Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Greece - Macedonia - F.Y.R.O.M.
Thread: Greece - Macedonia - F.Y.R.O.M. This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted April 18, 2005 02:10 AM

Geee, I'm afraid you're taking up more space by quoting all that I wrote, instead of writing something that resembles a serious argument.
i will go back however to few things you wrote and that have sense commenting bit later.
Regards
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted April 18, 2005 02:13 AM

take your time...

just a friendly suggestion though... read what i (and others) posted before your next post
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted April 18, 2005 02:36 AM

Lith, I got a question. I'm not implying anything here or anything, I'm just curious:

The way I've "understood" you, it seems you are saying that the people of Macedonia (the sovereign republic, not the un-autonomous regions of Greece and Bulgaria) have no right to the name "Macedonians" because they are Slavs, while the hisoric Macedonians ("Ancient Macedonians") were not.


Like I said, I'm not implying anything here, and I'm not saying that this is what you're saying (umm, I hardly understood that sentence myself ), but it's the underlaying argument I've managed to get out of your posts.

I have misunderstood you, right?
____________
"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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted April 18, 2005 02:50 AM

actually glad you asked...

this can go two ways, whether you define Macedonian by geography, or by nationality...

nationality wise, they have no right to call themselves Macedonians because the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians are more or less still in macedonia ...and Svarog's people came to the region about 1000 years (may be off a century or two here) after the empire of alexander was split and overrun ...when that happened, the macedonians were still there... even if you don't accept this however (and given the balkan history i can understand why further proof is needed) Ancient Macedonians were greeks... they said they were, the rest of the greeks agreed... in short, Macedonian was never a nationality, no more than Thessalian was (i know, i am both) ...it was a geography thing...

geographically, they have no right to call themselves Macedonians (as a national identity) because they are on only a part of macedonia, and the smallest one at that... it would be like having Norwegians use Europeans as national identity or as i said before, like having Egyptians call themselves North Africans, not as simply a geographic identity, they are north africans afterall, but as national identity... it is illogical, wouldn't you say?
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted April 18, 2005 03:02 AM
Edited By: terje_the_mad_wizard on 17 Apr 2005

Well, in a way, maybe it is.

But they are, after all, the only part of Macedonia which has autonomy, ain't they? Both the Greek and the Bulgarian parts of Macedonia are controlled by "non-Macedonian" governments (to the extent that governments can be given a certain nationality - or whether they are there to protect the interests of all their citizens), while the Macedonian republic is controlled by, well, Macedonians. Whether or not they are genetically related to the Ancient Macedonians is, as we all have seen, disputeable, but since they've apparently lived in the geographic region of Macedonia for over 1000 years (I think I saw somewhere thet they came sometime around 600BC), they got to be at least seen as cultural Macedonians, imo. After all, that's approximately as long as the Angels and the Saxons have been in Britain, right?
____________
"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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted April 18, 2005 03:31 AM

mmm.... close but not quite it...

you see, first, we have other people in the region that have been there for longer, and some would (and in fact do) argue they deserve to be called Macedonians more ...also, considering the fact the only people to call themselves macedonians in the past, considered themselves greeks and given the fact at least a percentage of them is now in greece and still consider themselves greeks, saying we have a non-macedonian goverment is kinda... strange ...and of course, given the fact we (the people living in the greek part of macedonia) have been calling ourselves Macedonians (not, i repeat, not, as a nationality) for the last couple of centuries at the very least as well as the fact that "Macedonian" for 99% of the world equals Alexander and as mentioned before Alexander considered himself Greek (and i use "consider" to be politically correct... as much as i hate being politically correct) we come to the conclusion using Macedonia(n) to define themselves is not right
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 18, 2005 03:53 AM

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?


I don't think I raised anything against you to be frank. I merely speculated that whether he was Greek or Macedonian (as a seperate nationality), his motivations for such actions cannot be used too much as proof either way.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted April 18, 2005 03:55 AM
Edited By: terje_the_mad_wizard on 17 Apr 2005

Quote:
you see, first, we have other people in the region that have been there for longer, and some would (and in fact do) argue they deserve to be called Macedonians more ...also, considering the fact the only people to call themselves macedonians in the past, considered themselves greeks and given the fact at least a percentage of them is now in greece and still consider themselves greeks, saying we have a non-macedonian goverment is kinda... strange ...and of course, given the fact we (the people living in the greek part of macedonia) have been calling ourselves Macedonians (not, i repeat, not, as a nationality) for the last couple of centuries at the very least as well as the fact that "Macedonian" for 99% of the world equals Alexander and as mentioned before Alexander considered himself Greek (and i use "consider" to be politically correct... as much as i hate being politically correct) we come to the conclusion using Macedonia(n) to define themselves is not right

The way I've understood the history of the Slavic Macedonians, they arrived in the Balkans (i.e. the area in question, namely Macedonia) sometime before 1000 AD.
Right?

When they arrived, there lived a people there who're today called "Ancient Macedonians".
Right?

These Slavic Macedonians lived with the Ancient Macedonians for some years, until the two groups had assimilated into each other.
Right?

If this is so (the rest of this post will, for simplicity's sake, suppose that this is true), which I'm kinda uncertain of - since you Balkan people seem to disagree so much over it, then why doesn't the Slavs have the right to call themselves Macedonians?
They've lived in the region for a very long time.
They've lived with, died with, and "interbred" with the Ancient Macedonians until the two were practically the same.

And still, they do not "have the right" to call themselves Macedonians?

EDIT: I just want to clear thing up with these questions; to see if any of you can provide me with some info that could help answer my questions. This because the questions here is what I basically percieve as the core of the argument you've got going here. I may, fo course be wrong, since I'm not overly familiar with the conflict, but none the less, I hoe you will be helpful, and try to answer...

Finally, one question, based on Lith's last post:
Quote:
and of course, given the fact we (the people living in the greek part of macedonia) have been calling ourselves Macedonians (not, i repeat, not, as a nationality)

If not as a nationality, then as what?
____________
"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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted April 18, 2005 04:29 AM

hmmm...

