Talk:Bunjevci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents 1 old talk 2 The Bunjevci are Croats... 3 Language 4 references to the Bunjevci in Hungary 5 Name 6 comment from 82.232.35.48 7 Croatdom of Bunyevs

[edit] old talk

I really don't know why I bother any more. Igor has again changed this page to favour some fictional Bunjevci that consider themselves Serbs, at the same time posting how more of them consider themselves Croats. I have listened to the leaders of both factions in an interview and the leader of the faction other than the Croat one states very clearly that they are their own ethnic group, neither Croat nor Serb. So, whatever. --Shallot 09:55, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am just staying true to the facts, no such documents refer to the Bunjevci as Croats but simply as 'Catholic Serbs' in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (German and Hungarian). Today, only a few of the Bunjevci consider themselves as Serbs, the number is unkown because they cannot be differentiated the the ORthodox Serbs in Backa. Anyways, I think the page is pretty clear and points out both sides claims while only retaining those arguments that can be supported by factual evidence not just hearsay and nationalist claims. --Igor 20:39, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Like I said, whatever, it's nonsense that they're only referred to as Catholic Serbs. I googled and read tens of definitions of where the Bunjevci came from, tens of definitions of what their origin was (Vlachs and Illyrians, too!), written both by Bunjevac common people, Bunjevac historians and by other people, from the period of 1700 until the present day. You claim to be staying true to the facts, and yet blithely remove the fact that that the Bunjevac ethnicity isn't explicated anywhere except in Vojvodina where the Serbs (mis)treat them as Catholic Serbs, or how they actually began restoring their link with the Croats ever since the latter started organizing back in the 19th century (before they also often used toponymic names, not unlike the name Bunjevac).

Accuse me of being a nationalist all you want, but at least I don't try to subtly skew the truth while pompously boasting "staying true to the facts". Pfft. I am entirely unimpressed. --Shallot 19:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] The Bunjevci are Croats...

It is crazy to talk about Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs just because Austro-Hungarians cald them like that. They were watching from the outside so it is quite reasonable that they would think of Bunjevci as Serbs, because it simplifies the thing. But now that Milosevic is gone Serbia should let go the talk of Bunjevci as a separate nation. I mean, most of them do think of themselfs as Croats, which is normal. There is still a large number of those that said they were Bunjevci because after so many years of living beside other nations here and away from the homeland many people are just or ashamed or scared to say that they are Croats... Just look at the language those people speak, and you will see that it is a dialect of Croatian language. And people that represent the Bunjevci nation idea are really funny. They never accepted to confront their ideas with the Croatian side. Enough said And of course... Isn't it a little bit weird that only in Vojvodina Bunjevci call themselves like that? In Croatia and Hungary there is not any similar problem with the Bunjevci group... They all do know that they are like Zagorci, Dalmatians and Istrian all part of the Croatian national body..

