Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Soldier of Macedon]

Probably the same sphere as Dedanoe.

[Mikail]

I don't think so SoM. I think Babazuba is in one of our occupied territories by the way he writes. And if it is so, I can understand his viewpoint. Or her if that is the case?

[julie]

Babazuba, where are you from?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I don't think so SoM. I think Babazuba is in one of our occupied territories by the way he writes. And if it is so, I can understand his viewpoint. Or her if that is the case?

I hope so mate.

[Mikail]

An answer would be nice Babazuba

[Vangelovski]

Buktopism

As usual, Buktop started posting on this thread with landing as many buzz words as possible within the one sentence:

Which definition of state are we discussing here? The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity, a specific mode of government, or a body politic, especially one constituting a nation?

What does that mean? Nobody really knows.

The current Macedonian state has only existed continuously since August 2, 1944

You’re point being? I was pointing out that this was not the FIRST Macedonian state and to pretend that it was (i.e., the way UMD does) provides credibility to the Greek claim that Macedonia is a modern invention. The FIRST Macedonian state was established in circa 800 BC.

Regardless, Buktop moves on by bringing into play a new concept – the Macedonian “entity”:

If you are talking about a Macedonian entity or identity, then that is different than state and was not mentioned.

What is the Macedonian “entity”, again, nobody really knows.


Next, Buktop showed us some classic UMDism:

They are not discussing the name Macedonia, they are discussing the official name of the state. Please clarify what your issue is with this statement...

Then a backflip

No one is denying the existence of a historic Macedonian state, nowhere has this ever been denied.

Followed by some more irrelevance:

The origin of the CURRENT form of Macedonian state originated in a 1944 declaration by ASNOM.

The use of "Macedonia" is not being disputed, the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

Some reinterpretation:

UMD's argument stated that the modern Macedonian state was founded in 1944, which is a fact.

UMD stated that Macedonia has officially used the name Macedonia since 1944 – they did not specify the “modern” state.

Some more irrelevance:

Once again, the argument is not when we started using the name Macedonia, but the existence of the modern state.

Really? Thats not the content of my post and I’m that one that brought it up – seems like you’re in the wrong thread!

Some more general inaccuracies, but hey...

the current Macedonian state, that was founded in 1944 by ASNOM.

Actually, the current Macedonian state is the Ramkovist State founded in 2001. At different stages Buktop argues that there is no continuation between states, yet when it comes to the ASNOM/Independence/Ramkovist states, they’re all one in the same...

there is no continuity from one statehood to another, they are different states, while retaining Macedonian identity.

Buktop’s well-reasoned, well-researched and clearly defined state (take one):

According to posted by Bratot, he is suggesting that the empire constituted a state, which depending on the definition of state you are using can be true, but that is the point we are trying to argue when we say that the CURRENT Macedonian state was only founded in 1944. And yes you are correct, the Roman and East Roman empires later absorbed the Macedonian empire(state) and it ceased to exist, the territory and the people didn't go anywhere, just the existence of a sovereign entity known as a state.

????


Take two:

This process of creating a State in the modern sense only came about as a result of the creation of Nationalism in the 19th century. No one is discussing historical existence of kingdoms or territories. We are discussing it from a modern sense, the establishment of a Macedonian state resulted in 1944 due to subjugation and partition, and it was not created by Tito as I have pointed out several times.

.

As state in the “modern sense”... By your own definition, and by the definition you put forward later on from Heywood (as provided by me), a state is a state – time is irrelevant. However, that does not fit into UMD’s vision of Macedonia 1944. Lets go back a few quotes:

No one is denying the existence of a historic Macedonian state, nowhere has this ever been denied.

Yet now, Flip has flopped again and would have us believe that there is a fundamental difference between a “modern” state and what is presumably a “pre-modern” state.

Regardless, Buktop has another attempt at creatively reinterpreting the UMD statement:

I don't know how many times I have to re-explain myself. The statement you are referring to is not in relation to the historical existence of a Macedonian empire, territory, people or identity, it is in relation to the founding of a Modern State as defined in a Nationalistic sense of the word stemming from it's 19th century ideology.

Some of my favourites...reeks of an amateur:

do you know when the concept of statehood was even created?

the concept of a state only came into existence in the 19th century.

Some dodging and weaving:

I can't seem to understand why you keep bringing UMD up, this argument is about the existence of a Macedonian state, try to stay on topic.

The topic was UMD...

“Definition” – Take Three:

Statehood - The condition of being a body of people permanently occupying a definite territory and politically organized under a sovereign government.

And where is the time limitation discounting states before the “modern” era...?

An attempt at defining the ‘nation’...I think...:

A federation or tribe/ The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe/A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country/The territory occupied by such a group of people/The government of a sovereign state...USA, EU, USSR, SFRJ are nations

Now it gets scary...

then there are Nation-States
a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

And now just ridiculous...

now, the term nation can be used to define a state as well, as a federation of it's provinces or districts, it all depends on how the country wants to define itself.