Quote:
The way I've understood the history of the Slavic Macedonians, they arrived in the Balkans (i.e. the area in question, namely Macedonia) sometime before 1000 AD.
Right?


i guess so, though can't say i remember ...for the sake of argument however, they did...

Quote:
When they arrived, there lived a people there who're today called "Ancient Macedonians". Right?


wrong... the latest someone could use the term Ancient Macedonians would be shortly after Alexander's empire was gone... and thats quite a few centuries earlier...

Quote:
These Slavic Macedonians lived with the Ancient Macedonians for some years, until the two groups had assimilated into each other. Right?


wrong, since by then "Ancient Macedonians" were already assimilated with the rest of the population of the area, mostly greeks

Quote:
If this is so (the rest of this post will, for simplicity's sake, suppose that this is true), which I'm kinda uncertain of - since you Balkan people seem to disagree so much over it, then why doesn't the Slavs have the right to call themselves Macedonians?
They've lived in the region for a very long time.
They've lived with, died with, and "interbred" with the Ancient Macedonians until the two were practically the same.

And still, they do not "have the right" to call themselves Macedonians?


since it is not so, we leave this part behind

Quote:
Finally, one question, based on Lith's last post:
Quote:
and of course, given the fact we (the people living in the greek part of macedonia) have been calling ourselves Macedonians (not, i repeat, not, as a nationality)

If not as a nationality, then as what?


see what i mean when i say people do not read what has been posted? ...when someone here says "I'm Macedonian" he doesn't say "my gazilliongreatgreatgrandfather was Alexander's first cousin from the side of his father's sister's roomate" he says "I'm a Greek living in Macedonia" and in recent and not so recent history, Macedonia is the name of a province(?) of Greece.. in fact, the main part of Northern Greece

so, on one hand, we have Ancient Macedonians... who considered themselves Greeks and on the other hand, we have Greeks who live in Macedonia and call themselves Macedonia as a geographical separation, not as national identity, in the same way Ancient Macedonians did in the past
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted April 18, 2005 04:41 AM

Ah, so it is the geographical belonging you refer to.

Quote:
Quote:
The way I've understood the history of the Slavic Macedonians, they arrived in the Balkans (i.e. the area in question, namely Macedonia) sometime before 1000 AD.
Right?


i guess so, though can't say i remember ...for the sake of argument however, they did...

Quote:
When they arrived, there lived a people there who're today called "Ancient Macedonians". Right?


wrong... the latest someone could use the term Ancient Macedonians would be shortly after Alexander's empire was gone... and thats quite a few centuries earlier...

Quote:
These Slavic Macedonians lived with the Ancient Macedonians for some years, until the two groups had assimilated into each other. Right?


wrong, since by then "Ancient Macedonians" were already assimilated with the rest of the population of the area, mostly greeks

Quote:
If this is so (the rest of this post will, for simplicity's sake, suppose that this is true), which I'm kinda uncertain of - since you Balkan people seem to disagree so much over it, then why doesn't the Slavs have the right to call themselves Macedonians?
They've lived in the region for a very long time.
They've lived with, died with, and "interbred" with the Ancient Macedonians until the two were practically the same.

And still, they do not "have the right" to call themselves Macedonians?


since it is not so, we leave this part behind

This leaves the question: What happened to the Ancient Macedonians in the years between the Hellenistic Era and the coming of the Slavs, when the population of Macedonia were, according to Svarog in his "Macedonians..." thread, predominantly Romanised?
Were they still there, but in a "Roman version"? Or was this Romanised people all immigrants?
____________
"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.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted April 18, 2005 04:51 AM
Edited By: Lith-Maethor on 17 Apr 2005

heh...

Quote:
This leaves the question: What happened to the Ancient Macedonians in the years between the Hellenistic Era and the coming of the Slavs, when the population of Macedonia were, according to Svarog in his "Macedonians..." thread, predominantly Romanised?
Were they still there, but in a "Roman version"? Or was this Romanised people all immigrants?


roman version ...of course it greatly depends on how you define that... the fact romans conquered the balkans (and greece with the rest) is responsible for the language of the Vlachs... which i believe svarog used as proof we are slavs

macedonians mingled with the others, thessalians, whatever... all greeks with the names only showing where they lived, not some kind of national identity ...as mentioned before, macedonians considered themselves greek ...so it would only be natural for them to stick with the greeks after rome took over... and they were still there (no longer as Ancient Macedonians) when the Byzantine Empire showed up...

also, a request to those involved in this thread...
can we please reply to the posts here in this thread? i don't have the time to go through all the forum for relevant threads and cutting parts of the argument is not exactly nice ...not that i am saying anybody did that, not intentionally at least
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted April 18, 2005 05:44 AM
Edited By: Svarog on 17 Apr 2005

As I see from recent postings, your entire argumentation goes back to the ethnicity of Anceint Macedonians, which we agreed is irrelevant to the discussion. And that’s why this whole problem with the name is absurd and illogical, as long as the Greek government plays on those cards (and they have to, cos they have no others). But all liberal Europeans, the democratic left, Scandinavian countries (esp. Denmark), Germany, Britain (through resolutions of national parliaments), as well as USA, Russia and China officially, almost all countries in bilateral contacts with Macedonia, understand the Macedonian right for self-determination and support this cause, not as a cause that is pro-Macedonian, but as a cause that is democratic and just. It will be a short time hopefully before the rest of Europe finally sees the spoiledness of its member-state greece, and stop being hostage to undemocratic and nationalist Greek agendas.
(I wont comment on Ancient Macednian ethnicity here, only in the other thread, because it’s irrelevant to the debate. Also because i’ve written tons of text there, and no point in writing it again. There are numerous sources which termed to Anceint Macednians as different than Greeks. See that thread for other examples.)

Restraining from repeating myself, as much as possible…

Quote:
...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 ...

