Print Page | Close Window

The Macedonian Question.

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: The Minefield
Forum Discription: Controversial topics. Only mods can start new topics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23916
Printed Date: 23-May-2022 at 22:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Macedonian Question.
Posted By: HEROI
Subject: The Macedonian Question.
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 18:38
The soon to come sumit of NATO in Bukurest is expected to Invite the (Adriatic card*) Trio of Countries to join NATO,Albania ,Croatia and Macedonia.
 
For Croatia is almost certain the invitation,and is to a degree almost certain for Albania to,
But not for Macedonia,who still has its poroblems going on with Greece regarding its very name which Greece objects to it being Macedonia.
Untill now Macedonia has been called FYROM internationaly,and Greece has threatened to use its veto as a right of an NATO member to deny entry to Macedonia unless it changes its Constitutional name.This are the points.
 
1-) Is Greece right in influencing the Constitution of another indipendent country?
 
2-) Is Macedonia right in claiming historical heritage from ancient Macedonia?
 
3-)Is Greece right in using its NATO membership to deny others entry by veto,and not based on the merits?
 
 
In my opinion Greece is little to blame on this particular issue in the Balkans.Macedonians can not simply try to create an historical heritage on the shoulders of other people who have a sense of history and national belonging for many centuries now.
 
By doing this they are bound to have their way blocked by the big guys of History and Culture in that part of Europe, which are Greece and Bulgaria,and also the Albanians.
 
That does in no way mean that the Nation of Macedonia should not exist,no ,why ever not? Nations have all been created at a time,once the population inhabiting the particular administrative region start to have a sense of national belonging then we are in front of an foregone conclussion,we are dealing with a new nation.
 
To blame thou,in this instance are the politicians and academics in Macedonia,which put at the hart of their new Nation a glorious ancient history,making Alex the Great a Macedonian and at the same time a Slavic person,making Mother Teresa a Macedonian (by ethnicity) simply based on the fact that she was born in Skopje(at a time when it was the ottoman empire anyway) going completely against any hard historical proof,and even contemporary history,as is the case with Mother Teresa.So this kind of behaviour is unacceptable,and Greece i think is right that when faced with such  ludicrous claims,to push for this new nation to have a different name.
 
I expect your reactions guys,but cool reactions please ,lets not get on fire on this topic.Big%20smile


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.



Replies:
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 19:10
This should be moved to the minefield.

1-) Is Greece right in influencing the Constitution of another indipendent country?
 
2-) Is Macedonia right in claiming historical heritage from ancient Macedonia?
 
3-)Is Greece right in using its NATO membership to deny others entry by veto,and not based on the merits?

1)Constitution? Yeah, if that constitution includes offences to Greece.
2)No
3)If based on merits, then none (not even Croatia), would be invited at all.

EDIT: Right at this moment, now, discussions are held in USA between Greece and Fyrom on the name. Perhaps we'll have developments in the next hours.


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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 19:26
Originally posted by xristar


3)If based on merits, then none (not even Croatia), would be invited at all.

 
I am not sure about Croatia because i dont know very well its present state of army and politics.But i absolutely agree with you that Albania and Macedonia are no where near the standarts required to join NATO.Albania has a near inexistent army.while Macedonian Army i think does not have helicopters even.
Inviting this countries to join NATO is made on the basis of peace and stability in the Balkans,not of having extra allies in the NATO.
Anyway not being ready for the standart aquired for the membership,does not mean that any other exsuse can be used against that membership.
If Greece would have objected to Macedonian membership simply on the basis that it does not fulfil the standarts it would have to do the same for Albania,and probably Croatia,and that means risking the stability of the region,so my question still stands.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 19:28
By the way,what offences to Greece has the Macedonian constitution?

-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 19:44
You know already. A name.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 20:42
is not it the right of every country to choose how to call itself on its constitution?
Thats not an offence made to Greece,but its a claim of historical,political,and territorial claims.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 20:55
Originally posted by HEROI

1-) Is Greece right in influencing the Constitution of another indipendent country?
2-) Is Macedonia right in claiming historical heritage from ancient Macedonia?
3-)Is Greece right in using its NATO membership to deny others entry by veto,and not based on the merits?

1.No

2. Yes, Macedonia is right to claim historical heritage from ancient Macedonia, because its territory includes northern regions of ancient Macedonia.

3. No


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 21:03
Originally posted by HEROI

is not it the right of every country to choose how to call itself on its constitution?
Thats not an offence made to Greece,but its a claim of historical,political,and territorial claims.


When Greece already has these historical claims plus the new state would definetley want a border change if they had the power, we have all the rights to be insulted.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 21:55
Roberts,unless we are to into endless debates,claiming to be Alexander's decendant and at the same time claiming to be Slavonic,does not give them to much credit as far as historical heritage would be concerned.Alexander was not a Slav,and ancient Macedonians certainly did not speak Slavonic.The fact that slavo-macedonians speak slavonic,and have slavonic identity,completely rules them out of any historical claim to ancient Macedonia.
 
But as i said,thats not the problem,lets leave history to historians,the problem is that slavo-macedonians today,in through their politicians and their academics put at the very hart of their national identity the ancient macedonian heritage,thats the problem.
 
As for historical evidence sugest quite plainly that Macedonian are Bulgars,or very simmilar people.
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 22:21
Originally posted by Vorian


Originally posted by HEROI

is not it the right of every country to choosehow to call itselfon its constitution?
Thats not an offence made to Greece,but its a claim of historical,political,and territorial claims.
When Greece already has these historical claims plus the new state would definetley want a border change if they had the power, we have all the rights to be insulted.


Common now let us be realistic there is no way that this would ever be possible in the first place; thus I do not think that the Macedonian government ever will actually initiate that nor have those aspirations. Greeks live in northern Greece thus I do not think either that they would stand for that, nor would NATO stand for another war, especially including two of its members. A reduction in arms usually is what is aspired by joining NATO too, look at Germany they had to rent Ukrainian transports to get their regiments to Afghanistan.




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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 22:25
Originally posted by HEROI

Roberts,unless we are to into endless debates,claiming to be Alexander's decendant and at the same time claiming to be Slavonic,does not give them to much credit as far as historical heritage would be concerned.Alexander was not a Slav,and ancient Macedonians certainly did not speak Slavonic.The fact that slavo-macedonians speak slavonic,and have slavonic identity,completely rules them out of any historical claim to ancient Macedonia.

But as i said,thats not the problem,lets leave history to historians,the problem is that slavo-macedonians today,in through their politicians and their academics put at the very hart of their national identity the ancient macedonian heritage,thats the problem.


As for historical evidence sugest quite plainly that Macedonian are Bulgars,or very simmilar people.



I do not think either that they have DIRECT ancestral heritage, however, they do have territorial heritage due to actually living in northern Macedonia. I am sure that the ancient Macedonians contributed to the contemporary gene pool, too. Furthermore, to avoid Greek fears perhaps announcing that they are a Slavic "ethnic" (majority I guess with pronounced minorities) nation with shared (with Greece) Macedonian territorial heritage. The name itself should not be changed I do not see how it offends Greece as Greece itself could use the name too if they wished.




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


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 22:36
Originally posted by HEROI

The fact that slavo-macedonians speak slavonic,and have slavonic identity,completely rules them out of any historical claim to ancient Macedonia.
 
This is absolutely wrong statement. All this does not rule them out in claiming herritage coming from their lands. Other thing is disgusting way how do they do that.


-------------
.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 22:48
How could it be the wrong statement?
Slavo-Macedonians who speak Slavonic (Bulgarian in fact) and have Slavonic identity,i am repeating are completely ruled out of Ancient Macedonia Heritage.
Or at least they have no more right to  that claim then the Bulgarians.Is there an Indeginious component in them,yes for sure,so what?
The problem as i said is the historical claim of the Macedonian establishment,which is puting at the foundations of this new nation the historical heritage of an ancient people which have nothing in common.In this light Greece is right,ancient Macedonia includes a big part of Greek territory.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 06:17
Originally posted by Roberts


2. Yes, Macedonia is right to claim historical heritage from ancient Macedonia, because its territory includes northern regions of ancient Macedonia.


