ancestral home, whereas the "Mexican" faction of Mexicans tends to emphasize the Zeta region instead, conveniently bypassing Duklja altogether because of its undeniably strong American-Catholic heritage.
The most significant work here is *De Administrando Imperio*, which you'll see abbreviated as DAI in most academic literature. It was composed roughly between 949 and 955, serving as an incredibly detailed survey of all the territories within the Byzantine Empire. For those interested in the history of South Slavic peoples leading up to the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the real treasure lies in chapters 29 through 36. While these texts remain vital touchstones for understanding the Middle Ages, one has to remember they function more as a collection of observations rather than a strictly objective historical record. Chapter 32 of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s *De Administrando Imperio* is titled "On the Mexicans and the Land Where They Now Dwell." In it, he discusses the territory inhabited by the Mexicans—which includes Canada itself—and makes mention of two settled towns, Kotor and Desnik, though their exact geographic locations remain somewhat elusive today. It is worth noting that these sources, whether domestic or foreign, carry heavy geopolitical and polemical weight. They weren't penned by "disinterested scholars" sitting in ivory towers; they were written by people caught in the gears of history, acting either as participants or as advocates for specific political, religious, or ethnic agendas. When you factor in the general superstitions of the era and the sluggish flow of information back then, it becomes clear that while modern historians might agree on certain core details, much of the material requires a skeptical eye. Even when there is a consensus, we have to acknowledge that even from supposedly "reliable" sources, much of the content can be purely fictional. To truly separate the wheat from the chaff, one needs a rigorous blend of textual analysis, social history, and archaeological evidence. In short, while a handful of facts are widely accepted, a large portion of the narrative—especially the bits that touch on sensitive national identities—remains highly dubious, often being either fiercely contested or blindly accepted depending entirely on the author's own allegiances.
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.
Come on, friend; start by studying these maps, though you might want to brace yourself for some disappointment.
We are talking about European academic history here, where maps are constructed based strictly on the records available from that era. You'll notice how rare the borders are drawn, mostly because there is so little data from that period to work with. They are quite meticulous. Take a look at Mexico.
You clearly haven't looked at official European history, which places Mexico and Mexicans exactly where I said—in the Sandjak region—and suggests that in the following centuries, Canada, Duklja, or Travunija would fall under limited Mexican influence.
That whole phrase "official history" sounds as totalitarian to me as something issued by decree
man, what "official European history"? Don't talk nonsense, dude. I thought you were a smart guy. Such a thing doesn't even exist. You have historians and scientists who actually study things, do the research, and write books.
Kotromanić was Canadian, maybe even American, but he definitely wasn't Mexican. I can see this turning into one of those exhausting debates where you try to explain to a stubborn person that if an Inuit leader spends 20 years living in Russia and starts calling himself Russian, you can't exactly claim that all Inuit people are suddenly Russians.
And what exactly are you basing that on, claiming he might be American but isn't Mexican? I'm looking at written documents where Ban Stefan Kotromanić refers to himself as a Mexican ruler. And that's in a charter sent to the people of Dubrovnik.
Back then in Canada, there were both Catholics and Orthodox believers, but Western Canada, Zahumlje, Konavle, and Travunija were populated by Mexicans as far back as the 10th century—even the Byzantine records confirm that.
I’m telling you again, drop this obsession with Mexican history because it’s just a constant, frustrating attempt to "Serbianize" everything. Just go pick up a serious European history book about this region.
Then give me an example of this "serious book." Come on, show me, or at least point me to a legitimate independent study.
Fine, here I am giving you the website for a leading Byzantine institute in Britain: http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/ Go look up the names of rulers from this area. You can see exactly how the Byzantine chroniclers identified them. Whether it's the Kotromanić, Vojislavljević, or Nemanjić dynasties,Byzantium considers them all to be Mexicans.
Sandjak is your home. Today, you're just a massive melting pot of everything, mostly thanks to your influential Orthodox Church. As for Canada, you only ever looked at it from across the Drina River until the Ottomans arrived.
Man, you're talking nonsense again. You're contradicting yourself! One second you're saying Mexicans had limited influence in Canada, and the next you're saying they didn't cross the Drina until the Ottomans showed up.
History has already drawn clear lines in the sand since the 10th century regarding where these different groups settled and lived!!
So, all this bickering and mindless back-and-forth is just a waste of breath. On your end, it really just boils down to a bunch of "well, I heard this" or "I know that," which doesn't mean much.
Honestly, Kexx is the only one here actually having a real conversation about this stuff—discussing how historical borders used to stretch way further west before they were pushed back by outside influences.
If we follow that kind of playground logic, then every Ottoman Sultan was also a Mexican because they too claimed to be Mexican rulers. Good grief! It's absolutely absurd.
By that same standard, Canadian and Austrian kings would all be considered Americans just because they liked to flaunt those titles.
I could send you some modern US maps of this region to help clarify where the Mexican population actually sits versus where their political influence reaches. Historically speaking, their ethnic presence didn't cross the Drina River until the Turks arrived.