Absolutely. There was a Greek minority ever since the Ancient Macedonians were there. No one denies that.
Quote:
...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

The non-Greek areas Greece gained were Macedonia and Thrace. And if you do a research on historical sources, you’ll notice that these two regions were (almost) always mentioned as separate geographical entities in comparisson to Greece. It’s simply out of the question for you for a moment to doubt the myth that those were always Greek territories, even in the face of overwhelming evidence I provided. So much for your open-mindness.
Quote:
...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...

If historically your nation occupied the bulk of the Balkan peninsula and had no other name for them, than it would undeniably be your right to call yourselves like that should you desire. Even if half the Balkan was conquered by the USSR during WW2 for example.
Quote:
...for the most part, greek national purity is not a myth ..

Oh, hello Adolf. And just as I started thinking differently about you..
“...because that is what happened with most greek "tribes" they now try to pass as minorities”
Are you listening to urself? You are saying that the minorities in Greece are “Greek tribes that want to pass as minorities”. That’s clearly the most hegemonistic, ethno-centrist, assmilatory statement, i’ve read somewhere for quite some time.
Quote:
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 ..

Not wine, Lith. Ritsinus, its an ugly tasting oil, which causes diarea and other pains for the stomach. Maybe it’s a word for smth else in Greek now, but back then that’s what it meant.
Moreover, its not Vlachs I’m talking about (who are also another minority in Greece). Vlachs were descendants of Romanized inhabitants of the Balkans and they differed significantly from other more dominant populations, both by language and culture. Though, I’m surprised, you say you’re Vlach, but also Greek. Do you mean you are Greek as a citizen of a nation, or Greek as ethnic Greek?
We have Vlachs over here too, but they have a weak national identity and get assimilated in the mainstream Macednoain population, which is a pitty if you ask me (despite the government efforts to maintain Vlach culture, through festivals for Vlach songs, exhibitions etc). My friend is also half Vlach, but she feels very much Macedonian, although she’s also proud with her Vlach ancestry. Why I don’t get that same impression about you.

Quote:
i guess so, though can't say i remember ...for the sake of argument however, they did...

You cant tell when the Slavs arrived on the Balkans (including Greece that is), and you’re arguing with me on a historical basis?! What assurane do I have then that you researched and are not talking this rant as a result of the nationalist myths you’ve been fed with? (Terje, the first Slavs arrived in Macedonia as early as the end of the 6th century.
Quote:
wrong... the latest someone could use the term Ancient Macedonians would be shortly after Alexander's empire was gone... and thats quite a few centuries earlier...

False. There are nomerous historical sources which use the term Macednians for describng the population of Macedonia, in the mean period between the coming of the Slavs and the fall of Macedonian Empire under the Romans. One being, the very Bible. Read where Paul goes on his first mission in Europe. (I wont quote the Bible here, out of principle. )
Quote:
wrong, since by then "Ancient Macedonians" were already assimilated with the rest of the population of the area, mostly greeks

How abusrd. If Ancient Macednians were assimilated in the Greek population, how does that make them Greeks before the assimilation? Also, there were no Greek migrations before 6th century, so no basis to believe that there were mostly greeks in Macedonia when the Slavs arrived, but Romanized Macedonians. Anyway, those were times when the Byzantian identity prevailed (with a Roman spirit, not greek). Even Roman was used at court, and citizens of the Empire refered to themselves as Romans (only much later did Byzantia gained the Greek character).
Quote:
... who considered themselves Greeks and on the other hand, we have Greeks who live in Macedonia and call themselves Macedonia as a geographical separation, not as national identity, in the same way Ancient Macedonians did in the past

By all means, do continue to call yourselves like that. But we are also geographically part of Macedonia, and historically and culturally we have bonded our history with that entire region, so as also the name to denote a national identity for us, and just as you do, we’ll keep and use that right.

As an insider joke here: As a solution of the problem my government position is to use a double formula: the official name for the world and a separate name for bilateral contacts with Greece, which could be a subject of compromise. But knowing the Greeks, they would be more willing to switch it: The official name for communication with Greece, and a new one for the rest of the world. lol
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
LinnielErithil
LinnielErithil

Tavern Dweller
Guardian of Nature
posted April 18, 2005 05:59 AM
Edited By: LinnielErithil on 18 Apr 2005

And my answer...

First, I want to thank Svarog for not falling into the flaming traps in this thread... I got honestly tired of the bad manners around, and was thinking of ditching the whole discussion due to it... no point in discussion when all people try is to offend you.

Now, let's proceed with the arguments themselves.

Quote:
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.


First, by that time Bulgaria no longer had Khans but Tzars. And second: [url=http://www.omda.bg/engl/history/Samuil.htm]Info on Samuel[/url]

Let me give a helpful quote here, for those who don't want to read the whole thing:

"In 977, when Boris II was already dead, Samuel offered the throne to the castrate Roman, who had fled from Constantinople. Roman remained loyal to Samuel, even after he had been taken captive for the second time by the Byzantines in 991, until his death in prison in 997.  Only then did Samuel put on the red boots and the purple chlamys, quickly winning international recognition."

So, my question, and for now only question to Svarog is: why did a Macedonian ruler, because that is what you stated Samuel to be, that desired independence from Bulgaria, treat the brother of the Bulgarian Tzar (Roman) in such a loyal way? Why did he offer to give him back the crown after he managed to escape from captivity? And why only after Roman's death did Samuel declare himself tzar of Bulgaria? Do you honestly think such behaviour suits a man that was only declared Bulgarian ruler because of a mistake of the Byzantine historians?

Quote:
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.


And I will ask you to compare this to the number of Jews deported from the countries forcefully occupied or allied to Germany. But again, is this a debate about whether Bulgarian history is the most fair and full of wise decisions history in the world? By all means, I will personally deny such a foolish statement. But is this relevant to our debate here? Hardly. I just answered to a somehow flaming and admittedly unrelated to the discussion comment in your first post.

Quote:
Actually you're wrong. Hitlers army was nowhere near the Bulgarian border.