• Hungarians never called Bunjevci catholic Serbs; what they sometimes said is that Bunjevci and Sokci are Catholic rácok, which is not the same as saying that Bunjevci ara Catholic Serbs. Rácok was the general denomination for all subgroups of South Slavic peoples living in Hungary. Later, the term rácok became increasingly used for the Serbs. In contemporary Hungarian language, to say to anyone "you are like a rác!, it is almost insulting. It has the connotation of beeing wild, always in opposition, full of himself. The old word 'rácok' certainly had not these coonotations, since the South Slavic peoples whom the Hungarians used to call rácok, were quite well established in the country, and they often were in a higher social level than the "genuin" Hungarians themselves. Consequently, there are a lot of places in Hungary, which have in their name the word 'rác'. It meant that it is a prosperous place, and this does not always mean that the history of these settlements has anything to do with Serbs. Of course, there were many Serbs in post-Mohács Hungary, and it is higly possible that most of the places were called 'rác-something', because there were Serbs. But 'rácok' were called also other mercantile peoples, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Bulgarians, for example, and also other South Slavic peoples, including the various brances of Croats. The orthodox church in Eger, in Miskolc, or in Hódmezővásárhely, for instance, is called 'rác templom', but was not built by Serbs, but by the local Greek community, the members of which came to Hungary once for the very similar reason as the Serbs did. --Veermer-- 16:30, 29 January 2006
• To call one Croat it was almost impossible in Habsburg Hungary, since there was practically no Croatia (the Habsburgs did not care about the rights of Croatian nation in the personalunion with Hungary), and, what is more, the Croatians started to call themselves Illirains. Now, how could have a Bunjevac possibly said that he would be a Croat, when it was not clear what is Croatia, what does it means beeing a Croat? It would have been a nonsense. But, with the establishment of national identity of the Croats, also the Bunjevci and Sokci peoples started to see towards West and South-West, rather than towards Sumadija and the mythical Kosovo. Why would have they looked towards Serbia? Furthermore, the idea of the so-called "Croatisation" of Bunjevci by the Catholic clergy does not explain this phenomenon completely. For instance, it would be an interesting research why did Bunjevci and Sokci people in the Socialistic Yugoslavia went for studies rather to the university of the Croatian capital, than to Belgrade, when Novi Sad was not an option. They lived in Serbian Republik, they spoke Serbo-Croatian, practically Serbian language, those times the Catholic Church had not a saying in this issues, Belgrade was closer, larger, perhaps also cheaper. The official belief was the complete communist brotherhood. And what was usually the case? The Bunjevac intelligentia instinctively prefered Croatia. ? This was also clear in 1971, when "cleansings" took place also in Subotica, and again, a lot of Serbian burocrats came to dirigate the local peoples. As to the present Bunjevci/Croats debate, what I see as an outsider is that many of the Bunjevci people left the Vojvodina region during the last wartimes, especially those ones who were educated, and now the Serbs offer to the traditionaly quite simple minded and benevolent Bunjevci to be "Catholic Serbs", or just Bunjevci, or Sokci. Is it a wonder that immediately after the Big-Serbian monomania these people are hesitating to call themselves what they are? What seems to be important from the Serbian point of view is that Bunjevci do not think that they are possible Croats. I wonder why? --Veermer-- 16:07, 29 January 2006

////////

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bunjevci.html

Dear, Panonian... Read this, and then stop telling LIES about Bunjevci, let them decide who they are... And just now the majority say that they are CROATIAN, and in 10 years time, even more will realize this obvious thruth..

Have a nice day.

Actually, you should stop reading suspicious web sites like that one. Besides that, you should see results from 2002 census in Serbia and you will see what they said they are. It is you who do not let them to decide who they are. I will remind you: in 2002 census, 20,012 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Bunjevci. You cannot now to speculate that they are branch of somebody else, because it is not what they declared. Have a nice day you too. PANONIAN (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC1)

And what do you think than Panion, who were all the CROATS from that year census??? Maybe fallen from Mars, or actually they were BUNJEVCI, at least the Croats from the North Vojvodina?????!?!?!?!?! You cannot ignore even larger number of Bunjevci, that feal like CROATIAN!!!

The feel of that part of Bunjevci that declared themselves as Croats is already mentioned in the proper place in this article. Try to read it all, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can show you that majority of Bunjevci do not declare themselves as Croats. See Subotica article (Demographics section). In the Subotica municipality there are 16,688 declared Croats, 16,254 declared Bunjevci and 8,562 declared Yugoslavs. When you count together those Bunjevci that declare themselves as Bunjevci and Yugoslavs their number is larger than the number of those that declare themselves as Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that Bunjevci live only in Subotica????

Don't you think that there are maybe Bunjevci also in Croatia and Hungary, and what do they think they are?? So, the number of BUNJEVCI is definitely HIGHER than 20.000 in Serbia, because those who tell for themselves that are CROATIAN are also BUNJEVCI!!!

