http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html - http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

 

mailto:ancient-scholars@macedonia-evidence.org -

 

Political dimesion  originated from the ill-conceived decision by Bush administration to recognize FYROM as the Republic of “Macedonia,” clearly became the catalyst of a more aggressive stance by FYROM that can presently be perceived as hostile towards Greece, a NATO ally of the US for many years. Obama administration should reverse  Bush  decision, recognize them again as FYROM, and actually block their NATO integration until a new name is found. In addition the US should condemn in the strongest terms their irredentist and aggressive behavior, as  mentioned in the letter.  It is imperative that a negotiated mutually acceptable solution also includes change of the FYROM constitutional name to the new agreed name, i.e. change in their passports and use of that name erga omnes.

 

The academic dimension is clear because the names that undersigned this letter are so huge and any comment by me will be a  tom-fool thing to do.

It deals with questions/discussions popular in 19th century. This topic was actual for newly developing nations (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs etc.) in 19th century but nowadays it is just wrong.

 

 

Thank you!

Al-Jassas

 

  http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/fyrom-denies-ethnic-sovereignty-of.html - http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/fyrom-denies-ethnic-sovereignty-of.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Worthington, Malcolm Errington and Paul Cartledge are also Greek nationalists ?

 

On a closer look, it seems this letter was initiated by one American archaeologist and slowly got more and more co-signers. Here's a reply to it:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6898/1/ - http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6898/1/

 

From the previous link I found this brief article, somehow related to the question:

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/7.html - http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/7.html

 

 

 

 

Of course it is historical. For more than 150 years it is called as such.

 

I give you one more example that happen in other continent. Under the title "Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Calls for 'Absolut' Vodka Boycott," Fox News published on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 a report that covered an advertisement of Absolut Vodka, which showed an 1830's map of Mexico and the United States where most of the modern western United States was still part of Mexico. The ad headline was "In an Absolut World".  People got angered and the company issued an apology.!!!   Could anyone imagine how do the Greeks feel when the map is not an advertisement, but appears in FYROM government sponsored publications, including schoolbooks? How would an American feel if the Mexican government was responsible for the map shown above?  Can anyone imagine if the government of Mexico published the above map what would the reaction of the official United States be? This is exactly what Greece and to a lesser extent, Bulgaria are facing every single day with the government of the FYROM.

 

 

 

 

  

 

This banknote was printed  for publish usage from the FYROM administration on 15 January of 1991 but somehow was stoped.The name of the bill was "makedonka"  and  the official money of the FYROM , DENAR, which consist of 100 DENI, has been introduced in circulation 20th of April 1993. All these scholars that undersigned this letter they know the historical background of this FYROM moovement. More informations in http://antikviteti.net/cms/modules/articles/article.php?id=29 - http://antikviteti.net/cms/modules/articles/article.php?id=29

This is a lie, Macedonian government rejected to publish this banknote which printing was offered by leading opposition party. I guess you know it very well. If your scholars were familiar with the historical background regarding the name of the state and the nation they would know the banknote story well as it was quite scandalous. Thus they are either not experts or simply mislead their readers and the adressee. 

 

There are quite a few Macedonian scholars around the world. I supposse they should write an open letter to Obama citing this draft   

 

This is not between Greece and Republic of Macedonia only, but Bulgaria, Albania and to lesser extent probably Serbia must be involved in finding solution for this issue.

Prof Miller in http://macedonia-evidence.org/letter-1-archaeology.html - his website also has publish and this letter that was a response to the accuracies of the "of Archaeology" magazine that promote FYROM as another home of the Great Alexander.

Be more cautious please.

 

 

So irredentism is dangerous when comes from FYROM but acceptable when it comes from Greece or its lobbyists?

 

However, the two letters hold obvious signs of a same discourse, the later one polished for an audience which would likely not welcome a violent anti-FYROM rant. For example:

 

Jan 22, 2009:

 

May 18, 2009:

Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia [linked refs: Thucydides apud Pal. Anth. 7.45; Pausanias 1.2.2; Diodorus Siculus 13.103.] – wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, and in Greek.  While in Macedonia, Euripides also wrote the Bacchai, again in Greek.  Presumably the Macedonian audience could understand what he wrote and what they heard.

 

 

Jan 22, 2009:

What was the language of instruction when Aristotle taught Alexander?  What language was carried by Alexander with him on his expedition to the East?  Why do we have ancient inscriptions in Greek in settlements established by Alexander as far away as Afghanistan, and none in Slavic?  Why did Greek become the lingua franca in Alexander’s empire if he was actually a “Macedonian”?  Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?
 