I will ask again, Svarog, don't try to change history in order to suit you. For reference [url=http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/war2.html] look here[/url]

And again for those that don't want to look, I will offer a quote for this site:

"This illusion was soon blighted when the German Reich expansion reached the Bulgarian borders. Faced with choosing between military confrontation with Germany and accession to the Axis powers, the monarch and his government had Bulgaria join the fascist bloc on 1 March 1941."

So, you see, the Nazi troops were on our border, and virtually the situation was we either cooperate with them, or we get crushed. I don't say I like it, or support this decision. I, however, know the reasons for it, and understand them. And even allied with the Axis, Bulgaria offered as much opposition to Hitler's plan as possible for a country in the political, economic and military state Bulgaria was in. Actually, it was so uncooperative, that it is believed that Hitler was the one behind the sudden death of Boris III, causing it with some poison is order to place more pliable ruler at his stand. Again, I should admit proof of this is impossible. But so is proof for most of the things you state.

Quote:
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.


I am not the Bulgarian government. Never claimed to represent the official, and highly politically influenced, therefore not historically impartial, position of the Bulgarian government. But the answer to your question is simple. To me it is clear why Greece claims that F.Y.R.O.M. (or will you prefer Skopje?) shouldn't use the name Macedonia as a name of a country that occupies very small percent of the larger territory named Macedonia. I agree with their position, and act upon my opinion. Is that a problem?

I feel obliged already to finish each post with asserting that I do not question the right of the people in Skopje to have their nation, national identity, state, and history. What I do question is their desire to steal pieces of the history of their neighbours in order to do it.




 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted April 18, 2005 06:00 AM
Edited By: Consis on 18 Apr 2005

The Heart

I am done with my research and reading. I am at a conclusion:

Former Yugoslavs do have a right to claim this new national identity but it does spell a very real concern for Greek internal interests. Talk of "Macedonian nationalism" could inspire a revolt aimed at this very cause. In this respect, it explains why Greeks are acting so worried.

The very heart of the matter lies in two key points:

1. Macedonia being used as a nationality
2. Modern Hellenes(Greeks) being directly affected by this declaration.

According to what I've learned and read(thanks to Silverblade, Svarog, Lith-Maethor, LinnielErithil) I am convinced without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of concern lies in using the Macedonian name as a nationality. Nationalizing it makes it seem more about unification. But of course, how does one unify a peoples under nationalism and which portions of the people will it affect? Who will feel the nationalist call to a strengthened unified Macedonia?

It is this exact use of nationality and the Macedonian name that amounts to real-life extremely serious geographical and political concerns. These concerns are mainly directed at today's Greek internationally recognized sovereign territorial claims.

The direct use of the name takes on so much more because it does in fact lie in the heart of people living in the southern Balkan/Northern Greek region. Many of these people do still claim Macedonian heritage. And just as surely as an exiled king continues to pose a political threat to newly elected leaders, so too does the Macedonian heritage continue to linger in the hearts of modern-day Greek citizens.

Modern Greek strategists believe that Macedonian recognition could invite its northern Greek-Macedonians to think more about their own personal feelings toward Macedonian nationalism. If enough seperatists/secessionist do exist in this region then this is a very real cause they could possibly commit to. This fear is highly substantiated in the fact that those Macedonian Greeks admit to feeling strong personal ties to this ancient heritage/legacy.

Greek geo-political concerns might be very interested in consequences such as:

1. Declaration of nationalist Macedonian claims is a clear threat to a very significant portion of its internationally recognized northern territory. Populist recognition could insight local rebellions. Some rebellions might be more coordinated than others depending on leadership and other foreign interventions by the Turks.(hypothetically speaking)

Turkish geo-political concerns might be very interested in consequences such as:

1. This territory is not only a legally(subjective in the eyes of the people themselves) accepted claim but also a real and major concern for the Aegean and most significant city of this region, modern-day Istanbul(historically Constantinople). A unified post-modern Macedonia with access to the Aegean would dramatically change the geo-political calculations for this region.(hypothetically speaking)

2. I would further hypothesize that Turkish interests might suit Greek interests in squashing this Macedonian nationality declaration. That is, of course, if they wanted to maintain Istanbul as held by Turkish Muslims.

The end-result problem lies with today's miniature Macedonia. The great question, if one considers him/her self a revolutionary living in Macedonia today, is this country could not conceivably/successfully wage wars/conflicts or land-grabs with its current population and economic capabilites. It is also landlocked which significantly reduces its capability to affect geo-political regional issues such as foreign trading and exports/imports. I half-wonder if choosing the Macedonian name was a strategic political move made by Balkan revolutionaries looking to expand their territory/power.

If you look at the name-choosing from a Greek-strategist perspective, you will find that Macedonia has no other conceivable means of waging wars against neighbors or gaining a much-needed seaport. They would be squashed if they hypothetically tried to plow through Albania or Bulgaria. Invasion would most certainly end in occupation by a larger power such as Greece or Turkey. Miniature covert operations to seize targets of economic importance would never gain enough public drive to support taking the northern Greek lands. I think it's really quite the most brilliant philisophical/ideological move by some Balkan revolutionaries wishing to expand their territories. The chances for success rely solely on the people who might be drawn to a new, and yet ancient, national identity for new laws, customs, and economic stability. Some of the northern Greek peoples might actually sway in face of a Macedonian-led invasion intended for land-grabs in the name of re-igniting Macedonian interests and national re-unification.

If I were a Greek strategist calculating the odds of a possible upstart inner Macedonian revolt for re-unification then I would be very concerned indeed. This seems where the danger truly dwells in what many are referring to as "stealing history". I don't think it is stealing history at all. I think it's a carefully planned move by Balkan revolutionaries looking to further their territorial boundaries to include Aegean access.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted April 18, 2005 06:53 AM

oh boy...