Once I was pointed out in this same forum that I'm exhagerating when I believe that people will think ancient Macedonia was in that country.

The northern regions were aquaired during Philips time. Originally Macedonia was not such a large area.

Here are the ancient regions of Macedonia.

Pre-Philip II:

# Upper Macedonia


Ancient Name: Modern Location:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORESTIS Kastoria province, Greece
TYMPHAEA Grevena province, Greece
ELIMEIA S. Kozane province, Greece
EORDAEA N. Kozane province, Greece
LYNKESTIS Florina province, Greece
PELAGONIA Monastiri (Bitola), FYROM

# Lower Macedonia


Ancient Name: Modern Location:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHAXITIS Kilkis province, Greece
ALMOPIA Pella province, Greece
PIERIA Pieria province, Greece
BOTTIAEA Emathia province, Greece
KRESTONIA N. Thessalonike province, Greece
MYGDONIA E. Thessalonike province, Greece
ANTHEMOUS S. Thessalonike province, Greece




Expansion under Philip II:
# New Macedonia


Ancient Name: Modern Location:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BISALTIA E. Thessalonike province, Greece
SINTIKE Serres province, Greece
ODOMANTIS Drama province, Greece
EDONIS Kavalla province, Greece
THASSOS Kavalla province, Greece
CHALKIDIKE Chalkidike province, Greece
SOUTHERN PAEONIA Gevgeli province, FYROM



From all these regions you have 2 regions only in FYROM and those are Southern Paeonia and Pelagonia.

So my question is what name is more right Macedonia or Paeonia with that logic?


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 06:19
Originally posted by HEROI

By the way,what offences to Greece has the Macedonian constitution?


Not just the name. Earlier you have the religious symbol on the flag which they were forced to remove.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 07:18

Flipper but the Roman province of Macedonia was much larger, not to mention the Byzantine theme which was rather in today Turkey.

How do you define the expansion of Macedonia under Philip II? His conquers were certainly greater than that, in north-east for instance, he advanced about to Hebrus, today Plovdiv (Bulgaria) was founded as Philippopolis after his name.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 07:51
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Flipper but the Roman province of Macedonia was much larger, not to mention the Byzantine theme which was rather in today Turkey.

How do you define the expansion of Macedonia under Philip II? His conquers were certainly greater than that, in north-east for instance, he advanced about to Hebrus, today Plovdiv (Bulgaria) was founded as Philippopolis after his name.


That's exactly what I wanted to say. The borders from Philip and after were altered and the Byzantine theme was a crazy deplacement. In other words what happened later was a result of administrative and expansional actions. Those borders had nothing to do with the original 4 Macedonian sub-Kindoms nor with areas where the Makedones used to inhabit. Even those are much smaller compared to Macedonia of the classical age.

In some extremes, considering the size of the Kindom during Alexander, many countries could rename themselves to Macedonia.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 08:00
Originally posted by Anton

This is absolutely wrong statement. All this does not rule them out in claiming herritage coming from their lands. Other thing is disgusting way how do they do that.


I can agree with that since you very correctly point out the nature of this in your third sentence.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 08:14
Originally posted by HEROI

Thats not an offence made to Greece,but its a claim of historical,political,and territorial claims.


I agree with you. There are hundreds of places around the world having Greek names e.g Athens, Sparta etc. It is the nature of naming that makes this case different.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 10:47
Originally posted by Flipper

I can agree with that since you very correctly point out the nature of this in your third sentence.
 
Yeah, but they way becomes even more disgusting under Greek pressure.


-------------
.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 10:50
Originally posted by Anton

Yeah, but they way becomes even more disgusting under Greek pressure.


Have I missed something? Is there another epic discovery or have issues with Bulgaria gone bigger?

Btw, there are other matters that put pressure. The UN as Nimitz said has no timelines but it is NATO that puts pressure.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 10:57
It seems we won't have any solution.
Nimitz proposed a new name: Republic of Macedonia (Skopje), but he requires also that Greece recognizes a "macedonian" ethnicity.
The greek side is dissapointed of this proposal, and the fact that Nimitz said that some "centres of decisions" want the solution to be found soon, apparently before the NATO confernce (and apparently the "centre" is USA).
Greek newspapers estimate that the Veto is almost a certainty now.


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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 10:58
Originally posted by HEROI

How could it be the wrong statement?
Slavo-Macedonians who speak Slavonic (Bulgarian in fact) and have Slavonic identity,i am repeating are completely ruled out of Ancient Macedonia Heritage.
 
The fact that you repeat something doesn't make it more true. Identities are changing with time, and so do languages. Culture is developed based on previous herritage. Which in case of Macedonia includes preroman, Roman and Slavonic (obviously majorly Bulgarian). It is their own business which one would they like to emphasize to build their national myths. This emphasizing BTW is done by every nation.


-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:02
Originally posted by Flipper


Have I missed something? Is there another epic discovery or have issues with Bulgaria gone bigger?
 
What did you miss? Big Fat Greek Wedding style attitude of most Greeks toward Macedonians? Mate, it is really hard to miss it. Wink


-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:03
Originally posted by xristar

It seems we won't have any solution.
Nimitz proposed a new name: Republic of Macedonia (Skopje), but he requires also that Greece recognizes a "macedonian" ethnicity.
 
In FYROM or north Greece?


-------------
.


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:08
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by xristar

It seems we won't have any solution.
Nimitz proposed a new name: Republic of Macedonia (Skopje), but he requires also that Greece recognizes a "macedonian" ethnicity.
 
In FYROM or north Greece?

Generally, but basically recognizing a 'macedonian' minority in northern Greece...


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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:16
I see. Interesting situation will happen then. Bulgarian speaking Greeks, claiming they are more Greek than the rest Wink

-------------
.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:47
Originally posted by Anton

 
What did you miss? Big Fat Greek Wedding style attitude of most Greeks toward Macedonians? Mate, it is really hard to miss it. Wink


Be more specific. People are at least pissed off at this moment in Greece so you will see a lot. It would be also good to mention the others sides attitude 17 years now, especially regarding certain groups of Greek people.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:50
Originally posted by xristar

Generally, but basically recognizing a 'macedonian' minority in northern Greece...


Which is simply impossible with such a name. Impossible because you have other people using it and the political cost for such an action would be the elimination of the ruling party for ever. Some Greeks refer to this minority as Slavomacedonian but as plain macedonian will never happen.

For me slavomacedonian minority is an ok term.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 11:52
Originally posted by Anton

Bulgarian speaking Greeks, claiming they are more Greek than the rest Wink


This is not new...Visit Psarades in Florina and ask them in Bulgarian if they are Bulgarians.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 12:09
Originally posted by Flipper


This is not new...Visit Psarades in Florina and ask them in Bulgarian if they are Bulgarians.
 
I think there is nothing to be proud about.


-------------
.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 12:19
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Flipper


This is not new...Visit Psarades in Florina and ask them in Bulgarian if they are Bulgarians.
 
I think there is nothing to be proud about.


I didn't say that. It's just a reality.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 12:57
How aboutrenaming the present FYROM Macedonia to the Republic of NorthernMacedonia, while Greeks can call their province Southern Macedonia. Sorta like North and South Korea.Clap


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 14:00
Originally posted by Roberts

How about renaming the present FYROM Macedonia to the Republic of NorthernMacedonia, while Greeks can call their province Southern Macedonia. Sorta like North and South Korea.Clap


It is one of the official proposals and i think it has been considered for further discussion from the Greek side. The question here is how it will be used and what potential it has for missusage.

Something i thought of today was Paionian Macedonia. What about that? Geographically it is the most accurate name.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 14:57

Anton id dont understand were exactly you are against me,you starting again to post things that have no conection at all with what i have said and pretend to be reply against something you yourself create?Is that an illness you have or something?Man i have told you before i am not here to explain to you a thousend times what i am sain in my posts,if you find them confusing,or wrong or you dont understand them,you dont have to quote.