May 18, 2009:

 

As regards the phrase ... Greece should annex Paionia – that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. ... that written and sent it  in an letter to the archaelogy magasine  is an sarcasm  for the Slavmacedonians because want to be descents of the ancient ones.

 

Anyway you can e-mail him and ask him for further details.

I'm leaving aside the questions of ancient Macedon, especially those controversial aspects which this letter fails to acknowledge, but since when Classical studies deal with modern identities? With the history of the modern Balkans? 

 

As regards the phrase ... Greece should annex Paionia – that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. ...is an sarcasm  for the Slavmacedonians because want to be descents of the ancient ones.

Double standards. Any symbol or discourse from FYROM, no matter how unofficial, innocent, or even sarcastic, which relates to Greece is augmented and distorted and turned into an accusation of irredentism.

 

Anyway you can e-mail him and ask him for further details.

I see enough in his letters, I don't need further details.

These Scholars aim in the cultural identity and not in the national. Antony D. Smith  remarks that there are two main kinds of ethnic extinction in the full sense: genocide and ethnocide, which is sometimes - at times misleadingly — called «cultural genocide». In one sense genocide is a rare and probably modern phenomenon. It includes those cases where we know that mass death of a cultural group was premeditated and the basis of that targeting was exclusively the existence and membership of that cultural group.

Greeks  from  Macedonia, in no way identified with or related to the newly formed independent state referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” ; They instead insulted by the fact that I cannot be known as a Macedonian without being identified by others as related to FYROM. This is a rape of theirs identity and a continuing cultural genocide.

This is the point of the letter as regards the connection with the modern identity
and history at the Balkans.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by akritas As regards the phrase ... Greece should annex Paionia – that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. ...is an sarcasm  for the Slavmacedonians because want to be descents of the ancient ones. Double standards. Any symbol or discourse from FYROM, no matter how unofficial, innocent, or even sarcastic, which relates to Greece is augmented and distorted and turned into an accusation of irredentism.

Its your opinion. You can mail him as I said if you want......

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by akritas Anyway you can e-mail him and ask him for further details. I see enough in his letters, I don't need further details.

...but you dont doing.

-------------

 

 

Antony D. Smith  remarks that there are two main kinds of ethnic extinction in the full sense: genocide and ethnocide, which is sometimes - at times misleadingly — called «cultural genocide». In one sense genocide is a rare and probably modern phenomenon. It includes those cases where we know that mass death of a cultural group was premeditated and the basis of that targeting was exclusively the existence and membership of that cultural group. Greeks  from  Macedonia, in no way identified with or related to the newly formed independent state referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” ; They instead insulted by the fact that I cannot be known as a Macedonian without being identified by others as related to FYROM. This is a rape of theirs identity and a continuing cultural genocide. This is the point of the letter as regards the connection with the modern identity and history at the Balkans.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the culture of Greeks in Macedonia is any immediate danger, on the contrary, Greece is rather famous in Balkans for its assimilation policies and it was criticized repeatedly for its flawed policy against minorities. The claims of identity rape and cultural genocide are unfounded and rather say something about those holding such claims.

 

The Moldovans from Romania (which has a historical region named in Moldova and its inhabitants are named consequently) generally do not feel insulted by the existence of a Moldovan nation, though the latter includes also ethnic Russians and Ukrainians.

 

 

FYROM's  is a a multi-ethnic state only to the papers. Slavmacedonians have block the Albanians from the UN talks as regards the State name issue because they  know  that Albanians are more ready to accept a compromise on the name  in exchange for a swift NATO and EU accession.

 

Your thesis that one scholar that involve with the ancient history doesnt have the right to deposit  his/hers opinion as regards modern cultural circumstances  is dogmatic. Every scholar-specially with that acedemic range-  is free to express his opinion.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by akritas Antony D. Smith  remarks that there are two main kinds of ethnic extinction in the full sense: genocide and ethnocide, which is sometimes - at times misleadingly — called «cultural genocide». In one sense genocide is a rare and probably modern phenomenon. It includes those cases where we know that mass death of a cultural group was premeditated and the basis of that targeting was exclusively the existence and membership of that cultural group. Greeks  from  Macedonia, in no way identified with or related to the newly formed independent state referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” ; They instead insulted by the fact that I cannot be known as a Macedonian without being identified by others as related to FYROM. This is a rape of theirs identity and a continuing cultural genocide. This is the point of the letter as regards the connection with the modern identity and history at the Balkans. There's no evidence whatsoever that the culture of Greeks in Macedonia is any immediate danger, on the contrary, Greece is rather famous in Balkans for its assimilation policies and it was criticized repeatedly for its flawed policy against minorities. The claims of identity rape and cultural genocide are unfounded and rather say something about those holding such claims.