Quote:
As I see from recent postings, your entire argumentation goes back to the ethnicity of Anceint Macedonians, which we agreed is irrelevant to the discussion. And thats why this whole problem with the name is absurd and illogical, as long as the Greek government plays on those cards (and they have to, cos they have no others). But all liberal Europeans, the democratic left, Scandinavian countries (esp. Denmark), Germany, Britain (through resolutions of national parliaments), as well as USA, Russia and China officially, almost all countries in bilateral contacts with Macedonia, understand the Macedonian right for self-determination and support this cause, not as a cause that is pro-Macedonian, but as a cause that is democratic and just. It will be a short time hopefully before the rest of Europe finally sees the spoiledness of its member-state greece, and stop being hostage to undemocratic and nationalist Greek agendas.
(I wont comment on Ancient Macednian ethnicity here, only in the other thread, because its irrelevant to the debate. Also because ive written tons of text there, and no point in writing it again. There are numerous sources which termed to Anceint Macednians as different than Greeks. See that thread for other examples.)


working past the quasi-flamable arguments, if you paid attention you would know that i first said whether the AMs were greeks or not is not as relevant... my last posts were simply in reply to terje's questions as it would not be a good idea to reply in pm something that was brought here in this thread

Quote:
Absolutely. There was a Greek minority ever since the Ancient Macedonians were there. No one denies that.


...y o u  a r e  j o k i n g  r i g h t ?

Quote:
The non-Greek areas Greece gained were Macedonia and Thrace. And if you do a research on historical sources, youll notice that these two regions were (almost) always mentioned as separate geographical entities in comparisson to Greece. Its simply out of the question for you for a moment to doubt the myth that those were always Greek territories, even in the face of overwhelming evidence I provided. So much for your open-mindness.


and if you did some research you would notice that Macedonia at least was considered greek during the days of Ancient Macedonians and for most of the time since, if you asked the people that lived there what they are, they would never use the word "macedonian"

Quote:
If historically your nation occupied the bulk of the Balkan peninsula and had no other name for them, than it would undeniably be your right to call yourselves like that should you desire. Even if half the Balkan was conquered by the USSR during WW2 for example.


yeah, ok i see... better start with that letter to the prime minister then...

Quote:
Oh, hello Adolf. And just as I started thinking differently about you..
...because that is what happened with most greek "tribes" they now try to pass as minorities
Are you listening to urself? You are saying that the minorities in Greece are Greek tribes that want to pass as minorities. Thats clearly the most hegemonistic, ethno-centrist, assmilatory statement, ive read somewhere for quite some time.


again ignoring the flamy characterizations... do you even read what i post? ...or did you simply misunderstood who the "they" in that sentence was referring to? ...it was not the "minorities" themselves but those that for whatever reason, want to present these "minorities" as such... but then again i forgot, excuse humble me... only your people have the right to define themselves... if we say we are greeks we are obviously flawed and have to be flailed for it... i drop to my knees and ask for forgiveness... give me a break...

Quote:
Not wine, Lith. Ritsinus, its an ugly tasting oil, which causes diarea and other pains for the stomach. Maybe its a word for smth else in Greek now, but back then thats what it meant.


yes... i know what you meant and already explained why Metaxas did this... i do not agree of course, but thats irrelevant... and i also fail to remember what the name of that foul thing is...

Quote:
Moreover, its not Vlachs Im talking about (who are also another minority in Greece). Vlachs were descendants of Romanized inhabitants of the Balkans and they differed significantly from other more dominant populations, both by language and culture. Though, Im surprised, you say youre Vlach, but also Greek. Do you mean you are Greek as a citizen of a nation, or Greek as ethnic Greek?


is it so hard for you to grasp that i am both Vlach and Greek? the same way i am both Macedonian and Thessalian, or the same way i am a European and someone who speaks English ...Vlachs are indeed different in culture and language... not that much however as to be considered a minority (the language of Vlachs has no word for yes or no) and in fact we do not consider ourselves one... but then again, we have no right to claim such a thing, sorry...

Quote:
We have Vlachs over here too, but they have a weak national identity and get assimilated in the mainstream Macednoain population, which is a pitty if you ask me (despite the government efforts to maintain Vlach culture, through festivals for Vlach songs, exhibitions etc). My friend is also half Vlach, but she feels very much Macedonian, although shes also proud with her Vlach ancestry. Why I dont get that same impression about you.


of course you have Vlachs there... many countries do... but to claim there is a Vlach nation is in the very least hilarious... i am proud of my ancestry... I am a Greek Vlach... and let me tell you that such displays of Vlach culture are actually as alive as ever here... as i said, more on the subject in a week or so when i get my resources in hand

Quote:
You cant tell when the Slavs arrived on the Balkans (including Greece that is), and youre arguing with me on a historical basis?! What assurane do I have then that you researched and are not talking this rant as a result of the nationalist myths youve been fed with? (Terje, the first Slavs arrived in Macedonia as early as the end of the 6th century.


funny thing about the human mind... sometimes it forgets things... and whether the slavs arrived in 567 or 638 is of little importance ...the point was they arrived before 1000 ...if further detail was needed i would try to remember

Quote:
False. There are nomerous historical sources which use the term Macednians for describng the population of Macedonia, in the mean period between the coming of the Slavs and the fall of Macedonian Empire under the Romans. One being, the very Bible. Read where Paul goes on his first mission in Europe. (I wont quote the Bible here, out of principle. )


now it all makes sense... its in the bible... and here i was wondering were you got the divine right to define yourselves, a right no other nation has according to you...

Quote:
How abusrd. If Ancient Macednians were assimilated in the Greek population, how does that make them Greeks before the assimilation? Also, there were no Greek migrations before 6th century, so no basis to believe that there were mostly greeks in Macedonia when the Slavs arrived, but Romanized Macedonians. Anyway, those were times when the Byzantian identity prevailed (with a Roman spirit, not greek). Even Roman was used at court, and citizens of the Empire refered to themselves as Romans (only much later did Byzantia gained the Greek character).


thats actually my bad for using "greeks" where i should use the names of the areas the rest of the greeks where... you have however a trouble separating the people from the state, from the officials... the reason greek replaced latin in state affairs was because everybody else used greek in their everyday activities... because that was what the people felt like... i guess however this is another case of your divine right

Quote:
But we are also geographically part of Macedonia, and historically and culturally we have bonded our history with that entire region, so as also the name to denote a national identity for us, and just as you do, well keep and use that right.


and because we feel this equals robbing us of our history and identity (not to mention the fear of further claims down the road) we will keep opposing this
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
LinnielErithil
LinnielErithil

Tavern Dweller
Guardian of Nature
posted April 18, 2005 07:15 AM

...will try one more time...