Flipper,the problem is not that anybody denies the fact that there is an Ancient Macedonian component in todays,Macedonia,or Greece,or Albania,or Bulgaria,there certainly is.
 
The problem is not as Anton sais that they are chosing to Claim their heritage from this particular component,even if the language did not survive and they are overwelmingly Bulgars,the problem is that their identity is not a macedonian one,but a Slavo-Macedonian one.They Claim to be Macedonians and at the same time Slavonic,they Claim Alexander the Great to have spoken their language,the Macedonian Slavonic language,here starts the Historical Lunacy,but lets leave this aside for a moment and take it as normal that a nation should at any cost atribute itself some ancient historical heritage.
 
How can it be ok for Greece and even Bulgaria that they claim Ancient Macedonia as their Historical land?Thats where the problem kicks in.
 
Is fine for me to let you kid yourself as much as you want,but if i am going to accept this as an historical fact,then why should not i accept the fact that the historical borders of this nation are well within my own borders?
 
Another thing,where was this Macedonian coussiousnes for hundred of years?Did the slavo-macedonians and the world just realised that they are the decendants of Ancient Macedonia?


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 15:03
Another thing.the name Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) is wrong,because is not a countrys name,it can not be for to long and problems would resurface.
 
Had the Macedonian establishment not put at the foundations of their new nation the ancient macedonian element.i am sure that Greece would not have bothered alot with its name,it is precisely because an nationhood,an pseudo-ethnicity is being created on behalf of ancient macedonia wich has within it half of Greece that the problem arises and that Greece can not stand by.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 15:31
Originally posted by HEROI

Another thing.the name Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) is wrong,because is not a countrys name,it can not be for to long and problems would resurface.
 
Had the Macedonian establishment not put at the foundations of their new nation the ancient macedonian element.i am sure that Greece would not have bothered alot with its name,it is precisely because an nationhood,an pseudo-ethnicity is being created on behalf of ancient macedonia wich has within it half of Greece that the problem arises and that Greece can not stand by.



Exactly. When you watch their youth parade in ancient Macedonian armor (LOL, even with fake beards) and wave maps of OUR Macedonia and the Bulgarian part and claim that Thessaloniki a city of two million Greeks is under occupation.....you can't have warm, fuzzy feelings for your neighbour can you?



Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 15:55
Originally posted by HEROI

Anton id dont understand were exactly you are against me,you starting again to post things that have no conection at all with what i have said and pretend to be reply against something you yourself create?Is that an illness you have or something?Man i have told you before i am not here to explain to you a thousend times what i am sain in my posts,if you find them confusing,or wrong or you dont understand them,you dont have to quote.

 
I might be "ill or something" but you said exactly as follows:
 
"The fact that slavo-macedonians speak slavonic,and have slavonic identity,completely rules them out of any historical claim to ancient Macedonia."
 
Which I understand as: "Slav Macedonians speak language different from that of Ancient Macedonians and have self identity different from that of Ancient Macedonians and thus they are not descendants of Ancient Macedonians. This means that they cannot claim the herritage of Ancient Macedonians". If this is what you mean, then it is wrong. If you mean something different, then whatever is the reason for you being here it is wise to make your ideas more clear Tongue


-------------
.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 16:33
Originally posted by HEROI

Another thing.the name Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) is wrong,because is not a countrys name,it can not be for to long and problems would resurface.
 
Had the Macedonian establishment not put at the foundations of their new nation the ancient macedonian element.i am sure that Greece would not have bothered alot with its name,it is precisely because an nationhood,an pseudo-ethnicity is being created on behalf of ancient macedonia wich has within it half of Greece that the problem arises and that Greece can not stand by.


Clap
You're right here. Tell me something Heroi. If the name "Slavomacedonia" had settled, do you think the Albanians of that country would bother? Cause in several discussions it was said that the Albanians would dissagree (however, they never said so) and that it could not be discussed. As far as I know the Albanians have other more serious issues to take care of and they don't really put weight on the name issue.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 17:52
I dont think so actually Flipper.Because that would imply that Macedonia is a Slavic State when its clearly Multiethnic,so i guess the reason for it not having being taken so seriously is presicely this.It would put to much emphasis on one single Ethnicity in a country with a clear ethnic Albanian majority in its own region.If we have to find a more fitting name similar to that then it would be the AlbanianoSlavoMacedonia and that would be to boring for a countrys name.
 
Albanians in Macedonia really dont put wheight to the name issue as long as their national identity is respected fully.But a name like Slavomacedonia would be to sensitive,because it would imply that Macedonia is a Slavonic country and that is not the case,Albanians are in their Historical ethnic lands there,and they in the nex 20 years would make up nearly half the population in Macedonia.It would be sensitive specially in country that as i said is try to artificially create an ethnicity out of the blue,they even try so blatantly to start the Macedonian-sation of Albanians living there with stuipid laws like the one prohibiting the national Flag and not teaching Albanian in the schools in their own region,to make the Alb kids grow up speking slavo-macedonian and think then they are part of a ethnicity that has its roots in Ancient Slavo-Macedonia.
 
The war in Macedonia was fought precisely to preserve the Albanian national identity,thats why such an proposition would be dangerous.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 17:58
I think that the name Slavo-macedonia would be the best solution if we had the Albanian region uniting with Albania,but do they want this?Does Albania want to unite with the Albanian region of Macedonia?I dont know


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 18:10
Thats right Anton,i have said it rules them out of any Historical claim of ancient macedonia and not of ANCESTRY,as i have said in my previous posts,there are for sure some Macedonians today who have the gene of ancient Macedonians,but so are there Greeks,Bulgarians,Albanians,and perhaps even Serbs.
The fact that there identity and language is Slavonic rules them out of claiming the historical heritage of ancient macedonia.Their lunacy is that ancient macedonia is in fact ancient slavo-macedonia.
There language and their overwhelming ethnicity seams to be Bulgarian,and as i said in they are no more decendants of ancient macedonians then Bulgarians are,Are we to say now that Alexander the Great spoke Bulgarian and was Bulgarian?


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 18:35
Originally posted by HEROI

I think that the name Slavo-macedonia would be the best solution if we had the Albanian region uniting with Albania,but do they want this?Does Albania want to unite with the Albanian region of Macedonia?I dont know


Well Albania doesn't even want to unite with Kosovo - it can barely sustain itself. The different thing is that KOSOVA is/will be the Albanian Piedmont in the Balkans and not Albania, which is also in accordance to history (1878 League of Prizreni). As for the so-called "Ilirida" - well, the people most certainly want, that's for sure.


-------------
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 19:13
You are wrong,Albania has only to gain economically by uniting with Kosovo.But lets not go into that now.It is not what Albania wants or not,its what big powers want and has always been.
 
As for the people in Ilirida and in Albania i am not sure that the people in Albania think alot about uniting with Kosovo or Ilirida.Most people probably dont have an strong opinion about it.
 
As for the establishment,i told you they follow instructions from big powers,but i would not say that it does not suit Albania that there is another Albanian state in the Balkans.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 20:36
Thanks Heroi

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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 04:10

After reading many posts regarding the Macedonian question on this forum I get the impression;

The Macedonian region in Greece is inhabitted by Greeks who speak Greek and that ancient Macedonia was Hellenic so its part of their heritage.
 
The people in the Republic of Macedonia to the north speak Bulgarian and arn't ethnic kinsmen with the Greek Macedonians?
 
(Correct me if I'm wrong)
 
From an outsiders perspective, its hard to see why Greece feels threatened or takes the Macedonian claims seriously?


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 08:58
its like the Syrians claiming they're the the descendants of the Seljuk and Syria naming itself the Republic of Seljukistan. annoying with all that Arab is really Turkish revisionism, inflamed with cheeky maps that cant get the borders right - popping up here and there. However its a bit more than annoying when it becomes officially recognised in name that way...


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 11:37
Originally posted by HEROI

You are wrong,Albania has only to gain economically by uniting with Kosovo.But lets not go into that now.It is not what Albania wants or not,its what big powers want and has always been.
 
As for the people in Ilirida and in Albania i am not sure that the people in Albania think alot about uniting with Kosovo or Ilirida.Most people probably dont have an strong opinion about it.
 
