1st Congress of the Macedonian Rainbow Party in Greece
This video consists of the news coverage in Greece relating to the protests by Greek racists over the hosting of the 1st Congress of the Rainbow Party in Greece in 2004.
Rainbow (Vinozhito, or Виножито) has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Greece as the political party of the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece after years of legal battles both within Greece and the EU. Members of this party hosted their first Congress in Salonica (also known as Solun or Thessaloniki).
The first congress of this hitherto illegal political party was not greeted with much enthusiasm in the Cradle of Democracy. A mob of Greek racists stormed the congress venue hoping to assail the attendees of the Rainbow congress and treat them to some mob "justice".
The Greek Government had already received a directive from the EU to provide protection to the Rainbow Party when it organizes its first congress. In the following video we see hundreds of police officers standing outside the congress venue of the Rainbow Party. The riot police are holding back and clashing with crazy protesters throwing tantrums - and objects with their grasp.
The video is in Greek. No subtitles are provided, and they are probably unnecessary. The fury from the crowd explains why it is not safe to declare yourself as a Macedonian in Greece.
UPDATE: The video above is no longer available. Here is another one, which has a little lower quality.
79 comments:
There is no "Macedonian minority" in Greece because there is no such nationality. There is a small group of people who speak a Slavic dialect which is in fact different from what is claimed to be the "Macedonian language" These people are not a "Macedonian minority" as they consider themselves Greeks. There is also an even smaller group of Slav propagandists who are trying to create a Macedonian minority in Greece. Anyone who didn't consider him/herself Greek could have left Greece during the exchange of populations in 1919,why they didn't do it ? In the 1996 parliament elections in Greece the political party of the people who claim to be a "Macedonian minority" gained 3.485 votes (official result). In the 2000 parliament elections they didn't take up part at all. Of course there is no doubt of the integrity of the election procedures since Greece is a member of the European Union. If there was such a large number of "Macedonians" in Greece (1/10th) wouldn't be easy for them to stand up against the "Greek occupation"?
Greece acquired 51% of Macedonia in 1913 as a result of the treaty of Bucharest. International treaties are not illegal. Furthermore Greece in 1913 was not a powerful country to acquire any land it desired. This land was "given" to Greece because it historically belonged to Greece and its residents were Greek.
First of all, saying there is no such nationality as Macedonian would borderline a statement which would claim that there isn't an Italian nationality which is just mad. As there is a nation called Macedonia, there is a nationality called Macedonian. If the case is such that you do not wish to accept this (for whichever reasons) then you are simply ignorant and thus not qualified to discuss on the matter because of your previously established prejudice. If you were truly unaware of the existence of a Nation called Macedonia, then you sir, are poorly informed, which cannot be the case since it is obvious you have access to the internet and thus access to all possible information, so I am left to conclude that you are of a low IQ.
Second. The Macedonian minority that considers themselves Greek are forced to do so, because any feeling communicated to state otherwise will surely cost them their job, which is their source of income, which is their means to survive.
Third. Not a Slavic dialect, but a Slavic language. More specifically a South Slavic language. Even more specifically, Macedonian. Yes, Macedonian is an existing language and it is part of the South Slavic Group of languages. You can deny this as much as you wish, the fact will stay a fact.
Fourth. You yourself mention the exchange in population which you wrongly put in 1919, but rather it happened in 1923 with the Treaty of Lausanne where more than 1.5 million Christian Turks (who today strongly claim they are Greek and even more absurdly "Macedonian") were settled on the newly acquired territories and more than 500 thousand indigenous people were forced to resettle elsewhere. One Quick question which you should answer yourself. Why the need to settle 1.5 million and expel 500 thousand if Greeks had lived there already? And why the need to forcefully Hellenize the toponyms of the area as well as the people and inforce the Greek language and accordingly punish and even kill those who do not or refuse to speak it or are heard speaking another language other than that?
Fifth. The vote for the Macedonian party. Let me explain that in a way that you may understand. If you were gay in a country where the government and even the people treat the gays in a hostile manner, would you feel free to go out and participate in a gay parade?
Sixth. "Of course there is no doubt of the integrity of the election procedures since Greece is a member of the European Union." If being in the European Union was the signifier for a truly democratic country, then Greece would not be a "pure nation" with no minorities and would not be on the Human Rights Watch list.
Seventh. Just because a Treaty is signed does not make the Treaty legally correct. That is for a court to consider. Treaties which infringe on the rights of others are deemed illegal.
I beg you to re-evaluate your stand point and think reasonably regarding your claims.
Dearest Bojan I conlude that you are very young , young without Historical memories so for this I forgive you ..!!! And please you don't have to apologise for your ignorance to an older man with "low IQ" !!
"Every country has the right to call itself whatever it wishes" ...But for your case you well know that is a misleading statement. You know very well why Greece is objecting to the use of the name Macedonia. In fact every country has the right to chose its own name as far as it does not belong to another country's history. The name Macedonia belongs to the Greek history. Greece has the right to protect its history and heritage.
Even Saints Cyrilos and Methodios were Greeks born in Thessaloniki and this is well known to all Christians. Pope John Paul the B' in an official apostolic homily to the entire Catholic Church proclaimed that Methodius and Cyril "Greek brethren born in Thessaloniki" are consecrated as "heavenly protectors of Europe". John Paul B' repeated this statement in a speech delivered in the church of Saint Clements, in Rome. You can find the original document if you search Batican's libray.
Greece does not 'steal' history. It has its own lengthy and respected history. It is the only thing that Greece has plenty of it. The Greek history and culture is respected by all the countries in the world. People who don't have their own history need to 'steal' someone else's...
At the same time is still an ignorance if by mentioning "Macedonian" language you are connecting it to something ancient ....!
"Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words. A very limited quantity in this case is a quantity indeed, that Greeks cannot ignore."
This argument proves the Greek point that the "Macedonian language" was a Greek a dialect. There only exists "a limited quantity of Macedonian words" because the Macedonian dialect had "limited" differences from the Greek language.
How could it be possible for a separate "ancient Macedonian language" to disappeared after what Alexander had achieved?
Some are telling that ,"There are no ancient monuments written in the Macedonian language because Greek archaeologists destroy them when they are recovered." Even if we accept that this is true it still doesn't explain why aren't there any monuments in the rest of Macedonia!
What about the ancient monuments in your region or Bulgaria ?
What about the ancient monuments on Alexander's route in Asia?
Why aren't there any "non Greek Macedonian monuments" ?
Oh, I know why! The Greek archaeologists must have destroyed them as well !!!
The Greek names are older than the Slavic ones and most of them have their roots in ancient Greece. The Greek names of the towns in Macedonia are also mentioned in the Bible. A characteristic example is Thessaloniki. This city was founded in 315 bc by the Macedonian king Kasssandros and it was named after Alexanders' half sister - Thessaloniki. How could the Greeks change the name from Solun (as you claim) to Thessaloniki in 1912 if that was the original name? The name Thessaloniki is even mentioned in the bible by St Paul. Why did he address his letters (epistoles) to the people of Thessaloniki and not the to the people of Solun?
What about the Greek names of towns inside FYROM used during the Ottoman times? Did Greece change them as well?
Dear Bojan the history cannot be written from the beggining ...!!
Please answer the question ..isn't true that after WW2 other nationalities that were established to your region (among them thousands Greeks with Left belief and due to our civil war established to your region also among them Bulgarians and Albanians ) forced to change their names to Slavics ?
Isn't true that on our days they are willing to change their names to the originals ? You are mentioning Turkish minorities (It is better to say Greek Muslims)? Did you ever hear us to say about GREEK minorities that used to stay at Turkey region lets say up to 60's or 70's and how many are living now ...? How come and by what ways Turkish forced them to leave their country...? Or you never heard in what way Turkish killed "The Patriarche " during '60 ? Come on Bojan respect history and avoid all these etnic words !!!
Try to remember what your former President. Kiro Gligorov confirmed twice ....that they are not related to the ancient Macedonians:
"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."
(from the Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35. )
"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (A.D)." (from the Toronto Star newspaper, March 15,
You are telling me that Today's 'Greeks' and ancient 'Hellenes have no relation between them.+
How is it possible for the people who live in the same region, speak the same language and have the same names and culture not to be descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the region? Similarly we could say that today's Egyptians are not descendants of ancient Egyptians and today's Chinese people are not descedants of ancient Chinese.
The name 'Greek' is in fact ancient as well as the famous philosopher Aristotelis verifies:
"...and she was not there forever, but after the cataclysm of Defkalion, which occurred in the Hellenic area, in fact, in the ancient Hellas, which was around Dodoni, and it changed many times the flow of Acheloos river. In that area live the Selloi and the ones that were once called Graecoi and are now called Hellenes..." [Aristotelis Meteorologika, I, 14]
The following questions are obvious:
You call your selves "Macedonians" and your language "Macedonian"?
Why do you use ancient Macedonian symbols if they don't belong to you or even I am certain that you don't even know what is the meaning of the 16 beams of our Macedonian Symbol ?
The historic truth is that the Slavs descented into the region not before the 6th century long after ancient Macedonia was homogenized with the rest of Greece. They don't have any historical cultural or linguistic ties with ancient Macedonia and they would be realy foolish if they officialy claimed that they did. There is no historic or archaeological evidence connecting them with ancient Macedonia.
In any case occupying 25% of ancient Macedonian land does not give you the right to steal the Macedonian history and culture. The Macedonian civilization was part of the ancient Greek civilization. This is well known and recorded in history books. It is part of Greece's national inheritance and it can not be used by anyone else.
The official web site of the president of your country states clearly that these people came to Macedonia at the end 10th century:
"The beginnings of the statehood of the Macedonian Slaves go back to the end of the 10th century and beginning of the 11t, with the creation of Samoil's state."
Link: http://www.president.gov.mk/eng/makedonija.htm
Out of your total number of 2.022.547 population according to the last Census, there are 1.297.981 claim the name """Macedonians"""" or 64,18%, then 509.083 Albanians or 25,17%, Turks 77.959 or 3,85%, Roma 53.879 or 2,66%, Vlachs 9.695 or 0,48%, Serbs 35.939 or 1,78%, Bosniaks 17.018 or 0,84%, while 20.993 persons of the total population have declared themselves as belonging to other ethnic communities.
You have minorities also but you want to decide for them how to call their country ...have you asked the Albanians how do they want to call them ..do you think that they also feel "Macedonians" ?
What dont you put a question to them ?
Or perhaps Bulgaria ... who recognized your country with your constitutional name but they are not recognize your "Macedonian" language ..I wonder why ? Why many of your people are asking for Bulgarian passports (Even your former primeminister had one and now lives at Sofia !)
Dear Bojan calm your self and seek for the truth and see reallity with open mind .. You have , we have so many to earn if we respect each other and try...
I can't aggree with your methods like the abuse you made for our National Symbol ,our flag ,or the Maps you have into your school books and shown Thessaloniki as the capital of your country ...If It isn't provocatoric ..what else I can say !!! ...
Finally if you have arguements for
any treaty you may go to the International Court ...!!!!
Nice to read your comments ..
I am a Macedonian too. My country's name is Greece and I am also Greek. What about my basic human right to be called Macedonian without people telling me that I have to be either Macedonian OR Greek? What about my human right to have my heritage recognized? (and not an abstract national history, but my own family's history who are not settlers from elsewhere, who were born and raised as Greek Macedonians in Nigrita and in Monastiri/Bitola, the latter fleeing to Greece as refugees in 1913) I understand the frustrations of Macedonian Slavs and I regret past policies of Greece towards them. But I cannot erase myself or my identity to satisfy all the maximalist claims of Slav nationalists either.
PANAGIOTIS M, this is a last warning - you used that insulting acronym as the name for my country. If you do this again, I will remove your comments and I don't care how "important" they are.
# # #
Euaggelos, your ethnic feeling is not endangered by us Macedonians. I for one recognize your full rights to be called with the name you choose, and to belong to the ethnic group where you feel that you belong.
No hostility is needed in resolving this issue, and I think that, at least from our side, no hostility was produced. Patriotism is about loving your own, not hating the others. However, there are radical minds on both sides, and this dialog is actually the step towards building a mutual tolerance and respect.
Panagiotis,
Again, I do not mean to reiterate on every single point you made because I feel there is as much of a possibility of changing your mind than changing the mind of a born-again Christian regarding the existence of god.
However, what I am going to stress, again, is that you're whole premise for the objection of Macedonian calling itself exactly that lays on very shaky ancient history. Meaning, it lays on the premise that the ancient Macedonians were another Greek tribe AND that the modern Greeks have a direct connection to the ancient Greeks. Also, you hurry to try to show the connection between the ancient Greeks and the ancient Macedonians and you leave it at that, setting the default that there is a connection, direct connection, between the ancient and modern Greeks. First of all, I can also present tons of sources, both ancient and current which suggest the exact opposite of what you claim in regards to the ancient Macedonians, but I feel that I will be doing all this work for nothing. I am, however, as an objective person willing to settle and say that there is conflicting and contradicting evidence to the connection (or lack thereof) of the ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks. I personally wish to follow the conclusions of prominent historians who conclude that the Macedonians were a separate people living in a separate institution (a kingdom) from the one of the Greek states (democracies) and had a separate native language which was not eligible to the Greeks.
Regarding the language that you so quickly conclude to be a dialect of Greek, I will also disagree, as will many other linguists who claim that yes, as there may be words which have a Greek origin there are also words that resemble nothing of the Greek language, rather they point to a different Indo-European base. However, again, the most objective conclusion with regards to the language is that there is not enough information to conclude what kind of language it was. Nonetheless, it was a language that was not understood by the Greeks (for which reason they were called barbarians) and there are quotes and sources which attest to this fact. Such is the trial of Philotas where Alexander addresses him by asking him whether he will use his native language in front of the Macedonians, who stand to judge him. To which he replies that he will speak Greek, so that everybody can understand him (which only asserts the notion that Greek was the lingua franca at the time).
The reason why there aren't any significant remainders of the language of the Macedonians could be the same as to why the language of the Illyrians and the Thracians is also lost. You also ask (by assumption that Alexander had spread the Greek culture in Asia) why are there only Greek monuments and artifacts. The answer is simple if you don't make the assumption that it was Alexander who had spread the Hellenic culture. There have been recent discoveries, specifically in Israel, but also in other Asian countries, which suggest strongly that the Hellenic culture had spread to those parts of the world before Alexanders' time. Nowhere in texts does it mention Alexander as the person that Hellenized those areas. The grounds on which the theory is founded is solely based on archaeological finds which had dated from around that period. Like I had mentioned, new digs suggest this may be flawed and as such would not support the theory of Alexanders' spread of the Hellenic culture. I do have a source for this, I am just unable to find it. And no, it is not a Macedonian source =)
I never claim that the ancient Macedonian language is the same or even similar to the one I speak today. There are studies being made with the languages on the Rosetta Stone, a study which is very controversial to me as well, but a study nonetheless, which is being "proof-read" by renowned scientists. I wait for the outcome, but I personally only have romantic feelings to the possibility of it being true.
You (I mean Greeks) always seem to stress the following point. The Slavs came to the Balkans in the 6th century A.D.. Well, that is the accepted theory with regards to the migration of the Slavs, however there are authors which suggest that the suggested or rather accepted migration theory is unsupported or even impossible (Keep in mind that I never, when I converse with Greeks, do I use information from Macedonian historians knowing their academic standing with Greeks). I am currently reading very interesting books on that topic, not enough to conclude myself though. (One can only imagine the impact on such a profound discovery and the reasons why more that overwhelming evidence is needed to change one of the cornerstones of todays history) So, let us then keep with mainstream history.
I don't want to drag this out, so I'll try to keep to the main points. Slavs came to the Balkans and settled as far as Peloponnese, which would suggest to the reasonable person, that genetically you are as Slav as we are. If you can claim that Greeks (or at the time Rhomaioi or rather Romans) did not intermixed with the Slavs, then the same follows for the Macedonians, thus we can draw on a direct connection with the ancient Macedonians if needed. Otherwise, genetically, you are as Slav as we are. Linguistically, we are different, we speak a Slavic language, you speak the Language which was solely used by the Church since the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Church, while the Arvanite, Walachian, Slav and other population of Greece proper, conversed in other languages. Contradictions of the continuity of a pure Greek nation within its current borders:
Noel Malcolm (historian, Cambridge): The military campaign fought by the Serb King Dusan, who conquered much of northern Greece, “was followed by the migration into Greece of large numbers of Albanians and Albanian Vlachs.“ Since Dusan had already conquered much of northern Greece, this suggests that these people went further south, even into the Peloponnese (NB: the Arvanites of today).
Peter Trudgill (sociolinguist, Cambridge): “some have estimated that, when the Ottomans conquered the whole Greek territory in the XV century, some 45% of it was populated by Albanians.
And the always lovely as before mentioned, and in more recent history, the population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the relocation of 1.5 million (Mind you an incredibly large number for the time as it is today) Christian Turks in today's Northern Greece, right into a seemingly "pure Greek Nation".
Do not accuse others of stealing history when it is more than obvious this Greek history which you call it, is nothing but Otto's fascination with the ancient Greeks and his desire to create his own little Greek state. Need I remind you of the book "Romaic Grammar" by E. A. Sophokles, 1842 where he specifically stresses that the ones who call themselves Hellenes constitute no more than one fourth of the population in Greece and this was a term which was reintroduced during that time to the people who even before the Greco-Roman Empire began to call themselves Romans and most of them still did so. If it wasn't for Otto, you would be calling yourself a pure Roman (Rhomaioi) and your country Romania.
Don't assume that just because I may be younger than you, or because you may be older that I know less, or that you know more.
Conclusion: Ancient Macedonia or rather the Ancient Macedonians is a part of history that should belong to all who live on the area of Macedonia and even further away. No one can claim a direct connection to Alexander the Great or the ancient Macedonians, which you Greeks desperately try to do, because of your insecurity as to who you really are. I suggest you don't accuse others of stealing history, until you thoroughly examine yours.
And the final point. Legally, there is no precedent, nor there ever will be, for the name of a province to infringe on a country to use the very same name. Britain and the region in France, Luxembourg and the province in Belgium. Legally, you have nothing to stand on. Thus, the reason to dig into ancient history and to desperately assign those institutions the meanings of nations, a term which was introduced in the 19th century.
Bojan,
"And the final point. Legally, there is no precedent, nor there ever will be, for the name of a province to infringe on a country to use the very same name."
and how about mexico and new mexico.i believe you no the issue.
united state have to name their province new mexico in order not to be any misunderstanding with the country. also we have britain the country and brittany the province where at least in greek the pronounce is quite different. in addition luxemburg does not claim that the province of belgium which has the same name is theirs.for me the main problem is that along with the name you claim that the whole geographical region of macedonia belongs to you.you have published maps which show thessaloniki as capital of your country, you learn to your children that the main part of your country is under greek occupancy and by this you create more nationalism in the region.
on the other hand there are a lot of people in your country who do not adopt your opinion.they say that yes we are macedonians because we live in the region for about 1500 years but we are slavs macedonias and we speak a slavic language, we have no connection with ancient macedonias.how about them they are traitors for you?
i think you have been captive to the thought that "in the balkans if you don't have 3000 years history you can exist as a nation" and so you strugle in order to steal it or to create it.
live in peace
Dear Axxel,
My point still stands. The state (or province as you say) in the USA is New Mexico, not the other way around. You cannot force the renaming of a COUNTRY because of a PROVINCE. THAT would never hold up in court. And yes, I had mentioned Brittany and Britain and Luxembourg (the province and the country).