Tell me one Balkan state that not make assimilation policies all these years before accuse Greece  for that ?

 

 

Albania should be involved as there is huge ethnical Albanian component and Albania can be as a state representing albanian interests. Bulgaria holds part of Macedonia and thus is basically in a similar position as Greece, and also can support Macedonians in their claims as soon as they are not crazy :) I do not know about Tirana but Sofia can certainly help them to develop economically and politically and pursuade other EU states to push on Greece in this stupid EU ban.

 

-Akolouthos

What makes this position different from a similar position of a Macedonian from FYROM? Can't  they be insulted by the fact that they cannot be known as Macedonians (as they called themselves for more than 150 years) without being confused by others as related to Greece province? What is so insulting to be confused with this state anyway? My grandmom calls herself Macedonian sometimes (which is not contradiction with Bulgarian in her case) --  should she be offended if somebody thinks she is Greek?

 

This is the point of the letter as regards the connection with the modern identity and history at the Balkans.

No, that wasn't the point of the letter. The point of the letter was that those people (Macedonian) don't have right to call themelves by the name they (or at least many of them) used for quite many years. This point was defended by weak arguments including misleadding and wrongly interpreted stories.

 

Sarcasm that you mentioned cannot be used in such a delicate situation. Those people, Akritas, are scientists, they should think twice or even more before they write. Especially if they write an official letter published in mass media.

 

A Greek Macedonian(ancient, medieval and modern) identified as Makedonas 2500 years now.

In the Slavonic languages of FYROM and Bulgaria the adjective Macedonian, both in its ethnic and regional provenance is spelled in an identical form as makedonski. On the other hand, in the Greek language the same adjective Macedonian, in its regional/cultural/historical context, appears as makedonikos (-i or -o for the feminine and neuter endings).

I am not sure I understand your point here. So in Bulgarian it will be Makedonec in Greek it will be Makedonikos. Where is the difference? To me it is essentially the same.

 

 

So the problem indicated in the English language and the term "Macedonian".Thus, the term "Macedonian"  to denote such an identity in Greece not only fails to respect Hellenic cultural heritage and the identify of 2.5 million Greek Macedonians living there, but also threatens to create a serious confusion or even a potential clash over identities in the whole region.

But your protests also fail to respect their name, used for at least several generations. What is the difference again?  

 

 

One solution is the name of the State and the nationality to be for all usages with the Slavic form. FYROM has rejected this in 1994.

 

Hooray! I've missed the heack out of you, buddy.

 

-Akolouthos

 

Anyway, there was an exchange of public letters between Stephen Miller and Dan Tompkins:

http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-March/010453.html - http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-March/010453.html

http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-March/010456.html - http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-March/010456.html

http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-March/010459.html - http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-March/010459.html

 

etc. (if you browse the archives you'll find many good points on Ancient Macedon or on the modern FYROM vs Greece issue)

 

Also, it seems Stephen Miller was initially answering to this:

 

http://www.archaeology.org/0901/abstracts/letter.html - http://www.archaeology.org/0901/abstracts/letter.html

 

 

 

 

I agree with you, but we don't write open letters to leaders of most powerful countries, do we? And even if we were writing nobody would listen to us as we are (most of us) amateur, not professionals. Whereas those people are professionals, their opinion is more influencial although not necessarily more balanced or unbiased. Miller's position didn't look balanced to me at all, by the way.

Dont play with the words. I repeat them -with blue fonts- again since you avoid some of my remarks.  I know that you are Bulgarian and not recognize  diffrent nationality and language -as Greece do- since you consider them as Bulgarian.

Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by akritas So the problem indicated in the English language and the term "Macedonian".Thus, the term "Macedonian"  to denote such an identity in Greece not only fails to respect Hellenic cultural heritage and the identify of 2.5 million Greek Macedonians living there, but also threatens to create a serious confusion or even a potential clash over identities in the whole region. But your protests also fail to respect their name, used for at least several generations. What is the difference again?

I expalined it in my previous comment.

Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by akritas One solution is the name of the State and the nationality to be for all usages with the Slavic form. FYROM has rejected this in 1994. Variants like Slavomakedonec or Makedonoslav or whatever else sound weird and is not what used to be their name. Why don't you guys call yourself Greekomacedonians or Hellenomakedonikos (or how would it be according to Greek language grammar)? Because it sounds stupid. Similar logic have people in Skopje.

Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by akritas You confuse the letters. No I don't. I read both and they are about the same stuff and one is used as a basis for another. Anyway, the main question is -- who are those people to decide how a particular group of people should call themselves? And how one of them can offer Greece to annex an independent European state?