Bunjevci live mostly in the Subotica municipality and some neighbouring places. Declared Croats in other parts of Vojvodina are rather Šokci than Bunjevci. PANONIAN (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Actually, in Serbia, all 3 nationalities: Serbs, Croats and Bunjevci are recognized as a separate ethnic groups. If we have this in mind, we can say that name Bunjevci can refer to two things:

• 1. ethnic Bunjevci
• 2. a sub-group of ethnic Croats

If we talk about Bunjevci who consider themselves to be a separate nationality, they are very proud to be Bunjevci (not Croats or Serbs). In fact, maybe we can have 2 articles about Bunjevci: one about ethnic Bunjevci, and another about Croatian Bunjevci (a sub-group of Croats). User:PANONIAN

---

I inserted the Template:Ethnic Group here; the data should be worked on and at the moment it's kind of stub. By inserting the template, I do not wish to take either position. As we all know, the ethnic classification is not exact science and it's my opinion that the template is applicable event to "sub-groups" if one regards Bunjevci as such.Duja 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about 2 articles on Bunjevci; they clearly are one people and it's the issue of classification and self-determination whether they are a Croatian tribe or a separate ethnicity. There are similar uncertainties about Montenegrins and even more Vlachs of Serbia; the article mentions that in mostly NPOV manner. Duja 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, Duja, in all these cases about Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs of Serbia, the one have only to listen what Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs think about themselves. The opinions of Croatian, Serbian and Romanian nationalists who want to assimilate these peoples is irrelevant. I very well know that all these peoples claim that they are separate distinct nations, and thus we should regard them as such. The ethnicity is nothing more than a national consciousness. If somebody believe that he is Chinese, he is Chinese, if somebody believe that he is German, he is German, etc. Same thing is with Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs. If they believe that they are separate nations, that is what they are. PANONIAN (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't think the issue is entirely about self-determination. The problem comes when the group (Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs are all fine examples) does refer to themselves by a name, but they cannot decide collectively (and there are roughly equal splits in all three above-mentioned) whether the name consists a "separate ethnic group" or "a subgroup of another nation". From aside, we can pretty clearly tell whether someone is Bunjevac (in everyday sense of the word) by their name, religion, speech and lore, but what if (s)he ethnically declares as a Croat? IMO that does not make him/her less of a Bunjevac than the one who declares as ethnic Bunjevac, nor such situation would require separate articles for two groups that share pretty much everything except common self-determination.

My proposal for resolving such situation is to have one article, clearly mention the dispute in a NPOV manner and count'em all in in the Ethnic Group template, but providing separate numbers for both ethnic declarations within the template (if available). Duja 10:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

"but what if (s)he ethnically declares as a Croat?"

Well, problem is that besides declaring themselves as Bunjevci, they do not also declare themselves ONLY as Croats, but also as Yugoslavs, Magyars, Serbs, etc. The view that they declare themselves only as Bunjevci and Croats is simply not correct. If some of them declare themselves as Croats, Serbs or Yugoslavs that does not mean that ALL OF THEM are Croats, Serbs or Yugoslavs. The reason why we have this article at all is because there are people who consider themselves and declare themselves only as Bunjevci, not as Croats, Serbs, etc. But, if you want to refer to "all Bunjevci", not only those who declare themselves as such, you should see an example about population of Subotica: Hungarians (38.5%), Serbs (24.1%), Croats (11.2%), Bunjevci (11.1%), Yugoslavs (6%), Montenegrins (1%), etc. Do you think that this can show "real" number of Bunjevci? Some people argue that city population is actually composed of 60-70% Bunjevci and 25-30% Serbs, since most of these Hungarians (if not all) could be a Hungarized Bunjevci, as well as most of declared Croats and Yugoslavs are actually ethnic Bunjevci. By the 1868 data, the city population was composed of 50,000 Bunjevci, 6,000 Hungarians, 3,500 Serbs, 1,300 Jews, etc. In old Austro-Hungarians censuses, Bunjevci as well as Šokci mostly declared themselves as such, not as Croats, Serbs, Hungarians, etc. The Croat nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Croats because they speak the same ikavian dialect as Croats from Dalmatia. The Serb nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Serbs because old historical sources refered to them as a "Catholic Rascians" (Catholic Serbs). But despite all of this, fact is that Bunjevci are an distinctive nation and those Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats are exactly that (Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats), while Bunjevci are not Croats who declare themselves as Bunjevci. PANONIAN (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not even sure we disagree. I'd just make two corrections:

Well, problem is that besides declaring themselves as Bunjevci, they do not also declare themselves ONLY as Croats, but also as Yugoslavs, Magyars, Serbs, etc.