You then say we have territorial pretensions and are displaying maps with the whole Macedonian region. I will not deny this (The part about the map). The map is, or rather was a reality. The Macedonian people, my ancestors (be they Slav or not) had fought (significantly after the 1850s) for autonomy and independence on a region where they lived and where they were the majority, Macedonia. And the map, or the territory where they lived looked exactly like that. Those maps you will find in any archive in the world, and those maps were not designed by Macedonians, but specifically the British. That might be something that you are not told in Greece. Nevertheless, those maps are and were a reality and part of our history. As such we are OBLIGED to teach them to our children. Also, unless you are a student in one of our schools, I don't think you have a right to speak regarding what it is exactly that we teach our children, because let's face it, the Greek government is great at convincing.
Let's for a second ever, assume that we have territorial pretensions for the part of Greece. How is a name change going to eliminate that? Do you think the alleged irredentism is going to disappear if we suddenly become north Macedonians or New Macedonians or even, say, Utopians. What you will be doing is simply changing the name of the idea, which as you may have realized is still the same idea.
I don't think you thoroughly read my post to Panagiotis, because you make the same mistake which is to say that we are Slavic people which came to the area 1500 years ago and have no connection to the ancient Macedonians. I hate repeating myself, but here goes. Again, there are a couple of points. Ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians were the same as the Illyrianrs and the ancient Greeks were. If Slavs did come in the 6th century AD and they assimilated everything in their way then they assimilated the ancient Greeks as well, because they settled all the way to Peloponnese, which would make us both, genetically Slav except linguistically.
Let's even allow for the possibility that the ancient Greeks survived the assimilation. Then still, Macedonia is in no way part of Greece or Greece's history except for the fact that Greece was once under Macedonian occupation, or rather under Alexander the Great who managed to put an end to the start of democracy as we know it.
If you compare, who has a bigger claim on Macedonia, then even if we're Slavs, we would still have the advantage, because as you say yourself, we've been here 1500 years while Greeks (allowing that they're connected to the ancients (which they're not)) have never had any stake in Macedonia, not during the time of ancient Greece (except while being ruled over by Macedonia), not in the time of the Roman or later East-Roman Empire, not in the time of the Ottoman empire. Only as recently as 1913. That was when Greece first acquired a part of Macedonia in hopes of recreating the old East-Roman empire with Constantinople as its capital and that's, where the "idea" of Macedonia belonging to the Greeks come, but since that doesn't hold up any of the claims you're making, you have to go back to a more controversial time in history and try to claim that.
So if you ask me, Slav or not, I have a right to call myself Macedonian and my country Macedonia both historically and legally, despite the fact that you have a province called Macedonia (even though that's not entirely true as you have provinces East, West and Central Macedonia) and despite the fact that your country also lay on the region of Macedonia.
To quote you:
"live in peace"
Dear Kostas,
Why do you feel threatened by the possibility of the existence of a Macedonian minority in Greece, or any other minority for that matter and how is that a provocation? Every person has the right to self-determine, to basic human rights, and Greece is a country where no minority is recognized, thus making the claim that it is a pure nation on an area that throughout the ages has had a flood of different people. Any objective person would conclude that having a pure nation taking in consideration the above is simply impossible. An even more convincing argument to the lack of purity of the nation is the population exchange of 1923 where, as I mentioned before, about (and some suggest a lot more) 1.5 million Christian Turks were relocated in current northern Greece. A true democratic country would allow and recognize the existence of other people that live in Greece, but I don't see this happening. Maybe there is something you can learn from Macedonia. I find it hypocritical for a country to block Macedonia's entry in NATO (and later in EU) because of the lack of good neighborly relations whereas the country who does this, lacks the ability to show by example, not having good neighborly relations with any of the neighboring countries. So please, before you get angry, make sure you are getting angry having the correct information and you're getting angry for the correct reason.
Bojan, you should probably just ignore Kostas. He is a perfect example of this site's subtitle: "Nationalism may seriously damage your health". His hatred and phobias towards/from everything he does not understand have completely ate his brains and now he is turned into a loud brat that kicks, spits and drools all over the Net with endless enthusiasm.
However, despite his defects, I have learned to like him, because he brings a smile on my face whenever I delete his comments, without even reading him. It kind of brings satisfaction when you know you have given him a new pill that will help him eventually calm down before he harms himself. I kept some of his older comments, though. Some doctor of psychology might learn something from his repetitive hysterias.
:-)
Bojan,
If you were able to apply even 1% of the historical scrutiny to your case that you apply to the greek case, you wouldn't even be here arguing.
It is interesting that you are able to reject reasonable assumptions when those assumptions do not please you, while at the same time you make wild assumptions with no supporting evidence.
Lets start at the beginning:
1. There is a nation called macedonia. False. there is a nation which wishes to be called and officially recognized as the Republic of Macedonia, but currently is officially recognized by an acronym or composite name which i will not mention because my friend goodbytes will be terribly disappointed. You got the facts wrong. given that you have access to the internet, would it be reasonable for me to make statements about your IQ score? i don't think there is any reason to insult you, so i won't.
2. " The Macedonian minority that considers themselves Greek are forced to do so, because any feeling communicated to state otherwise will surely cost them their job, which is their source of income, which is their means to survive."
The reasonable assumption is that in the exchange of populations, people who felt greek stayed in greece. In fact, if you engage a greek bilingual with such an attitude, you might be in for a big surprise, so i would suggest you proceed with caution. of course, if you only visit the office of rainbow, you won't have to worry.
would you be so kind as to provide the readers of this blog with your source of information? I suppose it is a statistical study which could also tell us the percentage of the presumed minority working in the public sector and likely to lose their jobs? It also mentions the percentage of the presumed minority working for greek nationalists, who are likely to fire them? Hypothetically, your statement makes sense, but if you ever bother to examine the evidence, you will find that it is nothing but an assertion full of hot air fueled by nationalist bias.
3. "Even more specifically, Macedonian. ...You can deny this as much as you wish"
first of all, panagiotis m said that what the majority of greek bilinguals in question speak is different from what you call the macedonian language. you have no more right to claim their language as yours than the bulgarians have to claim yours as theirs. so give it a rest.
4. "...more than 1.5 million Christian Turks (who today strongly claim they are Greek and even more absurdly "Macedonian")"
How exactly did you determine that even one of those people was a Turk? They were no more Turks than your ancestors were Turks. By the same criteria that you hold yourself to be macedonian they can claim to be macedonian. presumably you were born in a geographical region that was once part of the macedonian kingdom. so were they. if you care to expand your criteria, you will only find that they better match the term Macedonian than you or your countrymen.
"Why the need to settle 1.5 million and expel 500 thousand if Greeks had lived there already? And why the need to forcefully Hellenize the toponyms of the area..."
You are a self proclaimed intelligent person, why don't you answer the first part of that question yourself? you just acquired new territory, but you also acquired 1.5 million people. where would you put them? go on, give us a display of that superior IQ.
while you are at it, why don't you answer this question: why not "Hellenize" the toponyms? what is your objection to it? disregarding the fact that greek names existed for those areas and areas currently in your country before they were given slavic names e.g. Macedonia (ironic that you should complain when you want your country to have a greek name), what is a legitimate reason not to use greek names? why should i care what you want to call those places, do you own them?
5. "If you were gay in a country where the government and even the people treat the gays in a hostile manner, would you feel free to go out and participate in a gay parade?"
Let me explain this in a way that you may understand. Elections in greece are not like a gay parade. they are held within a very specific legal framework. this may come as a surprise to you, but the greek nation has far more important reasons to hold elections free of fraud and political intimidation than what you suggest. Perhaps, in your country elections and gay parades are similar enough for that analogy to make sense, but unfortunately in greece they are not. if you could point out the advantages of establishing elections more like gay pride parades, maybe we could try to change for the better. for your information, there is a considerable amount of hostility toward gays in greece and yet gay pride parades are held.
6. Being in the E.U. does not guarantee that a country has a transparent electoral procedure anymore than being on the human rights watch list guarantees that it doesn't.
Can you point out to me a single country in the world that should not be on the human rights watch list? The U.S.A, France, Germany, the U.K.? (FYI, there is no such thing as a national state called Britain, once again, you might want to validate your sources)
Can you explain to me the Bush-Gore electoral scandal in light of the prominent role of the US in promoting human rights globally?
7. Do you have a need to promote correctness? i do not think correctness will help you support your side in the naming dispute.
Let us move on to your second post:
1. Personally, i am an atheist. So if you are going to try to convince me of anything, come prepared to back it up with proof. if however my evidence does outweigh your evidence, i will try to avoid using the same patronizing tone that you use with others.
2. Greekness of macedonians:
Bojan, it is so kind of you to settle by saying that there is contradicting evidence regarding the connection of macedonians to greeks. But you are not really doing anyone a favor but yourself, because you don't bother to weigh the evidence. whatever your opinion on the matter, the opinion of alexander the great and his family was that they were greek, end of story. nobody is denying that the macedonians were a separate tribe that had a different political organization (kingdom) than Athens(democracy). that holds true for most greek tribes! You are correct in saying that you can cite sources that "suggest" that the macedons were not greek, ancient and modern. However, the contradicting evidence from ancient sources flat-out states that the macedonians were a greek tribe and describes their origin. so how do you weigh evidence that is a statement, including the statements of the people in question themselves, against suggestions and interpretations and come to your conclusion?
If we are to reject the claim of the ancient macedons to greekness based on speculation, how can we not reject your claim to be macedonian for which there is contradicting evidence? It is incredibly inconsistent to disregard the ethnic feeling of the macedonians and validate yours.
There is no haste in the conclusions about the ethnic feeling of the macedonians or their language. But there is haste and bias in your interpretation of the statement of Philotas. He did not speak in his native tongue because he wished for everyone to understand him. It is not odd for him to want all greeks to understand him equally, after all, he was on trial. This in no way proves that all greeks did not understand his native tongue, or that he didn't think all greeks could at least understand 60, 70, 80, or 99% of what he was saying. He was on trial and he wanted everyone to understand 100% of what he was saying. On the other hand, it would be hard to believe that he would be willing to sacrifice any comprehension on the part of his judges, which supports the notion that he expected the macedonians to not only be fluent but also proficient enough to hold a trial in the common dialect.
Similarly today, I have very great difficulty understanding even simple conversations of cretans, but i cannot arrive at the conclusion that all greeks have the same problem. In fact, greek islanders have no problem whatsoever in understanding cretans. Of course, all of us understand the common dialect, and if we go to court that is the dialect in which we will choose to make our case. By your criteria the cretan dialect should be a separate language and the cretans a separate people. Of course, the cretans don’t care what you think.
Do yourself a favor and google the words “pella curse tablet”. Then think of the fact that the ancient sources that you choose to ignore, unlike the opinion of your “prominent scientists”, points to a Dorian origin of the ancient Macedonians. Now put two and two together.
As for the term barbarian, i assure you that it has been used for many greek tribes besides the macedonians, and the greekness of those tribes is not contested at all.
A propos your strange theory on the spread of Hellenism, I find it very hard to believe that a greek monument would be erected within the persian empire during the time of war. not to say that the persians were not open-minded, it just seems quite the stretch. however, that was not the point being made. the propaganda that greek authorities are defacing ancient macedonian artifacts cannot be reconciled with the fact that there is not a single finding of anything but greek artifacts outside the borders of nowadays greece and within the territory of ancient macedonia. I suppose your theory could be used to say that even pella was not macedonian, just another supporting piece of evidence for your strange theory on the spread of Hellenism, but that could hardly be called a mainstream theory and there are no “prominent scientists” who would propose something so ridiculous.
3. "Slavs came to the Balkans and settled as far as Peloponnese, which would suggest to the reasonable person, that genetically you are as Slav as we are."
Jews have settled everywhere. Does that make me as jewish as Woody Allen? Turks settled all the way to Hungary. Yet most greeks did not mix with the turks and most slavs did not mix with the turks, just as most slavs did not mix with the greeks. evidence suggests that what you are asserting is not "reasonable" at all. greeks do not believe that you are a people that mixed with the slavs. they believe that you are slavs that have some degree of admixtures from other cultures and that is perfectly "reasonable".
100% of greek territory today is populated by albanians. if that estimate seems vague to you and subject to multiple interpretations, that is because it is vague and subject to multiple interpretations just like the estimate with which you provided us. Regardless of the lack of information in that statement, it in no way was an estimate of the degree of interbreeding of Albanians with greeks.
Otto is not the originator of the greek ethnic feeling, again you have your facts wrong. He did however capitalize on the greek ethnic feeling to drag the greeks into futile wars he had no intention of winning, to further his own cause and that of the powers that established his puppet government. This is only evidence that a greek ethnic feeling existed all along, whether they called themselves Romioi as citizens of the Roman empire (at the same time the western roman empire was quite confidently calling them greeks) or not.
Can you cite any single source of what anyone, including yourselves, was calling your people during the same time or any time up until the early 1900's? Let's hear it.
from Romaic Grammar:
"...long before the overthrow of the Graeco-Roman empire, the Greeks began to call themselves Ρωμαιοι, Romans ; not because, as some have hastily supposed, they considered themselves unworthy of their glorious ancestors, but because their was more glory attached to the name of their masters, the Romans."
as can be seen in the same text you supposedly read, the appellation Hellenes was restored by the revolution in 1821, not by Otto who would have been 4-5 years old at that time. Not to mention the philhellenic (not philoroman) movement that existed generations before Otto. Neither is there any contention in the text about the origin of the modern day Greeks. It can be easily seen, without any need for dubious interpretation, that the author draws a link from the Greek people of his time to the Greek people of the Byzantine empire to the Greek people of antiquity. It is not hard for many greeks to show you their genealogical tree to times before 1842 when this text was written. So why should they not believe that they are greek? I really cannot fathom how you can claim to be objective and cite this source as evidence supporting your case, when it is clear as daylight that the author, unlike you, believes in the greek origin of your neighbors. Either you are disingenuous, or you are quite deficient in your level of comprehension.
4. “Conclusion: Ancient Macedonia or rather the Ancient Macedonians is a part of history that should belong to all who live on [sic] the area of Macedonia and even further away.”
If this were a writing class, you would get an F. You did nothing in your post but dump on the greeks and nowhere did you explain how and why history comes to belong to some or all people.
5. “And the final point. Legally, there is no precedent, nor there ever will be, for the name of a province to infringe [sic] on a country to use the very same name.”
Let me explain something to you about the concept of legal precedence. If in the past there were a trial in which a province took a country to court over a name and the country won, you could cite legal precedence as a supporting argument for your case in some countries where legal precedence actually matters. You will find that legal precedence is not handled in all countries as it is portrayed in American movies, nor is legal precedence always binding. Nevertheless, I can just as easily use legal precedence as a supporting argument for my case: as far as I know, there is no case where a province took a country to court over a name and lost. If you really think legal precedence is the way to go, then I must remind you of the fact that you are not legally allowed to use the Macedonian sun as your national flag and as this is a ruling directly related to the case and the parties involved it would be the only relevant example of precedence.
I will limit myself to answering your first two posts. If you choose to reply, please make an effort not to misquote sources. It is hardly the same to say that those calling themselves Hellenes constituted ¼ of the population of Greece, when the author clearly states that they constituted ¼ of the greek nation, right after you made an argument about the percentage of greek people in Greece. I hope you can understand why such a practice is dishonest.
“Lets start at the beginning:”
1. “There is a nation called macedonia. False. there is a nation which wishes to be called and officially recognized as the Republic of Macedonia, but currently is officially recognized by an acronym or composite name “
You seem to claim a more than reasonable knowledge of information and law and yet you are utterly hypocritical when you accuse me of being subjective to certain information, by making assumptions that suit my “cause”. If you had read the UN agreement regarding the provisional REFERENCE (not name) you would know why your statement is truly an ignorant and a wishful one. Let me quote the agreement for you (which you can find here: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r225.htm ):
...this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.”
Now, you may not have noticed it and see nothing out of the ordinary with this statement. You might even be thinking, it even supports what you had said. But, try to open your “legal eye” with which you imply to have a 20/20 vision. The statement specifically says that the country is to be referred by that reference WITHIN the UN. This is not a legally binding contract that obliges every nation to use the reference when referring to Macedonia in general, but it is a legally binding contract to do so within the UN, which is why over 120 countries (almost 2/3 of the UN) have recognized the country by its name. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#List_of_countries.2Fentities_using_.22Republic_of_Macedonia.22_in_bilateral_diplomatic_relations here is a wiki entry to attest that fact even though I don’t ever wish to refer to wiki because of its constant bias, but this is a fact that cannot be twisted so I believe it to be credible enough for me to cite to you). Notice how I say by its name and not by its constitutional name. The reason why I do so because Macedonia has only one name, which is our constitutional name thus not having to specify sources for that i.e. from the constitution. Now you may say that we have another name which is used in the UN and again you would be wrong, which for which I can say “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. What is used in the UN to refer to my country is a reference, not a name. Thus, Macedonia has one name and YES, this nation is called Macedonia. Oh, and you might want to read about how “legal” the entry of Macedonia is in the UN. (A study or two made by Igor Janev, and international law layer/advisor if you don’t mind reading Macedonian authors. He cites his word well, so you don’t think it’s all gibberish: http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.html#janev )
2. “would you be so kind as to provide the readers of this blog with your source of information? I suppose it is a statistical study which could also tell us the percentage of the presumed minority working in the public sector and likely to lose their jobs? It also mentions the percentage of the presumed minority working for greek nationalists, who are likely to fire them? Hypothetically, your statement makes sense, but if you ever bother to examine the evidence, you will find that it is nothing but an assertion full of hot air fueled by nationalist bias.” I simply gave an example, one of many, on how minorities (not just the Macedonian minority) are mistreated by a country which won’t recognise the EXISTENCE, let alone the right of minorities. Funny, you should mention “hot air fuelled by nationalist bias”. Did you happen to look at the video related to the section on which you’re commenting? I suggest you do so, if you haven’t already. And I thank you for agreeing with me that my statement makes sense. I almost never hear that from Greeks.
3. “first of all, panagiotis m said that what the majority of greek bilinguals in question speak is different from what you call the macedonian language. you have no more right to claim their language as yours than the bulgarians have to claim yours as theirs. so give it a rest. “
Whose language am I claiming? I am referring to the Macedonian language, which is recognized even by the UN (http://www.un.org.mk/index.asp?lang=EN&id=112 which you seem to love referring to) besides many science centres and taught in many universities around the world. You remember. The one the Greek government recognized with the publication of the ABECEDAR? This Macedonian language (http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/she-cursed-in-her-difficult-macedonian-language/ ) (http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/greek-contract-mentioning-macedonian-language-from-1915/ )
What other Macedonian language are you referring to?
