First things first
They weren't Catholic, they were Kristjani (Bogumils), but they claimed to be Serbs
What Nedim said.
And distinction by religion between Serbs and other Yugoslav nations by religion is characteristics of XX century and later...not Middle Ages....so another false information.
Ah, but I thought you said the Serb and Croat "tribes" existed way back in the 7th century.
Bulgarian are TURKISH TRIBE that lived in Caucasus till 6th and 7th century, when they migrated to Balkans....so another false information...or just ignorance.
Truth is we're all quite ignorant about medieval steppe migrations. The Bulgarians
could be Turkic. Depend on how you define it. I'll let Dachs handle this since he knows more, if he doesn't think this is a waste of his time, that is.
Montenegrin ARE Serbs....it is said like that by all Montenegrin kings (Petrovic dynasty) and in census 1921 95% of Montenegro population claimed to be Serbs....so...WRONG for you.
Your claim seem to be "everyone except Croats are Serbs until those Communists invent all these traitor countries".
I wouldn't trust any KSHS census regarding Montenegro since it is well documented that the Serbs fudge the polls to annex Montenegro (previously independent, and had been for centuries).
Today...there isn't any doubt that Macedonians have national identity, but before ww2 they did not...they had either Bulgarian or Serb identity...So, today they are Macedonians....but before ww2 were either Serbs or Bulgarians...
A Macedonian national identity was developing during the late 19th century.
How is the average Kuwaiti poorer now than in 1960?
My guess is it's the effects of fluctuating oil prices and population growth (including migrant workers). The estimated GDP per capita of Kuwait in 1960 was absurdly high (something like $94,000). Fifty years later they're at $38,000, and still one of the richest countries in the world, so they're not doing badly.
For the John Citizen of Kuwait, 2011 Kuwait is a better place to live in than 1960 Kuwait. Average GDP per capita may or may not collerate well with economic development, quality of life, health, education, and other indicators. A good example (well, it's bad for the people there) of this is Equatorial Guinea.
Why are the life expectancy indicators for Botswana so wildly divergent? Some sources say things as low as 33, some say as high as 60.
33 is "healthy life expectancy", that is, how long you are expected to be healthy enough to support yourself. 60 is the actual life expectancy. The disparity is due to AIDS, which technically lowers both but in Botswana the life expectancy doesn't fall as low as the country has the resources to treat AIDS patients.
Incidentally the map proves what I've been saying all along - the end of colonial rule was bad for Africa.
Well, to be fair, they really didn't have much to start out at independence (IIRC, Mozambique has like one hospital, and there are about 100 university graduates in all of Belgian Congo, and so on). After independence, they relied on the one thing that colonialism was really successful in doing: cash crops. Things were going fine in many countries (though there are no African Tigers; the closest thing to one was Cote d'Ivoire) in the two decades immediately after independence. The graphs you posted while I was writing this post illustrates this for Kenya and Tanzania; not so much for Zambia, CAR and DRC, but that's not very surprising. They were failed states from the very beginning.
In the 1980s the basketcases (Zambia, CAR, DRC, etc) destroyed themselves while the previously mildly successful ones (Kenya, Tanzania, Congo, Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria) stagnated. In some countries it was famine, in some it was AIDS, in others it was plain old kleptocracy. It was around this time that Africa fell off the world map; the 1980s was all about the rise of Asia, and Africa was forgotten. It's still largely forgotten. Africa is only known for catastrophe, whether it is because of crushing poverty, AIDS, black stupidly or a neo-colonialist conspiracy. Both treats Africa as if it's a monolithic bloc of doom and helplessness when it's really not the case and unfair to group countries with actual government and economy like Tanzania with basketcases like the DRC or Somalia.
I've never seen a non nationalist Serb, or any other nationality from the balkans. I want proof that the Bosnian Kings and Bans claimed to be Serbs. I've studied the subject, and I have not once found any quote, anything indicating that they claimed they were serbs. You keep claiming stuff, but we want proof, sure wikipedia isn't good, but its better than anyones word.