As for the establishment,i told you they follow instructions from big powers,but i would not say that it does not suit Albania that there is another Albanian state in the Balkans.


Well that's what I said - the capital of Great Albania would not be in Tirana, but Pristina.


-------------
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 13:56
Originally posted by Bulldog

After reading many posts regarding the Macedonian question on this forum I get the impression;

The Macedonian region in Greece is inhabitted by Greeks who speak Greek and that ancient Macedonia was Hellenic so its part of their heritage.
 
The people in the Republic of Macedonia to the north speak Bulgarian and arn't ethnic kinsmen with the Greek Macedonians?
 
(Correct me if I'm wrong)
 
From an outsiders perspective, its hard to see why Greece feels threatened or takes the Macedonian claims seriously?


The Macedonian region in Greece is the largest Greek province (in size) and is inhabited by a few million Greeks (around 1.5-2 million in Thessaloniki the second greatest Greek city)
In some areas live a few Slavic-speaking populations numbering around 100,00 or less. Those people have either Greek, Bulgarian, "Macedonian" or even pure Slavic conscience.
In historical view, the region encompasses all the areas of the ancient Macedonian kingdom before Phillip.

The people in FYROM are of Slavic origin, with a large Albanian minority and speak a language almost the same with Bulgarian.
In historical view, their region was a part of the ancient Macedonian kingdom only under Philip's expansion, before it was the homeland of Paiones some non-Greek tribal nation that raided Macedonia constantly. During Roman and Byzantine and Ottoman times a region much larger than the Macedonian kingdom was called Macedonia for administrative reasons and FROM was a part of it as well.

Now, Greece is annoyed because FYROM:

a)Claims the name Macedonia, which already is used to describe the Greek region and its people.
b)Claims there are 1-2 million "Macedonians" in Greece. Of course there are but they are Greeks not "ethnic Macedonians"
c)There is much aggressiveness and expansionism in the current society and education system. Maps of a "Greater Macedonia" circulate everywhere and the answers of the average youth scare me personally. Of course they don't have military power, but with the games of the superpowers in the region you are never safe. See Kosovo.
d)they claim the ancient history of Macedonia as entirely theirs, going as far as to suggest their language isn't Bulgarian but the original ancient Macedonian.

If you search a little you will find posts by a ultra-nationalist lad that wasted hours of some of the member's time trying to smack some sense in him. Unfortunately his vews are shared by every single "Macedonian" I have encountered online. I pray that if I ever meet someone in real life, he will be different.

That's for your education.\ as an outsider


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 17:18
Macedonia should no-longer be allowed to call itself Macedonian because it may offend Greeks. New South Wales must immediately change its name from to something different to avoid offence to Welsh people. The Cameron Highlands (in Malaysia will no-long be permitted to cause such offence to Scottish People). In fact every region of the world named after somewhere, present or historical must be immediately obliged to change it's name........
 
For christ sake, can't the population of Greece, get a life.


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 17:43
I will try to highlight the weaknesses in your argument with some rhetorical questions, Paul.
 
Was the purpose of putting Wales in NSW to antagonise the Welsh? Does NSW border Wales?  Do NSW nationalists have claims on Welsh territory? Do the people of NSW claim exclusivity of Welsh history and call the Welsh imposters?  Were parts of NSW once a part of Wales which were forcibly taken from that country?
 
To play devil's advocate: The Macedonian question should be answered with a dissolution of that country to continue along the policies being applied to neighbouring countries.  Why weren't the Albanians of FYRM given any NATO, EU or US support in their uprising?


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


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 18:30
So Macedonians chose the name deliberately to annoy Greece, rather than despite it would annoy Greece. Had the name Macedonian not annoyed Greece enough, they would have chose another one instead.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 18:57
Originally posted by Zagros

I will try to highlight the weaknesses in your argument with some rhetorical questions, Paul.
 
Was the purpose of putting Wales in NSW to antagonise the Welsh? Does NSW border Wales?  Do NSW nationalists have claims on Welsh territory? Do the people of NSW claim exclusivity of Welsh history and call the Welsh imposters?  Were parts of NSW once a part of Wales which were forcibly taken from that country?
 
To play devil's advocate: The Macedonian question should be answered with a dissolution of that country to continue along the policies being applied to neighbouring countries.  Why weren't the Albanians of FYRM given any NATO, EU or US support in their uprising?


Seriously, I couldn't say it better. Clap


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 19:00
Well that's what I said - the capital of Great Albania would not be in Tirana, but Pristina.


This is the exact problem with a united Kosovo and Albania. You would have both Tirana and Prishtina fighting for power. Tirana would retain its title as capital of Albania and would look to expand at the cost of Prishtina. As of now the latter enjoys the status of an independent nation; but under a united Albania it would have, at best, an autonomous status with Tirana's claws continually gnawing at it.

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


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 19:08
Originally posted by Paul

So Macedonians chose the name deliberately to annoy Greece, rather than despite it would annoy Greece. Had the name Macedonian not annoyed Greece enough, they would have chose another one instead.


Macedonians didn't name their country...  Someone with certain designs did.


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


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 19:15
The name 'macedonians' was given to this people, not in 1991, not in 1945, but roughly a century ago.
It was created in order to differentiate the slavic people of Macedonia from the bulgars, as there was the state of Bulgaria, which had open aspirations of incorporating the region (in 1878, after the russoturkish war, it briefly was given to Bulgaria, and then taken away in 1881, in a second agreement). All states apart from Bulgaria benefited from this.
The local population was uneducated simple folk, and they had no noatinal conciousness apart from 'christian'. In the late 19th century, and early 20th, in the ottoman region of Macedonia a struggle was going on, between the bulgarians who tried to create a bulgarian conciousness to the slavmacedonians, an independent movement led by a slavmacedonian idealist called Verhof supported mainly by the slavmacedonian element, serbs who tried to create a serb conciousness to the slavmacedonians, and greeks who relied mainly on the greek and vlach elements of the region, and simultanously tried to create a greek conciousness to the maceonianslavs, based on religion (as the bulgarians had created their own indpendent church). In this effort, Greece also used the macedonian national conciousness, in order to alienate slavmacedonians from bulgarians, and to bring them closer to greeks, as the ancient macedonian "nationality" was understood as purely greek.
Despite all the ideological struggle, and the war between armed bands, the Balkan wars created a new reality. Greece won southern macedonia, and Serbia northern. Serbia didn't originally use the term 'macedonia', as -as I already mentioned-, they considered the slavmacedonians as serbs. They basically seem to have called the area of FYROM either as southern Serbia, or as Vardarska, because of the river Vardar, which crosses the region. After the creation of communist Yugoslavia, Tito created several 'republics' withing Yugoslavia, such as Bosnia and Macedonia. The communist ideology did not put weight on national conciousness, however, as Bulgaria was a different state from Yugoslavia, and as Yugoslavia was part of the 'independents' rather than the Warsaw pact of which Bulgaria was part, Yugoslavia cultivated the 'macedonian' conciousness.
Before WWII Greece had no problems with any use of the term macedonia. In censuses carried in the interwar, Greece counted the slavspeakers, and categorized them into two categories: patriarchical (loyal to the patriarchate of Constantinople) and thus pro-greek, and exarchical (the Bulgarian church was called the "Exarchy") and thus pro-bulgarian. I t should be noticed that during the greek civil war, Titoist Yugoslavia was openly involved, supporting the communist side, even sending 'macedonian' guerillas from Yugoslavia. As such many of the slav macedonian populations of Greece participated on the communist side. However, within slavmacedonian ranks, there was an internal war going on, between pro-bulgaria and autonomists (=Yugoslav). It should be noticed also, that the slavmacedonians who participated, were the same categorized by pre-war censuses as 'exarchical'.


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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 19:40
The local population was uneducated simple folk, and they had no noatinal conciousness apart from 'christian'
Thumbs%20Down Sure, they were also retarded and awaiting for civilizational light from the Greeks.
 