4. “How exactly did you determine that even one of those people was a Turk? They were no more Turks than your ancestors were Turks. By the same criteria that you hold yourself to be macedonian they can claim to be macedonian. presumably you were born in a geographical region that was once part of the macedonian kingdom. so were they. if you care to expand your criteria, you will only find that they better match the term Macedonian than you or your countrymen. “
You need to be less vague if you want me to reply to a specific point that you might have. When you say “you, they”, are you referring to me as an individual or as a people, and are you referring to they as the people who were relocated or the people who live there now? I’m going to bravely assume that you mean the people that were relocated and you mean me as a people. I don’t want to go into an argument as to who better match the term Macedonian, but since you took it that far, then I am sorry, but I am going to have to go with my people, since the people that were relocated to the current northern Greek area did not do so until not more than a 100 years ago, at a time when my people (the Macedonians) lived on the very same region that your people live.
“"Why the need to settle 1.5 million and expel 500 thousand if Greeks had lived there already? And why the need to forcefully Hellenize the toponyms of the area..."
You are a self proclaimed intelligent person, why don't you answer the first part of that question yourself? you just acquired new territory, but you also acquired 1.5 million people. where would you put them? go on, give us a display of that superior IQ.”
You totally missed the point of my question and ironically call me stupid, but let me rephrase that question or rather statement in terms you may understand. The point that I was making was that Greece, during the Balkan wars (just as Serbia and Bulgaria) was fighting to occupy Macedonia. They did so and were given the region of Macedonia and Thrace by the Treaty of Bucharest. Now, because the people that lived there, specifically in Macedonia, were not Greek and the Greek population that lived in that area were a small minority, in accordance with the very Byzantine powered idea of having a Greek Orthodox nation, Greeks (being the term used at the time to identify not only ethnicity but religious preference too) , Orthodox Christians to be more specific, were resettled in the region of Macedonia (1.5 million of them) and the natives of this land (some 500 thousand) were forced to leave their homes. Some stayed and endured the horrific oppression and Hellenization by the Greek government. Main point in what I was trying to say: The Greeks had occupied foreign lands which they now had to make Greek.
“while you are at it, why don't you answer this question: why not "Hellenize" the toponyms? what is your objection to it?”
I guess I don’t object that much to Hellnizing the names of the cities (which only adds weight to the fact that these were foreign lands which were occupied but previously inhabited by others (Macedonian) people). It is the most obvious course of action to take when occupying foreign territory. What I do object to is the forced Hellenization of people’s names. What I object to is the policy of beating or even murdering and raping for not speaking the newly imposed Greek language or for speaking their native language. I bet you’re going to ask me for sources. Gladly: “Greek Anti-Macedonian fight” by Dimitris Litoksou. He was forbidden to publish his book in Greece, and so he did in Macedonia. It is a book full of references to military files archived in Greece. Yet another example of the oppression by the Greek government. Not allowing the people the basic right of all, freedom of speech.
Oh and a funny anecdote which I had read in a book by a female author (don’t remember of what origin she was, not Macedonian) where she mentions the problems of the Greeks to control the cattle of the Macedonian people because they were trained to respond to Macedonian words and were not familiar with the taunts of the Greeks and had to be taught.
5 “Let me explain this in a way that you may understand. Elections in greece are not like a gay parade. they are held within a very specific legal framework. this may come as a surprise to you, but the greek nation has far more important reasons to hold elections free of fraud and political intimidation than what you suggest.”
Maybe you will come up with an important reason to hold a census where minorities will be included just like they were once, in 1920: http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/macedonians-acknowleged-in-a-greek-census-from-1920/
My point is that political affiliation is not always positively correlated with ethnicity and thus it is not a reliable measure of the number of people that relate to a specific ethnicity. I was not suggesting that elections were conducted improperly in Greece, I was just referring to the fear that people may have to vote for the Macedonian party as a result of the century long oppression and the fear that many people have that they are important and because of that reason are somehow spied on (which did occur in the past).
6. “FYI, there is no such thing as a national state called Britain, once again, you might want to validate your sources”
Why do you think I am not aware of this. Why do you suppose that I am unaware of this. Britain is a political synonym for the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). You know, the union of constituent states Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland. Kinda like Macedonia became in 1944 within the Federation of Yugoslavia. At a time where Macedonia, being a fully independent country, part of a Federation, was not tormented by the Greek government for using the name Macedonia. At a time where even in Greek school books and atlases and encyclopaedias there was no problem labelling Macedonia by its name. I couldn’t find the link to the website which clearly displays the pictures from all three sources mentioned above but this video displays 2 of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU-MXFjkMuo
“Let us move on to your second post:”
1.” Personally, i am an atheist. So if you are going to try to convince me of anything, come prepared to back it up with proof. if however my evidence does outweigh your evidence, i will try to avoid using the same patronizing tone that you use with others.” I myself am an atheist and I also look for statements to be backed up by credible sources and proof. Through my own research I have come to my conclusion. Stating that your evidence outweighs mine, is a subjective statement.
2. Greekness of macedonians:
I have come to the conclusion the same way you have. I too, have weighed the evidence and looked at the information, not at face value, but the surrounding circumstances as well from the period to come to my conclusion, as have many historians and experts on ancient Greece and ancient Macedonia like:
EUGENE BORZA- Professor of Ancient History at the Pennsylvania State University, ERNST BADIAN- Department of History at Harvard University, PETER GREEN- Professor of Classics at the University of Texas, A.B. BOSWORTH- Professor of Classics and Ancient History, the University of Western Australia, N.G.L.HAMMOND- Professor of GREEK University of Cambridge, ULRICH WILCKEN- German Professor, DAVID G. HOGARTH- Author of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION and don’t get me started on ancient historians, both Greek and Roman.
“If we are to reject the claim of the ancient macedons to greekness based on speculation, how can we not reject your claim to be macedonian for which there is contradicting evidence? It is incredibly inconsistent to disregard the ethnic feeling of the macedonians and validate yours.”
I can say the same for the alleged purity of your Greek nation. And as far as speculating goes, please address your concerns to the above mentioned historians.
“There is no haste in the conclusions about the ethnic feeling of the macedonians or their language. But there is haste and bias in your interpretation of the statement of Philotas. He did not speak in his native tongue because he wished for everyone to understand him.”
Exactly. Which suggests that his mentioned native tongue is different from Greek. It is only speculations to suggest that it is a dialect and not a separate language (tongue). (http://www.maknews.com/forum/archive/the-ancient-languages-of-europe-by-roger-d-woodward-t9304.html )
“i assure you that it has been used for many greek tribes besides the macedonians, and the greekness of those tribes is not contested at all.”
For a person who claims to be an atheist and requires proof, you seem to do a lot of asserting of your own.
“A propos your strange theory on the spread of Hellenism, I find it very hard to believe that a greek monument would be erected within the persian empire during the time of war. not to say that the persians were not open-minded, it just seems quite the stretch. “
Let me quote you a piece of the article which I will provide a link to:
“The birth of the Hellenistic period, when Greek culture began to spread far beyond its native territory, has long been set around 334 B.C. to 323 B.C., when Alexander and his troops traveled south through what is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt. But the excavation suggests that the region may have been Hellenized much earlier.
“Alexander’s influence was so great in the Mediterranean and beyond that he is seen as the one who brought Greek influences to native populations,” says Stoup, “but we’re finding that there was a substantial interaction with Greek culture at Tel Dor long before Alexander—starting in the fifth century B.C.E. In fact we see a long, ongoing process in which the choice and predilections of the native populations play a much stronger role than anyone had predicted.””
http://www.artsci.washington.edu/news/WinterSpring04/TelDor.htm Enjoy
3.” "Slavs came to the Balkans and settled as far as Peloponnese, which would suggest to the reasonable person, that genetically you are as Slav as we are."
Jews have settled everywhere. Does that make me as jewish as Woody Allen?”” Woody Allen is an atheist, like you and I.
“Turks settled all the way to Hungary. Yet most greeks did not mix with the turks and most slavs did not mix with the turks, just as most slavs did not mix with the greeks. evidence suggests that what you are asserting is not "reasonable" at all. greeks do not believe that you are a people that mixed with the slavs. they believe that you are slavs that have some degree of admixtures from other cultures and that is perfectly "reasonable".”
Again, nitpicking is what you do. You’re asserting that Slavs did not mix with the Greeks and yet they did with the remaining population. Nice one. And to tell you the truth, I am well aware of what Greeks believe, but you being an atheist would know that believing in something, does not make it true.
“100% of greek territory today is populated by albanians. if that estimate seems vague to you and subject to multiple interpretations, that is because it is vague and subject to multiple interpretations just like the estimate with which you provided us. Regardless of the lack of information in that statement, it in no way was an estimate of the degree of interbreeding of Albanians with greeks.”
Mind you, I did not make the statement you are referring to. A historian did. You were asking for proof and credible evidence weren’t you? Why refuse it when it is presented to you?
You say:” as can be seen in the same text you supposedly read, the appellation Hellenes was restored by the revolution in 1821, not by Otto who would have been 4-5 years old at that time”
Well yes, here is the quote that suggests that:
“The revolution of 1821 has restored the ancient appellation “Hellenes”, but as it is used chiefly by the inhabitants of Bavarian Greece, who perhaps do not constitute more than one fourth of the Greek nation, it may be safely said that the mass of the people still call themselves (Rhomaioi ) and their language (Rhomaic)”
But it goes on to say that only a fourth choose to use this appellation and he mentions the appellation to be an ancient one suggesting that it was not used, but until now. To attest to that fact is the following:
“It may be remarked that the term Hellenes was, a few years ago, considered equivalent to idolaters. Indeed, at this very day, many a devout monks thinks it a horrible appellation, not fit for a Christian nation.”
You say: “Neither is there any contention in the text about the origin of the modern day Greeks “ and then say “It can be easily seen, without any need for dubious interpretation, that the author draws a link from the Greek people of his time to the Greek people of the Byzantine empire to the Greek people of antiquity”
First of all, try not to contradict yourself and PLEASE, make up your mind. I am afraid that I don’t agree regarding the alleged stated link of the modern Greeks and ancient Greeks. As you have seen, he only mentions the ancient Greeks to refer to the newly revived name of a people who lived on that region in antiquity. The inhabitants of this region long considered the term a negative one. By the same logic, I can assume that during the 1850s, the Macedonian movement, the Macedonians used the term Macedonians because they were the true ancient Macedonians. I suppose that this is something you would disagree with, just as I did with your statement. As far as your assertion that he makes the connection of the Greeks from Byzantine time by using the term Rhomaioi, is an invalid one as the term Rhomaioi was a term used by many different people who had lived in the Byzantine Empire. As you yourself say: “This is only evidence that a greek ethnic feeling existed all along, whether they called themselves Romioi as citizens of the Roman empire (at the same time the western roman empire was quite confidently calling them greeks) or not.” As citizens of the Roman Empire. To assert that Rhomaioi were only Greeks, is an incorrect statement. I suggest you do a bit more research on the Byzantine (East Roman) Empire and the Medieval times.
To quote you: ”Either you are disingenuous, or you are quite deficient in your level of comprehension.”
Another quote from the Rhomaic Grammar:
“It may be remarked, further, that the Arabs of the present day call the modern Greeks Romans and the ancient inhabitants of Greece Ionians. The term Romans gave rise to Roumele or Romelia, that is the country of the Romans, which is usually applied to Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace”
Another interesting quote where the author specifically distinguishes between Greece, Macedonia and Thrace.
5. “Let me explain something to you about the concept of legal precedence. If in the past there were a trial in which a province took a country to court over a name and the country won, you could cite legal precedence as a supporting argument for your case in some countries where legal precedence actually matters. You will find that legal precedence is not handled in all countries as it is portrayed in American movies, nor is legal precedence always binding. Nevertheless, I can just as easily use legal precedence as a supporting argument for my case: as far as I know, there is no case where a province took a country to court over a name and lost. If you really think legal precedence is the way to go, then I must remind you of the fact that you are not legally allowed to use the Macedonian sun as your national flag and as this is a ruling directly related to the case and the parties involved it would be the only relevant example of precedence.”
Ok, Mr. Lawyer. Your point is valid, however, legally, history cannot be appropriated by one entity thus not giving you the argument of theft by using the name. To further support our argument is the always present and very strong and oh so loved democratic principle by all democracies of the world that’s called the right to self-determination. You can try as hard as you can, but legally the name of a province cannot and will not infringe on the right of a country to name itself as it pleases.
As far as the flag goes, legally, we are allowed to use it if the Interim Accord is called into question because of the Greek veto in NATO. The Interim Accord was set in place to set ground rules for some kind of neutrality and to put a stop to the Greek embargo. One of the rules stated in Article 11 was the Greece would not object to our entry in any organization:
“Article 11
1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, The Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent of the Party of the Second Part is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
2. The Parties agree that the ongoing economic development of the Party of the Second Part should be supported through international cooperation, as far as possible by a close relationship of the Party of the Second Part with the European Economic Area and the European Union.”
My country was vetoed based on the non- compliance to a change of the name. Don’t say that we chose not to enter by the reference used in the UN. Since the agreement was breached it could be deemed not enforceable, and we would be given the right to reinstate our old flag.
“Can you cite any single source of what anyone, including yourselves, was calling your people during the same time or any time up until the early 1900's? Let's hear it.”
I would LOVE to:
In 1797
http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/macedonians-found-in-the-memoirs-of-buck-whaley-1797/
In 1432:
http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/bertrandon-de-la-brocquiere-met-macedonians-in-1432-1433/
1711:
http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/proclamations-sent-to-the-macedonians-in-1711/
1786:
http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/macedonians-found-in-the-memoirs-of-baron-de-tott-1786/
14th century:
http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/macedonians-found-in-jerusalem-in-the-14th-century/
Self proclaimed 1877:
http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/gavril-atanasov-the-macedonian-from-1877/
Just to name a few.
I apologize for the lengthy answer.
Enjoy.
For some reason, my links aren't being posted fully. I hope this can be somehow fixed.
From a search in google of the same book. He never speaks about Macedonians in his book, but Bulgarians that follow the greek ritual. He puts Phillipoupoli as the capital of Macedonia, with it’s inhabitans being mainly Bulgarians.
Shortly after we arrived at Philopopoli the capital of Macedonia and built by king Philip It is situated in a plain on the Mariza in an excellent country where all sorts of provision are sold very cheap It was formerly a considerable town and indeed is so now Within it are three mountains two of which are at one of its extremities toward the southward and the other in the centre On this last had been constructed a large castle in the form of a crescent now destroyed I was shown the situation of king Philip’s palace which has been demolished but the walls still remain Philopopoli is inhabited chiefly by Bulgarians who follow the Greek ritual Early Travels in Palestine Comprising the Narratives of Arculf, Willibald, Bernard, Sæwulf, Sigurd, Benjamin of Tudela, Sir John Maundeville, De la Brocquière, and Maundrell Των Thomas Wright, Arculfus, Benjamin, Bernard, Bernard the Wise, Bertrandon de la Broquiere, John Mandeville, Saewulf, Snorri Sturluson, Willibald, Sigurd, Henry Maundrell
And here is the page
http://books.google.com/books?id=OrsMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA355&vq=macedonia&dq=Bertrandon+de+la+Brocquiere&lr=&hl=el&source=gbs_search_s#PRA1-PA355,M1
linktothepast,
You are referring to the book, or rather the segment of the book where the travels of Bertrandon de la Brocquiere are included and here is what he wrote:
"They have besides among them a great number of Christians, who serve through force, Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Sclavonians, Wallachians, Servians, and other subjects of the despots of that country." - Page 366
You should've read the link more carefully because as you see, he does refer to a separate group of people called Macedonians.
In regards to what he says about Phillipoupoli. This city is the city of Plovdiv which is located in Southern Bulgaria or Thrace. For a brief period of time when the Byzantines had recaptured it, it had once again become under what the Byzantines called the Theme of Macedonia and even after the Turks captured it was the capital of Rumelia. This was during the period when he traveled through the region. And yes, he is correct to assert that the majority of inhabitants were Bulgarians, I don't doubt this and have no reason to dispute it as he is not refering to the population of the Macedonia region, but rather the old Macedonian Theme.
But when it comes to mentioning the different people who had inhabited the Balkans, or rather the area he traveled, he includes the Macedonians too, right next to the Greeks and Bulgarians, and yet separately.
URLs are not automatically converted to HTML links. You could use the HTML synthax:
<a href="http://google.com">Google</a>
Dear Bojan Hello , I found something interest and I think that 3ypolytos will confirm it ...
Linguistic origins of MACEDONIA - From Bulgarian dialect to Macedonian language
Introduction
Linguistically the current called Macedonian language was and is infact a Bulgarian dialect. Beginning in the 1860 and 70s, the Bulgarian idiom was dubbed ‘makedonski’ by the first Macedonists, without success initially they attempted to promote the term among the wider Slavonic population of Macedonia. In 1903 whilst in Sofia, Krste Misirikov, (who indeed possessed of a strong Bulgarian conscience) was the first person to transform the idiom into a literary language by laying down the principles of the ‘Makedonski’ language in his book: ”Za Makedonckite Raboti” (On Macedonian Matters). Come the Balkan wars, the Slavic idiom of the population of Vardar was still regarded by most Slavologists and foreign obsevers as a Bulgarian dialect, despite Serbian claims of it being a off-shoot of the Serbian language. In 1913 Yugoslavia undertook a policy of de-bulgarianization and Serbinization of the Slavic idiom of Vardarska. In 1945 a similar policy was adopted in terms of de-bulgarianising the dialect by the YCP (Yugoslav Communist Party) who codified the Macedonian alphabet and language. The codification of the idiom was based in part on the principles laid down by Misirkov. Despite the Slavs of your country being under the rule of Belgrade for 75 years (monarchist rule from 1913 until communist rule from 1945), the Macedonian language of you is still mutually intelligible with standard Bulgarian and from a linguistic point is undeniably a Bulgarian dialect. This page will examine the language both linguistically and track its progress historically.
The first instances of the Bulgarian idiom being dubbed “Makedonski” by Macedonists
The early origins of the Bulgarian idiom being referred to as ‘Macedonian’ or ‘Makedonski’ by Macedonists is described as being “Imposed” on the Slavs in the Macedonian region by outsiders (Foreign powers such as Russia are linked to such developments):In a letter to Prof. Marin Drinov of May 25, 1888 Kuzman Shapkarev writes:”But even stranger is the name Macedonians, which was imposed on us only 10 to 15 years ago by outsiders, and not as something by our own intellectuals… Yet the people in Macedonia know nothing of that ancient name, reintroduced today with a cunning aim on the one hand and a stupid one on the other. They know the older word: “Bugari”, although mispronounced: they have even adopted it as peculiarly theirs, inapplicable to other Bulgarians. You can find more about this in the introduction to the booklets I am sending you. They call their own Macedono-Bulgarian dialect the “Bugarski language”, while the rest of the Bulgarian dialects they refer to as the “Shopski language”. (Makedonski pregled, IX, 2, 1934, p. 55; the original letter is kept in the Marin Drinov Museum in Sofia, and it is available for examination and study)
Here is the text in the original In Bulgarian
“No pochudno e imeto Makedonci, koeto naskoro, edvay predi 10-15 godini, ni natrapiha i to otvqn, a ne kakto nyakoi mislyat ot samata nasha inteligenciya… Narodqt obache v Makedoniya ne znae nishto za tova arhaichesko, a dnes, s lukava cel ot edna strana, s glupeshka ot druga, podnoveno prozvishte; toy si znae postaroto: Bugari, makar i nepravilno proiznasyano, daje osvoyava si go kato sobstveno i preimushtestveno svoe, nejeli za drugite Bqlgari. Za tova shte vidite i v predgovora na izpratenite mi knijici. Toy naricha Bugarski ezik svoeto Makaedono-bqlgarsko narechie, kogato drugite bqlgarski narechiya naricha Shopski.”
