|
| Thread: Greece - Macedonia - F.Y.R.O.M. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 15, 2005 07:36 PM |
|
|
Yes But...
Isn't it true that some Macedonians call themselves Greek? Is this a term for a region, a country, or a person?
The Greek region has been overrun by Romans and Ottomans too. Isn't that significant in determining the current identity?
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
madmartigan
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
who will never walk alone
|
posted April 15, 2005 07:41 PM |
|
|
gonna be off topic, but could not resist the urge. It was quite fun to spend approx 30 mins reading the whole thread, and seeing how each "Balkanian" accusing each other for posting "national propaganda".
I don't have anything to add to the discussion other than my impressions as an outsider.
From what I have read, the only one who (at least tries to) post without the prejudices that have been given to them by their government (I am guessing that you all have received some form of education [aka propaganda] from some schools in your country) is Svarog.
Quote:
....bending facts to suit your little story.....
Show me one version of "national history" that does not include "bended facts".
From what I have read in various forums, all armenians reecive a history education that is solely based on Ottomans mass murdering their nation during WWI.
Speak of bended facts.
According history education I have received from my government, it was not the ottomans that murdered armenians, but it was armenians that slaughtered ottomans.
Speak of bended facts.
Middle eastern nations hating US... I can only guess what kind of an education those arabic fundemantalists provide to inject their citizens such hatred. For gods sakes, they believe that they will go to heaven if they kill another human being !!!
Speak of bended facts.
My government teach all Turkish kids that Anatolia is Turkish territory. They base this claim (that Anatolia is Turkish territory) on the fact that it was Turks that inhabited Anatolia for the last 900 years. However, wherever you perform an archeological dig, you come across ruins belonging to Ancient Greece (who inhabited Anatolia more than 6000 years, until their civiliaztion was turned into those ruins by my people)
Speak of bended facts.
Wolfman, a teenager living in USA, believes that his country invaded Iraq for the sake of divine good.
Speak of bended facts.
Every goddarn country/government bends the facts, so that its existance can continue.
Do you really belive that you are not posting under influence of the prejudices that have been imposed on you since you were ...say... 5 years old?
____________
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 07:47 PM |
|
|
it all depends on definition...
if you accept Macedonian as "whoever lives in Macedonia" then most Macedonians are Greeks
if you accept Macedonian as "descendant of Ancient Macedonians" then i will say ...that there is no fullproof way to prove anything, but all Macedonians are again Greeks (since Ancient Macedonians were as Greeks as the Spartans were ...and again, Ancient Greeks say that, not I)
if however you accept Macedonian as "citizen of F.Y.R.O.M. (and kin)" then no Macedonian is Greek
Greece has been overrun, partly conquered, pillaged, invaded, etc by quite a few nations... the core population however never changed... so most Greeks can easily trail their lineage back to the days of Byzantium ...and some (with a lot more patience than me i assure you) even further back
madmartigan
Quote:
Do you really belive that you are not posting under influence of the prejudices that have been imposed on you since you were ...say... 5 years old?
to a rather good percentage, i would say yes... mostly thanks to my parents and my own nature ...as i said before, i like to do my own digging... and have done so for as long as i remember myself ...which is why i get a headache when i get a history school book in my hands
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 08:16 PM |
|
|
Here`s another Balkanian ready to throw in his two cents:
I think Svarog is right.
There. That felt good.
Now I would like to hear The Voice of Reason.
I refer, of course, to Mr. Holmes.
____________
Truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 08:28 PM |
|
|
i have to say it... can't hold myself...
The Earth is flat. There, that felt good
of course it lacks any sort of argument or proof or whathaveyou, but who really cares about that when we can get away with a one liner, right?
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now I would like to hear The Voice of Reason.
I refer, of course, to Mr. Holmes.
What have I got to do with this?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 16, 2005 01:30 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 15 Apr 2005
|
Hmm...
I'm trying to figure this out from the other side of the globe.....so a little patience if you please. I've finally figured out what my confusion is all about. To be Hellenic means of the Hellenes; Greek. To be called Hellenist means to be non-Greek, especially a Jew of the Hellenistic period, who adopted the Greek language and customs. To be Hellenistic also means to be characterized as a Hellenist.
So in short this can be very confusing for someone who is very unfamiliar with "Greek" or what they also call the Hellenistic period. The -istic suffix of Hellen can actually mean two different things. One is describing a period of Greek events in the late 8th century b.c. while the other is derogatory toward people of non-Greek origin attempting to assimilate into the common Greek culture.
Do you see my confusion now? Greek language and thinking is very confusing to me because of such subtle nuances and intricate meanings!
The very last stage of this "Hellenistic period" is the reign of the Macedonian empire under Alexander(III) the Great. My unending question is: Why is this final period of the Greek empire so sought after/valued/important by the Macedonians of today? It is historically the END of the ancient Greek civilization! And not only was it the end but it was the instant-end; falling immediately with the death of Alexander the Great. This is so perplexing to me! How can a civilization end so suddenly with the death of a very young ruler? Methinks this is no great ruler if his empire does not succeed him! Look at the mighty Ghengis Khan. He was a great ruler not only for his conquests but also because of his empire's influencial role played in bringing about trade between the orient and the europeans. It marked the end of claustrophobic philosophies in the world. Why Alexander the Great? The only reason he was great is because of his military campaigns and age at which he accomplished them. Do wars make a person great or does the philosophy of the beauty of human civilization make them great? I still do not see the significance of this Alexander fellow. He was young, a brilliant tactician, and without hope. Where was his greatness when he fell? Who was there to carry on his ideals? He had no ideals, only the talent of conquering through the devastation of war. Great wars can do great things for one person but wars do not make one great.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 09:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What have I got to do with this?
Apparently, you cannot call your country Great Britain, because you are not a Brit. In addition, you must disown king Arthur once and for all, otherwise you will be flamed. You have been warned.
____________
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 10:35 AM |
|
|
Vlaad...
Quote:
Quote:
What have I got to do with this?
Apparently, you cannot call your country Great Britain, because you are not a Brit. In addition, you must disown king Arthur once and for all, otherwise you will be flamed. You have been warned.
i hope you realize the double irony of your post... your posts so far have been the only ones to get close to flaming and your "witty" response actually includes what both (using both when in fact there are three - if not more) sides accuse the other of doing... and that to a point (as far as "king Arthur's" origin goes) is not all that important to the argument, or at least not in the foreground...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 12:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Apparently, you cannot call your country Great Britain, because you are not a Brit. In addition, you must disown king Arthur once and for all, otherwise you will be flamed. You have been warned.
Actually, since (AFAIK) majority of my distant ancestors are either Welsh or Irish I probably am more British than many in the country if you define "British" as being descended from the original inhabitants of the island (which I don't). As for Arthur, I don't believe he existed to any great degree, and even if he did I still accept that there's an argument that he might not have been British. He was after all primarily invented by French people. I don't tend to get upset when the French try and claim him as theirs given that they can't prove he existed any more than we can. Oh and btw, IF he existed, he wouldn't necessarily have been a true Briton either since most tend to think of him as a Romano-Briton rather than a pureblooded Briton.
In a curiously warped way though, Britain does slightly but not perfectly mirror this situation. After all, those living at the time when Arthur existed, and the last time Britain was called such (prior to 1700s or so) now mostly reside in "celtic" countries like Wales, Ireland and Scotland. The newcomers, ie the Anglo-Saxon-French-Dane (not to mention a few others) descended English* appropriated this name in the 1700s after conquering the others and brought back into use Britain as a term. Essentially, though the English have very little ethnic right to the term, their claim to the name came from geography, namely controlling the area Britons used to live in. Unlike the Macedonia/Greece problem though the newcomers to the region control the largest area of the Isles and have a much larger population than those countries where the original "britons" are in higher numbers.