Unfortunately seems I will have to withdraw my congratulations to Svarog for not falling into the flaming traps... he did... just not towards me, but towards Lith...

Sad... people, refrain from personal comments and judgments, please. Here, we criticize argumentation and logic, not people. Stop classifying people as followers of Adolf Hitler(even if that was some bad joke), ignorant, or whatever. This thread is not here to discuss personalities. If you so much want to express opinion on one's personality, I believe there is relevant thread in this same subforum. Just keep in mind offensive such (and I find both these offensive) violate CoC. Thank you.

*Sigh*

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shiva
Shiva


Promising
Famous Hero
posted April 18, 2005 03:21 PM

I have no opinion about who is right or wrong here. I do
want to say, after reading this thread, that I now clearly
understand why there is a verb to balkanize.
Seems to me nationalism is one step up from tribalism,
and the effects of tribalism in Africa are quite clear.
Surely we can do better this?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vlaad
Vlaad


Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
posted April 19, 2005 12:46 AM

I insisted on the fact that Bulgarians are of both Turc and Slav origin to prove another point. If it is known that the Bulgars of Turc origin (who were of "mixed origin" themselves) were assimilated by the ethnic Slavs into a new nation called Bulgarians, it is strange to insist on owning history. Needless to say, nations do have their history, but it is flawed to think that nations don't share it with other nations, especially in a region such as the Balkans. For example, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians all speak the same language, have the same origin, had several common rulers, inhabited common territories... yet, they represent three distinctive nations that have existed separately for more than a millenium.

First, is it strange that Bulgarians and Macedonians speak similar languages? Or should we insist that someone has stolen someone else's language:
Quote:
They speak a language named Macedonian, well, let me tell you this, this language is more similar to Bulgarian than most of the dialects in Bulgaria... And somehow it turned out we have stolen -their- language...

Second, aside from the language, there is a question of tzar Samuil that both Macedonian and Bulgarian historians claim to be theirs. The former see him as the founder of their state, while the latter consider him to have been a great ruler of medieval Bulgaria. One can already find a quote from a Bulgarian source in this thread. Here is how various Macedonian sources present him:
Quote:
During the most severe conflicts between the Bulgarians, Byzantine and Russians, The death of Bulgarian Czar Peter was used in Macedonia as an excuse to start-up for a liberation resurrection. From the very beginning of the uprising incited by the sons of a Slav prince Nikola , the town of Ohrid and its surroundings were in the very centre of the tumults. The uprising started in 969 and neighbouring regions were freed from the Bulgarian rule. The former Macedonian "sclavinias" (Slav provinces) were united into a Macedonian Slavic state known as Samuel's Empire.

Later, as a monarch, Samuel managed to develop a large army and well-trained soldiers so that by the end of X century the Macedonian state was also covering the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Albania and Croatia. After obtaining the Pope's blessing, Samuel promoted the Macedonian Church to the rank of a patriarchate. Ohrid then became the ecclesiastical and political centre of the Macedonian State.

Anyway, it is obvious that both in Bulgaria and in Macedonia (from historians to school books to media), only ONE version is recognized as the official one. A second or a third version is not possible. Since at least one of them is indoctrinated, the other is wrong. Obviously, it is easier to accuse the other side of raping a piece of your history than embracing the fact that one may be not right oneself. Keep in mind that I am talking of both sides here, since they behave in the same way. A third possibility has been mentioned though: Samuil could have been a tzar of a multiethnic state consisting of Bulgarians, Macedonians and other nations, while his own nationality is obscure if measured by the 19 century ideas. There are other such examples in Balkan medieval history, namely king Tvrtko (a Bosnian who was "the king of Serbs").Other examples of Macedonian raping of history have not been mentioned here, at least not so far.

Third, Macedonian territory seems to be an issue as well:
Quote:
The thing with the country bordering on itself is a common joke in Bulgaria, even if having a good historical base.

Bulgarian jokes aside, Albanian separatism in Western Macedonia threatens to tear the country in two. If neighbouring Kosovo becomes independent, this is not the worst but the most probable scenario.

Fourth, as Svarog wrote, Serbian Church is putting Macedonian Church under pressure, denying its independence.

Fifth, aside from language and history, the name of the nation has been questioned. I've already said that I understand the Greek position here. On the other hand, I have seen too many wars to prefer historical justice to human lives. This was the reason I took part in this discussion in the first place.

To sum it up, Macedonian language, history, territory, church and even its very name are questioned by its neighbours. Seemingly, all these countries argue that they respect Macedonia's right to be sovereign. At the same time, they question all things that make a sovereign nation:
Quote:

YES! they can make their own nation
YES! they can have their own identity
YES! they can have their own history

NO! they cannot steal the history of their neighbours
NO! they cannot use the name of a territory they only have the 15(?) percent of
NO! they cannot usurp the history, rights and everything else, good or bad, that goes with that name
NO! they cannot make claims that have no valid argument and could in the future threaten their neighbours


Keep in mind that those people think of them as Macedonians, not Skopjans or whatnot. They say they speak Macedonian, not any other language. They have no other founder of their state but Samuil. If Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania ARE right, then Macedonia is not a nation at all. If everybody else is right but them, then they are a nation without a name, language or history of their own. A bunch of mythomaniacs who should disown their history before 1991 and change their name to Skopjans (what if you were told you are not a German but a Berliner?). If this sounds bad, then WHAT do you suggest?! Macedonian national identity is questioned here, and as Svarog and I have already explained, the sovereignity and stability of his country. We are now talking about real people, not a footnote in history books.

P.S. Again, I would like to know if THIS is right, because I honestly don't know:

Quote:
The Macedonians in Bulgaria exist as separate nationality on all Bulgarian censuses after the end of World War II. The demography data from 1946 revealed that the majority of the population in the Pirin part of Macedonia declared itself as Macedonian in a free census.