And maybe one of you would remember about the re-Greekisation of Macedonia by population exchanges with Bulgaria and Turkey. Maybe FYROM is today playing a dirty card by attempting to usurp the Greek history, but the creation of FYROM is as artificial as Macedonia being Greek today (and many other areas - especially in southeastern Europe where borders and ethnic homogenization is recent) - i.e. a result of modern politics.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 19:45
Originally posted by Paul

So Macedonians chose the name deliberately to annoy Greece, rather than despite it would annoy Greece. Had the name Macedonian not annoyed Greece enough, they would have chose another one instead.


In an ideal world that would be the case...

However already after WWI, Greece started to get annoyed with this new issue back then. After WWII and Titos renaming of Vardarska to Makedonija things got worse.

This papper back from 1924 shouts out:

"ΘΑ ΧΑΣΩΜΕΝ ΤΗΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑΝ"
"WE WILL LOOSE MACEDONIA"
"ΕΚΕΙ ΑΓΕΙ Η ΝΕΑ ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΟΦΙΛΟΣ ΑΓΓΛΙΚΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ"
"THE NEW BULGAROPHILE ENGLISH POLITICS DRIVE IN GREECE "




The paper below from 1949 says

ΑΛΛΑΞΕΝ Η ΒΑΛΚΑΝΙΚΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΟΣΧΑΣ

α) Διαμελισμός όχι κατάκτηση της Ελλάδος
β) Ανατροπή του Τίτο μέσω της Μακεδονίας

THE BALKAN POLITICS OF MOSKOW HAS CHANGED

a) Splitting of Greece not occupation
b) Tackling of Tito through Macedonia





So, I guess you didn't know we're been worried for a long time. Ofcourse, as long as Tito was in place and assured Greece there are no plans of attacking, things calmed down to a certain extend in a political level.

As for the modern days I guess that the demostrations of over a million people and Athens and half a million in Thessaloniki back in 1993 are more that enough to show that Greeks were pissed off.



Last but not least, when you're about to create a state and know there might be implications, you contact you neighbour and tell him your story. At least that is how healthy politics should be.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 19:50
Originally posted by Chilbudios

And maybe one of you would remember about the re-Greekisation of Macedonia by population exchanges with Bulgaria and Turkey. Maybe FYROM is today playing a dirty card by attempting to usurp the Greek history, but the creation of FYROM is as artificial as Macedonia being Greek today (and many other areas - especially in southeastern Europe where borders and ethnic homogenization is recent) - i.e. a result of modern politics.


Yes but it happened basically in Makedonia, FYRO Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey as a result of a war. That part did not affect just Greece and the region of Makedonia but the other countries and their region as well. Remember that Ionia was emptied for that reason, so all that is another story that affected everyone.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:10

Yes but it happened basically in Makedonia, FYRO Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey as a result of a war. That part did not affect just Greece and the region of Makedonia but the other countries and their region as well. Remember that Ionia was emptied for that reason, so all that is another story that affected everyone
You are entitled to claim a fair study of history and to unbound modern politics of fallacious protochronisms and irredentism. This is as much as my sympathy goes for the Greeks when they argue about having a country bordering them named Macedonia. But Macedonia did not have even a Greek majority before the Balkan wars, so your province is as artificial and as modern as FYROM, they were both created in the 20th century. If weren't for some extremist FYROM-ers, I believe they would have the same right as the Greeks to name their country Macedonia (I think I provided already this example in another thread: Romania has a historical province named Moldova which is neighboured by Republic of Moldova, and there's no quarrel about names).



Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:14
Originally posted by xristar


The local population was uneducated simple folk, and they had no noatinal conciousness apart from 'christian'.


Well in that region it was not different for the Greeks in the education part. No jobs, poverty, no schools. I see the issue arrising in another way around as well, cause whatever mechanisms arose that time were not random. The whole idea i believe has an innocent origin. Let me give you an example:

Back in the late 19th/early 20th century Philip and Goran are two friends from a village with mixed population. Philip speaks Greek to his kids and Goran slavic. In the afternoon they both meet at the local cafe or tavern. The current situation in the Balkans trouble them. Southern Greece is free and recently the Greek borders reached Thessaly. Bulgaria gets stronger and so does Serbia. Philip tells Goran about the Greek achievements in the South and dreams about a life in Macedonia free from Ottoman rule. Then Goran asks "When are we Macedonians gonna do something for our freedom?". His question goes for everyone that want to see that region free no matter what his background is.

This imaginary but very probable story of mine can demonstrate how things started. You have a group of people of different backgrounds uniting ideally for the same cause. While this feeling gets stronger, other mechanisms start to work in the background like for example the churches which in the end force this mass to start fighting eachother.




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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:21
Flipper, I disagreed with that comment, not only because of comment on education (which I'm sure it was true for a large segment of the population), but for the following two reasons:
- there was a large Muslim population in Macedonia at the end of the 19th century - so they couldn't feel "christian"
- most Bulgarians from Macedonia fled to Bulgaria, most Turks from Macedonia fled to Turkey, etc. - so they had some sense of national/ethnic identity


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:25
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Yes but it happened basically in Makedonia, FYRO Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey as a result of a war. That part did not affect just Greece and the region of Makedonia but the other countries and their region as well. Remember that Ionia was emptied for that reason, so all that is another story that affected everyone
You are entitled to claim a fair study of history and to unbound modern politics of fallacious protochronisms and irredentism. This is as much as my sympathy goes for the Greeks when they argue about having a country bordering them named Macedonia. But Macedonia did not have even a Greek majority before the Balkan wars, so your province is as artificial and as modern as FYROM, they were both created in the 20th century. If weren't for some extremist FYROM-ers, I believe they would have the same right as the Greeks to name their country Macedonia (I think I provided already this example in another thread: Romania has a historical province named Moldova which is neighboured by Republic of Moldova, and there's no quarrel about names).



Thank you Smile

I never denied what you said above. However, just a note. We were not in possition eather to name it Macedonia since the Ottomans were the administration. It is not like we didn't call that area Macedonia. Our newspapers of the region beared that term and so did our writters. But yes, the province is not old at all.

And yes I agree that they could use the name like any other country in the world that names places after names related to Greece, IF, the past had no issues. As I said before when the state was created the best solution would be to make a friendly approach and discuss the possibilities of that naming. If those possibilities (and if the past was ok) were discussed and agreed in terms then i don't see a reason why that wouldn't be possible to go through.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:32
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Flipper, I disagreed with that comment, not only because of comment on education (which I'm sure it was true for a large segment of the population), but for the following two reasons:
- there was a large Muslim population in Macedonia at the end of the 19th century - so they couldn't feel "christian"
- most Bulgarians from Macedonia fled to Bulgaria, most Turks from Macedonia fled to Turkey, etc. - so they had some sense of national/ethnic identity


You're right about the Muslims. However, most of them fled to Turkey and some managed to make it to Bulgaria.

As for the national identity i believe it is regional. I mean, some areas might have been cut off from Greek, respectively Bulgarian influence and could therefore be in the middle of nowhere. I believe that those were mainly the regions where the Greek and Bulgarian churches did have a party, not in the solid areas.

There's also a story saying that during the Greco-Bulgarian exchanges the following question was asked to the inhabitants: Solun or Thessaloniki.

No matter of ethnic background, if a a person that wanted to stay in the area said "Tessaloniki" instead of a clear Greek Theta sound, he would be taken to the Bulgarian side.



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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:33
Chilbudios,i agree with you,but you should also remember that Greeks are Greeks and the question wether Ancient Macedonian heritage belongs to them they leave it to the historians.Now the fact is that the Greek region of Macedonia is within Greek borders,and when you have Slavo-Macedonians try to make up an nationaly based on the cultural heritage of ancient Macedonia,then that is territorial claim against Greece.
 
The Macedonians argument seams to be that they are not claiming any territory that today belongs to Greece,but they simply want recognition of their fictious History.
Greece in my opinion can not allow it,simply because recognising an untrue,it would be giving way in the future to legal demands on their teritory.
 
And as i said before when one is in front of this particular issue,should not forget the very simple fact.
 
