A former Premier of Macedonia: I am a bul

Originally posted by Krum Who is that guy Mitko?Did someone notice his signature?If i translate it to you i'm sure he will be banned.

Well, I've already sent a translation of this BS to the moderators.

Originally posted by Dan Carkner This thread is foolish, for example a minority of canadians declare themselves to be truly americans, yet I don't see any threads saying how this proves that Canadians are "Really" americans (which could equally be proven).  If a lot of people from an area declare they are a nation, then they are a nation.  It will never be 100%, especially when all the surrounding countries are hostile to the idea.  Ok, you can challenge their historical claims but you can't take away that self-identification.  As for saying they are a mixed people and are therefore doomed to collapse, that is just ridiculous, every people in the world is mixed to some degree.  For example is Great Britain doomed to collpase because it is an unholy mixture of Vikings, saxons, celtic, normans etc?  History could never allow such a creature to live!

Dear Dan Carkner, the matter is not if the modern Macedonians want to call themselves being Macedonian as an independent nation. They have the right to call themselves whatever they like - IIRC, around 7000 Australians claimed to be Jedis and they had no problem about it. At least no problem with me, especially since few people could take that seriously. The matter is that this "self-identification" can be abused by stealing the historical legacy of other countries and claiming this legacy to be of the new nation and not of the old one (especially since there are no real evidences for such a claim). Otherwise, I could start claiming that the Bulgarians are direct, absolute and sole descendants of the ancient and glorious Persian Empire. Furthermore, I could even claim that we're descendants also of the Summerians, one of the first civilized humans we know of! I admit, I've actually heard such nonsence from one Bulgarian called Iolo Denev. But then again - he's well known to have mental problems and absolutely no sane man takes him serious. And even you, although (let's say) you don't know much about Bulgarian or Balkan history, if you hear that Iolo Denev is claiming that Abraham, Jesus Christ and Mohammed were actually Bulgarians, you'd most definitely have a good laugh at such a rediculous statement. However, if we claim something not so obviously rediculous and then start claiming more and more, it would be harder for those, who are not familiar enough with the subject, to see the absurdity of these claims and could thus be led into a dellusion, which is in the best case quite annoying. Therefore, my personal position on the freedom of self-identification (just like with the freedom of speech in the case of the Mohammed drawings scandal) is that it should exist, but it should be carefully considered, i.e. I can call myself a Sumero-Persian, but if I want the others to acknowledge me as such, I'll have to present to the world evidences about my claims. And in the Macedonian case there are no such evidences, concerning the connection between the modern Macedonians and Alexander the Great, neither about the "Macedonian but non-Bulgarian self-consciousness" of Tsar Samuil. And I'll also remind everyone about the reverse case - if a Macedonian, like the concrete subject of this thread, wants to have a Bulgarian passport, he must meet several requirements, one of which is to actually prove his Bulgarian legacy. It's another matter that our services seemingly don't pay such great attention to that and they let Macedonians, who want Bulgarian citizenship only for the EU passport. So, all in all, IMHO you could claim to be a Macedonian, a Jedi, an Orc, a Shummerian or whatever else, but if you want to be taken seriously by the others, you'll have to prove being such!

I have heard that "Bulgarians are tatars from Asia" by a person who lived some time in Skopje (not Slavomacedonian).
It seems like a predominant ideology of the official propaganda for Bulgarians.
On the other hand nobody can deny that before 1944,and absolutely before the end of 19th century if one Slav had national identity in this area  ,considered himself as Bulgarian and nothing different.
The rest about "Makedones" (for Greeks) and "Makedonci" were nothing more than regional identification.

Originally posted by bg_turk Originally posted by NikeBG At least no problem with me, especially since few people could take that seriously. The matter is that this "self-identification" can be abused by stealing the historical legacy of other countries and claiming this legacy to be of the new nation and not of the old one (especially since there are no real evidences for such a claim). Otherwise, I could start claiming that the Bulgarians are direct, absolute and sole descendants of the ancient and glorious Persian Empire. Your analogy is flawed. The Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia are descendants of Samuil, and the capital of his state was in Macedonia. They have a very strong case to claim Samuil as one of their own. The Macedonian nation can lay claims on Samuil as much as the Bulgarian nation can, as they both are the descendants of the people that Samuil once ruled.