I would point out though that nearly 2000 has passed since the Romans invaded the British Isles and began the process of driving the native britons into what we now call Celtic countries of Ireland Wales and Scotland (Hell for that matter the celts were not the "original" inhabitants of these isles either, so being descended from Celts doesn't make you any more British than being descended from Anglo-Saxons unless you go purely on a "been here slightly longer" basis). During this time those countries have been subjected to their own invasions, immigrations and so on. Therefore the chances of anyone in those countries being purely celtic Britons is pretty remote also. Even those living in Celtic countries are likely to have "English" or foriegn ancestors, and therefore might be no more native british than I am. As Lith and Svarog probably know, being born somewhere or even having ancestors going back centuries there is no garuntee of a direct genetic link to those who lived there 2-3 thousand years ago. After all, my family include viking ancestry, but to the best of my knowledge contain very few people from outside the isles in the family tree.
Now we already have a situation were a part of this country split from the others, namely the republic of Ireland. Fortunately, though they have the geographical and Ethnic right to call themselves Britons, or even their country Britain should they have wished, they did not.
It's an imperfect comparison because:
1) The independent country in our case (Ireland) chose another name for itself
2) Those countries with chances of future independence do have in the main a better ethnic link to the original "Britons" than the English do.
3) In the event of future independence, it's quite likely that no-one will retain the use of Britain as it is now. Some use of being "British" may still exist but it's likely to be more about geography, ie from the British Isles than about national identity.
4) Each of the component parts of the British Isles tend to prefer using their own geographical name when referred to as seperate entities (eg at sports meetings) rather than as British.
The problem that you will have in my experience though Lith is that geographically, Svarog's countrymen have a right to be called Macedonian, it is after all the area they occupy, even if they don't occupy it all. I can't stop the Irish from calling themselves Britons or British, after all they are from the British Isles (though remembering the above it's still not a good comparison). They have a right to the name if not all the history, culture etc that goes with it. It'd be worth seeing the historical and cultural aspect of this debate though to determine what rights to those they have. I believe Svarog's presented something on this already.
*England's name even derives from an old German tribe, the Angles, hence formerly Angleland... corrupted into England down the years.
Quote:
Then why he send 3000 Persian armour plates as a tribute to Athens while he had previously conquered Greece and could just send them to somewhere in Macedonia?
Why did he consulted the Oracle of Delphi in Thessaly before beginning his campaign against the Persian Empire and in fact he didn't send a messenger as the others would have done and went there himself?
Why did he ever campaigned against the vast and powerful Persian empire?Was it just to claim new lands?And if so why wouldn't he attack northen regions or moving towards Italy?
Well... not especially wishing to answer anyone else's questions for them, and not necessarily saying I back either side of the argument but...
Whether he was Greek or not, Alexander understood the Greek world very well, and understood the power of political gestures and propaganda very well also. The campaign against Persia was to a degree made a crusade by Alexander to avenge the ravages of the Persians in the past in Greece. By doing most of those he was placating his Greek city-state troops in his forces, persuading the Greek cities that the campaign was for their benefit, showing them that it was worth their while to be involved rather than rise against him again. He always looked for signs that the oracles, the Greek ancestors and the Gods themselves were behind him in his campaign. I've never been entirely convinced that such visits and his speeches to his men were totally stage managed because I believe that to some degree he did feel he was guided by the gods, but I do also believe that he was a very clever person capable of manipulating such signs.
That's why he went east, because politically it made sense, economically it made sense too. Rome was not a huge power during his lifetime, Carthage was in fact more powerful. Neither were especially considered "civilised" (and the tribes to the North certainly weren't) at the time unlike the Persians. He could inspire his own men and those of other Greek regions against Persia with ease, but not against Rome or Carthage anywhere near as easily.
Maybe Lith can fill out more details than that, but I've always had the impression that those were amongst his reasons.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 02:19 PM |
|
Edited By: Vlaad on 16 Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Vlaad to PH
Apparently, you cannot call your country Great Britain, because you are not a Brit. In addition, you must disown king Arthur once and for all, otherwise you will be flamed. You have been warned.
Lith to Vlaad
i hope you realize the double irony of your post... your posts so far have been the only ones to get close to flaming and your "witty" response actually includes what both (using both when in fact there are three - if not more) sides accuse the other of doing...
My post was not supposed to be "witty", because I thought the issue was not funny but ridiculous.
As for flaming, I thought of LinnielErithil's posts. How else do you call her ignorant propaganda?
Oh, sorry, I am supposed to seriously discuss with her in this subforum, right? OK, let's first prove her ignorant:
Quotes on Bulgarian origins from different on-line sources:
Quote:
Ancient Thrace and Moesia, which modern Bulgaria occupies, were settled (6th cent. AD) by Slavic tribes. In 679-80, Bulgar tribes from the banks of the Volga (see Bulgars, Eastern ) crossed the Danube, subjugated the Slavs, and settled permanently in the territory of Bulgaria. The language and culture remained Slavic, and by the 9th cent. the Bulgars had fully merged with the Slavs.
Here's a more interesting quote:
Quote:
Peaceful Slavic farmers grazed in during the 6th century and set up home. In 679, the Bulgars, thought to be of Indo-Iranian origin, crossed the Danube to found the First Bulgarian Empire; they then expanded south at Byzantium's expense before finally conquering Macedonia in the 9th century. The Bulgars were eventually assimilated by the more numerous Slavs, and adopted their language and way of life.
Our new member from Bulgaria has quoted the same source, but left out some interesting lines. Let's compare what LinnielErithil quoted:
Quote:
"In 679, the Bulgars, thought to be of Indo-Iranian origin, crossed the Danube to found the First Bulgarian Empire; they then expanded south at Byzantium's expense before finally conquering Macedonia in the 9th century."
Confused? Let's check another source for clarification:
Quote:
The immigration of the first Bulgars overlapped that of the Slavs in the seventh century. Of mixed Turkic stock (the word Bulgar derives from an Old Turkic word meaning "one of mixed nationality"), the Bulgars were warriors who had migrated from a region between the Urals and the Volga to the steppes north of the Caspian Sea, then across the Danube into the Balkans.
(My favorite part: "Bulgar" means "one of mixed nationality". Speaking of owning history...LOL)
Don't believe me? Let's check one official Bulgarian site:
Quote:
In the second half of the 7th century, the Proto-Bulgarians - an ethnic community of Turkic origin - settled on the territory of the present-day Northeastern Bulgaria.
Keep in mind that "Turkic" is not the same as "Turkish"; it is a broader term. Turkish language belongs to the family of Turkic languagues.
What about Bulgarian? It is a Slavic language named after a Turkic tribe which adopted it.
WHY do I insist on this?
Because it proves my point that our new member is an ignorant who doesn't know her own country's history. She knowns Macedonian history even less.
How can I claim such a thing?
Easily, my fellow heroes. I wrote that Bulgarians were a Turk tribe speaking a Slavic language, and she answered:
Quote:
Sorry, but I just MUST add something... Vlaad... we were a Turk tribe speaking Slavic language!? WTF!?... Honest advice... next time, before you say something SO ridiculous, do a small small bit of research. Really
Why is her ignorance such a big issue?
Because she is proud of what she (doesn't) know:
Quote:
I have no urges for creating Great Bulgaria. But I know the past of -my- country.
Even more, she admits she is a nationalist. Don't jump to conclusions, she has already explained that it is a good thing.
What do Macedonians think of "good nationalism" in the neighbouring countries? Svarog wrote about it in his educational thread (see bellow for the crucial explanation).