However, since 1956 Bulgaria has altered her attitude, negating again the existence of the Macedonian nation and forbidding the free expression of Macedonian nationality and language. The idea was enforced and as result, in the census of 1965, the number of Macedonians suddenly dropped to only 8,750 and in the district of Blagoevgrad which previously had the highest percentage of Macedonians, it was "mysteriously" less than 1%.

Like Greece, Bulgaria stands accused by the international human rights organizations Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for denying the Macedonians of Pirin their basic human rights to identify themselves as Macedonians.


P.P.S. Finally and seemingly off topic, Bulgaria in WW II was mentioned by the poster from Bulgaria as a sample of Bulgarian history, not by me. Then I was surprised that one would define oneself as a nationalist who didn't approve but nevertheless understood Bulgaria's position in April, 1941. In addition, further explanations were offered. It may be a question of upbringing, but in my country Nazism was fought even when there was no hope, from April,1941 to April,1945.

Eventually, we are offered to read an article from a Bulgarian site. There you can read about Bulgarian People's Army that freed Macedonia and south Serbia with Red Army in 1944, but it doesn't say that it freed those regions from other Bulgarians.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted April 19, 2005 03:23 AM

What Does The Future Bring?

Whether you agree or disagree with Macedonians keeping their national identity there are still some remaining questions:

Can Greece truly stop Macedonia from keeping this name? What will Greece do? Will they use economic sanctions, shrewd diplomacy, or military intervention?

I see no realistic way of preventing Macedonia from keeping their identity. What will they do to defend this identity? How? Why?

What do the Turks think?

War is not a solution, only a result. Who can answer these questions? Is this limbo? Will Greece simply continue to merely "disagree" or will it take some kind of action? What does the future bring?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted April 19, 2005 05:11 AM
Edited By: Svarog on 18 Apr 2005

Oki, just to fill you up with something fresh. Today in Melbourne, Australian football fans with Macednian and Greek origin displayed their barbarism by causing a mass fight and injuring few policemen in the process. The cause was precisely what we discuss here. If you ask me, they should ban them both from the league and learn once and for all what happens when they try to transplant Balkanism where it doesn’t grow.

Khaelo sent me an interesting IM, but I thought since there are Americans/Candaians reading this who cant grasp how primitive we can be, to reply to her publicly (i think shes alright with it). Here goes:

“Hi, Svarog,

I've been watching the Greece-Macedonia thread with a great deal of both interest and confusion. The latter seems to center around the ethnicity problem. What *is* ethnicity? Is it like race? Is it one's ancestors, culture, language, location, all of the above...? Why is it so important?

In the States, at least for many people, ancestors and origins are all mixed up, and the various cultures have been assimilated into the mainstream. So I don't understand the significance that people place on these things in the Balkans. But I don't want to interupt the high-level thread with basic questions...”


Ahh, tell me about it. Its not basic question at all. It reminded me how primitive and strange all this might seem to Americans.
I don’t know if I should give you my outlook or the Balkan majority outlook. Or both?
Well, ethnicity isnt quite like race, it’s much more subtle than that. Its defined mostly by language and culture, but since there is areal simillarity and undefined and intermingled cultural and linguistic fronts when one tries to classify ethnicities, especially among Slavic groups in the Balkans, I’m not sure we can really talk about existance of different and seperate ethnicities in most cases (excluding the Jews for example). Most ordinary people however, find ethnicity to be given once and for all, and equate the term with nation, even think nations to be genetically determined (!). Nations are a rather interesting concept, that most have no idea what it means, and think that they’ve existed for millenia. Ethnicities, although certainly existed before that, were brought in the picture only in the XIX century when the idea of nationalism (i.e. nations) spread across Europe, so the way to forge a nation back then was seen to be possible only through realization of one’s own seperateness, so a separate ethnicity was needed to be proven, or more correctly invented. That is why the national myths were created, which provide the frame for 90% of the history that is learned in schools. It’s (was) the same about Western Europe. Though unlike us on the Balkans, they stopped defining their nations through the ethnicity of the dominant group that lives there. Here, it seems they are inseperable. Don’t get me wrong though – the existent nation-states in Europe did abandon the 19th century ideas about nationhood, but many of their reminants linger on.
As to the second question: why is ethnicity so important? I’d argue that such backward understanding is a result of a war-ravaged XX century for Balkan nations, as well as the fact that they are all too small, too weak and too similar as to feel confident in their perspective to exist as nations in the long-run. Building a strong national identity presents a safeguard from neighbouring nations and their expansionist aspirations, which have proven to be much fervent in the XX century (at about 6-7 occassions, to count all the wars on the Balkans during that time). Hope that helped somewhat.

I don’t think this thread is most appropriate for historical arguments especially about issues as unrelated as Jews in Bulgaria and tsar Samuel.
Posting Bulgarian links wont get you anywhere. Trying to prove that tsar Samuel (X century!) was Bulgarian or Macednian is funny as it can get. And to be more ridicilous, serious historians, both in Bulgaria and Macednia are actively working each on their agendas to prove absurd things. What I was saying about tsar Samuel was that he did form a separate state, with a separate church, on a separate territory, and about those facts I think we both agree. It was a first sign of distinct statehood in Macedonia, but far from meaning a distinct nationality of course.
About Bulgarian participation in the Axis; saying that you don’t justify, but understand it, and claiming all along that Bulgaria was “uncooperative” (by occupying parts of Macedonia and Serbia, and the deportation of 11,000 Jews to death camps) is irresponsible to history to say at least.

I think I’m gonna throw up if I read once again about owning history, long-standing nations, me being bible freak (lol that’s at least a new one), us forbidding poor Greeks right of self-determination etc. As I don’t consider these comments worth for a reply and as I already gave my argument with which to oppose this, I wont follow the rule that “whoever post last wins the argument”. People have brains (at least those who do), read and understand.