Krste Misirkov is a prime example of the often fluxuating ethnic conscience of some of the early Macedonists at the turn of the century. Many intellectuals were having to decide whether they favoured annexation by Bulgaria, or an autonomous Macedonia. While Misirkov is curiously heralded by Skopjians as one of the “founders of the Macedonian nation”, he is also wrote that the Slavs of Macedonia “are more Bulgarian than those in Bulgaria!”.
He was the first person to transform “Macedonian” as a literary language. While in Sofia in 1903, he published the book ”Za Makedonckite Raboti” (’On Macedonian Matters’) in which he laid down the principles of the ‘Macedonian’ language. According to this book, the language should be based on the central dialects of Vardar. He also used those dialects to write the book itself. Misirkov died in 1926. Decades after his death with the communist takeover of Yugoslavia, Misirkov’s principles were used by the Yugoslav committees for the codification of the Macedonian language.
It appears that at one point in his life, under Russian sponsership, he favoured his own brand of Macedonism and this is when he published his book on the ‘Macedonian language. Later he adopted a vehemently Bulgarian nationalist stance and abandoned his Macedonism, apparently beleiving it would never materialise as an ideology; though it ironically it did, long after his death after WW2.
In his book, ”The national identity of the Macedonians”, which he wrote in 1924, two years before he died, he uncompromisingly defends the Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia saying “We [Macedonian Slavs] are more Bulgarian than those in Bulgaria!”. He completley retracts everything he wrote in his book ”Za Makedonckite Raboti” about the Macedonian language, with the explanation that “I wrote it as a politician”. The book is considerably pro-Bulgarian, describing himself as a Bulgarian, nationalistically so.
Krste Misirkov wrote:1. We speak Bulgarian language and we believed with Bulgarians is our strong power.
2. The Bulgarians in Macedonia. The future of Macedonia is spiritual union of the Bulgarians in Macedonia.
3. The Macedonian Slavs are called Bulgarians.
4. The biggest part of the population are called Bulgarians.
5. All spoke that Macedonians are Bulgarians. Until 1978 all including Russian Government spoke the Macedonians are Bulgarians. But after the Berlin Congress the Serbs came with pretension to have Macedonia. They try to change the European opinion that in Macedonia there are Serbian too.
6. If Ilinden uprising win we will be thankful to Bulgarians, but Serbians try to compete with Bulgarians and spend a lot of money and propaganda. If Macedonia is autonomic there will be no space for propaganda and the Serbs have to leave Bulgarian in peace.
7. The Ilinden Uprising Committee is Bulgarian.
8. Bulgarian Language and Bulgarian name. The Committee is ready to give guarantee to Europe that Macedonia will not unify with Bulgaria, but they can’t take the Bulgarian name and language from Macedonia!
9. Unification between Turks and Bulgarians in Macedonia. Serbia and Greece do not want to give us autonomous and independent Macedonia, because they see this as a fist step to unification. In Macedonia have only pure Bulgarian population, which can’t be unified with the Turks.
10. Serbia is against autonomous Macedonia. Serbia is afraid because Macedonia with the Bulgarian population will have tendency to united with Bulgaria and for this reason Serbia will not allow this.
11. They divided us and now they do not allow us to unify. We are living now 25 years divided from Bulgaria and they do not allow us to unify? We call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians and see us as separate and radically different from the Serbs with Bulgarian national consciousness.
12. Our Grandfathers call themselves Bulgarians. They never thing that we will be having such a problem to call ourselves so.
13. Bulgarian Literally Language. We the Macedonians voluntarily choose one and the same language with Bulgarians long before the liberation of Bulgaria from Turkey. The prohibition from the Serbs to use our literally language, which is the only one connection between us and Bulgarians is significant violation of our human rights. .. and further.. when they forbid us to call ourselves Bulgarians, to learn Bulgarian history and to be ashamed from everything which connect us with Bulgarians. It is enough to learn our Macedonian culture and history to understand that we are very different from Serbian nationality.
14. There no difference between Bulgarian and Macedonian Slav. The Greeks in 1804 long before Bulgarian exarchate do not make any difference between Bulgarian and West Macedonian dialect.
15. Bulgarian national name of Macedonians. In the IX century in the first Bulgarian kingdom we do not have anything against this Bulgarian national name for us and for the rest of Bulgarians in Bulgaria.
16. We Macedonian Bulgarians (Macedonians) like Bulgarian state as our own.
17. The Serbs are much inferior than we are. We demand freedom for all of us and not to be material for assimilation experiments of the Serbs, which stand much inferior from us in spiritual narrow-mindedness and chauvinism.
18. The Serbs come to the idea of the Macedonian nationality. The Serbs develop the concept for special Macedonian Nation, which they put in the south Macedonia. They declare north Macedonia as a pure Serbian land. Middle Macedonia as a transition between Serbian and Macedonian language.
19. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. Bulgaria make a big error when recognize the territory for “neutral”. It is pure Bulgarian and the population in Skopje and surrounding area is pure Bulgarian.
20. Why the Serbs want Macedonia? What Serbian you can find in this pure Bulgarian land, which is since 6 century till today Bulgarian, despite of all vicissitude of the historical destiny.
21. Serbian-Greek attempt on the Bulgarians in Macedonia. Because of the treaty between Serbia and Greece Bulgaria was robed and 2 Millions Bulgarians where conquered from Serbia and Greece. Yes! To many damage did the Serbs on Bulgaria, Macedonia and Dobrudja and with this they do not stop! They filled that their vicious work will be discovered and to be prosecuted by the Slavic consciousness because of the freedom of 1/3 of Bulgarians - the Bulgarians in Macedonia.
22. The lies about Bulgarian and Bulgaria. Restoration of the human rights of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Dobrudja, despite of the lies spread for Bulgaria and Bulgarians! Who is against Great Bulgaria, he is against the Slavs!
23. Krali Marko songs in Macedonia are from Bulgarian origin. The songs of Krali Marko in Macedonia are from Bulgarian origin and speak for the Bulgarian influence over the Serbs and not the opposite.
24. The Serbs will coarse many wars, if the “Dushan empire” will not disappear. In the last quarter of the XIX century the Serbs start to dream to restore this abandon from Serbs it selves empire. With intrigues and and allies they conquer big part of Bulgarian Macedonia. But this Serbian advantages of 1912 coarse the war in 1913 and they coarse the war in 1915-1918 and will coarse many more wars, unless “Dushan empire” get liquidate in the same way as in XIV century on the principal of the self-determination of the nations.
25. Serbs falsify the history. In Bulgaria Macedonians have all personal rights, freedom of expression and self-determination in Bulgaria. The Serbs try to destroy the soul of the Macedonians and for that reason the falsify the hole history. In this Serbian logic and Serbian fillings there are something abnormal, which is prove of the failure of the Serbian state. They are afraid from the Macedonians in Macedonia and also this living outside.
26. The Macedonian population is against Serbs. You have to know that because your Serbian politics against Macedonians you have against you all past present and future Balkan governments and the Macedonian population.
27. The Bulgarians are our fellow citizens. The European recognize that only independent sate will put an end of the competition conquer and hegemony on the Balkan. An will end once forever violence of the new conquer. And everlasting peace on the Balkan and in Europe will rise. Greece and Serbia will loose territorially and les Bulgaria and will win all Macedonians.
28. The Serbs forbid us to celebrate all Bulgarian holidays. We are forced to celebrate St. Sava and forbid to celebrate St. Cyril and St. Methodius and Ilinden Uprising.
29. Our souls are in Bulgaria. Serbia conquer the land and the body of Macedonians, the souls are in Bulgaria and with Bulgaria.
30. Krste Petkov Misirkov defines himself as a Bulgarian. 1897 I was accepted in Petersburg University in Russia and five years I was Bulgarian student community as Bulgarian.
31. Self appreciation of the statement in the book “For Macedonian matters”. The readers of this article will be very surprised of the big controversy opinion, which they will meet here in comparison with the article “For Macedonian matters”. To understand this contradiction I will remember you, that I wrote as an improvised politicians
http://nka.com.mk/misirkov/can_macedonia.htm
Contemporary foreign evaluation of the Slavonic idiom and the other languages spoken in MacedoniaAmerican 1910 Census of languages spoken in the U.S:
Note that:
*that the instructions in bold at the bottom indicate to the census enumerators that the language of each American citizen is to be classified on the basis of language spoken, be it Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Turkish, Vlach etc, rather than classifying them geographically as ‘Macedonian’.
*It is seen from through that despite efforts of the Macedonists to have the Slavonic dialect recognised as “Macedonian”, no foreign records describe such a language in their list of the various languages spoken in the Balkans:
Department of Commerce and Labour
Bureau of the Census
Washington
Thirteenth Census of the United StatesApril 15, 1910
Study these instructions carefully before beginning work and carry this book with you during your work. Washington: Government Printing Office: 1910ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH
133. Column 17. Whether able to speak English; or, if not, give language spoken.—This question applies to all person 10 years of age and over. If such a person is able to speak English, write English. If he is not able to speak English—and in such cases only—write the names of the language which he does speak, as French, German, Italian. If he speaks more than one language, but does not speak English, write the name of that language which is his native language or mother tongue. For persons under 10 years of age, leave the column blank.
134. The following is a list of principal foreign languages spoken in the United States. Avoid giving other names when one in this list can be applied to the language spoken. With the exception of certain languages of eastern Russian, the list gives a name for ever European language in the proper sense of the word.
Albanian
Armenian
Basque
Bohemian
Briton
Bulgarian
Chinese
Danish
Dutch
Finnish
Flemish
French
German
Greek
Gypsy
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Lappish
Lettish
Little Russian
Lithuanian
Magyar
Moravian
Norwegian
Polish
Portuguese
Rhaeto-Romanish
Roumanian
Russian
Ruthenian
Scotch
Servian or Croatian (Including Russian, Dalmatian, Herzegovinian, and Montenegrin)
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish
Syrian
Turkish
Welsh
Wendish
Yiddish
135. Do not write “Austrian,” but write German, Bohemian, Ruthenian, Roumanian, Slovenian, Slovak, or such other term as correctly defines the language spoken.
136. Do not write “Slavic” or “Slavonian,” but write Slovak, Slovenian, Russian, etc., as the case may be.
137. Do not write “Macedonian,” but write Bulgarian, Turkish, Greek, Servian, or Roumanian, as the case may be.
138. Do not write “Czech,” but write Bohemian, Moravian,or Slovak, as the case may be.
139. Write Magyar instead of “Hungarian.”
140. Write Croatian instead of “Hervat.”
141. Write Little Russian instead of “Ukrainian.”
142. Write Ruthenian instead of “Rosniak” or “Russine.”
143. Write Roumanian instead of “Moldavian,” “Wallachian,” “Tsintsar,” or “Kutzo-Vlach.”
1913-WW2, 1945-present day - Belgrade’s impact on the Skopjian idiom
From 1913 until its collapse on account of the German invasion in WW2, the Yugoslav (monarchist) Government adopted a policy of Serbinzation and de-Bulgarianisation of the Slavic idiom spoken in Vardar (FYROM); an idiom which was generally considered by foreign sources and Slavologists to be a Bulgarian dialect.
From the end of WW2 with the Communists in control of Yugoslavia, a similar yet project, with many differences however was undertaken with the linguism of Vardar. While efforts de-bulgarianise the idiom and bring it closer to the Serbo-Croat dialect were again undertaken (Multiple peices of evidence confirm this), communist rule and the subsuming of Macedonism as an ideology meant that Belgrade made a concerted effort to develope unique aspects of the language. Surenames in some cases are even recorded as having been changed from the traditional Bulgarian possessive ending ‘ov’ to an ending to an ‘ovski’ surename ending. Commitees were set up by the Yugoslav Commitern to “resolve” matters of a “Macedonian” language and alphabet.
Venko Markovski, was one of the creators of the ‘Macedonian’ alphabet in 1944, but lost favour with Tito and fled to Bulgaria later on.
In 1990 Veni Markovski started his work on the Internet, as a system operator of the first Sofia-based bulletin-board system, part of FidoNet.
In 1993 Mr. Markovski formed with another of the Internet pioneers, Mr. Dimitar (aka Mitko) Ganchev, their company - bol.bg, which is also the second in history of Bulgaria Internet Service Provider, and is still running a successful business. Veni Markovski was President and CEO of BOL.BG for nine years.
In 1995 he founded the Bulgarian Internet Society.
In 1999 through his active work, Bulgaria accepted the most liberal laws concerning Internet development.
In 2002 Mr. Markovski was appointed as the Chairman of the Bulgarian President's IT Advisory Council.
In 2005 he was invited to be the senior international projects adviser to the chairman of the governmental Agency for Information Technologies and communications.
Mr. Markovski is also representing ICANN in Russia and the CIS.
Since the beginning of his carrer, Veni has been involved in different international organizations and programs on different levels - as adviser, senior adviser, advocate for policy changes, mediator, board member, etc. He has served on the Boards of CPSR, ISOC, ICANN, among others.
Widely recognized as an outstanding IT-expert and visionary, Mr. Markovski is a frequent speaker at international conferences, and is often being approached for advises by foreign and Bulgarian companies, organizations, and governments.
Veni Markovski is also involved in many other projects, among them:
FOSS.bg - the UNDP Free and Open Source Software Project for SEEurope
tOSSad - towards Open Source Software adoption and dissemination
FLOSS world - Free/Libre/Open Source Software: Worldwide impact study
Many Thanks for the hospitallity
PANAGIOTIS M, this is pretty funny. A Greek quoting Bulgarian, who claims that Serbs are falsifying the Macedonian history, and references Greek sources to support the theory.
:-))
LOL!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Why don't you leave Macedonia be, once and for all? We are here, we have our own independent country (finally), and we are neither changing our name, nor going away. We are always going to be your first door neighbors and we will be Macedonians. Learn to live with that!
Dear Bojan I know that you feel proud that you are curring a so notorious name such as Macedon !
But still cannot understand or seriously you have never gave me explanations how is it possible to use a so GREEK notorious word as MACEDON ,MACEDONIA to express your natinality...because I am certain that you know this word is greek ...isn't ?
N. G. L. Hammond states:
What language did these Macedones speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means `highlanders’, and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as `Orestai’ and `Oreitai’, meaning ‘mountain-men’. A reputedly earlier variant, `Maketai’, has the same root, which means `high’, as in the Greek adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded […] has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen’s three sons - Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the `yauna takabara’, which meant `Greeks wearing the hat’. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod’s genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13).
Further more you have not provided me any evidence so far that Saints Cyrilos and Methodios were not Greeks born in Thessaloniki (as this is well known to all Christians all over the world !)
In any case what exactly are the purposes of the methods you are using e.g in Melbourne, of 24th May 2008, when once again Depictions of the Greek flag with a swastika, Irredentist Maps of ’United Macedonia’, Racist Slogans, Hate-Speech when were visible before, during, and after the ‘protest’.
If these are methods to accept any claim ...you are not walking in serious good neighbour paths ..!!
Are You ?
Panagiotis,
Let me give you a scenario which will help you understand how "valid" and "important" your points are.
Hypothetically:
Slavs came in the 6th century, where they assimilated everything in their path (except the Greeks of course). Among these South Slavs only two groups could be distinguished and those were the Servians (Serbians) and Bulgarians. The Greek brothers Cyril and Methodi devised an alphabet for the language that the Slavs spoke called Old Church Slavonic. They first used the Glagolica and in different areas in different times Cyrillic became the alphabet in use. The Ottomans invaded Europe and subjugated the Greeks, Bulgarians and Servians.
So, no Macedonians so far. Now comes the fun part.
Greece, Bulgaria and Servia achieved independence/autonomy and freedom from the Turks. The region of Macedonia, along with Albania and Thrace remained under the Turks. The inhabitants of the region of Macedonia started a movement to liberate themselves from the Turks. Having lived on a region which was called Macedonia they appropriately chose this name as an entity which would rebel against the Turks starting in the late 1800s. The various people that lived on the region of Macedonia, be they Albanian, Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek chose to use this name to identify themselves and not to segregate between the people in this region thus wanting to establish equality in the potentially new state. They managed to unify all the people in this region and together, as equals, to fight for one goal, which was so that they all can live in peace with each other and they chose the name of Macedonia and they identified as Macedonians. So that the segregation wouldn't occur based on language, they took elements of the Bulgarian language they spoke and elements of the Serbian and devised a language of their own which they called Macedonian.
Now, let's say that this is how the Macedonian idea or nation or language or people were created. To tell you the truth, I somehow wish this was true, because to say that on the Balkans, where everybody claims this purity and there are constant clashes between ethnic groups, a country managed to overcome this more than a century ago, to develop a true multi-ethnic society which can live in peace and as equals is probably the greatest country to live in and I would be proud as hell to be a part of something like that.
But now the question arises. Say that is the truth. How, and why would that anything change in terms of the name? We would still have a right to self-determine, as we had done so 150 years ago. I still don't see a problem here. We would, by definition, be Slavs who came to the region and assimilated the Macedonians and chose to live on this area where they lived, thus appropriately called ourselves Macedonian. Even IF most of us are Bulgarian, we don't identify with that term and as such cannot be imposed on us.
As far as Macedonia being a Greek name:
Georgia:
Derived from Persian Gurj,[5][6] probably derived from a PIE term meaning “mountainous”. In classical times Greeks referring to the region used the names of Colchis (the coastal region along the Black Sea) and Iberia (further inland to the east). Some also believed that Georgia was so named by the Greeks on account of its agricultural resources, since “georgia” means “farming” in Greek.
Ethiopia:
From the Greek word meaning “of burnt visage”
Estonia:
From the Latin version of the Germanic word Estland, which could originate from the Germanic word for “eastern (way)”, or from the name Aestia, first mentioned in ancient Greek texts.
Eritrea:
Named by Italian colonizers, from the Latin name for the Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum (”Erythraean Sea”), which in turn derived from the ancient Greek name for the Red Sea: Erythrea Thalassa
Egypt:
From ancient Greek — “the land below the Aegean sea”.
Azerbaijan:
Native spelling from surface fires on ancient oil pools; its ancient name, (Media) Atropatene (in Greek and Latin) or Atrpatakan (in Armenian), actually referring to the present-day Azerbaijan region of Iran
Are all of these countries Greek because their names are? Are they stealing Greek history?