But (as far as I know), most of those who don't declare themselves as Bunjevci declare as Croats, at least in Serbia. There certainly are those who declare as Yugoslav, Magyars, Serbs but I think they're in significant minority. I stand open-minded on this until I see some relevant figures though.

But despite all of this, fact is that Bunjevci are an distinctive nation

I'd use a weaker wording here and say that Bunjevci are a distinctive group. I don't oppose your position that one should use (mostly) self-determination to distinguish a group; thus, the figure of 50,000 is probably OK, as it counts in both Bunjevci who declare as Bunjevci ethnically, and Bunjevci who feel as Bunjevci in regional/traditional sense but declare that they're ethnically something else. Those who state that they have anything to do with "Bunjevci" should not be counted in. Whether Bunjevci are a distinct ethnic group is under dispute among Bunjevci themselves -- THAT makes a difference. If it weren't so, Croatian and Serbian nationalist views could be neglected (and only mentioned as a side note in the article). Certainly, the position of the ones who do declare as ethnical Bunjevci must be respected and "separate ethnic group" right assigned; however, the position of the other group must be mentioned as well. Duja 09:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. If you refer to the figures I inserted in the template, feel free to change them as you see fit. Thus, I propose the count for Serbia should be something like (50,000 est. [20,000 declare as Bunjevci], [20,000 as Croats]). But I don't have actual figures, especially for Hungary. Duja 09:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

What I mainly object here is listing Bunjevci as a subgroup of Croats. You are right that this issue is not entirely about self-determination, but the ethnic origin of Bunjevci is also part of the problem. It is not certain whether ancestors of Bunjevci were ethnic Croats or Serbs. I have a book "Bunjevci" (Novi Sad - Sombor, 1998), written by Alba M. Kuntić, who was Bunjevac himself. According to his research, Bunjevci are descendants of Orthodox Serbs who converted to Catholic religion (The Hungarian sources also mention Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs). Also, according to some Croats, Bunjevci are descendants of Croats from Dalmatia. Since their origin is disputed, we simply cannot claim that Bunjevci are a subgroup of Croats or a subgroup of Serbs. The proper scientific manner is to treat them as a separate people, as many of them think about themselves. Despite their origin (Serb or Croat), in the Austro-Hungarian censuses they always declared themselves as Bunjevci, not as Croats or Serbs. The Vojvodinian assembly, which voted to join Vojvodina to Serbia in 1918 was officially named "the assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and other Slavs of Banat, Bačka and Baranja". So, only Serbs and Bunjevci are individually mentioned here as a nations, not Croats, who were here classified as "other Slavs", together with Slovaks, Rusins, etc. Only in Yugoslavia Bunjevci started to declare themselves as Croats. During the Socialist Federal Yugoslavia, it was forbiden for Bunjevci to declare themselves as such, and who ever declared himself as Bunjevac, was simply listed as "Croat" in census results. So, it was the policy of communist party leadership to Croatize this people (As one can see this policy was partially successful, but not entirely). As for the manner how Bunjevci declare themselves in census, it is correct that not many of them declare themselves as Serbs or Magyars, but many of them declare themselves as Yugoslavs. Also, not all Croats in Vojvodina are of Bunjevci origin. It would not be correct to simply join the numbers of declared Bunjevci and declared Croats and claim that this is a number of Bunjevci. Many Croats in Vojvodina are descendants of Šokci (and Šokci and Bunjevci are two clearly separated groups). So, the "real" number of Bunjevci might include: declared Bunjevci, Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats (which is not same with the number of Croats in Vojvodina), and Bunjevci who declare themselves as Yugoslavs, with some who declare themselves as Serbs and Magyars. I do not know is this "real" number as high as 50,000. It is better to write official number of declared Bunjevci from 2002 census, and then to put some note that this number is higher since many of them declare themselves as Croats or Yugoslavs. From where you get this 50,000 number anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