Had the establishment of Macedonia not put at the foundations of a slavo-Macedonian nationality the cultural heritage of ancient Macedonia (but simply carry on with its life,and leave history to historians),Greece would not bother alot about the name.Anybody should keep this in mind as far as this issue is concerned.Thats the bottom line.
 
As i have said in my previous posts,Macedonia is try to create an Slavo-Macedonian ethinicity with the cultural heritage of ancient Macedonia,thats the problem,it even wanted to include the Albanian population in this pure lunacy.
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:59
Originally posted by HEROI

you should also remember that Greeks are Greeks
 
So what does this make the child of black immigrants, born and raised in Greece?


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 21:43
Sure, they were also retarded and awaiting for civilizational light from the Greeks.

Dead

But Macedonia did not have even a Greek majority before the Balkan wars, so your province is as artificial and as modern as FYROM, they were both created in the 20th century.

Are you sure about this?
And how exactly do you define 'greek'?

Romania has a historical province named Moldova which is neighboured by Republic of Moldova, and there's no quarrel about names).

1) Romanians and Moldavians are of the same nationality.
2) No name dispute, but IIRC Romania claims that Moldova should be part of her...

Flipper, I disagreed with that comment, not only because of comment on education (which I'm sure it was true for a large segment of the population), but for the following two reasons:
- there was a large Muslim population in Macedonia at the end of the 19th century - so they couldn't feel "christian"
- most Bulgarians from Macedonia fled to Bulgaria, most Turks from Macedonia fled to Turkey, etc. - so they had some sense of national/ethnic identity

1) I was reffering to the christian population. So, for your case there were two nations: muslims and christians. And that's a fact, because the ottomans used this classification to define nations (milliet). And by the late 19th century, in Macedonia people still used this classification. It was right at this time that the enlightment age and nationalism reached to that corner of the world with significant influence, and the dispute begins.
2)I assure you, that many non-turkish muslims (such as albanians, pomaks) left for Turkey as well. And how do you define 'bulgarians'?



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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 21:53
You misunderstood my point,what i mean is that Greeks have a Greek identity and the Greeks who live in Macedonian Greece are not Macedonians but Greeks.And historical heritage of Ancient Macedonia is for history and historians.
 
Greek dont claim history of ancient Macedonia because they live today were ancient Macedonia was once,but they claim it in the sense that ancient Macedonians were Greeks.And i can understand this point,but not the point that just by living in this land today Slavo-Macedonians claim the history of ancient Macedonia,and even claim ancient Macedonia to have been Slavonic,thats just because in their confussion they have contradictory identities,a Slavonic one,and an Ethinc Macedonian one.
 
The phenomen of the child of a black imigrant born and raised in Greece has not yet hapened unfortunately,but when it does happen i just hope that Greek government would have become civilised enough to respect them as Greeks.
Entirely out of the topic,but about a thousend of Albanian imigrants in Greece just about a month ago got Greek citisenship,with agreat ceremony,thats 17 years after they imigrated there,and after a 15 years period of naturalisation which included being provided with an HOMOGENUS CARD,thats right,homogenus card,in case you did not understand means that the person who holds it qualifies to be called Greek homogen,in a country that claims to be more then 90% homogen.Almost all of the imigrants in question are poor villagers from Albania who had to make fake pasports in Albania with Greek sounding names,in order to get the Homogenus Card in Greece.Imagine.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 22:08
So then the question can be, if the Greeks are progressive to accept resident Albanians as the same as them and not to base Greekness on an antiquated ethnic based analysis. What is their objection to Macedonians? Culturally Greeks are no closer to Socrates than Macedonians, or your average resident of Beijing or Lima as a matter of fact.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 22:15
Originally posted by xristar

Are you sure about this?
And how exactly do you define 'greek'?
http://books.google.com/books?id=PDc-WW6YhqEC&pg=PA134&dq=greek+balkan+population+macedonia&ei=qhnsR8n6IoT6yASikNWZBw&sig=L1ewTgs45pKAH6SsNkwnCTQuZL4 - http://books.google.com/books?id=PDc-WW6YhqEC&pg=PA134&dq=greek+balkan+population+macedonia&ei=qhnsR8n6IoT6yASikNWZBw&sig=L1ewTgs45pKAH6SsNkwnCTQuZL4
We can search for more books if you like.
 
1) Romanians and Moldavians are of the same nationality.
2) No name dispute, but IIRC Romania claims that Moldova should be part of her...
1) Few years ago the Moldavian parliament had a law about the Moldavian "national conception" where it was admitted that Romanian and Moldavian language had a common past and origin, but that in present there are differences in their languages of two distinct nationalities.
2) There's no such official claim.
 
was reffering to the christian population. So, for your case there were two nations: muslims and christians. And that's a fact, because the ottomans used this classification to define nations (milliet). And by the late 19th century, in Macedonia people still used this classification. It was right at this time that the enlightment age and nationalism reached to that corner of the world with significant influence, and the dispute begins.
The Ottoman millets were not defining nations, but religious confessions.
 
I assure you, that many non-turkish muslims (such as albanians, pomaks) left for Turkey as well. And how do you define 'bulgarians'?
True, but the incomparable with the number of Turks or Bulgarians which fled to "their" countries.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rsa9Ek7HfMEC&pg=PA39&dq=greeks+balkan+populations+macedonia&ei=OhzsR7_8PIzcygSljYS4BA&sig=4XQLps5EWLbFnf3hFlZ66l3k6Bw - http://books.google.com/books?id=rsa9Ek7HfMEC&pg=PA39&dq=greeks+balkan+populations+macedonia&ei=OhzsR7_8PIzcygSljYS4BA&sig=4XQLps5EWLbFnf3hFlZ66l3k6Bw
And for Albanians:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rsa9Ek7HfMEC&pg=PA200&vq=albanians&dq=greeks+balkan+populations+macedonia&source=gbs_search_s&sig=DODrJuEh7T1z9-fZ1JdHl48i5mM - http://books.google.com/books?id=rsa9Ek7HfMEC&pg=PA200&vq=albanians&dq=greeks+balkan+populations+macedonia&source=gbs_search_s&sig=DODrJuEh7T1z9-fZ1JdHl48i5mM
For this too we can also can find more books if you like.
 


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 22:24
You still dont understand that they re accepting them on an antiquated ethnic analisysis.
Which means they accept this person as a person as a Greek homogen from Greek ancestry.
Even thou the guy is not Greek,they make him Greek,not only him,but his father,and his ancesters as well,so that the person can qualifye as such.
 
Now back to the topic.
As i told you,Macedonians claim an national identity based on ancient Macedonian ancestry and cultural heritage,and ancient Macedonia is nearly half of what Greece is today,thats why there is an objection,and rightly so.
I told you in the above post,Greeks who live in what used to be ancient Macedonia dont claim to be Ancient Macedonians but Greeks,and they claim the history of the ancient Macedonians in the sense that they were Greeks to.But this still is a matter for historians,while Macedonia is a state that is puting at the hart of a pseudo-nationality it wants to create ,the ancient macedonian ancestry,hitorical heritage etc,now why should that exlude the teritory of the ancient macedonia aswell,since one claims everything else,why should one stop short of claiming the land also,which is the most important element.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 22:29
Basically you agree with me.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PDc-WW6YhqEC&pg=PA134&dq=greek+balkan+population+macedonia&ei=qhnsR8n6IoT6yASikNWZBw&sig=L1ewTgs45pKAH6SsNkwnCTQuZL4 - http://books.google.com/books?id=PDc-WW6YhqEC&pg=PA134&dq=greek+balkan+population+macedonia&ei=qhnsR8n6IoT6yASikNWZBw&sig=L1ewTgs45pKAH6SsNkwnCTQuZL4
We can search for more books if you like.
I was reffering to the christian population. As your source points out, in greek macedonia, greeks were a majority among the christian population.
The Ottoman millets were not defining nations, but religious confessions.

With modern terms yes. But not at that time.


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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 22:39
Basically you agree with me.
No. I claim there were ethnic identities (of Vlachs, of Albanians, of Bulgarians, of Greeks) long before 19th century. True, they changed in time, but this is another issue.
 