Well since many things in our word are superficial whether we like it or not, such is the case with the name. Greeks don't want people that hear about Macedonia due to a movie or something open a map and the first thing they see in the balkan region is your country's name. Then go to a website of yours or something and read that you are the only ancestors of Alexander the Great and that modern Greeks are completly irrelevant with ancient Macedonians unlike yourselves. Because besides claiming for yourselves relation with ancient Macedonia, you at the same time try to throw us completly out of the picture and that we are spreading lies around the globe about our country history or something (should i remind you that ancient Greeks are considered the fathers of history btw?).
Also many see your determination to not even talk about the name issue and come to a compromise here as an indicator that you still hate us due to the recent ethnic cleansing that happened during the civil war.
And btw if i remember correctly mainly the slavophons people of Macedonia wanted independence from Greece during the civil war in order to join it (this was their demand towards KKE if i remember correctly). And while we don't fear your military power or something, a person that hates can be a real nuicanse (see Israel - Palestinians).
Linktothepast, two points: a) if Greece continues to twist our arm for a long time, THAT will bring more than just a "nuisance" in the region. Radicals do not need a lot of provocations, they usually start to act even without an apparent reason. And all Greece has done so far was to persistently (like a donkey) provoke hate in the surrounding countries, including Macedonia. Tell me what Macedonia did?
b) Our unwillingness to talk about changing our constitutional name, our ethnic identity, etc, is not a result of hate. It is simply a subject upon which a person can not debate. Hate arises from actions like described in my first paragraph above. Put yourself in my shoes and tell me whether you would change your country's name if Greece was brought upon such an irrational dispute by some neighbor? Be honest!
linktothepast,
If the only worry is that Macedonia will be mentioned in a movie and the people won’t know which Macedonia the movie is talking about, or not being able to draw a relation between ancient Greece and ancient Macedonia then those people either don’t really care, or if they do, they have at their disposal all the information they require on the topic to form their opinion. You cannot impose or appropriate history the way you do claiming ancient Macedonia and the ancient Macedonians Greek, because even in the past and currently there are many historians that agree on the lack of connection between the Greeks and the Macedonians and stipulate that they were in fact different people. However, changing the name of the country in order to SUGGEST to people that this is not related to the ancient Macedonia, which was supposedly Greek, is definitely NOT the way to go. You educate people on matters such as that, not change the name of the country.
No need to remind me of how great the ancient Greeks were. I am well aware of that fact.
The hate for Greeks may come from what you suggest (the ethnic cleansing), which I don’t think it does. Mainly, the hate (and I can’t really call it hate) comes from the constant Greek denial of our people which draws back on the roots which you mentioned. I can promise you that the day when Greece recognizes Macedonia and the people and the language, Greek flags will be flown all over Macedonia. Macedonians have even rarely done this in order to show their willingness to live in a true neighbourly fashion which was always, sadly, met with anti-Macedonian policy.
Clearly Greek Macedonians have every reason to feel threatened, GoodBytes. What Bojan writes in his posts are so distorted and inaccurate regarding Greek history, and the whole content of the website is so hyper-nationalistic, that it makes the motto "nationalism can seriously damage your health" very applicable to the website itself.
If you think "no hostility was produced" towards Greeks by Bojan's comments or the content of the website, you must be joking. In Greece there is little by little some movement for recognition, not yet official, for wrongs committed against Slavs in Macedonia. I am afraid the self-criticism on the other side is still very much lagging...
Euaggelos, be more specific, don't speak like a communist politician. :-)
Tell me where do you see the hostility in this web site?
Tell me where do you see hostility in the official Macedonian actions?
I am not saying that we are saints, but in order to fix something, we need to identify it first, correct?
"And all Greece has done so far was to persistently (like a donkey) provoke hate in the surrounding countries, including Macedonia. Tell me what Macedonia did?"
How about spreading lies about Greece? Is that an acceptable practice to you? Would you like anyone spreading lies about your country in a daily basis?
What lies would you say? How about your previous sentence that we persistenly provoke hate in the surrounding countries? Greece provokes hate with Bulgarians, or Italians for example? Or do you think we want hateful relations with the Albanians, your country or even Turks? And that would suit us how exactly in your master plan? We promote hate with all our neighbours so that we will have a war with all of them in order to conquer them or something at the same time?
As for the second part, if i was at your shoes, yes i would talk about it since irrationality needs two to tag along and i only see one in your way of thinking. What i mean is that although i find my country's actions stupid, i find your country's equally stupid at the same time (also i consider you the source of this exhibition of stupidity, but that's another point).
No, I was referring to the open issues with Turkey, and the denial of the existence of the minorities of all the countries that surround Greece. Also, the dispute which your country brought upon us, together with so many things we need to endure. What about those awful tags that Greece puts on the cars or mail coming from Macedonia? These are all serious issues, very important and very descriptive of your country.
And all this time I am talking about OFFICIAL stance and actions made by your country, I wasn't referring to the acts of individuals - we both know there are radicals everywhere, especially in the Balkans.
# # #
As for the second part, would you just "talk about it" or actually change your name as a result of the talks? Because we are "talking about" way too long and it costs us way too much, even for the most patient among us. And you know what is funny? Now the requests from Greece include not only the name of the country, but giving up of our ethnic identity, our language, and so on, or in other words, the more we talk, the more our arm is twisted!
Dear Bojan GoodMorning , I must say that your become my fan every day passes ! As you will notice I am not nationalist but as well as you I am honest siple man who is seeking the truth ...
In 1914 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a report regarding the conduct of the nations that participated in the Balkan Wars. The report was written by an international commission that was dispatched to the region in order to investigate the actions of the Balkan armies as well as to investigate the causes of the various conflicts that took place during the wars.
Risto Stefov, who also publishes books under the name “Chris Stefou”, has used the 1914 Carnegie Commission Report on the Balkan Wars as a primary reference for many of his articles. He has written a whole series titled “Greek attrocities in Macedonia” .. * I am not denying that several are true ...You must not deny that all nations have stories to remember (Like ,let's remember the massacre at DOXATO where 2500 greeks were killed by the Bulgarias Army !) This is not the point ..we may discuss some other time !!
In these articles Stefov engages in a heavy dose of historical revisionism. He implies that the Carnegie Commission report describes atrocities committed against “ethnic Macedonians” when in fact the report makes no mention of any “ethnic Macedonian” population. The fact that the report makes no mention of “ethnic Macedonians” does not phase Stefov who shamelessly converts the Bulgarians the report describes into “ethnic Macedonians”. Stefov retrospectively molds the population descriptions found in the report to adhere to his nationalist historiography. He and his followers imply that the reason the report described “ethnic Macedonians” as Bulgarians was because the authors of the report were categorizing by religious affiliation. Their theory suggests that because ‘ethnic Macedonians’ attended the Bulgarian church (Exarchy) they were described as Bulgarians.
The report demolishes this theory in 2 ways:
1. The report makes it clear that those who attended the Bulgarian church were of Bulgarian nationality. If these people were actually “ethnic Macedonians” why would the authors of the report make the following statement?:
Quote : Only in "exarchist" group,did religion coincide,more or less,with Bulgarian nationality" ...
2. The report clearly states that the Serbs were amongst the first to categorize the Slavs of Macedonia as a distinct group from the Bulgarians for political purposes. The authors of the report clearly viewed the Slavic population as Bulgarian despite the claim of Serbian scholars who attempted to distinguish this group from the Bulgarians in order to diminish Bulgaria’s claim to the region:
Quote : Over and above all,their facile generosity impelled them to share with the Greeks the population descrobed as Slav-MAcedonian a euphemism designed to consceal the existence of Bulgarians in MAcedonia (The region !) .And their aquisitions under the treaty of Bucharest went beyond most extravagant pretensions "...
The report was published during an era when the “Macedonian” ethno/national identity was still in it’s infancy stages. The report provides the reader with valuable contemporary insight into how contemporary geopolitical dynamics fostered the notion that the Slavs of the region were a distinct ethnic group. Up to the period of the Balkan Wars the Slavic population of the region was largely regarded as Bulgarian. The 1914 Carnegie Commisison report was authored by an international commission that spent time in the region. Their observations of the Slavic population of the region concurs with a vast number of other contemporary first hand accounts .
Implying that the Carnegie Commission failed to record what Stefov et al allege was the largest ethnic group in the region is akin to a modern international commission going into Palestine and not recording any Palestinians!!!!!
Some comments to the following ...First, the Slavs and Macedonians coexisted, but eventually they were amalgamated, producing the present “Macedonian nation” by the 10th century A.D. This theory does not agree with Marxist Dusan Taskofski’s theory that the “Macedonian” people appeared during the period of capitalism’s explosion, about the 19th century. Both theories purposely overlook a critical point:
Why did the Macedonians wait one thousand years to be amalgamated with the Slavs? The Greeks were always there, speaking the same language.
Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia perhaps a million and a half in all - felt themselves to be Bulgarians at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, IMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the war. Tito was 'I determined that this should not happen".
Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom ...
On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. ...
The history of the construction of a macedonian national identity does not begin with alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints cyril and methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the people's republic of macedonia in 1944 as greek nationalist historians would have us believe.
It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like thessaloniki, belgrade, sophia, and st.petersburg. this period marks the beginning of the process of "imagining" a macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a macedonian national identity and culture......
Some of your history revisionists speak about “local people” (not Greek Macedonians) being annihilated by Slavs, thus propelling the notion again that the Macedonians were not Greeks. If we temporarily accept that this assunptionis correct, who were the local people of Macedonia at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 12th century who fought valiantly for Hellenism against Bulgarism, winning the Macedonian Struggle? What were the thousands of Greek-speakers and slavophones with Hellenic consciousness (Grecomans) who helped defeat and chase the Bulgarian bands out of Macedonia from 1904 to 1908
What are the Greek-speakers in Macedonia today (not those who migrated from Asia Minor) whose forefathers lived in Macedonia for centuries, surviving the harsh Ottoman occupation?
History showed that the Greek Macedonian people with strong genetic and ethnic constitution and deep Hellenic convictions were unlikely subjects to be amalgamated with Slavs or any other invaders. The Greek-speaking Macedonians with their long Hellenic history, deep-rooted traditions, stubborn attachment to Hellenism, and indomitable spirit were unlikely candidates to support the obsessed eugenics of the amalgamation theory and the model of weak people being absorbed by the “strong” Slavic people.
With all the new findings, especially in Vergina of Greek Macedonia, exhibited at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki and in Vergina, your historians have no grounds to support your theory as descedent of ancient Macedon. On the basis of old and new findings, Greek and foreign historians insist that the ancient Macedonians were Greek or Helleinizing.
Under the influence of the new common language, the koine, the ancient Macedonians were amalgamated with the rest of the Hellenes and modern Greeks were produced . To this important challenge we must also add the familiar fact that Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., and the Slavs migrated to the Balkan peninsula around A.D. 650, almost one thousand years later.
If we accept the historically unaccepted view that the Macedonians were not Greeks, as the your historians claim, then the ancient Macedonians, whatever ethnicity they were, had better chances, a common language, and a thousand-year span to blend with other Greeks and Romans than wait all those long years for the new Slav-speaking “suitors” from the north.
It is useless for your historians to attempt to prove differences between ancient Macedonians and the other Greeks. Even if they existed, such differences disappeared in the thousand years before the Slavs arrived in the Balkans
There is also insurmountable difficulty in ascertaining the validity of the ancient Macedonian-Slav amalgamation model because the emotional justification provided by its proponents is unconvincing. Given the seri seriousness of this dispute and the unsustainable assertions by the theory’s proponents, two important questions must be answered convincingly if there is a slim chance for this theory to be considered seriously.
Why had the Slavs not considered themselves “Macedonians” for seventy-five years (1870-1944)?
Why during all these years did they consider themselves Bulgarians, fighting to incorporate Macedonia into Bulgaria?
The answers given by your historians are rife with obvious shortcomings:
they insist that the people, being illiterate during the early years of the Macedonian controversy, did not know what their ethnicity was, an unconvincing explanation, especially because the founders of the Internal Odrin-Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMORO) in 1893, a Bulgarian group, were not illiterate. Damien Grueff was a schoolmaster and Tatarcheff a doctor . Your superficial answer to the second question is that the Macedonian Slavs affiliated themselves with Bulgaria because of its activist policy and dynamic handling of the Macedonian Question. Eventually, they eradicated the Bulgarian sentiments and became Macedonians !
Other serious problems with this theory remain.
For example, an important methodological error is the extension in place and time of a locally restricted group of people, i.e., Slavomacedonians, and how difficult it is to extrapolate from a relatively small area (People’s Republic of Macedonia) the entire historic Macedonia through the centuries, formulating population genetics theories without those being affected by historic events, localities, and types of people involved.
Interestingly, your historians admit the prevalence of Hellenism in certain areas of Macedonia at certain times but they do not account for what subsequently happened to the Hellenic population.
At your disposal for any new that appears ...!
I applaud you for even reading Macedonian authors and having an opinion on what it is that they say, but from all of what you said, I doubt you thoroughly read through my post or even considered the links that I provided. You are under the assumption that the connection between ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians is being disputed solely by Macedonian authors when I specifically gave a short list of foreign historians which conclude so as well.
Just so you know, I almost never use books by Macedonian authors to research on topics such as Macedonian and Greek, or rather Balkan, history. I specifically use foreign authors and sources in order to form an unbiased opinion.
Either way, I draw on the same conclusion regarding the term Bulgarians used to refer to people in Macedonia or elsewhere, or for that matter Greeks. The reason is that it is ambiguous whether that term can be used to specifically specify ethnicity or religious affiliation. Nation and ethnicity are fairly modern terms to address belonging to a certain institution and people. The use of Bulgarian and Greek was for the longest time in Byzantium and later during the Ottoman period used as a religious affiliation. To quote Brailsford, which is also an author that Greeks like to use to argue the non-existence of Macedonian people:
"The Greek claim rests mainly upon this, that there is still a large faction of the Macedonian population which, either from fear, from superstition, or from preference, remains within the "Greek" Orthodox (i.e., the Patriarchist) Church. These people are Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, or other Slavs of uncertain origin, but they are no more Greeks than the Orthodox Russians are. But the growth of Greek influence is none the less a curious study. It depended almost entirely upon the Church, and it must have been immeasurably stronger in the Balkan peninsula after the coming of the Turks than it ever was before."
You see, he himself explains that the term Greek, in this case, is solely used as a religious affiliation.
I have a beautiful book written by an German ex-ambassador Hans Lothar Steppan called "the Macedonian knot" (draws from the Gordian knot) where he uses the German archives where more than 1500 books with files and documents exist on the Balkans and more than 150 books specifically dedicated to Macedonia , all for the period of 1870s to 1920s, in which he draws information for the existence of a separate people, the Macedonian people. My point in mentioning this is that information that will attest for the existence and distinctness of the Macedonian people exist, it is just very unaccessible to us or others for the obvious reasons of those being crucial documents of a government.
The debate that we are having now however is superfluous to what the current issue is. Greece's insistence on the use of a signifier to distinguish between the country and the province. Well, simply look at your post and you can clearly see that one is not needed as you, yourself, used Greek Macedonian when referring to Greek people who live or draw a connection with the province or region of Macedonia and Macedonian authors when referring to authors from the Republic of Macedonia. My point in this is that employing a signifier to distinguish between the 2 is not needed as one already exists. One is the REPUBLIC of Macedonia, the other is the PROVINCE of Macedonia and the third is the REGION of Macedonia. There is no ambiguity there present. All the necessary signifiers are there.
Oh and one more thing that you mentioned that I want to address, which is the part where you mention that in this, supposedly forced and fake, Macedonian movement there existed a few intellectuals who, along with the people, fought for freedom from the Turks, but a merge with Bulgaria. This may be true for some sympathizers of Bulgaria, but not for all Macedonians who clearly exclaimed that the desire to merge with Serbia, Bulgaria or Greece made those people a good Serb, Bulgarian or Greek, but not a good Macedonian. And urged for the independence of Macedonia. And no, IMRO was not a Bulgarian organization. What had existed in that period as part of the propaganda used by the Bulgarians was the existence and creation of many such organizations which used similar names with seemingly same causes and goals in order to create confusion within the masses which is where the current confusion originates from. I grant you that not a lot of specifics are known (at least by me) on this topic, but one must, when assessing the situation or an event in history, look at the circumstances surrounding this event in order to be able to see the underlying message and not take things at face value.
And a Good Morning to you too.
P.S. I'm sorry, I always mean to write short but I get carried away.
Dear Bojan it is certain that several names will be offered and it is more than certain that issues will force you to accept alternative names like SLAVOMACEDONIA REPUBLIC or NOVAMACEDONIA REPUBLIC or else ..Consider it my friend !
As I told you we don't want you to be losers or us to be winners ..this is not for our common interest ! And please advice your fellow citizens not to use hostile acts towards our national symbols or to our culture or to our politicians ( This is why I don't aggree with the game the author made here , and I need to advice him to remove it !) These are not helping ..and you are not offering a good image to EU or to NATO !!!
PANAGIOTIS M, the last act of our good intentions is to agree upon a name which will be used in our bilateral relations (i.e. the "double formula"). We will never change our name, no matter the cost, we don't care how many "or else" Greece will use. NATO and EU, you say? I would gladly give up such organizations that allow racist bullies like Greece to be not just their friends, but also to tell everybody else what to do - including breaking the international laws. Don't you see? Greece has become not just a Macedonian problem, but an international problem. Just keep up the good work, we will endure much more.
The game stays here, it is a GAME, for god's sake. It's not that I am beating truck drivers or demolishing offices.
And about the "good image", we will see who really gets on everybody's nerves: Macedonia for peacefully trying to protect its identity, or Greece, the "cradle of many sins" in both bilateral and international environment.
Dear Goodbytes here we are expressing only personal thoughts or exchanging ideas ..Others are making reallity to appear as your future and mine ...!
We are not those who will resolve this !!!
In any case we must be ready psychological to accept any changes from what we wish to have !!!
I will miss your answers but I will be away for business trip to our fellow country Turkey !
After all none off the arguments we/they had with our/their neighbours prevent us/them of doing business with eachother !
It is exactly us who are the ones who resolve this because we (Macedonians, I don't know about Greeks) play a role in the decision because the question will always be put to a referendum in which we (the people) shall give our two cents, which makes us a very important factor in the negotiation process. It is the people who you will have to convince that Slavomacedonia or Novomacedonia is something we should accept. And as goodbytes already told you, he, as well as I, will never accept a name change unless it is one with a double formula, meaning we'll have a different name in bilateral talks with Greece, but for internal and all external use, we'll keep the name we already have. That is the ONLY agreement that I will agree to.
Dear Bojan a shortly comment ... My company is doing business with companies at your country and I assure you that many are not feeling the same with you..please no hard feelings but is a fact ! Also note is very difficult to go for a referendum where the yes/no percentage would not be enough to offer a respectable YES or NO decision !!
Dear Bojan & GoodBytes ...I just wanted to offer you the pleasure to count the greek words that are used to the following english assembly given on 1957 by our then former primeminister XENOFON ZOLOTAS ...
Here How it started ...!
"I always wished to address this Assembly in Greek, but realized that it would have been indeed "Greek" to all present in this room. I found out,however, that I could make my address in Greek which would still be English to everybody. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, l shall do it now, using with the exception of articles and prepositions, only Greek words.