I'm sorry, BG_Turk, but your reply to this is wrong. You seem to, deliberately or not, not read what I've written - "direct, absolute and sole descendants". Of course that most of the modern Macedonians can have claims to Tsar Samuil, as much as they're a part of the Bulgarian ethnos whose ruler was Tsar Samuil. The thing is, that one part of the Bulgarians seems to "keep" Samuil only for itself and to make him be a tsar of an "independent Macedonia, separate and different than Bulgaria in the Middle Ages", which is a clear historical falsification and pure absurd.

Originally posted by bg_turk Originally posted by NikeBG So, all in all, IMHO you could claim to be a Macedonian, a Jedi, an Orc, a Shummerian or whatever else, but if you want to be taken seriously by the others, you'll have to prove being such! You make it seem as if these people have one day woken up and all of a sudden decided to call themselves Macedonian. In fact, they have been calling themselves Macedonian for centuries as can be shown through their folklore, an example being "Makedonsko devoyche". Despite all the brainwashing that goes in Bulgarian history textbooks about the unquestionable Bulgarianness of Macedonians, there still exist people in Bulgaria who identify themselves as Macedonian, but Bulgaria continues to deny their party registration. The problem with Macedonia is that it is a very young nation that has just been born and is in the process of its national "engineering". Bulgaria and Greece have gone through this process much earlier, and they feel deeply disturbed that their unfettered privatization of historical issues is now being challenged by this new nation, as it is shaking to the grounds the various nationalistic myths. To single out Macedonian history, while turning a blind eye to Bulgarian and Greek history, which are as nationalistic and in many cases full of fabrications and exaggerations as well, is preposterous. Neither Bulgarians nor Greeks, with their dubious record of interpreting history to fit their nationalistic ideals, have the moral high ground to lecture Macedonians.

No, the Macedonians have definitely not woken up one day and decided they want to be separate. On the contrary - their brainwashing process took at least half a century ever since the commies decided to "create a new Macedonian nation". We are just seeing the final results now.
As for the Macedonians calling themselves Macedonians for centuries - the people from Thrace have called themselves Thracians for centuries too. However, that doesn't mean that those from the Bulgarian parts of Thrace are not Bulgarians or that they claim to be ancient Thracians. Same with me, as being mostly Shop - I'm a Shop, because I live in the Shopluk region, but that doesn't contradict to my Bulgarian nationality. Same as for you, even more - you're a Rhodopean (Kurdzhali, right?), but you're also a Bulgarian Turk. I believe you do have the basic intelligence, which is required that even a 5 year old kid could make the difference between a region and a nationality.
For the rest of your post, I'd rather not comment much. Although I will say some things. Because it seems to me that you're back on your (no offence) hypocritycal track to blame the others for things, which are clearly shown in yourself as well. And - yes, I do admit that every national history, be it Bulgarian, Greek or British, contains a nice ammount of myths. This is more or less unavoidable since history is written by humans and humans do make mistakes, intentional or not. However, the difference between the abovementioned myths and those of the kind like the Macedonian ones is that:
1. The first are usually aimed at raising your own history (i.e. the British longbowmen were superior to all others, Bulgarians smashed through the Byzantines like a hot knife through butter) while the latter are aimed at diminishing the other's history and eventually to take what has been diminished to yourself (i.e. the first are more of "history exaggeration",  while the latter are pure "history stealing").
2. The first, due to being under much better control, don't exaggerate too much, while the latter claim absolutely rediculous things.
I.e. the first are in the group of "minor and free for repair history exaggeration", while the latter are in the group of "major and abusive stealing of other's history". I don't know if you have a problem with history stealing or not (honestly, it seems to me that you only wanted to make some more noise about "oh, the poor discriminated minority" and didn't really care about the truth), but I do have a serious problem with cases of such insolent history stealing like this. As well as with the "history exaggeration" group, btw...
Btw, it's also funny that once again you blamed Bulgaria and Greece for "their dubious record of interpreting history to fit their nationalistic ideals", but yet you forgot to mention some other countries, like Turkey f.e. Now, was that intentional or it just got out of your mind? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.


Edited by NikeBG - 18-Dec-2006 at 10:25

So,even if we want to base history on regionalism let's take a look on how the region was called during Samuil's era.
The map shows Byzantine Empire in 1025,just after the conquest of Samuil's state by Basil II.

N.46=Bulgaria.



Edited by Brainstorm - 22-Dec-2006 at 05:51

No, sorry. Turks are descendants of Thracians

Is it a map of provinces or themas?

Originally posted by Anton Is it a map of provinces or themas?