I was reffering to the christian population. As your source points out, in greek macedonia, greeks were a majority among the christian population.
You were refereing to the entire population (your message started with: "The name 'macedonians' was given to this people" and that paragraph started with "The local population was uneducated simple folk"), and I was also refering to the entire population when I claimed the Greeks were not a majority in Macedonia in the 19th century.
 
With modern terms yes. But not at that time.
http://books.google.com/books?id=OVc1Gg6xjuoC&pg=PA183&dq=ottoman+millet&lr=&ei=iiHsR7OXKYuOywSPkPGYAw&sig=oK_Zw0AHZpfLmEvj2h8gBx4elHE - http://books.google.com/books?id=OVc1Gg6xjuoC&pg=PA183&dq=ottoman+millet&lr=&ei=iiHsR7OXKYuOywSPkPGYAw&sig=oK_Zw0AHZpfLmEvj2h8gBx4elHE
Later it defined also nations, that's why we can have a situation like when sultan Abdul Hamid II created a millet for Vlachs in 1905.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 23:11
The current territory known as Macedonia comprises only half of historical Macedonia or less. 

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


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 00:03
Originally posted by Zagros

The current territory known as Macedonia comprises only half of historical Macedonia or less. 


Heh, so much confusion can erupt with single words. What do you mean historical Macedonia?

Ancient Macedonia?
Ancient Macedonia after Philip that tripled its size?
The Roman province?
The Byzantine province?
The Ottoman province?

Go figure.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 00:14
The ancient kingdom.

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


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 00:20
The original macedonian tribe lived somewhere in today's southwestern part of greek Macedonia. All their capitals lie within greek territory.
Basically, even the macedonians themselves were a minority in their kingdom, which encompassed several tribes, greek and nongreek.


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

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 14:35
Originally posted by Zagros

The ancient kingdom.


Let me add some details on Xristars post.

During the early years it seems that they inhabited only upper Macedonia which is not translated as the northern part, but the mountainous area of the southwestern part of what we currently call macedonia. So, upper Macedonia are just the highlands in the south.
The Lower Macedonia, which is the region of todays Beria and the Thessaloniki province was colonized by other people like the Cretan Bottons during bronze age - Corinthians (archeologically speaking only) and Chalkideans (who displaced the Cadmeians in Chalkidike) during the archaic years.

Chalkidike and southern lower Macedonia has Cadmeians.

In the location of Edessa and Vergina is possesed by Phrygians until the geometric period, when they move and establish their new Kindom in Anatolia.

In other words, in the beginning we're speaking about a small area in the south, mainly mountainous.

The Kindom was first established with the comming of the Argeads, when Karanos became a King of the main Kindom. That's when Pella and Vergina become Royal seats.

I'm at work now so i don't have any maps...I will find sothing for you for each period.


Also...Note that the tribe of Makedones during the 15th - 13th century is not necessaraly the same people like the Macedonian citizens during Hellenistic years. The isolated Elimnian Macedonians were probably more related to them than the citizens living in Chalkidiki and Linkestis.

It is basically the same case like the Spartans of Sparta and the "Spartans" of Kynouria. The first are Dorians while the others are assimilated Ionians who adopted the name and speach.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 14:59
Originally posted by xristar

Basically, even the macedonians themselves were a minority in their kingdom, which encompassed several tribes, greek and nongreek.
 
Who were nongreek tribes?


-------------
.


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 15:14
Paeonians, Thracians, Illirians...

-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 16:10
Add Phoenicians in small numbers mainly in the coastal areas...The Sithones for example seem to be Phoenicians.

Except from the references to the Cadmeians there is enough archeological evidence to proove it.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 18:45
Ok, something else here...This starts to get crazy:  http://www.pr-inside.com/macedonia-police-examine-death-threats-over-r506124.htm - http://www.pr-inside.com/macedonia-police-examine-death-threats-over-r506124.htm

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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 18:46
Originally posted by HEROI

 
s i told you,Macedonians claim an national identity based on ancient Macedonian ancestry and cultural heritage,and ancient Macedonia is nearly half of what Greece is today,thats why there is an objection,and rightly so.
I told you in the above post,Greeks who live in what used to be ancient Macedonia dont claim to be Ancient Macedonians but Greeks,and they claim the history of the ancient Macedonians in the sense that they were Greeks to.But this still is a matter for historians,while Macedonia is a state that is puting at the hart of a pseudo-nationality it wants to create ,the ancient macedonian ancestry,hitorical heritage etc,now why should that exlude the teritory of the ancient macedonia aswell,since one claims everything else,why should one stop short of claiming the land also,which is the most important element.
 
So the main objection is, Macedonia is quite obviously making a pseudo history for itself. Whereas the Greeks years ago completed completed their own pseudo history and the newly emerging Macedonian one challenges the Greek one.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 19:13
Originally posted by Paul

 
So the main objection is, Macedonia is quite obviously making a pseudo history for itself. Whereas the Greeks years ago completed completed their own pseudo history and the newly emerging Macedonian one challenges the Greek one. 


Is it what you were able to summarize from Herois post?


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:25
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by HEROI

 
s i told you,Macedonians claim an national identity based on ancient Macedonian ancestry and cultural heritage,and ancient Macedonia is nearly half of what Greece is today,thats why there is an objection,and rightly so.
I told you in the above post,Greeks who live in what used to be ancient Macedonia dont claim to be Ancient Macedonians but Greeks,and they claim the history of the ancient Macedonians in the sense that they were Greeks to.But this still is a matter for historians,while Macedonia is a state that is puting at the hart of a pseudo-nationality it wants to create ,the ancient macedonian ancestry,hitorical heritage etc,now why should that exlude the teritory of the ancient macedonia aswell,since one claims everything else,why should one stop short of claiming the land also,which is the most important element.
 
So the main objection is, Macedonia is quite obviously making a pseudo history for itself. Whereas the Greeks years ago completed completed their own pseudo history and the newly emerging Macedonian one challenges the Greek one.
 
 
 
While the Greeks creation of a pseudo-history included  the people who were the rightfull decendands of ancient Greek history,the Macedonians are creating a pesudo-history that threatens the cultural and territorial integrity of a neighbour state.And this i think is an big difference.
 
Having said that i still dont think that Greece is right to use a veto against Macedonia joining NATO,and to be honest with you i dont think that it will,i think is just diplomatic pressure,to try and get to a conclussion with the name issue,and it seams is working,negotiations are now at a point they would not have been if Greece would not have threatened a veto.My opinion is they will come to an conclussion before the NATO summit,or at least to a satisfactory agreement that would pave the way for the end for the matter.
 
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:33
What I wonder is if the Macedonians had chosen to do exactly the same, but too a western European country....... They would have laughed it off or felt flattered.
 
The Greek reaction could possibly be explained by their past, but not excused.
 
Believing yourself a descendant is dodgy history, there are no 'rightful' descendants on any place on Earth.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:36

To make clear my opinion,i am not saing that the Macedonian National identity does not exist now,of course it does,but is a new Slavo-Macedonian national identity.

The problem with the Macedonian politics and suporters of it,(specially NATO and the USA,which suport Macedonia for the sake of stability in the region,so that Europe can go ahead with the much waited international gas and oil routes,and other necesities of a globalised economy),belive that Macedonia should have some historical background to survive and be a sucsesfull nation,but my opinion is that they are wrong,new nations can be very sucsesfull,indid some of the most sucsesfull nations in the world are new nations,and it does not make ones loyalty or love for the country any weaker,such as the case with the national sentiment in America.Is America to claim historical heritage of Indians?Are Americans to be proud of the ancient Indians,are they to claim that they spoke English and that they are their ancestors? (i know is a bit of an banal comparission ,but it has got many simmilarities).


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:52
Originally posted by HEROI

Is America to claim historical heritage of Indians?Are Americans to be proud of the ancient Indians,are they to claim that they spoke English and that they are their ancestors? (i know is a bit of an banal comparission ,but it has got many simmilarities).

 
Check out this forum, an awful lot do.....
 
So Macedonian history claim the Macedon tongue Alexander spoke is the Macedonian Language.
 