Kyrie,
It is Zeus' anathema on our epoch (for the dynamism of our economies) and the heresy of our economic method and policies that we should agonize the Skylla of nomismatic plethora and the Charybdis of economic anaemia. It is not my idiosyncracy to be ironic or sarcastic but my diagnosis would be that politicians are rather cryptoplethorists. Although they emphatically stigmatize nomismatic plethora, they energize it through their tactics and practices. Our policies should be based more on economic and less on political criteria. Our gnomon has to be a metron between economic,strategic and philanthropic scopes. Political magic has always been anti-economic. In an epoch characterized by monopolies, oligopolies, monopolistic antagonism and polymorphous inelasticities, our policies have to be more orthological, but this should not be metamorphosed into plethorophobia, which is endemic among academic economists. Nomismatic symmetry should not antagonize economic acme. A greater harmonization between the practices of the economic and nomismatic archons is basic. Parallel to this,we have to synchronize and harmonize more and more our economic and nomismatic policies panethnically. These scopes are more practicable now, when the prognostics of the political and economic barometer are halcyonic. The history of our didimus organization on this sphere has been didactic and their gnostic practices will always be a tonic to the polyonymous and idiomorphous ethnical economies. The genesis of the programmed organization will dynamize these policies. Therefore, i sympathize, although not without criticism one or two themes with the apostles and the hierarchy of our organs in their zeal to program orthodox economic and nomismatic policies, although I have some logomachy with them.I apologize for having tyranized you with my Hellenic phraseology. In my epilogue, i emphasize my eulogy to the philoxenous aytochtons of this cosmopolitan metropolis and my encomium to you, Kyrie stenographers.
I hope you have enjoyed it !! Have a nice day ...
PANAGIOTIS M, why is this addressing of the assembly of interest to me, and how is this related to the subject of this article ("A Macedonian in Greece, how hard can it be?"), will you explain?
Goodbytes what connection has this sentence:
"And all Greece has done so far was to persistently (like a donkey) provoke hate in the surrounding countries, including Macedonia. Tell me what Macedonia did?"
With this sentence:
"No, I was referring to the open issues with Turkey, and the denial of the existence of the minorities of all the countries that surround Greece."
Answer and you win a trip for two to see Macedonia! Now if you are wondering to which Macedonia i am referring to, that is your problem, not mine ;-).
Linktothepast, Greece is "persistently provoking hate in the surrounding countries" by "having open issues with them" and "denying the existence of their minorities".
Will you now explain the sins of my country?
Posts like "Greece is an unworthy EU member" and tomato-pelting of ministers makes this blog just as jingoistic as any other on the Macedonian question on the internet. Several historical 'facts' Bojan raised in his posts reveal ignorance, like that for example about a million Christian Turks coming to Greece from Turkey (if by Turks he meant people whose native language was Turkish, the vast majority of refugees were Greek native speakers). Your posts and the blog in general are quite mainstream nationalistic rhetoric from your side and don't seem at all oriented towards genuine reconciliation or compromise with Greece. If you were really interested in the latter, you would have sought out moderate Greeks to start a mixed blog with different perspectives.
Dear Bojan & GoodBytes GoodMorning !
As I said I wanted to offer you the pleasure to see the Greek culture heritage to world ...beside that all the Apostles spread the Christianity using The well known Greek Language , beside that two Greek Brothers from Thessaloniki create slavic alphabet in order to christianize Slavs,it is also very well known ,and thanks to Bojan for accepted this , gave as their heritage Greek names to several countries , cities ...If you can number some or few of your heritage I will be glandly to accept them ...Many Thanks for your kind attention
Hello Bojan, goodbytes and others.
Sorry, i don't have time to read everything. I will only answer Bojan since he addressed me, although this thread is getting old.
1. If the name dispute has been settled, then i stand corrected and have displayed great ignorance.
If i am correct, you wish to be referred to by the name "Republic of Macedonia" in the UN. If this realm of international relations is of no interest to you, then there is effectively no naming dispute.
2. I did happen to watch the video. There were no subtitles, but FYI it said what anyone would expect it to say, namely that far right nationalists were causing trouble. It seems to me the nationalist party just won the elections in your country by a landslide. must i say more?
3. Yo! The point is the majority of Greek citizens speaking a slavic dialect are not out there claiming to be a macedonian minority so you should not classify them as such. It is not your choice to make, just as it is not your choice to call their language macedonian. That would be an infringement upon their right to self-determination. I don't know how to make it more clear to you. are you only interested in the self-determination of people who choose to identify with you?
4. Ok, since you require an explicit answer: your statement that those people were turks, once again, can only be disingenuous or ignorant. Disingenuous because i am pretty sure you know they were ethnically greek and to refer to them as turks on the technicality that they were located in modern day turkey only suits your political rhetoric, but is void of substance.
Lets be totally explicit about your main point in that paragraph:
the Greek state occupied new territory formerly part of the Ottoman empire and chose to relocate 1.5 million ethnic Greek refugees mainly to the new territory, although in reality many of them were also relocated to other parts of Greek territory. This is greatly different from a scenario where the greek state underhandedly colonizes a land in order to then acquire its sovereignty. I didn't ironically call you stupid; i was pushing your buttons for doing the same to another person. The truth of the matter is that you have no reason to complain about where the refugees where relocated because it simply made sense.
5. you are STILL implying that a voter's choice is not private unless you are calling those people irrational. Which is it?
6. is there a point somewhere?
second section:
1. "Stating that your evidence outweighs mine, is a subjective statement."
except what i said was: "IF however my evidence does outweigh your evidence, i will try to avoid using the same patronizing tone that you use with others." (emphasis added)
The point being that EVEN if it becomes obvious to all of us that you are forced to concede, i will try not to belittle you. Are you saying that you were justified in bringing up IQ?
2. what should i say? don't get me started on modern historians.
actually, you cannot say the SAME about the so-called greek purity. if anything, it was consistently the others who identified modern day greeks as such, and not based solely on geographical location, as is your case. whatever the limitations of the greek case, your case is much much weaker. your only answer to this is to reject both cases, regardless of their weight, as you just did with that statement. so in the course of this debate, it might be nice of you to state from what viewpoint you are presenting your arguments. do you reject the rationality of all ethnic feelings or not?
"Exactly. Which suggests that his mentioned native tongue is different from Greek."
No, exactly not. It suggests to YOU that it is different from Greek (whatever you are defining as Greek). the fact remains that not all greek tribes spoke the athenian dialect as their native tongue and their greekness was not disputed, nor was the greekness of their languages. nowhere is there conclusive evidence that macedonian was not 60, 70, 80, 90% comprehensible by athenians and even less likely is it that the neighboring tribes of the macedonians didn't understand them.
look up the term barbarian in wikipedia.
"However in certain occasions, the term was also used by Greeks, especially Athenians to deride other Greek tribes and states (such as Macedonians, Epirotes, Eleans and Aeolic-speakers) in a pejorative and politically motivated manner.[2]" Ta-dah! so now that you made it a point to doubt precisely that, you go find something to prove that statement false. Go find a statement that Athenians NEVER referred to any other greek tribes as barbarians and that it was unique to the macedonians, therefore the macedonians were not greek. who is being the born-again christian here?
i'm pretty confident that you already know about this, so please, let us not waste time, just concede a point when it is proper.
"Let me quote you a piece of the article which I will provide a link to:"
interesting. i will give it a look. does it say anywhere that the greek findings in modern day bulgaria, macedonia, albania dated to the appropriate age, are anything but hellenism spread by the macedonians?
3. ha ha, you know what my point is. he is ethnically jewish and i am not.
"Again, nitpicking is what you do. You’re asserting that Slavs did not mix with the Greeks and yet they did with the remaining population."
no, greek is another culture, therefore i would expect a small degree of mixing with the greeks. i said other cultures, not every other culture except for the greeks. i also pointed out that you didn't mix much with the turks, so your complaint is clearly unwarranted.
I said:"...MOST slavs did not mix with the turks, just as MOST slavs did not mix with the greeks." (emphasis added, and obviously required for you to get the point)
i did not say NO slavs mixed with the turks, just as NO slavs mixed with the greeks.
give me a break.
i did not say you made the estimate, i said you provided us with it. i see no evidence in this estimate that albanians interbred with greeks, how "populated" is defined and how the territory of greece the author refers to is defined. therefore i am not to blame when i say this estimate is not informative in a discussion regarding the extent of interbreeding of the greek population with other cultures.
"First of all, try not to contradict yourself and PLEASE, make up your mind."
my mind is made up and i stated what it is. furthermore, i did not contradict MYSELF. if you think there is a contradiction between what i say and something you see in someone else's text, that is another question. so PLEASE DON'T ACCUSE ME OF THINGS I DON'T DO.
i provided you with the quote where the author explains why the term Romaioi came to use.
"“The revolution of 1821 has restored the ancient appellation “Hellenes”, but as it is used chiefly by the inhabitants of Bavarian Greece, who perhaps do not constitute more than one fourth of the GREEK nation..."(emphasis added)
can you see the word greek there? do you understand that he is talking about the greek nation? i fully understand the nuances of the word Hellenes throughout the times and the role christianity played. the point still stands that you are talking about the same nation accepting or rejecting the term, not different nations who moved in or out of greece and felt the need to take the name Hellenes, like you have taken the name Macedonian, solely based on geography. i am not the one calling greeks in turkey turks. my mind is perfectly made up.
so PLEASE try to read a text and not interpret it solely to fit your narrow viewpoint.
Are you asserting that those calling themselves Romaioi in the time of the author were not only greeks? Unfortunately the author you are quoting does not make such an assertion. Perhaps you have done more research on the Byzantine empire than he.
5. "Don’t say that we chose not to enter by the reference used in the UN."
no comment.
it seems you got enough answers as to the generic and primarily geographic use of the term macedonian.
listen guys and gals,
i do not know how much this debate actually promotes understanding. this is how i understand things:
no matter who is right, it is an impossibility for one side to please the other 100%. that is why there is a need for a name accepted by both sides. most people of our countries will never understand each other regarding this matter. it is simply a matter of BEING greek, of BEING macedonian. if we come up with a solution, both sides will come away the losers and bitter. it is a matter of perception. until then, all efforts to gain recognition by circumventing negotiation should be viewed exactly for what they are, not understanding or recognizing the validity of the needs of the other side. regarding understanding, i hope that when the time comes for the macedonian side to face its loss, it won't take it as hard because it can understand that it is not so weird to BE greek. the greeks will feel less of a loss if they can understand the same for the macedonians. this is not a problem that the other side is responsible for. we both exist, therefore the problem exists. how we define our existence defines the problem and it is very hard to redefine one's existence. maybe one day we will all just want to be Europeans, if the Balkans can ever perceive themselves as european, and if the other europeans can ever give them a good reason to.
over and out.
3ypolytos,
I appreciate you answering to my post but, I'm not going to reply to what you replied to my post because I see there is a lot of miscommunication between you and me as to what we meant to say.
As far as your second post where you mention compromise on the name, that both parties must give something up, thus no one getting their way 100%. My question to you is: What is the sacrifice that Greece is making? How does Greece compromise by Macedonia changing its name? What is it exactly that Greece is giving up?
And one more question. Why do you think that Macedonia should change the name? What is the reason?
Dear Bojan goodmorning ,Why can't yoy see the future that all are viewing ???????
Are Your nationalist leaders keeping you into darkness ?
Greece is the only country from your neighbours that wishes and want to help your future prosperity ?
Have you realized that in a few years you will be a minority in your own country ..? Haven't seen that the Albanian population who is growing rappidly,faster than yours(who as far we all Know they are not afraid of their identity since Albanian as a nationality or as language exists several centuries before the Slavs appears to the region !) ..Can't you face the fact that in few years they will be the majority ? Even now during the election got in totally 35% of votes ...Can't you see the fact that all of them consider their selves pure Albanian and they dream the creation of a Big Albania which parts of your region want to be a part ?
Haven't realize the fact that with Albania into NATO & EU your Albanian minority will probably ask for something more ????????
Haven't see the fact that Bulgaria does not accept the existence of Macedonian Language and consider it Bulgarian ? I wonder why ?
Haven't realize you have open issues with Serbia regarding your borders ? Open issues with KOSSOVO ? Where are you living my friend ... You haven't noticed that US policy is changing upon their interests ? You never noticed how much oblidged mr Berissa was to Mr Bush to his very good American Friend ??????
It is no matter of your identity my friend , it is a matter of your country existence !
So ,After all you think that Greece wishes to see your country divided ???????
If You think so ..My friend,you have my sympathy and I wish you good luck and !
And If you think that is a propagandistic game then is more than certain you are living somewhere else and you cannot see the reality !!!!
PANAGIOTIS M, sure that as each country, we too have problems, but we are a tough nut to crack. You are underestimating Macedonians big time. :-)
Don't you see that our nation lives in its own country since 1944, using the same name "Macedonia" and "Macedonians"?
Don't you see that Greece is THE biggest obstacle to Macedonia at the moment?
Don't you see that we are resolving our issues with our minorities without implementing the "Greek method", ethnic cleansing, appropriating properties, and brutal assimilation?
Aren't you aware that without Macedonia, there isn't going to be peace in the Balkans?
You have no right to tell us who we are. We will never change our name! As a matter of fact, the more your country provokes Macedonia, the bigger the resistance it builds.
Bojan,
both your questions are similar and probably require a complex answer. this is the simple version.
the word macedonia is of no less importance to greeks than it is to you. it is part of their identity. it is very disturbing to wake up one day and find out that someone is using your identity. it's hard to think of why someone would even do that, it seems so perverse. now imagine that you confront this person and after longwinded fights he/she eventually agrees to be called Bojian, or Bojen, or New Bojan, or North Bojan. are you really satisfied that you have ridden yourself of the impostor? you still partially (perhaps mostly)share identity. in your eyes the impostor is not Bojan at all, whether you stick a modifier in front of it or not. so i guess what i am trying to say is that you don't see a compromise because all you see is that the greeks are trying to change your name, but what you and they both really care about, if you look a little deeper, is the effect that name change will have on your sense of identity. why do you see it as the greeks changing your name and not as you changing whom the name refers to? it is a matter of perception, isn't it?
Why should macedonia change her name? that is for you to answer. maybe you should develop nuclear weapons and blow greece away. from recent events, it doesn't seem like the macedonians believe there is any reason to be on good terms with the greeks. i don't know, you guys talk a lot about the right to self-determination, so i figured perhaps if you understood the effect the name has on the identity of the greeks you might see the issue in a different light. but that is wishful thinking. i don't know enough about politics to give you a, lets say, more tempting reason to align yourselves with the greeks. greece is just a country that used to be the only non-communist ally of europe in the balkans. now they are not so unique anymore and they are starting to question the west a little bit too much, they have too much of a mind of their own. it could make for an easy entry to NATO and the EU, since the veto is probably the only thing in your way, but your government and the rest of the elite have nothing to lose by waiting. if you don't get in, they tell you how bad greece is and you vote them back into power, if you do get in, they will take all the credit for defeating the greeks at their own game and retaining the name. i don't think there is such a thing as an honest politician, that's just how i see it. in the meantime, you are the ones working for below-poverty wages compared to other countries. just entertain the possibility that NATO could have rejected Greece's veto. i mean, what leverage does greece really have? i think you guys are sort of like the electric car: the technology is here, but there is still so much money to be made on oil.
"why do you see it as the greeks changing your name and not as you changing whom the name refers to?"
Because we are Macedonians and our country is Republic of Macedonia since 1944. Because unprovoked, Greece get this all hysteria going on in the early 90-tees.
Anyway, the world is laughing at Greece, not at Macedonia. Over 3/4 of the world countries with whom we have established diplomatic relations call us "Macedonia", despite the diplomatic muscle of Greece. Even EU member countries, which should be traditionally and politically on your side, are alarmed by what you are doing to us.
Better re-check your arguments ("NATO veto", and the other one: "EU veto") again.
You guys are like a chariot - that's how you would compare to a current transportation. Which is actually OK for you, because your mindset is still trapped in the period over 2.000 years old.
Dear GoodBytes It is so unfortunate that you have limitted Historical vision and even more very limitted political view !!! You did well to inform me ..that you are using the name for only 60 years !
That is a universal phenomenon of pure history abuse !!
Thus Dear GoodBytes , proves you have so limmitted History BackGround , only 60 years ! Proves that you use "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" only for identification existence reasons and because TITO has decided since your region was claimed by Bulgaria !
Don't you see that the main obstacle is that a minority of yours are claiming those ,that Future Historians will lough with !!!!
How come we had peace in Balcans all these years ? because of your country existence ? Come on dear author who want wars ?
Perhaps you ? I don't think so !
Perhaps us ? For sure no !!
So let these provoke words for internal use .!!
Can't you how rappidly the world is changing even US will have the first Afro-American president !!
So take consideration all of what we are offering as arguments and consider your next date when we,I mean our countries mutually aggree to a mutual acceptable name which for sure will be different for this you are using now !!!
There is a little term that is usually utilized for women that care only to be in the lights of publicity, "attention whores". You are supporting with all your strength something stupid in order to show yourselves in public. Basically Greece has little to be afraid from your thesis as it is ridiculous and only because we responded to this ridiculous thesis of yours you got some public attention. If i was a politician i would have withdrawed from this whole situation and let you make a complete ass of yourselves worldwide, and simply laugh all the way.
Also let's say that pretty much most dreams of yours in this blog come true (except conquering a part of Greece of course ;-) ), what's the big deal really for you Goodbytes? Your problems will be solved the next day and your life will change? Don't make me laugh. Do you think if you win at this matter you would be strong ethnically to oppose an albanian minority uprising in your country, due to a name? Will a name fight your fights for you?
The only attention you ever got was due to us, and if we leave you alone, nobody would care / be interested about your country. Even USA that supported you till now will probably change it's attitude if the new President is Obama from what he is saying till this point. And let me see where will you run to then (without Nato, EE and USA supporting you, ahh put Russia in that list also). Have a nice day.
PANAGIOTIS M, we are Macedonians longer than 60 years, you should draw your conclusions better... I just proved that Greece didn't object our name for half a century, until recently. I think you were played by Papandreu just for easy votes, but the issue became too big for him and Gligorov to handle. The rest of the "proofs" which you listed are pure fabrications. For example, I dare you to prove that Tito invented us - which is one of the BASIS for your claims that "our nation does not exist". Come on, inform me. :-)
You asked: "How come we had peace in Balkans all these years? Because of your country existence?"
No, it is quite the opposite: the wars between your countries ended with the Bucharest Treaty. To make sure nobody will object, everybody needed to be satisfied. So it happened, every country got a little extra territory - by IGNORING the will of the Macedonians for their own independent country. So there you have it: the NON-existence of my country is what kept you from slaughtering each other in the first half of the 20th century. :-)
# # #
Linktothepast, you wonder "what's in it for me"?
Your country wants me to change my name and the name of my country. I have a damn good reason to fight back as log as I live!
What's in it for you? :-)
PANAGIOTIS M
“Greece is the only country from your neighbours that wishes and want to help your future prosperity ?”