It says "Themas o provincias". And I see thema Macedonia (№2), thema Paristrion (47) and thema Bulgaria (46).
Btw, an interesting topic is why is thema Macedonia so far from modern FYROM. I guess everyone knows that by now, except probably the Macedonians themselves (and possibly BG_Turk, although he might actually be more of a Macedonian than the FYROMians).

Byzantine Themata(plural of Thema) was an institution of the second half of 7th century.
The institution expanded in European part of the empire after the re-establishment of rule over the Sklavenoi-so the first Themata are organized there too.
Names of Themata were at first names of military units ,but soon geographical terms.
Also as time was passing on and the institution was developing there was a general tend to cut themata into smaller pieces-as the number of soldiers was increasing and also because Emperors  wanted  to reduce local officers power.
So a big Thema as thema Makedonias-at first including Macedonia and other regions too,could be cut in smaller pieces so as at the end the term "Thema Makedonias" to be located in Eastern Thrace.

As for Bulgarian Themata.
"Paristrion" was formed by Ioannis Tzimiskes in 971 after he conquered the land defeating Rus.
(Para-(next to) Istros(-Danube river)
"Thema Bulgarias" was formed by Basil in 1018.

Note that general Kekaumenos in the "Strategikon" ,in 1070's calls just "Bulgaria" the region of today FYROM (Prilep,Ochrid etc).

I have read once in a Slavomacedonian forum that the revolt of Leon Tornicius in 1047 in Adrianople was a Macedonian uprising against the Romei
(Adrianople-capital of "Thema Makedonias"
Tornicius family =byzantine family descended from Iberia/Georgia)
Also that Anna Komnena when speaks for Macedonians,Thracians and Thessalians as divisions of the Byzantine army she means nationalities of course.


Edited by Brainstorm - 22-Dec-2006 at 05:53

Originally posted by NikeBG 1. If you don't know (who knows, perhaps you really don't) - Samuil ruled not only over Macedonia, but also over Sredec, Bdin and for quite some time over the whole rest of Bulgaria. Samuil didn't lose Moesia in the beginning of his reign - on the contrary. And in all cases he was a tsar "of all Bulgarians", not only of the Macedonian Bulgarians, which, even if they might have been "the core", were not the only ones.

You refer to the slavs that inhabited Macedonia then as Bulgarians. What is the evidence that the they actually called themselves Bulgarian?

2. So you're saying that there were no Bulgarians in the Middle Ages? And that f.e. Simeon didn't call himself "basileos of Bulgarians and Greeks"? Ok, if some English-speaker would've said that, I would've understood, since English seems to be not so good on this matter. But since you're a Bulgarian speaker, you can clearly make the difference between what we call "националност" (i.e. the modern meaning of nationality) and "народност" (which was present far far before the modern meaning would appear). Of course, if you're intentionally trying to change the truth, so that it would fit your desire, I understand why would you "forget" this difference. Although it's a great shame for you...

What I am saying is that what constituted a "Bulgarian" in 1014 is vastly different from what constitutes a Bulgarian today.
The medieval Bulgarian "natioanlity" does not exist anymore as it has split into two subgroups, and Macedonians being one of this subgroup have the right to consider Samuil as an ancestor of theirs.

3. "If you had taken control of Macedonia during the Balkan wars you would have brainwashed them to be Bulgarians too." We wouldn't need to - most of the population from that particular area of Macedonia, now known as FYROM, already considered itself Bulgarian, as it can be seen in several foreign or local observations, as well as with the referendum for the Bulgarian Exarchate.

Your assertions that the population considered itself Bulgarian stems from your nationalist aspirations, rather than any realistic evaluation of the situation. The fact that slavic Macedonians may have opted to be included in the Exarchate is not proof that they felt Bulgarian, it simply demonstrates the self-evident fact they felt closer to Bulgarians than to Greeks. Some slavic Macedonians did not consider themselves Bulgarian at the time, on the contrary many have very bad memories of the Bulgarian occupation of Macedonia during the World Wars for example.
Many people in Bulgaria believe that the Macedonians were always Bulgarians and think of the Macedonians as being part of some Serbian conspiracy to create a separate nation. I find this kind of reasonisn not only naive, but also quite egocentric. Bulgarians think that only the Macedonians were the victims of nationalistic propaganda, when in reality as members of the Bulgarian nation they too were brainwashed into being Bulgarian.



Edited by bg_turk - 22-Dec-2006 at 03:26