As for Consis; you really seem to enjoy your role of geostrategical anlyst. Unfortunately your perspective seems to be medieval (or American, the same ). I’m not mad at you however; its not your first time to run out with unfounded opinions.
Your theory would have had sense, if there was a sizeable Macednian minority in Greece at the present. Unfortunately, there hardly is (estimated 10,000 would openly declare, but we wouldn’t know as there is no census for them). That certainly cant compose any threat to Greece, and considering the pace of silent assimilation, in 10 years I believe there will be only few hundred Macednians in Greek (Aegean) Macednia. I didn’t repeat for nothng that Macednia is in no position to pose any threat for Greek sovereignity (both millitary, culturally, economically). The other way around is more real, especially since Macednia underwent an economic crisis under the Greek economic embargo in the 90’s, and there was a joint statement at the time when Yugoslavia was falling apart by Milosevic and the Greek primeminister then that “Macednia is a destabilizing factor on the Balkans.”
Also, Macednian nationalists didn’t invent the name for the nationality in 1991 so as to gain access to the Aegean! Macedonia became a brand for a nation in second half of 19th century, when it was undivided under the Ottoman Empire, so they didn’t have to invent anything in order to get sea access.
Later in history however, when the Macednian population in Greece was sizable, there was a case for fear. Following WW2, Yugoslavia did raise the Macednian question in Greece. However, following the Tito-Stalin break-up, Yugoslavia lost intrest to help the revolutionary cause of the Macednians who faught for independence under the Communists during the Greek Civil War (and were under USSR patronage), and they lost the war. Tito made a secret pact with the West to keep relations with Greece stable (meaning to give up the Macednian question) in exchange for Western support. Following that, Greece had a clear way to finish the assimilation they started decades ago, so under the rule of the fascist disctator Metaxas they banished many Macedonians out of Greece (80,000 banished [Here are my grandparents included]; 21,000 dead [Here included three of my grandparents siblings, and my grandad’s dad] in the war), burned their villiges, and assimilated those that stayed there.
Now, Consis, wouldn’t you call this atrocity? To decimate an entire population from their country? And now what do we get on top of that? Because we are decimated, we cant claim openly a national identity, since we are a threat to the decimators.
Also, I’m amazed how many of you act out some diplomatic indifference. I mean, fine, I undertand not taking members side, but it seems to me that any normal person who understands politics, and shares the values of freedom and democracy even a little bit, is obliged to morally condemn certain practices by governments who abuse political power and influence, and on top of that disrespect minority rights, and support those whose rights have been denied.

Lith mentioned few times that the name Macedonia is a brand for territory, and cant be used for national identity. Well, a name of a nation somehow has to arise, and in history in most of the cases they took it after the territory they lived on. So, this clearly falls in water.
Quote:
and if you did some research you would notice that Macedonia at least was considered greek during the days of Ancient Macedonians and for most of the time since, if you asked the people that lived there what they are, they would never use the word "macedonian"

And while I was exploring Greek Macedonia to count the minorities there, i suppose you got back in time and did a poll there, huh?
An example of source seperating Macedonians and Greeks would be Sozomenus (IV-V AD) who concerning the Christianization during Constantine writes: “The Hellens, the Macednians and the Illyrians started to accept Christ’s faith without fear.”
The scripture from Paul in Acts of the Apostols:16 reads: “During the night Paul had a revelation: one Macedonian was standing in front of him and begged him: “Come to Macedonia and help us!” After that revelation we set off fro Macednia right away realizing that God calls us there to preach the Good news.” (Now look what you made me do. Quote the Bible. I feel filthy now. )
Quote:
is it so hard for you to grasp that i am both Vlach and Greek? the same way i am both Macedonian and Thessalian, or the same way i am a European and someone who speaks English ...Vlachs are indeed different in culture and language... not that much however as to be considered a minority (the language of Vlachs has no word for yes or no) and in fact we do not consider ourselves one...

Whether you consider yourself a minority, its up to you to decide, but don’t speak in the ame of all Vlachs in your country, because I know there are such who declare themselves as such, and want their rights to be respected. Or what? Is it a world conspiracy of USA and European Council to invent minorities only to… (have no idea what)
Besides, identification with Thessaly, is not the same, because Thessaly is a region; Vlach, as I know from experience, some people consider to be ethnicity. Theres no region called Vlachia.
Anyway, lith, honestly, could you answer some questions for me:
-Do u recognize there is a Vlach minority in Greece?
-Do u recognize there is a Macednian (Slavic) minority in Greece?
-Are their minority rights respected?

Vlaad, I don’t agree with you insisting that nations own history, and its here when the problems with Semuel arises (and so many others). Theres little logic in claiming that Samuel started the Macednian state. What about the Anceint Macednian state that was there before him? Because there would be no dfference between them (same terrotiry), since neither of them embodies a nation of Macednians (since nations didn’t exist then). In this sense the beginning of Macedonian statehood goes back to Anceint Macednians, the Slavic Macedonian statehood – with Samuel, and the national Macedonian statehood after WW2 (if you don’t count the Krushevo Republic which lasted for 10 days in 1903).
Quote:
P.S. Again, I would like to know if THIS is right, because I honestly don't know:

Yes, its true. The liberal in Bulgarian post-WW2 history was Georgi Dimitrov. He recognized the right of Macedonians in Bulgaria to freely exercise their national identity, in the true spirit of socialist democratic ideals. However, Stalin didn’t like his liberal policies (in general) and soon dealed with him. Eventually Bulgarians resumed their assimilatory policy towards Macedonians in Bulgaria.
Quote:
There you can read about Bulgarian People's Army that freed Macedonia and south Serbia with Red Army in 1944, but it doesn't say that it freed those regions from other Bulgarians.

Just a comment here. There were no Red Army troops in Macedonia at any time. True, they helped in defeating feascist Bulgaria, but never entered Macednia. As a matter of fact, Skopje was the only European capital which wasnt liberated by foreign armies.

EDIT: Consis, relevant questions in the end. I'd rather Lith answered them first.
Although, i dont think the turks have anything to do with it (or would like to).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2120 seconds