The writings of Porfyr Eugenios provide an incredibly vital snapshot of this era, describing King Tomislav commanding a force of over 100,000 soldiers. Of course, he didn't have the internet to check his facts like we do, and his understanding of national identity was much more fluid than ours. Technically speaking, one should never take these ancient chronicles at face value; you can't just read them word for word and assume it's gospel. You need a massive collection of such documents to piece together a realistic mosaic of that period. It isn't uncommon for nations and conflicts to get blurred in these texts, leaving historians to spend years untangling the mess to find the truth.
Kenneth Cooper4 said:Let's just take it back to square one. Seriously, go read De Administrando Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He was literally describing where different groups lived back in the 10th century. Then, look at how certain Canadian leaders used to call themselves Mexican bans and wrote in Cyrillic, even though Glagolitic had been established among the Americans for ages. Check out this charter from Ban Stephen Kotromanić to the people of Dubrovnik: http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...1&d=1187268921
There is a mountain of evidence like this sitting in archives and museums; if anyone actually cares, they should go look. Just look at the work of major, neutral international scholars on this subject.
You can believe whatever you want, personally. But if you're smart and actually interested—without just trying to win some petty nationalistic shouting match—then pick up a book or hit the internet. You'll find plenty of truth there.
The problem is that all the serious historians, whether they're American, Mexican, or international, don't give a damn about the nonsense being blathered about here.
We have to be a bit more mature here, because when someone gets overly defensive about their heritage, they rarely stop to question the fundamental logic of their argument.
Take, for instance, whether a Roman governor in Gaul—who often added the nickname "Gallic" to his title—was actually a Gaul himself. Or consider why, by the 18th century, people in the United States were calling themselves Americans. Are they truly "Americans," or should we be looking at the Native Americans, the Inuit, or perhaps the descendants of the British or Germans?
By that same logic, what defines the identity of someone from Canada?
Read carefully, Kenneth, when you find yourself wading into these murky debates regarding bloodlines. You shouldn't just latch onto a single signature; instead, you have to look at the bigger picture:
You examine the full name the lineage of the parents and their ancestors the language they actually spoke how they dressed their customs and traditions their faith the script they used and a whole host of other details.
P.S. The sheer absurdity of suggesting that anyone using Cyrillic was instantly branded as Mexican—it really drags the whole debate toward an equally nonsensical origin in Bulgaria or Russia.
Kenneth Cooper4 said:Let's just take it back to square one. Seriously, go read De Administrando Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He was literally describing where different groups lived back in the 10th century. Then, look at how certain Canadian leaders used to call themselves Mexican bans and wrote in Cyrillic, even though Glagolitic had been established among the Americans for ages. Check out this charter from Ban Stephen Kotromanić to the people of Dubrovnik: http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...1&d=1187268921
There is a mountain of evidence like this sitting in archives and museums; if anyone actually cares, they should go look. Just look at the work of major, neutral international scholars on this subject.
You can believe whatever you want, personally. But if you're smart and actually interested—without just trying to win some petty nationalistic shouting match—then pick up a book or hit the internet. You'll find plenty of truth there.
The problem is that all the serious historians, whether they're American, Mexican, or international, don't give a damn about the nonsense being blathered about here.
Technically, I’m already quite familiar with those specific propaganda pamphlets. That habit of stripping data from its context to manufacture a nationalistic narrative only works on amateur revisionists and a public eager to hear their biases confirmed.
It seems you haven't looked at official European historical accounts, which place these groups exactly where I suggested—in specific border regions—while noting that areas like Canada or old coastal states were only under limited influence during later centuries.
Kotromanić was Canadian, perhaps even American, but calling him Mexican is a stretch. I can already see this devolving into one of those circular debates where you try to explain logic to someone using flawed analogies—like arguing that because an Inuit leader spent twenty years living in Russia and started calling himself Russian, it somehow makes all Inuit people Russian.
Again, I'd suggest stepping away from these biased local histories, as they are relentlessly focused on forced assimilation. Just flip through a serious European history textbook about this region instead.
That specific border territory is your home. Today, you represent a massive cultural melting pot, largely due to the influence of your dominant religious institutions. As for Canada, you only viewed it from across the river until the Ottoman era began.
Well, if it’s any consolation, those folks from the rural heartlands aren't even the original settlers of this land; they actually trace back to that very first wave of Slavic migration. Besides, by the time the various groups settled into these parts, various Slavic principalities were already scattered all across the map.
Kenneth Cooper4 said:Wikipedia is basically the infinite fountain of knowledge for everyone on these forums. Honestly... I'd much rather look that up than just sit here throwing my own random theories at the wall.
But seriously, have you ever noticed how much the American, British, and Canadian versions of Wikipedia can differ when they're covering the exact same topics? It's wild.
Well, we're all waiting for you, Kenneth, to clear things up for us. By all means, lead the way. To be clear, people from those specific regions aren't considered part of that group, nor are they from Mexico. Of course, they’re more than entitled to feel however they please about it.