But do not worry, she is a realist:
Quote:
Of course, Hitler's army on our border in WW II was rather the reason we had to ditch our neutrality, but oh well...
Fortunately for this world, England, Russia and America didn't share your view.
But this is not about WW II nor future wars - it's about the present situation in the Balkans. If you think it's all over, thing again:
Quote:
Svarog wrote:
By questioning the name of our country (from Greeks), the identity of our people (Bulgarians), even our church (from Serbia), our national identity and country are seriously at stake. You see what foreign prpagandas did to the Macedonians that lived in Greece and Bulgaria. Greece must understand how crucial is our name for us, for if our existance as a nation is brought into question, it will be very easy for our neighbours to destroy Macedonia once and for all.
As for you Lith, I understand you and your country. "Macedonians" would actually mean "the Slavs living in Ancient Greek Macedonia" and would rape a good deal of your country's history.
Here in Serbia we have a problem with Kosovo. Its population is 90% Albanian and they want to become independent and call them "Kosovars".
In Serbian language, "Kosovo" means "Blackbird's Field". In Albanian language, "Kosovo" doesn't mean anything. But Kosovo means the world to them. They were ready to sacrifice the lives of their own children (!!!) to rape a piece of land that all Serbs think of as "the craddle of their culture".
My point is (and that's why I ironically flamed some of the posters) that nationalism is dangerous more than you think. We are not just discussing historical facts and fiction here, we are also talking about real people.
Due to nationalist propaganda, few people in Serbia cared about innocent Albanian victims in Kosovo. Few people in Kosovo cared for innocent Serb victims. Too few on both sides to stop the genocide.
I am NOT saying that LinnielErithil is going to KILL anybody, mind you. Nor that she wants a Great Bulgaria or something. Heck, she's probably a cute student somewhere in Sofia. She might be even playing Heroes, for all we know. She is only upset when a boy from Macedonia takes a part of her homeland's history.
Go home, Svarog, and come up with something of your own, because, seemingly, they lied to you. Or maybe someone lied to her. Or both.
To sum it up, if Kosovo becomes independent (negotations under way!), what will stop Serbs in Bosnia or Albanians in Western Macedonia? Now, will LinnielErithil and millions of other Bulgarians mind if this tiny piece of land called Eastern Skopje belongs to them in the end, thus righting the historical injustice?
But hey, dear readers, do not worry, it always happens to somebody else. Not to you. Not in a million years.
Vlaad
P.S.
Lith, just tell me if this is true or not, because I honestly don't know:
Quote:
Svarog wrote:
Greece is often criticized from the European institutions (European Council for e.g.) for presevance of minorities and human rights groups...
P.P.S. Bort, if you ever go to Macedonia, do not speak of Alexander the Great but ask for wine and music. Those are worth living for.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 16, 2005 03:49 PM |
|
|
Vlaad,
I can see there is still much I need to learn about. I will listen more and talk less for this thread. I simply don't understand things the way the people of your part of the world do.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My post was not supposed to be "witty", because I thought the issue was not funny but ridiculous.
It was though a rather flawed comparison as I pointed out  If I don't have the right to call myself British, I'm willing to bet no-one has 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 09:00 PM |
|
|
minorities and human rights...
it is true that through the years, there have been talks about minorities in greece (never about human rights though, only rights connected to the identity of said minority) ...every single case (and i have personal experience here as i belong to one of these "minorities") was based on either ignorance, or greed of a few members belonging to them ...and every single claim was beaten back to oblivion by the same people that according to european council or whatever, were having their rights stolen ...fighting them back was done with facts and historical records (not in my possession at the moment, since most would need scanning and translating) because the people know such claims are frivolous at best and suspicious at worst...
and consis, the reason alexander's empire fades away after his death is twofold ...first we have the all time favorite Greed ...i believe thats universal and there is no need for me to elaborate... the second reason has to do with the character of Greeks (throughout the ages) and Balkans in general ...my fellow Balkans can support my claim here ...when we have nobody to fight against (or snow, whine and moan against) we turn to inner conflicts... especially when a whole empire is at stake ...luckily however, at the first sign of external threat, the vast majority puts differences away and gets ready to defend our common interests
for yet another time however... let me clear my side on this argument... I am not saying the citizens of Skopje (or FYROM if you prefer) have no right saying they are Macedonians ...by all means they are as Macedonian as every man woman and child (and those old people) who lives in Macedonia (be it in Northern Greece, Southern Bulgaria or this country) is ...they have as much the right to say they are Macedonians as I have the right to say i am a Balkan, a European, or an Earthling if you want to go that far ...they have no right however, to use Macedonian as national identity... nor have they any right to use Macedonia as their country's name... can you imagine what would happen if Greece decided to call ourselves Republic of Balkans? ...or if Brasil decided to call themselves Republic of South America ...or Egypt calling themselves Republic of North Africa
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
LinnielErithil
Tavern Dweller
Guardian of Nature
|
posted April 16, 2005 11:12 PM |
|
|
What the....
Interesting...
I definately see some improvement in Vlaad's posts. That is, for once he was not only flaming, but tried reasoning as well... The small problem is that it is his reasoning that is flawed. Let's see...
Quote:
Oh, sorry, I am supposed to seriously discuss with her in this subforum, right? OK, let's first prove her ignorant
*Sigh* What can I say? Discuss me?! Prove me!? I will refrain myself, and say nothing more, in order not to turn this into personal flaming war, something that Vlaad is stubbornly trying to make me do.
First let's address the small issue with the mixed origin. When, pray, did I say that our ethnic structure is this of the Bulgars that crossed Danube in 679? And even more, why would I need to say something like this in order to prove my point? I never denied that the Bulgars, being less numerous than the Slavic tribes on our territory, were finally assimilated/merged with them... in fact, one of the reasons what Vlaad said about the Turk tribe is ridiculous. We are Slavs. But the Bulgars were the ones that united the Slavic tribes under a common banner, that gave them political structure and common leadership, and that in the end made a territory inhabitted of separated Slavic -tribes- into a state. And for that reason, this state, and nation is named after the migrating tribe of warriors and nomads. So hard to understand this?
On that note, the ethnic origin of the Proto-Bulgarians themselves is a question that historians haven't agreed on as of yet. One of the reasons for the conflicting information in the quotes presented by me and Vlaad. Is this an interesting question? Sure. Is it relevant to our discussion. Absolutely not.
Now, to the even more interesting logic about the fact that due to our not perfectly pure ethnic origin we apparently don't have right of national identity and history. Very interesting and ridiculous point, if you ask me. Then there is no British history? No European history as a whole? No USA either, or should I remind you from just how many ethnicities USA was created? Vlaad just assassinated the world history and all nations with a stupid argument. Congratulations.
And if Vlaad's only stable argument is the translation of the term Bulgar... what can I say? Crushingly stable indeed. (sarcastic, in case someone manages to misunderstand it)
Point is simple, in case anybody missed it. It is totally irrelevant whether the Bulgars assimilated the Slavs, or contrary. It is even more irrelevant that we don't have the same ethnic structure from the time of Adam and Eve, or Tangra (ancient Bulgarian supreme deity) or Perun (same, but Slavic), if you so wish. What matters is that the mixture of these different ethnicities united in a political structure, created a country, and developed a nationality. And the history of this nation, we own. That is our history.
Quote:
Fortunately for this world, England, Russia and America didn't share your view.
See? Here Vlaad and I agree. Very fortunate indeed. I never said I agree with the political decisions made by Bulgaria. History is not always nice, political decisions not always wise, or the ones that will make us proud when we look back from the distance of time. With all its good and bad sides, though, this is Bulgarian history.