50,000 was my roughly estimated sum of 20,000 declared Bunjevci in Vojvodina + a portion of declared Croats in Vojvodina + unknown number of Bunjevci in Hungary. I admit I got this number from nowhere, as I noted in the talk page when I created it. Otherwise, I agree with you. Duja 15:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of you seem to have forgotten the unknown number of Bunjevci in Croatia, which could well be comparable to their number in Vojvodina. --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

All right, the number could stay until the more correct one is listed. Just one interesting illustration, which can show how many Bunjevci declare themselves as Yugoslavs. Here is the quote from the article: "The historically Bunjevac village of Donji Tavankut had 989 Bunjevci, 877 Croats, and 600 Yugoslavs". It is very large number of Bunjevci who declare themselves as Yugoslavs, dont you agree? PANONIAN (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do note that that number is from the 1991 census, so it's obsolete for the purposes of a current head count (ugh). --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Language

We should to respect the official census data here. Not only most of the Bunjevci and Šokci, but also most of the Croats in Serbia declared to speak Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

We should not respect the official census data here. Serbia is well known to neighbouring nations, as state that is forgering the history and current data as a mean to have casus beli when convinient. Just ask any Slovene, Bosnian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Macedonian, Bulgarian or Hungarian (or me - Croat).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.181.95 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 January 2006.

---

That is ridiculous. Serbia have the largest number of ethnic minorities in the region. In Serbia, ALL ethnic groups and their languages are recognized, while some of the neighbouring countries you mentioned do not treat its minorities in such manner. And please, stop this old Croatian nationalistic story that Bunjevci do not exist as a nation. It is well known that Croatian nationalists who want to assimilate Bunjevci into Croats claim that Bunjevci are not a nation. Serbian authorities does not have intention to assimilate them, thus they are recognized in Serbia in the manner how they want to be recognized and how they declare themselves in census. They declare themselves as Bunjevci and declare their language as Serbian and that is simple statistical fact. Those Buunjevci who declare themselves as Croats and their language as Croatian are also recognized in the manner how they want to be. It is a right of CHOICE for somebody to declare himself as Bunjevac. You cannot deny this right to people. PANONIAN (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Both Serbs, Croats and all the inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina speak one and the same language - Serbo-Croatian. It is totally absurd to discuss the language of Bunjevci in this situation. The Croats of Vojvodina (and with them many who have Bunjevci roots) all speak ekavian ot ikavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. On the other hand they demand that they should have "Croatian" language (i.e. ijekavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian) in schools. This means that they demand that as their mother language they should learn a dialect that they never use! This is a classical nationalistic and political abuse of logic or linguistics. Thus, all discussion on the subject of Bunjevci speaking Croatian or Serbian is highly absurd. --Dultz 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already explained nicely in the article and I see little reason to rant about this at this talk page.

Yet, I cannot escape the impression that it's really a case of pot calling the kettle black if you think it's abusive and illogical for people to want their children to learn ijekavian as well as ikavian. Why shouldn't they want to do so? They apparently do so because they think it will help them interact with what they perceive as the rest of their nation. The state allows them to declare their nationality freely, but it shouldn't allow them to learn whatever languages they want? Aren't you actually ranting against the whole concept of nations here? Maybe the concept of self-determination is the target? --Joy [shallot] 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references to the Bunjevci in Hungary

In response to the reference of Bunjevci in Hungary:

1. Due to the aggressive process of Magyarization that started in the 19th Century and its intensification in the Horthy and Communist regimes, almost all of them assimilated into Hungarians.

2. Some individual families still stick to the language but these are very few in number.

3. Most people born since 1920's still speak the language but because they are not active users, the level of speech is not that high and this generation is dying out. Mixed marriages, especially after WWII contributed to this.