Are you asking me or are you telling me. If you’re asking me, then your question is misstated because you are making the assumption that Greece wishes to help our country’s prosperity. If you are telling me that Greece wants this, then I fail to see how. All signs suggest the opposite, such as the veto in NATO for example. NATO would have been a step up in terms of prosperity and yet, the veto occurred.
“Have you realized that in a few years you will be a minority in your own country ..? “
I think you are being mislead by Greek media regarding the Albanian minority in my country. I’ve personally seen news reports where it is reported that the Albanian minority in the country is 40%, which are way off the charts by the way.
“Even now during the election got in totally 35% of votes. “
I don’t think you fully grasp the difference between a census and election participation and results. I for one am NOT going to explain these to you. Do you really believe that because Albanian participation was 35%, that correlates to the actual number of the Albanian population in Macedonia?
“Haven't realize the fact that with Albania into NATO & EU your Albanian minority will probably ask for something more ????????”
Haven’t you realized that the Albanian minority in Macedonia gets more rights that all the minorities in the Balkans put together? This of course excludes Greece, since you have no minorities.
“Haven't see the fact that Bulgaria does not accept the existence of Macedonian Language and consider it Bulgarian ? I wonder why ?”
I’ll tell you why in 2 words. San Stefano.
“It is no matter of your identity my friend , it is a matter of your country existence !”
So if it is a matter of my countries existence and Greece wants to help, then why prevent the process of prosperity?
3ypolytos said...
“the word macedonia is of no less importance to greeks than it is to you”
I’m sure you’re right.
“it is part of their identity”.
As it is of ours.
“ it is very disturbing to wake up one day and find out that someone is using your identity.”
You must have overslept, because we’ve been using that identity (at least officially) since 1944, and only in 1991 objections followed. That’s not sleep, that’s extreme hibernation.
“now imagine that you confront this person and after longwinded fights he/she eventually agrees to be called Bojian, or Bojen, or New Bojan, or North Bojan. are you really satisfied that you have ridden yourself of the impostor?”
First of all, I wouldn’t object to someone having the same name as I nor would I dare to try to make him change it. This is exactly what Macedonia’s policy on the matter is. We do not object to you referring to yourself as Macedonian. However, you do object to us doing the same. The problem as I see it is one sided. And it originates from you.
“so i guess what i am trying to say is that you don't see a compromise because all you see is that the greeks are trying to change your name, but what you and they both really care about, if you look a little deeper, is the effect that name change will have on your sense of identity. why do you see it as the greeks changing your name and not as you changing whom the name refers to?”
That is exactly how I see it. That is a point I myself may make and I can’t see how arguing what you did helps Greece’s stance. You are trying to change my name as a superficial means to deleting my identity, or what that name refers to. Like you said in the beginning: “the word macedonia is of no less importance to greeks than it is to you”. If that is so, and you realize that it is as important to us, as it is to you, then how would you like to be referred as something other than Macedonian (Greek excluded). But no, you don’t really believe what you had said. In all true meaning, you think that you have a bigger right and a heritage to the name Macedonia, and that’s why you see this name/identity change as a viable solution. It is you who should change the perspective. Or rather not at all, when it comes to strong feelings regarding the name Macedonia.
“Why should macedonia change her name? that is for you to answer.”
Well, then my answer is that there is no need for Macedonia to change the name. My question is addressed to you, because you assert that I need to change it, thus the question why. So, please provide an answer.
“maybe you should develop nuclear weapons and blow greece away.”
That is idiotic. I don’t believe in war and/or death.
“from recent events, it doesn't seem like the macedonians believe there is any reason to be on good terms with the greeks.”
Hmmm, which recent events? You mean the lamb embargo, the money transfer problem, the 3 separate incidents where Macedonians were beaten because they are Macedonian, the flight ban of Macedonian airlines, the in-flight refusal to cross Greece’s air endangering people’s lives, the refusal of the Macedonian president to land on Greece’s territory for a scheduled meeting, the veto in NATO, or are you referring to something else other than this?
“i don't know, you guys talk a lot about the right to self-determination, so i figured perhaps if you understood the effect the name has on the identity of the greeks you might see the issue in a different light. but that is wishful thinking.”
That’s where you’re wrong. You believe that in Greek’s eyes, Macedonia is more important than in the eyes of us Macedonians.
My questions still stand as they are not answered. What is Greece offering as a compromise to us changing the name? And why should Macedonia change the name?
PANAGIOTIS M said...
“Dear GoodBytes It is so unfortunate that you have limitted Historical vision and even more very limitted political view !!!... Thus Dear GoodBytes , proves you have so limmitted History BackGround , only 60 years ! Proves that you use "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" only for identification existence reasons and because TITO has decided since your region was claimed by Bulgaria !”
I keep hearing this from all Greeks. Just because the ancient Greeks happen to be the fathers of democracy and history, doesn’t make you an expert by association. And would you please stop with the whole TITO decided. Have you not heard of the Macedonian movement in the late 19th century? TITO was not even born there. I’m sorry, but as soon as someone mentions TITO I lose all respect for that person, especially when it is one that claims great knowledge of history.
“You did well to inform me ..that you are using the name for only 60 years !
That is a universal phenomenon of pure history abuse !!”
He was obviously talking about official use. If that’s the lines along which you move, the term Hellenic was not used in Greece (neither officially nor unofficially) from ancient times until the 19th century.
“So take consideration all of what we are offering as arguments and consider your next date when we,I mean our countries mutually aggree to a mutual acceptable name which for sure will be different for this you are using now !!!”
Please be so kind as to explain to me the questions that were asked before. What is it that Greece is sacrificing in terms of us changing the name? What is it that you offer that is of such great benefit to us that we should feel obliged to accept?
Jun 5, 2008 3:01:00 PM
Linktothepast said...
“If i was a politician i would have withdrawed from this whole situation and let you make a complete ass of yourselves worldwide, and simply laugh all the way.”
And yet Greece fights with peak efficiently which suggests there is something to fight for which may compromise the idea of a pure nation perhaps?
“The only attention you ever got was due to us...”
And I say this from the bottom of my heart. THANK YOU!
“...ahh put Russia in that list also...”
What I find extremely funny is that Greek notion of invincibility. Yes, your Greek “god” went to talk to Putin regarding YOUR Macedonian problem and to ask possibly for a withdrawal on the official name used by Russia in terms of Macedonia. He came back empty handed and yet because of that invincibility syndrome you truly believe that he managed to convert Russia from that stance. I am amazed at what is being reported in Greece. And yet it is us who are called nationalist. Ironic.
PANAGIOTIS M, you say: "Even now during the election got in totally 35% of votes".
You should really re-check your sources (newspapers, TV, radio?) and replace them with more accurate ones. In the official election results (PDF, in Macedonian language) the sum of all votes that the typically Macedonian Albanian parties had is 11.169 + 7.193 + 111.407 + 105.293 = 235.062. The total number of votes is 1.031.632, therefore only 22.79% of the votes went to the Macedonian Albanian parties.
If we are looking at the number of seats in the Parliament, again you are VERY wrong: the total number of seats that the Macedonian Albanian parties won is 27, which is only 22.5% of the total number of seats (120).
Dear author Goodbytes and Bojan , you still don't want to face reallity and you still avoid to see the FACTS, I will notice the following ....
Try to locate from your parrents or your grandparents school books of their age !
Before WW2 ....in titles
Vardaska in Macedonia’s skin (as in Aesop’s fables «The ass in the lion’s skin»)
Without a common national entity and distinguished historical path, as a nation, your nation was part of Serbia since 1912 with the name of VARDARSKA and with Skopje as its capital. In 1929, following an administrative reorganization of the "Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia", which consisted of 33 Districts (Oblasti), the "Kingdom of South-Slavia" (Yugoslavia) was created, with 9 Administrative Districts (Banobina) and a 10th one, independent, the Administrative District of Belgrade. The boundaries of the 9 Districts where set with geophysical criterias, in a way that they did not disturb any ethnological elements.
Due to the inborn ethnological problem of the entire Dominion, which was composed of a mosaic of nationalities, the reformation law had foreseen the non existence, for each of the administrative districts, of common ethnographic elements, which could incubate future moves for independence. Thus, the present lack of ethnological homogeneity of your state is the result of diligent work and not incidental. The non existence of homogeneity is due to your prudence.Among your nationalities at those days and Hellenes or Greeks (which is the same !)
If you can give me your email I can send you a "Picture of the Hellenic Public School of Skopje of 1910 from the archive of Efrostidis –Kosteletos" with
Student report of the Hellenic Public School of Skopje, issued in Greek language and where the tuition includes as basic lessons Religion, Greek, Arithmetic, Geography, History, Physics, Turkish etc" It is therefore rather the lack of ethnical homogeneity which finally obstructs the retention of political coherence, needed to secure the further course of the nation. For this very reason your TITO searched for a ready history to adopt, hoping in this way to acquire the entity needed to secure the bonding material you are lacking. With uncontrollable coquetry you rush to dress up in the hide of Macedonia, offered by the reviving pan-slavianism under communist regime through Comintern of 1921 as the ass dressed up in the lion’s skin in the fables of Aesop, and knitting since with envied energy a false but dangerous fable.
The 9 Districts (Banobina) as mentioned in the preface, of the Kingdom of South-Slavia, were given names of large rivers, so that the names do not even approach in reference any particular nationality, for the reasons mentioned earlier. If you can give me your email I can send you the map of the dominion, the districts were: Dravva, Savva, Danube, Bramba, Maritime, Drinna, Zetta, Moravva and VARDAR. The map titles "Map of Yugoslavia with the 9 Banobina, with VARDAR" Organization, issued in 1939"
Further more ...
I do not have the possibility to cite in-here the complete legislation of administrative restructure of 1929, but there is also no sense for me to do it. If you can give me your email I can send you , a copy of a postage stamp , of immense historical value, issued in 1939 by the State Postal Organization of Yugoslavia, (a period of excellent neighboring relations with Greece), showing the map of the Dominion, on which in Latin skript the Slavic undisputed names of the administrative districts of Dravska, Harvatska, Banovina, Vrbaska, Dunavska, Drinska, Zetska, Moravska and VARDARSKA can be seen. After World War II however and with the conciliation of the opposing nations, the country went under communist regime with dominant ruler the Field Marshal Joseph Bros (Brosovich) Tito. With the constitution of January 31st of 1946, the state changes to a "Socialist Federal Republic" and subdivides into 6 Administrative Federal Socialist Republics, being Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and "MACEDONIA".
The ruler Tito, obviously within the frame of the old idea of Pan-Slavianism, literally rushes to implement the decree of Comintern of 1921 for a unified Macedonia, having obtained the agreement of Joseph Stalin and the forbearance / tolerance of the Western Allies and at last on August 2nd of 1944, declares the establishment of the "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". The Macedonian nobleman and veteran politician Nicolaos Martis records under the circumstances:-
"Tito, as a very powerfull communist in the Balkans, with Bulgaria as an ally of Hitler and thus unable to raise a Macedonian issue, certain that communism will prevail in the Balkans , grubs the initiative to implement the decision of Comintern of 1921 and that of the Balkan Communist Parties for the separation of Macedonia from Greece and her embodiment to the communist block.
Greece revolted and wanted to react against this imperialistic and unprecedented action of a national
perjury demanding its revocation. However, Greece was restrained by her allies, of the time from taking any action, because her allies were pursuing the detachment of Yugoslavia from the Eastern Military Pact and did not wish to dishearten Tito. To Greece they gave, unfortunately, only promises of no face value or guarantee. At that time, the State Department Minister Mr. Stattinious, accused and declared (December of 1944) the attempt of Tito to characterize the people of VARDARSKA as Macedonians" as an act of demagogy.
And If you think that Greece will continue to say YES as the passed years to US , somewhere from passed days to our days you lost your way ...GREECE has own identity and political status so we are not getting orders from no-one !!
I truly am amazed at your copy-paste skills. It is ok to be a part of Greek forums. It's a nice feeling of belongingness. Like I said, any reference to Tito being the sole idea behind the creation of the Macedonian nation is utter nonsense and I am not even going to dignify that with a response. What I will respond to is your first question where you ask to be presented with a school book to prove the Macedonian existence before WW2. No problem. It's called the ABECEDAR.
Oh, and here is a video of a protest in the US in 1922 by Macedonians asking for independence of Macedonia. Still think it's Tito's grand scheme?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHTFs8BLmgE
And again I'll ask. What is the compromise Greece is making and why should Macedonia change its name?
Dearest Bojan I wish you pleasant dreams and all my best wishes to you and your family for prosperity,pleasant summer holidays and above all health , We don't need to stress up so much !
Many Thanks for your hospitallity , I found it interesting to argue with you and GoodBytes ...After all future Historians will have to argue less since the issue will be resolved soon !!!!!
Try and this one !!! Excellent example how you grow up during the last years !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ChPwrPDsXk&feature=related
let's try to see the problem from our side
in the nothern west of your country where is your polog province a new country is established with albanians people which claim that their nationality is pologonian and they are the true pologonians. they publish maps which show your whole region of polog as theirs.they also claim that there is a pologonian minority in your country.the want to name their country polog, they have any right to identify themselves. your anwser is that they are albanians and there is not such nationality. they claim that "we live in the region of polog and our grandfathers told us that the "macedonians" (i use the term in order to see the similarity with our problem) took our land and expeled us from our fatherland.wthey also claim that we speak a polgonian language a mixture off albanian and slavic which they call pologonian and you say that they are albanian.
so if this i can say pretty fantastic scenario were reality what would you do. you are going to recognize them as polog without any objection
macedonia is a geografical region where they had lived slavs, albanians, greeks, jews, turks, gipsies, bulgarians so you can't monopolize the name.
there are greeks macedonians, bulgarian macedonians, albanian macedonians and you who you are slavs macedonians you can't deny that or you can't demand the name of a whole region to presented only by you for me personal slavomacedonia would be a proper name for you.
macedonia in ancient greek means tall man from the ancient greek tribe which lived there
the people give the name to the region not the region to the people
have a nice evening
goodbytes,
your answer to me was surprisingly hostile. it is almost like you and Bojan switched places. but then again i shouldn't be surprised if you shared identity.
Allow me to apologize for Greece not being hysterical since 1944. would that make today's situation less of a problem for you?
what we are doing to you? get a grip. will your country be destroyed if it is not officially recognized as the Republic of Macedonia? i think you have more to fear than a name change.
did you even read my post regarding the veto? are you arguing that the veto is not your main obstacle?
if you don't understand the analogy of the electric car, or you disagree with it, there are more adult ways to respond than insults.
Bojan,
it is only in 1991 that your country became independent. before that, most greeks were not aware of your existence, and if they were, considered you no more than a province of yugoslavia. most of all, there was no question of the word meaning anything than geographical characterization. mind you, i am speaking about the general public. when i first met a 17 yr old macedonian girl and heard the stuff coming out of her mouth in the early 90's my jaw dropped. she actually believed that most people in Thessaloniki currently speak macedonian. of course this is not even close to true. so it is not the greeks fault if you first presented a problem to them in 1991, and it is definitely not strange for them to become "hysterical" once they heard what your people truly believe.
don't give me that bull about not having a problem with others using the name macedonia. it is an argument of convenience. consistently, when your side is asked what they would do if northern greece or western bulgaria or eastern albania became independent and called themselves the Republic of Macedonia, you have no answer. your policy is deception, and if you believe in it, you are deceived.
i have no doubt that you see the problem as one sided. the best way to rationalize away all your shortcomings is to villify the greeks.
you are trying to delete part of the greek identity by legitimizing your claim to the name macedonia. we are not the ones seeking international recognition, which includes recognition by the greek side. so not only do you believe the greeks are not deserving of their identity, you feel righteous enough to rub it in their face. greeks have just as much a right for their identity to be validated by the international community as you do. But you don't believe that because "you have a bigger right and a heritage to the name Macedonia".
Don't be coy about our relations. All of those events you mention stem from the fact that you reject the idea of compromise. You yourself ask for an incentive to change your name. Those are your incentives my friend. What is Greece's incentive not to impose a full embargo on your country? why shouldn't they? can't you meet your needs by getting products through other countries? and if you can't, why should we care? why should they buy your products? greece certainly does not need you anymore than you need her. and why should you be offended or even care if greece disolves all diplomatic relations with you and has no interaction on any level? maybe that is what you should be pressuring your politicians for. no trade with greece, no diplomatic relations, no compromise on the name.
you think we should just agree to disagree? panagiotis keeps mentioning the albanians, as if they are our common foe. but why should i prefer you over the albanians? albanians are people too. i can't help it if you don't get along with them, i mean, you don't get along with me either. you see, greece really has no incentive to be good neighbors with you either, what can you offer us besides (or more correctly, along with) the name change?
Dear Bojan it is really so unfortunate that a book like ABECEDAR created by the Greek Goverment and coducted by Greeks then at 1925 was removed , there is only one prototype at our National Library and during 2006 a copy presented and I was present !! As you see I am not afraid to see facts ..try to do the same ! As for the % of the Albanians parties you must wait for the finals resaults from the 7 sections where the elections will again repeat !!!!! Perhaps then you will decide what is the percentage of your Albanian Minority !! Take care ..
3ypolytos,
1. Hostility was not intended, neither I meant to say that as an insult. My whole point with the chariot was to put your radicals mindset where it belongs: in the Ancient Greece. It is my opinion that your "patriots" are way more obsessed with this distant history than it makes sense. As if some of them are LIVING with Socrates and Alexander as their first door neighbors. :-)
Here is an example: if today's Greeks don't consider Ancient Greeks (including Macedonians) as their ancestors, would this dispute arise in the first place? No, as a matter of fact, they are so obsessed with Ancient Greece that they consider that Macedonia belongs only to them, as if the other nations around them don't have history.
Besides our right of self-determination, this exclusivity is the main argument why there shouldn't be a name dispute. But hey, you can choose a wife, but you can't choose your neighbors. ;-)
2. Greece had no right to object over our country's name. Neither when we were in the Yugoslavian federation, nor now, when we are independent. The point was that the hysteria was created to get easy votes from nationalists - it was a common practice in the Balkans in the 1990-ties.
3. "what we are doing to you? get a grip. will your country be destroyed if it is not officially recognized as the Republic of Macedonia? i think you have more to fear than a name change."
If for you changing the name of your country (and not just that, but also your ethnic identity) is trivial, then I will ask you again: if another country is forcing Greece with every methods available, legal or illegal, to change its name, and you Greeks also need to give up on your identity, language, history, culture, etc, would YOU consider it a trivial issue in your life? Would you agree to be a person with a fabricated name in the name of cosmopolitanism and tolerance?
4. The veto is our main obstacle, but we will carry on (as Macedonian) in or out of NATO and EU. My point there was that the veto is the only argument, the only thing that Greece can put on the table, because there is no low in the world that would justify your country's acts towards Macedonia.
# # #
PANAGIOTIS M, the total number of voters in the sections where the voting is going to be repeated is less than 30.000 (I think is is around 23k to 26k). You missed by more than 200k. Come on, admit that your numbers are not correct. I won't do you anything. :-)
And BTW, am I reading your comment above well? Did you just admit that there was ethnic Macedonian population living in Greece, and that your country acknowledged them? Then, why are we breaking the keyboards with writing now? Why can't you admit us now, when we are saying the same thing, only LOUDER?