My point remains valid, though... Hitler's army on the border of a country that was free and united (as much as it ever got united) for less than 50 years, politically, economically, and military weak, -is- quite the reason. Sucks, but true.
Quote:
By questioning the name of our country (from Greeks), the identity of our people (Bulgarians), even our church (from Serbia), our national identity and country are seriously at stake. You see what foreign prpagandas did to the Macedonians that lived in Greece and Bulgaria. Greece must understand how crucial is our name for us, for if our existance as a nation is brought into question, it will be very easy for our neighbours to destroy Macedonia once and for all.
I don't, and never will, question the right of the people in F.Y.R.O.M. to see themselves as different from Bulgarian, Greek or any other national identity. By all means, they are welcome. But if they need to steal history in order to be able to do it, then we have a problem. History is not an exchange coin.
Quote:
I am NOT saying that LinnielErithil is going to KILL anybody, mind you. Nor that she wants a Great Bulgaria or something. Heck, she's probably a cute student somewhere in Sofia. She might be even playing Heroes, for all we know. She is only upset when a boy from Macedonia takes a part of her homeland's history.
Why, thank you. If I am cute or not, and play Heroes or not, is another of the completely irrelevant to this discussion issue, though.
Quote:
Now, will LinnielErithil and millions of other Bulgarians mind if this tiny piece of land called Eastern Skopje belongs to them in the end, thus righting the historical injustice?
No, if that is what the people on both sides want. Yes, if the people living on this tiny piece of land named Eastern Skopje have a national identity different from Bulgarian, and want to have a sovereign state, and separate path. Since we both know which of the two is true, can I leave it to you to guess the correct answer, and hope you won't make a mistake?
I honestly hope this won't be answered with the next personal flaming by Vlaad or whoever. Seeing the pattern so far, though, I start to doubt. Maybe next time I should present definition for discussion? *Sigh*
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted April 17, 2005 12:15 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 16 Apr 2005
|
I Finally Understand
Prior confusion was due to previous various obscure analogies.
Quote:
Can you imagine what would happen if Greece decided to call ourselves Republic of Balkans? ...or if Brazil decided to call themselves Republic of South America ...or Egypt calling themselves Republic of North Africa?
This makes it very clear to me now. This is the best comparison/analogy in my opinion. It helps me understand the in the best way. I completely understand now.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Silverblade
Known Hero
Notorious Homo Erectus
|
posted April 17, 2005 10:09 PM |
|
|
A few clarifications for the non Balcan and not only people
Consis this is mostly for you. I hope my "work" gets credit (that means help you understand a few more things)
The Balkans
(recent satues)
The region called Macedonia
The greek part of Macedonia
And the part of Macedonia that F.Y.R.O.M. owns
I hope you can see why Lith and me oppose to this. A part of Macedonia is in Greece yes? Of course Macedonia is divided between Greece FYROM Bulgary(forgive me if I exclude a country, it's not on purpose) that means that all these countries have a part inside their boarders. That's what Lith is trying to say
p.s Forgive me for the quality of the maps but I believe they do what they are suppossed to do..
So please if you see something that doesn't fit in map as you know inform me at once.
____________
Back for Oblivion
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 17, 2005 11:17 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 17 Apr 2005
|
OK, first of all I want to apologize to everybody for letting this discussion go untended for a little while. I’ve been real busy with RL these days. Once again, I urge you (Consis, and other non-Balkanians) to read the thread about the history of Macedonians, in order to give you insight about the problem.
Ah, where to start?
Quote:
there is no connection whatsoever between them [Macedonians] and the Macedonians [Ancient Macedonians], which of course makes Alexander the Great's origin even more unimportant to this discussion
Whether there is a connection or not, that’s a historical issue, but I cant describe you how crucial it is for Greece to establish what you have just established, that the origin of Alexander is unimportant to the problem. Unlike you, the greek government constantly puts it up as an argument in favor of their case. By saying that, you agree not to bring up the issue of the ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians in the rest of the debate, which will surely clear up many disagreements.
Quote:
The instrument of that limitation the Treaty of Berlin revived longstanding Bulgarian territorial frustrations by placing the critical regions of Macedonia and Thrace beyond Bulgarian control. Both of those disputed regions had substantial Bulgarian populations.
Hear that Lith? This guy says the population in Macedonia was Bulgarian. You say its Greeks. Why don’t you 2 grab for each others throats now? That would be a spectacle the like we havent seen as far back as 1913. Now, here’re some relevant indicators about the ethnic structure of the region of Macedonia before the Balkan Wars and the division.
balkan views
Greek; Nikolaides 1899: Macedonian Slavs (454,000), Greeks (656,300), Turks and others (576,600)
Bulgarian; Kenchov 1900: Serbs (400), Bulgarians (1,037,000), Greeks (214,000), Turks and others (610,365)
Serbian; Gopchevich 1886: Serbs (1,540,000), Greeks (201,000), Turks and others (397,020)
neutral views
German; Dr. K. Ostreich - 1905:Macedonian Slavs (1,500,000), Greeks (200,000), Turks and others (550,000)
Austrian; K. Gersin - 1903:Macedonian Slavs (1,182,036), Greeks (228,702), Turks and others (627,915)
English; Andrew Rousos:Macedonian Slavs (1,150,000), Greeks (300,000), Turks and others (400,000)
Now, note how the people magically change nationality when Balkanians do the measuring. Lol. First it’s 1 million Bulgarians; then million and a half Serbs; Greek estimates triple the number of Greeks and count Slavs to be half a million etc.
This undeniably points to the fact that Macedonia, although culturally diverse, was mainly Slavic Macedonian.
Given that, the situation with the name transforms to the absurd case of: You conquer half a country (with the name Macedonia) whose majority calls itself “Macedonians”, move/assimilate the found inhabitants, only for a century later to forbid the remaining half to use that name, because evidently “only Greeks live in Macedonia now”. And it’s as simple and absurd as that.
Quote:
History can be owned. That is, in the sense that there is such thing as a history of a nation, a state, a person. To claim the contrary is nothing but absurd. Or maybe since history cannot be owned that there is no such thing as British history?
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. A territory can have its history, a person and nation as well. But you don’t mix those. Nations havent existed before XIX, so considering territorial history for national history, is a practice which belongs to Hitler and the intellectual thought of the XIX, not the 21st.
In this aspect, British history deals with the entire history of the British Isles, not of the British nation, so it also includes Britons, Picts and other god forgotten tribes that at one point in time lived on that territory.
Quote:
What matters is that the mixture of these different ethnicities united in a political structure, created a country, and developed a nationality. And the history of this nation, we own.
Very well then. Who owns the history of the Moors in Spain? Who owns the history of the Frankish kingdom? What about the Roman Empire? Byzantia? Holy Roman Empire? Hapsburg Empire? What about nations who had many political entities? Who owns Prussia? Schleswig-Holstein? Who owns Aragon? Piedmont?
Nations cant own history which happened before nations happened to history.
Quote:
Freedom of self governance and establishment of cultural identity is the very definition of sovereignty!
I applaud your statement Consis. There’s nothing more substantional for national sovereignity (in this world of nation-states) than the establishment and recognition of national identity. Although I find the concept of nation-states anti-individualistic to some point, there’s no better solution in today’s world (and prolly in the long run future), and 99% of my countrymen hold their national identity to be of utter most importance, so in a way I’m defending here their right, i.e. the right of my nation as a subject in a world of nation-states to be respected as equal and free. And be stable. In this sense, this quote:
Quote:
YES! they can make their own nation
YES! they can have their own identity
YES! they can have their own history
…is hypocritical to say at least. You cant affirm a nation’s identity, by rejecting the very name with which they choose to protect it. More the case, since throughout history, denying national/ethnical/religious identity (for various reason) has been the main tool for national conquest and expansion, and the most efficient way for assimilation of smaller peoples by world powers. It was the case with Scots, Hungarians, Lithuanians, etc. Hack, I don’t even have to go that far. The fact that Greece succeeded in conquering and transforming the national uniqueness of half of Macedonia is the best example.