4. Some people claim to be Bunjevac (bunyevác), but they do not speak a word of the language.

5. Cultural groups exist in some villages.

6. The names remain, but everything else is Hungarian.

--adam300 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I added some more information on the namo of Bunjevci. I propose that it becomes a separate passage. --Dultz 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment from 82.232.35.48

What about Bunjevci that actually KNOW THEIR ORIGINS and say that they are CROATIAN... They are not among this group?? And what about Bunjevci in CROATIA?? Did you know that this ethnic group exists there also, and everyone by some miracle knows that they are CROATIAN..

Come to Subotica and ask some intelectual about the origin of Bunjevci, or ask some Bunjevac in the street of what nation is he... And let's see what he will tell you..

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.232.35.48 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 June 2006.

No, they do not KNOW their origin, but they BELIEVE in their origin. Try to notice the difference. However, there are also many of them who believe that they are not Croats. Besides that, both opinions about that are already mentioned in the article: the opinion that Bunjevci are separate nation, and opinion that Bunjevci are Croats. What you want more? PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I want the thruth... Not everyone is SERBIAN, you know. And this process of de-croatization of Bunjevci should definitely stop;.. But time will tell, not this encyclopedia... And you will see that there will be always only less of those who call themselves only Bunjevci. They are ridicolous!!!

And I can declare my self as CHINESE if I want, but that doesn'y change the fact that Bunjevci culturaly are a member of a wider gropu, that's called the CROATIAN NATION... And what about Panonian's hypocracy... He says one thing on Serbian wikipedia, and he's ok with the things on english one... i don't understand that. If Bunjevci are a nation, then tomorrow I am gonna found a new nation of MOTOKULTIVATORI... and you will se how many of us are gonna be on the next census.

There is no such thing as de-croatization of Bunjevci process. On the contrary, the opposite process of their croatization is an issue for almost a century. Large part of Bunjevci rejected these attempts of Croatian nationalists to croatize them, and they see themselves in the same manner as their ancestors saw themselves in the past - as a separate Bunjevci people. You should not say that people are ridiculous because they call themselves with the same name as their ancestors did. In 1850s, there was in Vojvodina 62,936 Bunjevci and Šokci and only 2,860 Croats. You can judge for yourself were they croatized or de-croatized. As for my "hypocracy", what you have in mind exactly? What I said on Serbian Wikipedia? PANONIAN (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, I suggest you actually read the article whose lead section you wish to modify. --Joy [shallot] 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One more link I have to add... From one of the respectable croatian catholic newspapers in vojvodina.. http://www.zvonik.org.yu/871/ZV03.html

so see what are the people like Tamas Korhez, Andrija Kopilovic and others saying about Bunjevci, and about the problems of INTEGRATION into the Croatian corpus till now...

Please do not mention word "corpus" any more. When we start to use words like "national corpus", "homeland war", etc, we already know where that lead. For the point of view of the part of Bunjevci that do not consider themselves Croats, only relevant thing is what they say about themselves, not what Tamas Korhez or anybody else think. I read the interview with the leader of Bunjevac national community in Serbia and he said that Bunjevci are not Croats and that Croats trying to assimilate them for decades. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I think you should also read something from the leaders of Croatian national council... And then maybe make a comparison between the two views, and see what is more likely... However, it's doesn't matter at all. In some 10-20-30 years from today, the notion of BUNJEVAC as a national identity will not exist any more, because people will understand some things more as years go on...

Do not worry, I did read what those from Croatian national council say, and the comparison of the two views would be like this: one man have name Pera and his neighbour constantly trying to convince him that his name is not Pera but Đoka. :)) Regarding what will be after 20-30 years, we have to wait to see census results from that time period and then I could give you answer to your comment. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatdom of Bunyevs

The official site of Bunyevs gives a lot of information about them - they actually consider that they've been assimilated into Croats and they share a pro-Serbian POV at many places. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And even more important, it is clearly and factualy shown that after WWII they were prohibited calling themselves Bunjevci and had to be noted down as Croats. --Dultz 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)