Dear author Goodbytes GoodMorning , you are playing with the words as Bojan plays with Videos which show us Bulgarians at 1922 or 1924 marching at US ...!
So as concerns ABECEDAR and if there was Macedonian minority those days 1925 here what I found on WIKIPEDIA (section you prefer to point when you want to acknowledge the existence of Macedonian language - BTW WIKIPEDIA express :
MACEDONIAN GRAMMAR
This article is about the Slavic language. For the unrelated, non-Slavic language spoken in the ancient world, see Ancient Macedonian language.
Macedonian grammar refers to the morphology and syntax of the Macedonian language which is, in many respects, similar to the grammar of some other Balkan languages (constituent languages of the Balkan sprachbund) — especially Serbian and Bulgarian.
It has a number of grammatical features that distinguish it from most other Slavic languages, such as the elimination of case declension, the development of a suffixed definite article, and the lack of a verb infinitive, among others. ... Which BTW i can't see the differences from THE Bulgarian language !!!)
Further to that WIKIPEDIA (which you prefer alot , I mean, Bojan you are excellent reader !) distinguishes The SlavicMacedonian language from the ANCIENT MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE and see what you can learn:
This article is about the language used in antiquity. Not to be confused with the entirely different, modern Slavic Macedonian language.
Ancient Macedonian
Spoken in: Macedon (extinct language)
Language extinction: absorbed by Attic Greek in the 4th century BC
Language family: Indo-European
Centum, possibly Greek
Ancient Macedonian
Language codes
ISO 639-1: none
ISO 639-2: ine
ISO 639-3: xmk
The Ancient Macedonian language was the language of the Ancient Macedonians. It was spoken in Macedon during the 1st millennium BC. Marginalized from the 5th century BC, it was gradually replaced by the common Greek dialect of the Hellenistic Era. It was probably spoken predominantly in the inland regions away from the coast. Ancient Macedonian was an Indo-European language most likely closely related to Greek, but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly a dialect of Greek; a sibling language to Greek; or a close cousin to Greek, and perhaps related to some extent, to the Thracian and Phrygian languages.
Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language, though a body of authentic Macedonian words has been assembled from ancient sources, mainly from coin inscriptions, and from the 5th century lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria, amounting to about 150 words and 200 proper names, similar to standard Greek, but a small minority might not easily reconciled with standard Greek phonology.
The Pella curse tablet, a text written in a distinct Doric Greek idiom, found in 1986, dated to between mid to early 4th century BC, has been forwarded as an argument that the ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of North-Western Greek, part of the Doric dialects (O. Masson, 1996). Before the discovery it was proposed that the Macedonian dialect was an early form of Greek, spoken alongside Doric proper at that time (Rhomiopoulou, 1980).
That in order to point that there is no continuation or connection to your modern Slavic-MAcedonian language further no connection with ancient MAcedon !!!!!!!
As ref.to ABECEDAR ,at those days all treaties were mentioning Bulgarian Minority and not Macedonian Minority !!!
Any way here is article for ABECEDAR :
Note: "Abecedar" is also the name of the primer (1st grade school book) in Romanian.
The Abecedar was a school book first published in Athens, Greece in 1925. The book became the subject of controversy with Bulgaria and Serbia when cited by Greece as proof it had fulfilled its international obligations towards Slavic-speaking minority, because it had been printed in the Latin alphabet rather than the Cyrillic alphabet used by the Slavic languages of the southern Balkans.
Following the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913, the southern part of the historic region of Macedonia was annexed by the Kingdom of Greece, of which at that time it consisted a 10% Slavic minority[1] of the region, consisting of 10% of the total population, into the Greek state. Under the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, Greece opened schools for minority-language children, and in September 1924 Greece agreed to a protocol with Bulgaria to place its Slavic-speaking minority under the protection of the League of Nations. However, the Greek parliament refused to ratify the protocol due to objections from Serbia, considering the Slavic-speakers to be Serbs rather than Bulgarians, and from Greeks who considered the Slavic-speakers to be Slavicized Greeks rather than ethnic Slavs.[2]
The Greek government went ahead with the publication in May 1925 of the Abecedar, described by contemporary Greek writers as a primer for "the children of Slav speakers in Greece ... printed in the Latin script and compiled in the Macedonian dialect." [3] The book was commissioned by the Department for the Education of Foreign-Speakers in the Greek Ministry of Education. It was submitted by the Greek government to the League of Nations to support its assertion that it fulfilled obligations towards the Slavic-speaking minority.[2]
The book's publication sparked controversy in Greek Macedonia, along with Bulgaria and Serbia. The Bulgarians and Serbs objected to the book being printed in Latin, despite the Bulgarian and Serbian languages being written predominately in the Cyrillic alphabet. The Bulgarian representative to the League of Nations criticized it as "incomprehensible."[4] Although some books reached villages in Greek Macedonia, it was never used in their schools. In one village, threats by local police led to residents throwing their copies into a lake.[2] In January 1926, the region of Florina saw extensive protests by Greek and pro-Greek Slavic speakers campaigning against the primer's publication, demanding the government change their policies on minority education.[5]
Professor Loring Danforth argues the Abecedar was printed in the Latin alphabet "precisely to ensure [sic] that it would be rejected by all parties concerned" so "it would not contribute to the development of ties between the Slavic-speaking people of northern Greece and either Serbia or Bulgaria." The Republic of Macedonia argues it demonstrated a separate Macedonian language and people existed in northern Greece in 1925, and the Greek government recognized it as such.[2]
According to Victor Roudometof, the incident led to significant change in the Greek government's stance toward Slavic-speaking citizens. Henceforth, they were deemed to be neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, and their difference was regarded as solely linguistic, not ethnic or political.[5]
Is by any way a proven small,medium,big fact that you are allowed to abuse History,Ancient Macedonian Heritage,Ancient Macedonian Language,History of ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ on your behalf ?
There is, not in the slightest !!!!
If there any , why don't you demostrate them ...only literature talking ...BLA,BLA,BLA ....Facts provide us facts ...Facts that Greece obtained and our partners accepted as fair and said NO to NATO for you and ofcourse you will hear NO also from EU ..Because the declaration was clearly ..You are not ready !!!!!
PANAGIOTIS M, you are pasting too much material at once, so that it is hard to see the tree from the forest. What's your point?
Here is how your points should be:
1. Macedonian language exists, and it is a scientific fact. Bulgarian and Greek scientists dispute it (for political reasons). The rest of the world doesn't.
2. The modern Macedonian language is different from the Ancient Macedonian language.
3. The Abecedar was printed for the Macedonian minority. Even if it was a "Slav" minority as you claim, Greece still does not recognize the existence of ANY minorities.
4. An ethnic group is formed when a group of people identify as such. No additional conditions are necessary. The same rules apply for Greeks and Macedonians.
5. Modern day Greeks are as much descendants from the Ancient Greeks as much as modern day Macedonians are descendants from the Ancient Macedonians.
6. We have the right of self-identification and no other country can tell us to change our name.
7. Greece is implementing a genocide over the minorities for almost a century now. Everybody knows about it, nobody cares enough to stop it, and Greeks seem to approve it.
8. We didn't start this dispute, you did. The history abuse is your sin, not ours. As you can see, I don't even want to use history as an argument, I rely on two common sense arguments:
a) You are not a party in this dispute. To be a party, you need to prove that the "stolen" goods are only yours.
b) Self determination is a basic human right. It is not negotiable or regulated by law.
Come on, pick a point and prove me wrong.
I agree with Goodbytes for his last post and please don't cite Wikipedia for reliable sources. I never said I prefer Wikipedia, as a matter of a fact I hate using Wikipedia because it's as biased as a Greek/Bulgarian newspaper when it comes to issues such as that. That is the reason why no credible university will let you cite Wikipedia as a source.
You obviously did not read my posts thoroughly and you definitely did not read the links I provided. Either way, it is irrelevant. Allowing for the option that you are right, you (Greece) still have no ground on which to stand regarding the principles of living that we have today in a democratic world and have to refer to antiquity because all your alleged claims regarding Macedonia happen to live there, and they're not even that solid.
And please stop copy/pasting things. I realize you are able to do this, and I'm happy for you but you do this too often and I'd rather not start doing that myself.
My very relevant questions are still not being answered. Why should Macedonia change its name, and how is Greece compromising?
bojan,
i have to copy my post because i think you didn't notice
macedonia is a geografical region where they had lived slavs, albanians, greeks, jews, turks, gipsies, bulgarians so you can't monopolize the name.
there are greeks macedonians, bulgarian macedonians, albanian macedonians and you who you are slavs macedonians you can't deny that or you can't demand the name of a whole region to presented only by you for me personal slavomacedonia would be a proper name for you.
macedonia in ancient greek means tall man from the ancient greek tribe which lived there
the people give the name to the region not the region to the people
have a nice afternoon
LOL Axxel,
You just proved my point.
Oh, and it seems like you are unaware that Slav is not an ethnicity. Macedonian however, is. So that makes us Macedonian Macedonians.
And you didn't have to copy your post. I noticed, I just didn't think it was worth responding to.
I don't think you know what monopolize means. It means to dominate by excluding others. We're not monopolizing the name. If we were, we would object to your use of it as well.
My questions still stand. Why should Macedonia change its name and what is Greece's compromise?
I am sick and tired of all this "conversation of blind with deaf people". You are whining about a hypothetical situation, about the rights of some semi-identified Macedonian Greeks (for which I have repeatedly said that nobody is disputing their identity or the right to be called whatever thay want), or some non-existent ethnic groups like: Bulgarian Macedonians (unless you are referring to these people), and those other 10 "never heard of" combinations, and you seem to be fine, on the other hand, that your country's laws are promoting racism, and that your government oppresses minorities big time. For god sake, you are not even acknowledging their existence - which is close to the syndrome of the blue fish (Dorothy) in "Finding Nemo", which forgets everything after 10 seconds.
We identify as "Macedonians" without any additional attribute. We will accept only this name, and no other. You don't seem to understand, we are not PRETENDING to be Macedonians, or acting. We ARE Macedonians, that's how we feel - to the bone - and nothing in this world can change that.
You all seem to talk like you are thinking that we are indeed a recent creation, a conspiracy against your pitiful nationalistic and racist country, aimed towards stealing what "rightfully" belongs to you.
Well you see, there are international laws about human rights, written exactly for these kinds of racist countries and radicals that think they "own" something to the point where they can "impose" their will upon others. That's why those laws say that the "country", the "government", a "party" or any other political creation can NOT take away the rights of individuals and groups which are in the sphere of: name, identity, religion, sex, privacy, equality, freedom, etc.
You keep repeating the ridiculous threat of VETO. Well, bring it on! I wrote several times: if the accession in NATO or EU is a rock, our identity is a MOUNTAIN, that's how important it is for every person. As a matter of fact, you can have your EU and NATO all for yourself, if these organizations continue to prefer ignorant racist bullies to drive their future. Every country that openly supports YOUR side of the story is either ignorant or wants something in return. Actually, while there are over 120 countries that explicitly support Macedonia, I don't know of a single country that said that Greece is right. I mean, to come out in the open, and say: "Greece has every right to change the name of Macedonia". Enlighten me, are there such countries?
We are free men, we bow to nobody, do you understand? There isn't any power in the world that will change this, because IDENTITY IS NOT NEGOTIABLE!!!
In the meantime, we will continue with our process of individual recognition, country by country, until only Greece remains stubborn with its nationalism. Then, we will invent a similarly insulting name for you, and arrange our bilateral relations properly. Our "good guy" politics can not last forever.
I don't see any chance of a solution to YOUR problem with MY name, unless you understand the first two paragraphs above. In the meantime, you should expect Macedonia to slowly move towards more aggressive diplomacy, similar to yours. Enduring this annoyance for 17 years is something we should never have done.
I am really pissed off with this lack of a proper dialog, not in you personally, but in general, in all radicals that are making my life bitter, although I didn't do any harm to nobody. I've just had it. I will probably reply less and less to your comments (but I won't forget to moderate), and will focus more on spreading our side of the story to others. I don't mind if you do the same.
Goodbytes, your country have chosen a nationalistic party to be the government with a 48% percentage while our nationalistic party barely won a 4% of the vote. The problem isn't so much the name as the fact we find you nationalistic and dangerous to the area. Your claims while solid are hiding behind them evil thoughts, and there is absolutely nothing you have actually done to prove us otherwise.Even when Macedonia was liberated from the Turks by Greece you were the only ones that wanted it an indepedent state, and since then although you are not living in the area you still bark about it. Yes, we are the nationalists, keep dreaming Goodbytes.
Since when is having a policy to uphold a democratic right of self-determination nationalist? If that is the definition of nationalist, then nationalist becomes a default for all nations and for all people. If that's what nationalist is, then yes, I am one and I would vote for such a party.
Be careful at what you say.
Linktothepast, it is Karamanlis who won the elections tightly by increasing the nationalist rhetoric, according to what I have read in the press during the recent Greek campaign. Gruevski, on the other hand, won overwhelmingly (presumably) because of his results in the past 20 months while he was in power (not that he had any real competition, since the opposition is fractioned, battling internally for domination, and plus compromised in the past years, considering all the bad moves they made - and the people remember them, obviously).
Gruevski's party VMRO-DPMNE is considered right-wing conservative party. I wouldn't consider it "nationalistic", if we have in mind what it had done for the minorities, for example. Anyway, this party is changed much to the positive, if we compare it's beginnings in the early 1990-es, when the entire Balkan political climate was inclined towards nationalistic outbursts, which unfortunately led to more than a decade of wars.
BTW, is your nationalist party LAOS, led by Georgios Karatzaferis? Because it recently called for a death penalty for those citizens of Greece who claim they are ethnic Macedonians. I mean, come on, this is not comparable to ANY party in Macedonia, including the former terrorists lead by Ali Ahmeti. Patriots LOVE their country, these lunatics HATE everything that's different from them by some standard.
And to conclude this reply which was supposed to be short, the name issue was not dominant in the Gruevski campaign, he focused more on his achievements. The most important thing he said related to the name issue was that:
1. He will continue talks with Greece.
2. If a proposal on the table is not likely to pass the referendum (i.e. the name is insulting), he will reject it right away.
3. If the proposal has a chance to pass a referendum, he will organize one.
This is pretty un-hostile, right?
Unhostile seems only to words, and actions is what matters and people are judged by. His actions are that of a nationalist. As for New Democracy, and your VMRO–DPMNE, which i would bet a thousand euros that you voted for, here are wikipedias references to what each party ideologies stand for ;-) (look at the right column).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMRO-DPMNE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy_(Greece)
Ah, yeah i forgot, to you anything that goes against your countries wishes like Nato, EE, etc. is unwanted since you are a socialist or something lol. Also, Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks and pretty much all your neighbours that see you as fake Macedonians, are all wrong and you are right. Also every source that goes against your liking doesn't exist or is irrelevant and an act of propaganda. Lol, what a non-nationalist you are.
And Bojan is that a threat or something from another socialist, non nationalist fellow that visits this blog?
"Be careful at what you say".
Or what?
Linktothepast, you say: "actions is what matters and people are judged by".
1. List here the hostile actions made by our prime minister. Let's finally see what bothers you, what we do wrong.
2. New Democracy has "National conservatism" among it's ideologies. Are we talking here different shades of gray? Anyway, as you say, "actions are what matters": this party denies the existence of the Macedonian minority. Is this a racist party? A fascist party? A genocidal party?
3. "all your neighbours that see you as fake Macedonians, are all wrong and you are right"
Correct! a) Am I alive? b) Do I proclaim myself as Macedonian? No further proof is necessary. Those who deny us are just making asses out of themselves to anybody who has eyes.
Yes, be careful at what you say. There is no "or else". Just that. It's an advice to mind what you say not to offend certain parties on this blog. Why do you interpret anything and everything as a hostile act, even when it is not addressed as such?
As far as sourcing. You can quote any source you wish, ANY! But please don't insult me by sourcing everything to Wikipedia. I'm ready to accept criticism, but not from the ultimately biased Wiki.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions which I had posted at least 3-4 times.
Dear GoodBytes it is very clear that you would like to rewrite history from the beggining..
We understood it ..calm now !
It is obvious You cannot ... Because if you could , your nation wouldn't asked for our recognition ..it is a fact ..you feel so anxious and nervous for that , this is why you are nogotiating ...
Yourself Dear author goodbytes again seems so nervous of the lack of cultural knowledge of historical facts,that is why you are offering just BLA...BLA.BLA....
It is obvious you cannot convince any ..
Dear Bojan SlavicMacedonian language ..convince Bulgaria to accept it as Macedonian only And we will do the same ..!
It is also obvious you cannot convince any party of NATO or EU or international forrum that you may participate with your constitutional name .. That is why all parties at NATO except of course US ( it is so common that Mr BUSH's the 2nd administration was the worst ever US had -even Americans admin that !) said no ..It is not our Veto ...All the members said NO -minus ONE VOTE- BUT even they aggreed to sign the common announcement "You are not ready" ....
'My very relevant questions are still not being answered.!
Why shouldn't Macedonia change its name when you are not connected to that name ? when as ethnic group you have no connection to that name , You have nothing to demostrate on behalf of this name ..!
Dear author Your words
"And to conclude this reply which was supposed to be short, the name issue was not dominant in the Gruevski campaign, he focused more on his achievements. The most important thing he said related to the name issue was that:
1. He will continue talks with Greece.
2. If a proposal on the table is not likely to pass the referendum (i.e. the name is insulting), he will reject it right away.
3. If the proposal has a chance to pass a referendum, he will organize one."
So excellent news..you are negotiating the name !!!!
Do I have to remind you the historical facts of two countries ?Republic Of China and their arguements with People's Republic of China (the today CHINA!!)
WHAT left from Republic Of China is the name TAIWAN !!
And they had many more commons than your nothings ....
Keep it in your mind !!!!!!
Many thanks for your hospitallity ..
PANAGIOTIS M, in this case, history is not important, only common sense and international laws. Rewrite history? As you can see, I don't even want to go in that direction. Do I have to spell it out for you, can't you see the cornerstone of my arguments for yourself?
However, history is important only to you nationalists, to justify the oppression your country does over Macedonia and Macedonians, wherever they live. To you, history abuse is an EXCUSE for your fascist country's laws that promote racism.
Honestly, whenever I see sentences mentioning ancient Greece or Macedonia, Alexander or anything similar, I skip through whole paragraphs. I don't care about those "facts" until you prove that this part of the human history is in your exclusive possession, which you haven't done so far. It is actually one of the reasons why the educated people have you as a laughing stock, you and your pathetic "arguments".
We are negotiating a name, but only in the frame "The "double formula"". That is as much as you will get.
Dear Author ,If I am Nationalist (which I am not !) You are Hyper Nationalist (come on admit it ...)...Don't hide your feelings behind easy words..From the beggining you based your country's name on ancient Macedonians history or others Modern Times History ....that is why you are teaching that history at your schools as your's ?...You tried to name your airport as ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ if this is not an abusement what left to be ?
You are demostrating your desires for such abuse every day passes more and more !!! I wish you all the best and thanks for your hospitallity ..!!
Post a Comment