Quote:
The question today is what the sovereignty Macedonia provides for its region.
1. What kinds of threats can we(the rest of the world) calculate if the larger Greece nation invaded the smaller Macedonia?
~A. Would Greece be seen as gaining too much ground by the Turks?
~B. Would Albania simply sit by and watch or would they see an opportunity to take advantage of a committed Greek military of far to the East?
~C. What about Bulgaria? Would they claim their people in Macedonia are being attacked?
While at the moment unlikely, I must admit that it’s a scenario quite possible in the long term, as we know that extremist national pretensions never die out, as long as there is a nation and fractions extreme enough to defend their “historical right”. And that’s why exactly the stability of Macedonia is crucial for the entire Balkans. It’s only for the politically naïve to believe that national identity has nothing to do with the stability of the country. Contrary, its at the very core.
Quote:
Unlike the Macedonia/Greece problem though the newcomers to the region control the largest area of the Isles and have a much larger population than those countries where the original "britons" are in higher numbers.
I was to mention the Britain-Irish analogy as an example, although there are notable differences as you point out yourself. The Angles (Slavs) migrated on the island, by then, populated by Britons (Ancient Macedonians), conquered it, assimilated/drove them out of the island, and they took their name to call themselves - British. Though differences are, that the Macedonians of today don’t have a reserve name to use instead of “Macedonians”, as the British have, ie. English. And the descendants of Ancient Macedonians are nowhere to be found, unlike those of the Britons (Wales, Ireland). Also, Ireland hasn’t conquered half of Britain yet (lucky you). But even so, we don’t see Ireland objecting the use of that name by the Brits.
Maybe a more appropriate analogy would be the one about the Frankish legacy. The kingdom encompassed a large part of Western Europe, yet the French secured the name for themselves. Its not like there are many Frankish elements in France today (if at all). Just like Macedonia, the territory of the old Frankish Empire is shared among many countries now. And there are regions in Germany called Frankenland, and yet nobody asks from France to change their name. I guess rights and freedom do differ for different countries depending on their political and diplomatic power. Though the same sh!t as in the Balkans would happen if either one of them tried to claim possession of Charlemagne. Only speaks for the cultural differences between that part of Europe and this one.
Quote:
... I am not saying the citizens of Skopje (or FYROM if you prefer) have no right saying they are Macedonians ...by all means they are as Macedonian as every man woman and child (and those old people) who lives in Macedonia (be it in Northern Greece, Southern Bulgaria or this country) is ...they have as much the right to say they are Macedonians as I have the right to say i am a Balkan, a European, or an Earthling if you want to go that far ...they have no right however, to use Macedonian as national identity... nor have they any right to use Macedonia as their country's name...
I must say, this opinion is the most liberal one I could get coming from a Greek.  It’s true that the territorial identification with the word “Macedonia” should also be present in South-western Bulgaria and in Northern Greece, but you must understand that over time, this territorial identification with Macedonia evolved into national one for the Slavs that lived there, and we have no other alternative here. I’m afraid we’re not asking others to acknowledge our right of national identity. It’s something that only we have the right to decide. And we did. Its now only up to the others to accept it. That’s why there cant be a compromise with the name issue. I know that medias in Greece are fairly excited these days, and forward in the public (and international community) the thesis that it’s time for a compromise (and that the proposal by Nimitz for “Republika Makedonija – Skopje” should be accepted), but we wont compromise for our rights. And I assure you, no matter what the medias/government in Greece say, Macedonia wont accept a compromise. There would be huge protests if the Macedonian government secretly accepted the terms dictated by Greece. Its not up to Greece to decide who are we.
I also want to assure you that Macedonia has no territorial, historical pretensions towards Greece, by claiming that name. Despite the historical injustices by the Greek government towards the Macedonians, there are not at all realistic circumstances for Rep. Macedonia to claim right over Greek Macedonia in any way. We also don’t claim the history of the region, and the Ancient Macedonian history belongs to no one, or at best to all the territory where the Ancient Macedonians lived, and the bulk of that territory is indeed currently in Greek Macedonia. I repeat this only because there are all sorts of crazy scenarios invented by the Greek media that Macedonia threatens the territorial integrity of Greece. The only thing we’d like the Greek state to do is leave us be, and grant our tiny minority decent cultural rights, so as the (Slavic) Macedonian legacy not to be completely lost from one entire half of the region.
Quote:
there is no such thing as "Vlach minority" in Greece and if you try to say that, you will have pretty much all the Vlachs here after your a$$ for hinting we are not Greeks...
It is not up to you Lith, or any Greek to establish whether there is or not a Vlach minority (or Macedonian one) in Greece. It is every person’s decision to declare as such. If you by any chance have some Vlach-speaking ancestors (which makes the “bastards” from the CIA classify you as Vlach), but feel entirely Greek, then you’re Greek. After all, nationality is a psychological construct, and has little to do with ethnicity. Being psychologically subjective, you cant say other people what they are, the same way you cant decide for your northern neighbours, the Macedonians, whether to feel as Macedonians or not.
It is absolutely true that Greece is most problematic with minority issues from all EU member states. There are constant reports every year by the European Council and other organizations criticizing the government, first about not recognizing the minorities (an entire 1% of non-Greeks according to the census!, which we all know is far from truth), and also about not allowing the minorities to publicly manifest their identity, and official use of language and education in mother tongue is out of question. There is a political organization of the Macedonians living in Greece called “Rainbow”, and they werent allowed many years to register it as a party. Also, medias don’t broadcast any programs dealing with minority issues, theres a great stigma against the ethnic Macedonians in Greece, same about Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Roma etc. Basically anyone declaring openly as non-Greek is discriminated in Greece.
Also, its an interesting issue with the ethnic origins of Greeks, and especially those living in Greek Macedonia, given its different ethnic composition in the XIX I already talked about. The Greek national purity in this part resides much on ethnic myths invented in the 19th century in order to incorporate Macedonia in the ideal of Greek national unity.
Quote:
Greece has been overrun, partly conquered, pillaged, invaded, etc by quite a few nations... the core population however never changed... so most Greeks can easily trail their lineage back to the days of Byzantium ...and some (with a lot more patience than me i assure you) even further back
That’s one of those ethnic myths I was talking about. The influences in the national Greek gene pool are various, including Slavic, Roman and Turkish. During the Slavic migrations (VI-VIII), the southernmost tribes invaded Peloponesos, so all of mainland Greece was overrun by Slavs, which later assimilated in the native population. During the IV centuries of Turkish rule, it is only natural that some population mixture was present. But the period when the Greek ethnic conglomerate actually became Greek ethnic monolith was XIX century, when many of the minorities were simply assimilated, and continued to relate with the Greek identity afterwards. In the early XX that process happened in the conquered territory of Macedonia, where the Slavic Macedonian population was clearly dominant (as opposed to todays less than 1 %). Under the fascist dictatorship of Ioanis Metaxas, Macedonian language was forbidden for use even in homes, everybody caught speaking it was given to drink ritsinus, Macedonian villages were burned (my grandmothers village for one), toponymes were changed from Slavic to Greek etc. On the other hand, vestiges of the past still remain, so when many Macedonians go to Greece for holiday during the summer, they are surprised to see that half of the older population in Greek Macedonia understands (and speaks a little bit) (Slavic) Macedonian, words they’ve picked up from home when they were young, but exactly these Macedonian-speaking Greeks are those that will grab your throat for every mention of the word Macedonia in relation to “their northern neighbour”. For example I have many (third generation) cousins in Greece, but they have no idea that they originate from a Slavic Macedonian family. (As far as I know, Lith may be one of them. )
But in the end, these people are as Greek as they can get, only because they feel like that, and theres no way anyone can take that from them.