No they are not the same staff. That's why 248 World Professors  undersigned this letter because Miller avoid any sarcasm.

-------------

I said  ancient, medieval and modern.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Both Macedonians of FYROM and Greece know themselves to be Macedonians since they were born. Shouldn't them both be allowed to regard themselves as Macedonians?

And how segregate or identify a Macedonian from Greece  from a  Macedonian from FYROM if both use the same name ?

Flip I leave out the known historical revensionism of the FYROM educational system  crucial part of the known ideology  slavmacedonism or pseudomacedonism. I am staying only in the self-identification as express in the English language and in the noun "Macedonian".

 

Actually you are wrong, most of his works are still being cited very well by other colleagues. Regarding similarities of Japanese amd Africans -- I wouldn't cite this letter of Cavalli-Sforza frequently. It was a typical blackmailing, rather than critical review. Anyway, my comment was about his political comment that he made, something he has no expertise about. Here I see an analogy with the letter you have posted in this thread.

 

There is nothing controversial in his methodology, Filipp, even though not everybody agrees with his conclusions. Besides, there is no agreement among scholars between ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians and you know it very well.  So, even in this respect both cases are similar. But once again my major point was that both Arnaiz-Villena and Miller made a political comment which is unacceptable for a scientist. With some obvious exceptions of course.

No, actually not. I do not consider them as Bulgarians. Not the modern ones. As for the rest, I still do mot understand your argument. Forgive me my stupidity.

 

 

I  spoke for Makedontsi or Makedonci as identified themselves in theirs language and not for the variants that you speak.

 

You are wrong again as usual.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena

 

furher details in the references since wiki is a source that anyone can edit but not the original ones.

 

 

 

 

 

-In FYROM the noun Macedonians (Makedonci – Makedontsi – in the local Slavic language) identifies, (a) in the legal sense, all citizens of the Republic (including Slavs, Albanians, Greeks, Roma etc), and (b) in the ethnic/national sense, a million and a half local Slavs.

-In Greece the noun Macedonians (Μακεδόνες – Makedones – in the Greek language) identifies, in the regional/cultural sense, almost two and a half million ethnic Greeks of the region of Greek Macedonia.

-In Bulgaria the same name Macedonians (Makedonci – Makedontsi – in Bulgarian) identifies, in the regional sense, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Bulgarian.

 

To complicate matters further, there is a fourth, historical dimension of the name Macedonians, which refers to the first "owners" of the name, i.e. the Greek-speaking people who inhabited roughly the region of present-day Greek Macedonia in classical times and identified themselves as Μακεδόνες (Makedones) in their Greek language.

 

The adjective "Macedonian"

 

The adjective Macedonian derives:

(a) from the noun of the geographical region Macedonia, and

(b) from the noun of the name of the people in its regional, ethnic, historical variants as described above. As such, the Macedonian adjective describes identities of persons (Macedonian community, minority, people, personalities), abstract values (Macedonian history, culture, traditions), institutions/associations (Macedonian administrative, scientific, professional, educational, civic, business/commercial, religious), as well as tangible objects and items (products, publications, etc).

 

In the Slavonic languages of FYROM and Bulgaria the adjective Macedonian, both in its ethnic and regional provenance is spelled in an identical form as makedonski. On the other hand, in the Greek language the same adjective Macedonian, in its regional/cultural/historical context, appears as makedonikos (-i or -o for the feminine and neuter endings).

Do you need more details or you still dont understand?

 

He answered in his resopnse to Cavali-Sforza's letter that 1) it is quite a common practice and 2) that they are testing other markers in his lab.

 

No scientist other than Villena have come to such a conclusion, while what Miller suggests represents 1 of the 2 school of thoughts on that matter. There's a big difference in that case.

 

There are some studies on similarities between Palestinian Arabs  and Jews. Look for instance the following ones:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17652848?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17652848?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

or this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153918 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153918

 

If you don't have access to this article (they find not only similarities but also differences) here is their conclusion:

 

According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban http://www.springerlink.com/content/4b9fltx6cnc9l18q/fulltext.html#N2105 - 1971 ; Mc Graw Donner http://www.springerlink.com/content/4b9fltx6cnc9l18q/fulltext.html#N2073 - 1981 ). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil http://www.springerlink.com/content/4b9fltx6cnc9l18q/fulltext.html#N2039 - 1992 ). On the other hand, the ancestors of the great majority of present-day Jews lived outside this region for almost two millennia. Thus, our findings are in good agreement with historical evidence and suggest genetic continuity in both populations despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews.

Look also citations therein.

 

Forthe list of cosigners that has grown to 249 see the   http://%20macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html#addenda - Addenda .