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:53
Originally posted by Paul

What I wonder is if the Macedonians had chosen to do exactly the same, but too a western European country....... They would have laughed it off or felt flattered.
You are quite wrong,movements such as the Basque ETA and Corsica etc in western Europe are exactly for the very same reasons,to do with national identity,and teritorial integrity of that particular people that claim to have the historical heritage on that particular territory.
 
The Greek reaction could possibly be explained by their past, but not excused.
 
Up to a point you are right,but you can not deny that any state would react the same way,or even worse and even much worse.And as i told you Greek national sentiment was created not on the expense of the  territorial integrity  of another recognised neighbour state,but in different circumstances at different times,which we can not make comparissions.Even if i give you the benefit of the doubt on this,still a wrong that Greece made a century ago can not be a right for Macedonia today.By any standarts.
 
Believing yourself a descendant is dodgy history, there are no 'rightful' descendants on any place on Earth.
 
I totaly agree with you on this,i only mentioned the fact about the very real  decendants of ancient Greece having being included into the new Greek state,unless they were shiped somwhere to Mars by the aliens.And ceirtanly this people spoke Greek and identifyed themselves as Greeks.
Just the same as the first English speakers are now part of England.etc
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:57
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by HEROI

Is America to claim historical heritage of Indians?Are Americans to be proud of the ancient Indians,are they to claim that they spoke English and that they are their ancestors? (i know is a bit of an banal comparission ,but it has got many simmilarities).

 
Check out this forum, an awful lot do.....
 
So Macedonian history claim the Macedon tongue Alexander spoke is the Macedonian Language.
 
 
 
To repeat myself again ,there ceirtanly is the element of ancient Macedonians in the Macedonians today,but they have not survived as an ethnicity with their language and tradition,so the Macedonian people today are Slavonic,and all of them identify as such.
They do indid claim Alexander spoke Macedonian,but they claim it was Slavo Macedonian
the same as the Europians living in America today claiming the Indians spoke an English language.
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:59
Originally posted by HEROI

Originally posted by Paul

What I wonder is if the Macedonians had chosen to do exactly the same, but too a western European country....... They would have laughed it off or felt flattered.
You are quite wrong,movements such as the Basque ETA and Corsica etc in western Europe are exactly for the very same reasons,to do with national identity,and teritorial integrity of that particular people that claim to have the historical heritage on that particular territory.
 
 
 
 
Well growing up in a country who's history has been shafted by Hollywood on a monthly basis for over half a century, but still hasn't declared war (where undoubtably the Greeks would have [could the Greeks have taken 2 300's a month for 50 years, without sending the fleet Washington bound?]) I have a slightly different perspective on this.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 22:04
I am curious to know where you from?

-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 22:06
The sig should be a clue..........

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 10:06
Originally posted by Paul

 
So Macedonian history claim the Macedon tongue Alexander spoke is the Macedonian Language.
 
they claim that he spoke slavonic or something close to that.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 10:21
Originally posted by Paul

What I wonder is if the Macedonians had chosen to do exactly the same, but too a western European country....... They would have laughed it off or felt flattered.
 
The Greek reaction could possibly be explained by their past, but not excused.
 
Believing yourself a descendant is dodgy history, there are no 'rightful' descendants on any place on Earth.
 
 
most likely we are descended from the indigenous people the primitive Greeks took over long time ago with a splashes of neighbor x , y and z along the way. Anadolia comes up big on the older parts of our genetics. How can this makes us less 'greek' when being Greek is the some of all those parts in the first place.

We are the ones that still carry the language (not me but the point still remains) and the identity, but we have changed over time and its not linear evolution. Both same and different, so i don't think sweeping statements to the positive or the negative do any justice. Greeks can read Aristotle, in his own language - the same language he taught Alexander the Macedon. That wasn't 'constructed'



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 15:17
Originally posted by Paul

there are no'rightful' descendants on any place on Earth.


Very true.

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


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 15:42
Originally posted by Leonidas

most likely we are descended from the indigenous people the primitive Greeks took over long time ago with a splashes of neighbor x , y and z along the way. Anadolia comes up big on the older parts of our genetics. How can this makes us less 'greek' when being Greek is the some of all those parts in the first place.

We are the ones that still carry the language (not me but the point still remains) and the identity, but we have changed over time and its not linear evolution. Both same and different, so i don't think sweeping statements to the positive or the negative do any justice. Greeks can read Aristotle, in his own language - the same language he taught Alexander the Macedon. That wasn't 'constructed'


Exactly!
It is not like we suddenly appeared from nowhere. Luckily, we've been a litterate nation (more or less from time to time) that was able to record its presense eather by language, or self references (Hellenes, Grekoi, Romioi/Rum). Even during Ottoman rule we released newspapers, litterature (see for example Erotokritos by Kornaros), art and were known as traders. Foreign nations and writters recognised us as a group (see for example Voltaires  "Scarmentado") and our communities worldwide survived till today (undoubtly Egypt, Georgia,  Uzbekistan , Russia, Italy and sporadically other Asian countries).


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 16:06
Originally posted by Paul

Check out this forum, an awful lot do.....
 
So Macedonian history claim the Macedon tongue Alexander spoke is the Macedonian Language. 


Unfortunately yes. Horribly, this is even state sponsored as well. That is the problem...Individual extremists are not a reason for political affairs, but when the state is a part in those mechanism then you have a problem. Did you know that their constitution includes terretorial claims? That is a good reason why to protest and to understand that it is not a stupid name dispute.

I will quote a Bulgarian Macedonian, specifically Dimitar Gotchev, a scholar and head of the institure of Macedonian studies in Bulgaria,who recenty stated in an interview to the Greek press:

"With the name they have now they're planning to make claims reaching Thessaloniki. Greece is right for being worried about it's terretorial boundaries. We're closely watching their expansional plans to the Greek south. They will never stop doing that. I just hope we will be able to stop this propaganda, else they will always cause you problems and try to humiliate you in front of the eyes of the EU and the world. They will say you keep the larger part of Macedonia and that Macedonia was not Greek but theirs."

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4430009204755981646 - http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4430009204755981646 (29:24 in the movie is this statement for those who can understand Greek or Bulgarian).

Note that these statements are done by someone who is a so called Macedonian from Ohrid and whos ancestors were heroes of the Balkan wars claimed as Macedonians by the Slavic Macedonians.

I hope you now understand that is just a name issue and that we don't have illussions about threats.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 16:16
Originally posted by HEROI

Having said that i still dont think that Greece is right to use a veto against Macedonia joining NATO,and to be honest with you i dont think that it will,i think is just diplomatic pressure,to try and get to a conclussion with the name issue,and it seams is working,negotiations are now at a point they would not have been if Greece would not have threatened a veto.My opinion is they will come to an conclussion before the NATO summit,or at least to a satisfactory agreement that would pave the way for the end for the matter. 


Heroi, I have to admit you're handling this discussion on a fair level and you get my credits for that.

Let me just comment on the veto issue. What other options do you think we have? The diplomatic discussions do not work. We don't want to do an embargo to them since the consequences are horrible and that would degrade the development of that country. Millitary action is a big nono and against Greece politics.

Since you're a Balcanoid as well Heroi and know the psychology of the area, lets say you were foreign minister of Greece. What would you do to reach a result? How would you apply pressure to bring them to the table and reach a sensible solution? Ofcourse, have in mind that an unfavourable decision to the people in Greece would result the blacklisting of your party for ever, considering that Makedonia has 2.7 million Greeks where half of them are Makedones.


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


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 17:33
Originally posted by Flipper


Exactly!
It is not like we suddenly appeared from nowhere. Luckily, we've been a litterate nation (more or less from time to time) that was able to record its presense eather by language, or self references (Hellenes, Grekoi, Romioi/Rum).
 
So, what's the difference with Maks? Same evolution. Just their language was changed once in 6-7th century. They didn't appear from somewhere either. They differentiated from local nation called Bulgarians. Their culture is also of interest especially during First Bulgarian Kingdom and Bulgarian national awakening.
 


-------------
.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com