As reply to my Bulgarian friend:
Quote:
In 679-80, Bulgar tribes from the banks of the Volga (see Bulgars, Eastern) crossed the Danube, subjugated the Slavs, and settled permanently in the territory of Bulgaria. The language and culture remained Slavic, and by the 9th cent. the Bulgars had fully merged with the Slavs.
Why I think (the territory of) Macedonia displayed a distinct character as opposed to the population of Bulgaria? Unlike Bulgaria, there were no Bulgar migration in Macedonia. Also, while most of present day Bulgaria was united under the Bulgar khans (the term used for the Bulgar rulers then (up to the late IX century), which has Turkic roots) by the VII century, Macedonia (as well as other Balkan territories such as Albania and Serbia) was included as late as the IX century, and remained until the X century. A Slavic dynasty of rulers, separate than that of the Bulgar khans arised in Southwestern Macedonia, and established a country for a brief period from 969-1018, which is considered to be the first form of Slavic stateship on the territory of Macedonia. Samuel, the most famous ruler of the dynasty, was termed “tsar of the Bulgars”, by the Byzantines, which is the main reason why Bulgarians claim his to be Bulgarian and all, but speaking about nations in the X century is indeed ridicilous. (there are explanations for this: the Byzantines had created a territorial unit – thema – encompassing part of Macedonia, part of Serbia (including Belgrade and Srem) and small part of Bulgaria, and called it - Bulgaria. Clearly this shows they often used the term “Bulgars” to refer to the Slavs, just as Scythians can often be found in Byzantine sources when talking about them, and other terms without any relation to the ethnical identity of the Slavs populating that part of the Balkans)
Anyway, after 1018 the region of Macedonia fell under Byzantium, so excluding the IX-X Bulgarian rule, Macedonia was never again politically a part of the Bulgarian Empire (which was re-established again in XII).
Quote:
Bulgaria is one of the two countries that rebelled and saved their Jews from torture and death in Nazi concentration camps. The -people-, even the tzar himself (king is wrong term), regardless of political alliance. So... your brothers Bulgarian have a reason to be proud of their standing in the crisis. I am.
Hmm, you shouldn’t quite be. While the tsar and the church truly put up a great effort to save the Jews living in Bulgaria, almost the entire Jewish population of Macedonia (7,000) were deported by the Bulgarian authorities in occupied Macedonia to death camps (Treblinka) and never got back. Or including those in Thrace, that’s 11,000 Jews deported by Bulgarian fascist authorities.
Quote:
My point remains valid, though... Hitler's army on the border of a country that was free and united (as much as it ever got united) for less than 50 years, politically, economically, and military weak, -is- quite the reason.
Actually you’re wrong. Hitlers army was nowhere near the Bulgarian border. Romania was a fascist country under Antoanescu, but there werent any German troops there. Yugoslavia to the east of Bulgaria was in the atni-fascist coalition, together with Greece. It was in fact Bulgaria which unprovoked, attacked Yugoslavia, with that declaring war on the side of Hitler, and attacked simultaneously with the other German allies (aka Hungary, Italy). The reason for Bulgaria entering the war was to occupy Macedonia (as they did) and suppress the Communist movement at home. In fact, the very same reason as Germany and all the other Nazi allies (expansion and suppression of reactionaries).
Quote:
As I apparently should state for the %$& time, F.Y.R.O.M. is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula, our neighbors, Bulgaria has recognized them as such, and for God's sake, nobody is trying to invade them!
Hmm, just a remark here. Bulgaria was among the first countries to recognize us under the constitutional name “Macedonia”, so I cant understand why you keep using FYROM, even though all Bulgarians I’ve met clearly have no problem with the name. This only reveals to me a tone of compulsive hatred towards my country, as you know that I consider the term FYROM offensive.
My replies to Consis, PH and Lith concerning Alexander the Great, as well as my answers to Silverblade are answered in this thread: Macedonians; who are they?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted April 18, 2005 12:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
History can be owned. That is, in the sense that there is such thing as a history of a nation, a state, a person. To claim the contrary is nothing but absurd. Or maybe since history cannot be owned that there is no such thing as British history?
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. A territory can have its history, a person and nation as well. But you don’t mix those. Nations havent existed before XIX, so considering territorial history for national history, is a practice which belongs to Hitler and the intellectual thought of the XIX, not the 21st.
In this aspect, British history deals with the entire history of the British Isles, not of the British nation, so it also includes Britons, Picts and other god forgotten tribes that at one point in time lived on that territory.
Quote:
What matters is that the mixture of these different ethnicities united in a political structure, created a country, and developed a nationality. And the history of this nation, we own.
Very well then. Who owns the history of the Moors in Spain? Who owns the history of the Frankish kingdom? What about the Roman Empire? Byzantia? Holy Roman Empire? Hapsburg Empire? What about nations who had many political entities? Who owns Prussia? Schleswig-Holstein? Who owns Aragon? Piedmont?
Nations cant own history which happened before nations happened to history.
Exactly, Svarog!
Also, as is known by anyone who has studied history at even the lowest university level, the history of one country or nation isn't an absolute, independent entity. No, quite the contrary. The history of all nations/countries/states/empires/whatever is the story of those nations'/countries'/states'/empires'/whatever's relationship and interaction with other nations/countries/states/empires/whatever. So, for the Greek "nation, as an example, its history consists of an abundance of both separate and intermingled cases of contact with Turks, Romans, Russians, Austrians, and whatnot. So, is this history then only the history of the Greek? No, it is also the history of the other nations/countries/states/empires/whatever.
The notion of seeing history in different countries is obsolete; today, historians try not to write histories of separate nations or states (exceptions do of course still exist - the "truth" is also in this matter neither purely black nor purely white, but a mix of greys), but they try to either try to write histories of the World (of course limited by time, or some other concept), or they want to try to write the history of their state/nation seen in relation with the rest of the world.
So, to say
Quote:
History can be owned. That is, in the sense that there is such thing as a history of a nation, a state, a person. To claim the contrary is nothing but absurd. Or maybe since history cannot be owned that there is no such thing as British history?
or
Quote:
What matters is that the mixture of these different ethnicities united in a political structure, created a country, and developed a nationality. And the history of this nation, we own.
is absurd.
Also, there is the question of metaphysics, which I find quite dubious here.
How can you "own" something which cannot be contained? How would you keep other people from "stealing" a concept, which is nothing but exactly that - a concept? A thing that is not material?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted April 18, 2005 01:51 AM |
|
|
how ...interesting...
Quote:
OK, first of all I want to apologize to everybody for letting this discussion go untended for a little while. Ive been real busy with RL these days. Once again, I urge you (Consis, and other non-Balkanians) to read the thread about the history of Macedonians, in order to give you insight about the problem.
Ah, where to start?
yeah, you are excused... real life can be a snow... the insight you offer however is not necessarily based on facts, but that is irrelevant i guess...
Quote:
Whether there is a connection or not, thats a historical issue, but I cant describe you how crucial it is for Greece to establish what you have just established, that the origin of Alexander is unimportant to the problem. Unlike you, the greek government constantly puts it up as an argument in favor of their case. By saying that, you agree not to bring up the issue of the ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians in the rest of the debate, which will surely clear up many disagreements.
i am not my government so don't expect me to follow their line... the reason Alexander is used is because he is ...catchy, its a name everybody knows and what he did is common knowledge... in reality, we don't need to prove alexander was greek to win this argument, but hey... if ancient greeks said he was, who am i to argue? ...you surely can't say herodotus was biased against your people ...well, mainly because your people were not in the area back then... details of course... by saying what i said, i am just saying the ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians is not as important to this argument as some say
Quote:
Hear that Lith? This guy says the population in Macedonia was Bulgarian. You say its Greeks. Why dont you 2 grab for each others throats now? That would be a spectacle the like we havent seen as far back as 1913.
and here i was starting to think you forgot we actually were at each other's throats over this...
Quote:
Now, herere some relevant indicators about the ethnic structure of the region of Macedonia before the Balkan Wars and the division.
balkan views
Greek; Nikolaides 1899: Macedonian Slavs (454,000), Greeks (656,300), Turks and others (576,600)
Bulgarian; Kenchov 1900: Serbs (400), Bulgarians (1,037,000), Greeks (214,000), Turks and others (610,365)
Serbian; Gopchevich 1886: Serbs (1,540,000), Greeks (201,000), Turks and others (397,020)
neutral views
German; Dr. K. Ostreich - 1905:Macedonian Slavs (1,500,000), Greeks (200,000), Turks and others (550,000)
Austrian; K. Gersin - 1903:Macedonian Slavs (1,182,036), Greeks (228,702), Turks and others (627,915)
English; Andrew Rousos:Macedonian Slavs (1,150,000), Greeks (300,000), Turks and others (400,000)
Now, note how the people magically change nationality when Balkanians do the measuring. Lol. First its 1 million Bulgarians; then million and a half Serbs; Greek estimates triple the number of Greeks and count Slavs to be half a million etc.
This undeniably points to the fact that Macedonia, although culturally diverse, was mainly Slavic Macedonian.
Given that, the situation with the name transforms to the absurd case of: You conquer half a country (with the name Macedonia) whose majority calls itself Macedonians, move/assimilate the found inhabitants, only for a century later to forbid the remaining half to use that name, because evidently only Greeks live in Macedonia now. And its as simple and absurd as that.
how delightful... tell me, do you honesty believe that a greek would mention "macedonian slavs" and mean anything but "Slavs that live in Macedonia"? ...or are you so naive as to think the neutral views are of people sealed in a magic bubble somewhere out of this universe as to avoid external influence (whether in favor of my side of the argument or yours) ...the absurd case actually is that you try to claim a geographic identity as national and that you forget that no matter what nation decided to live in macedonia, there was always a part of the population that remained there since the days of alexander and called themselves greek ...but i guess you are right further down when you say thats not really as important...
Quote:
Maybe I wasnt clear enough. A territory can have its history, a person and nation as well. But you dont mix those. Nations havent existed before XIX, so considering territorial history for national history, is a practice which belongs to Hitler and the intellectual thought of the XIX, not the 21st.
In this aspect, British history deals with the entire history of the British Isles, not of the British nation, so it also includes Britons, Picts and other god forgotten tribes that at one point in time lived on that territory.
yes of course... you are correct... i guess ancient greeks called themselves greeks because they liked the way it sounds, not because they have a national identity... how false of me to believe such a thing all this years ...or will you argue that because they fought with each other they were not one nation? ...my ...that would make civil wars quite the paradox
Quote:
Very well then. Who owns the history of the Moors in Spain? Who owns the history of the Frankish kingdom? What about the Roman Empire? Byzantia? Holy Roman Empire? Hapsburg Empire? What about nations who had many political entities? Who owns Prussia? Schleswig-Holstein? Who owns Aragon? Piedmont?
Nations cant own history which happened before nations happened to history.
newsflash ...we own Byzantine history just like italians own Roman history and as much as i dislike their copycat practices, anybody saying otherwise will find me in their way i they try to rip them of their history... or us of ours
Quote:
I applaud your statement Consis. Theres nothing more substantional for national sovereignity (in this world of nation-states) than the establishment and recognition of national identity. Although I find the concept of nation-states anti-individualistic to some point, theres no better solution in todays world (and prolly in the long run future), and 99% of my countrymen hold their national identity to be of utter most importance, so in a way Im defending here their right, i.e. the right of my nation as a subject in a world of nation-states to be respected as equal and free. And be stable. In this sense, this quote:
Quote:
YES! they can make their own nation
YES! they can have their own identity
YES! they can have their own history
is hypocritical to say at least. You cant affirm a nations identity, by rejecting the very name with which they choose to protect it. More the case, since throughout history, denying national/ethnical/religious identity (for various reason) has been the main tool for national conquest and expansion, and the most efficient way for assimilation of smaller peoples by world powers. It was the case with Scots, Hungarians, Lithuanians, etc. Hack, I dont even have to go that far. The fact that Greece succeeded in conquering and transforming the national uniqueness of half of Macedonia is the best example.
so i am a hypocrite because i oppose to the name you chose? ...would i also be a hypocrite if you chose to name your country Republic of Balkans? ...ah ...how cute... we conquered macedonia... as, i suppose, we conquered crete, thessaly, about 2000 islands and every piece of land of what we call greece and what was always referred to as greece and not as geographical separation, not one devoid of nationality at least
Quote:
The question today is what the sovereignty Macedonia provides for its region.
1. What kinds of threats can we(the rest of the world) calculate if the larger Greece nation invaded the smaller Macedonia?
~A. Would Greece be seen as gaining too much ground by the Turks?
~B. Would Albania simply sit by and watch or would they see an opportunity to take advantage of a committed Greek military of far to the East?
~C. What about Bulgaria? Would they claim their people in Macedonia are being attacked?
While at the moment unlikely, I must admit that its a scenario quite possible in the long term, as we know that extremist national pretensions never die out, as long as there is a nation and fractions extreme enough to defend their historical right. And thats why exactly the stability of Macedonia is crucial for the entire Balkans. Its only for the politically na�e to believe that national identity has nothing to do with the stability of the country. Contrary, its at the very core.
and i never claimed that stability in Macedonia (whether you mean your country or the region) is something we must thwart at first sight... i like stability, stability means i will not have to worry about warmongering idiots and that i will be able to enjoy my life for a few more decades ...nor did i say national identity is not important, hell i believe its the crucial part... the very core of stability... this is where we see things differently however... you say its yours, we say its ours...
Quote:
I was to mention the Britain-Irish analogy as an example, although there are notable differences as you point out yourself. The Angles (Slavs) migrated on the island, by then, populated by Britons (Ancient Macedonians), conquered it, assimilated/drove them out of the island, and they took their name to call themselves - British. Though differences are, that the Macedonians of today dont have a reserve name to use instead of Macedonians, as the British have, ie. English. And the descendants of Ancient Macedonians are nowhere to be found, unlike those of the Britons (Wales, Ireland). Also, Ireland hasnt conquered half of Britain yet (lucky you). But even so, we dont see Ireland objecting the use of that name by the Brits.
Maybe a more appropriate analogy would be the one about the Frankish legacy. The kingdom encompassed a large part of Western Europe, yet the French secured the name for themselves. Its not like there are many Frankish elements in France today (if at all). Just like Macedonia, the territory of the old Frankish Empire is shared among many countries now. And there are regions in Germany called Frankenland, and yet nobody asks from France to change their name. I guess rights and freedom do differ for different countries depending on their political and diplomatic power. Though the same sh!t as in the Balkans would happen if either one of them tried to claim possession of Charlemagne. Only speaks for the cultural differences between that part of Europe and this one.
and i am sure you personally roamed macedonia (all three parts) to track down any descendants of ancient macedonians, right? ...i wonder why we never met during my quest for atlantis ...or that time i found out egyptian gods were actually aliens...
Quote:
I must say, this opinion is the most liberal one I could get coming from a Greek. Its true that the territorial identification with the word Macedonia should also be present in South-western Bulgaria and in Northern Greece, but you must understand that over time, this territorial identification with Macedonia evolved into national one for the Slavs that lived there, and we have no other alternative here. Im afraid were not asking others to acknowledge our right of national identity. Its something that only we have the right to decide. And we did. Its now only up to the others to accept it. Thats why there cant be a compromise with the name issue. I know that medias in Greece are fairly excited these days, and forward in the public (and international community) the thesis that its time for a compromise (and that the proposal by Nimitz for Republika Makedonija Skopje should be accepted), but we wont compromise for our rights. And I assure you, no matter what the medias/government in Greece say, Macedonia wont accept a compromise. There would be huge protests if the Macedonian government secretly accepted the terms dictated by Greece. Its not up to Greece to decide who are we.
I also want to assure you that Macedonia has no territorial, historical pretensions towards Greece, by claiming that name. Despite the historical injustices by the Greek government towards the Macedonians, there are not at all realistic circumstances for Rep. Macedonia to claim right over Greek Macedonia in any way. We also dont claim the history of the region, and the Ancient Macedonian history belongs to no one, or at best to all the territory where the Ancient Macedonians lived, and the bulk of that territory is indeed currently in Greek Macedonia. I repeat this only because there are all sorts of crazy scenarios invented by the Greek media that Macedonia threatens the territorial integrity of Greece. The only thing wed like the Greek state to do is leave us be, and grant our tiny minority decent cultural rights, so as the (Slavic) Macedonian legacy not to be completely lost from one entire half of the region.
trust me, the greek media has no illusions about what you will accept or not... nor do greeks ...by your logic however, it would be okay for us to call ourselves Balkans as a national identity and the world would have no other option but to accept... hmm, i think i will mail this suggestion to our prime minister... who knows, the shock may be enough to get things running
Quote:
It is not up to you Lith, or any Greek to establish whether there is or not a Vlach minority (or Macedonian one) in Greece. It is every persons decision to declare as such. If you by any chance have some Vlach-speaking ancestors (which makes the bastards from the CIA classify you as Vlach), but feel entirely Greek, then youre Greek. After all, nationality is a psychological construct, and has little to do with ethnicity. Being psychologically subjective, you cant say other people what they are, the same way you cant decide for your northern neighbours, the Macedonians, whether to feel as Macedonians or not.
if its not my right to say if i am a minority or not, then who-the-**** has that right? ...and under the same logic what gives you the right to claim you are macedonians? ...nationality, my friend, is based on facts and the way people feel about themselves ...if a chinese guy living in greece for the last 15 years says he feels greek, that makes him no less chinese... in that case, adopting a nationality is more a matter of how you feel, than anything...
Quote:
It is absolutely true that Greece is most problematic with minority issues from all EU member states. There are constant reports every year by the European Council and other organizations criticizing the government, first about not recognizing the minorities (an entire 1% of non-Greeks according to the census!, which we all know is far from truth), and also about not allowing the minorities to publicly manifest their identity, and official use of language and education in mother tongue is out of question. There is a political organization of the Macedonians living in Greece called Rainbow, and they werent allowed many years to register it as a party. Also, medias dont broadcast any programs dealing with minority issues, theres a great stigma against the ethnic Macedonians in Greece, same about Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Roma etc. Basically anyone declaring openly as non-Greek is discriminated in Greece.
Also, its an interesting issue with the ethnic origins of Greeks, and especially those living in Greek Macedonia, given its different ethnic composition in the XIX I already talked about. The Greek national purity in this part resides much on ethnic myths invented in the 19th century in order to incorporate Macedonia in the ideal of Greek national unity.
saying Vlachs, Pontioi and other greek "tribes" (sorry but i can't think of another word that fits) are not greeks, is at best... frivolous... if you value your life, never say this when in the company of those "minorities" ...for the most part, greek national purity is not a myth ...let me ask you this ...if the first americans (before they decide to go independent or soon after) decided to return back to where they came from, each in his former country (or, more to my liking, where driven off by the natives), would you say the national purity of the countries they return to, is compromised? ...because that is what happened with most greek "tribes" they now try to pass as minorities
Quote:
Thats one of those ethnic myths I was talking about. The influences in the national Greek gene pool are various, including Slavic, Roman and Turkish. During the Slavic migrations (VI-VIII), the southernmost tribes invaded Peloponesos, so all of mainland Greece was overrun by Slavs, which later assimilated in the native population. During the IV centuries of Turkish rule, it is only natural that some population mixture was present. But the period when the Greek ethnic conglomerate actually became Greek ethnic monolith was XIX century, when many of the minorities were simply assimilated, and continued to relate with the Greek identity afterwards.
okay, i will have to break this part in many... minorities were assimilated you say... people that never claimed or believed to be anything but greeks i say... but i forgot, we have no right to say who we are... that divine right has been granted to your people alone... i humbly apologize for ever trying to assume we all have the same rights in national identity
Quote:
In the early XX that process happened in the conquered territory of Macedonia, where the Slavic Macedonian population was clearly dominant (as opposed to todays less than 1 %). Under the fascist dictatorship of Ioanis Metaxas, Macedonian language was forbidden for use even in homes, everybody caught speaking it was given to drink ritsinus, Macedonian villages were burned (my grandmothers village for one), toponymes were changed from Slavic to Greek etc.
so you are saying that if people used "macedonian" in their homes they were actually given wine to drink? ...my, that would surely stop such attempts ...well, in a way i guess it would... people would be too drunk to say a single word ...okay, i may prefer red wine, but drinking white wine doesn't sound like much of a punishment to me ...and for your information, this specific wine is great with cold lamb ...in any case, the reason Metaxas did this (i suspect the language you speak of is actually that of Vlachs) and i am not saying i agree with, but i understand his reasoning, was to make it all the more difficult for people to come up with claims of "national minorities" ...as we all know, that didn't quite work as intended
Quote:
On the other hand, vestiges of the past still remain, so when many Macedonians go to Greece for holiday during the summer, they are surprised to see that half of the older population in Greek Macedonia understands (and speaks a little bit) (Slavic) Macedonian, words theyve picked up from home when they were young, but exactly these Macedonian-speaking Greeks are those that will grab your throat for every mention of the word Macedonia in relation to their northern neighbour. For example I have many (third generation) cousins in Greece, but they have no idea that they originate from a Slavic Macedonian family. (As far as I know, Lith may be one of them. )
But in the end, these people are as Greek as they can get, only because they feel like that, and theres no way anyone can take that from them.
surprisingly, here we agree... i probably am one of the people you would claim are of "Slavic Macedonian" origin... I am a Vlach, and while i do not speak the language as well as i'd like to, i still can understand what someone tells me... i will not go into the origin of the Vlach language and why it has similarities with slavic and latin languages, but give me a week and i will be able to find the whole story... hopefully in electronic format and in english ...the point however is we are greeks ...but i forgot... again, we have no right to make such claims... especially since you claim we are not.. how can we possibly go against your word?
--leaving the bulgarian part for Linniel to deal with--
Quote:
My replies to Consis, PH and Lith concerning Alexander the Great, as well as my answers to Silverblade are answered in this thread: Macedonians; who are they?
and i am sure these facts are as accurate as they can be and prove your right to use "macedonian" as national identity beyond any doubt... yeah...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
| |
|
|