Some rage....

Why don't you explain to me how the fact that our modern state was created in 1944 by ASNOM supports Greek claims? And why do you even entertain such idiotic thoughts? You are only serving to give the arguments credit if you need to change history in order to deal with moronic claims.

Suggesting that our FIRST state was created in 1944 – not our “current” one – gives credibility to Greek claims – that has been the point all along.


Then a few of these:

Stick to the topic Vangelovski.

A more serious attempt at providing a definition of the ‘nation’:

Oh you mean this definition? A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality.

Even Buktop get confused sometimes:

The current Macedonian state has only existed continuously since August 2, 1944 established under the name Democratic Macedonia.

No, that was Meto’s suggestion for a name change.


Some more ramblings...:

This is not disputed, but the fact remains, this was the name of the STATE that was founded in 1944. Sovereign/independent state in relation to a continued participation in a federated Yugoslavia, in effect, asking whether Macedonians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. The state still continued it's existence.

Continued existence from the 1944 state through to the independent 1991 state and then the 2001 Ramkovist state? Hang on, didn’t you say that:

there is no continuity from one statehood to another, they are different states.

This wasn’t that important, just an example of Buktopism...

More on definitions:

During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

Buktop must of meant something else, because he did state the following:

the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

Definition of the state...take 4 or 5?:

The point here being the use of the proper definition of State, and not an altered one. The founding of a Macedonian state in it's proper sense, only took place in 1944, any extension of the term state to encompass historical contexts is merely wishful thinking. Kingdom, territory, empire, realms, monarchy, dynasty, or provinces are usually the typical identifiers for previous existing sovereign entities, and are not considered states in the proper sense.

Wrong again, but it goes on with the invention of a new concept – “proper sovereign identifiers” that mysteriously divide “modern” states from “pre-modern” states:

I listed a number of proper sovereign identifiers to describe historical entities not types of government. State in the modern sense should not be applied to historical concepts.

Buktop’s self-proclamation of his own “competence”, which in itself shows a lack thereof:

I am more than competent enough to know the concepts and foundations of the creation of 19th century ideology and it's application to the modern concept of a State, just because you can't grasp what I am explaining to you does not mean there is a problem with my understanding, perhaps it's on your end that the problem exists?

Confusion of concepts...apparently a state can be both sovereign AND semi-autonomous!:

Under Yugoslavia Macedonia was a sovereign, semi-autonomous state participating in a federation, or union of autonomous states.

Under Ottoman, Eastern Roman and Roman rule, all we maintained was Identity, this does not constitute the existence of a state, even if we were to apply the definition to historical contexts.

We did maintain our identity or we didn’t...flip

During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

And flop:

the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

Just what is this debate about?

It is not so much semantics as fact. A person in this thread made a contention about the existence of a historic Macedonian 'state', and became upset at the notion that our state was established in 44. This is the debate, not the existence of a historic Macedonian people or kingdom.

State definition...Take...6?

State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. The word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems. Local level does not constitute a state. Especially when it is not a sovereign entity, the state did not exist.

Notice Buktop’s OWN addition of “The word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems”...

You are the damn revisionist! I don't even know why I am arguing with someone who doesn't even know how to look up the definition of the word state...

The “official” definition...who knew!

Have a look at the definition of State, there is an official definition, and you should take the time to learn it.

Another definition?

The point is not about recognition by other states, it is about it's actual existence. Since when has there existed a self governing autonomous political entity called Macedonia?

Flip...

My point is that the existence of a State is irrelevant when concerning an Identity or a History.

Flop...

now, the term nation can be used to define a state as well, as a federation of it's provinces or districts, it all depends on how the country wants to define itself.

Flip....

The Macedonian State was founded in 1944, the Identity and the territory has existed continuously, not the State.

Flop...

During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

That definition again...

A State, as has been pointed out several times in this thread is an Autonomous, Self governed, Political entity.

And how does this definition discount the ancient Macedonian state?

I think this could be a piece of the puzzle...one sense of the word...two..more?

We are speaking of a State, there is but one sense of the word State that was intended when the founding of the Macedonian one that took place in 1944 was mentioned in this thread...That is why I asked you, in the beginning of this thread which definition of State you were using, you gave me the definition of the modern sense, which is what we are discussing. Had you given me a different definition, this conversation would have taken a different course.

Flip...

no one ignored the existence of an ancient state, I have acknowledged it numerous times in this thread, can you understand English? or should I bring out my crayons and draw you a picture?

Flop...

The founding of a Macedonian state in it's proper sense, only took place in 1944, any extension of the term state to encompass historical contexts is merely wishful thinking. Kingdom, territory, empire, realms, monarchy, dynasty, or provinces are usually the typical identifiers for previous existing sovereign entities, and are not considered states in the proper sense.

Definition of State...Take...?

Once again, in a broader sense of the definition of State, we may label ancient entities as States, but this in no way connects the modern State with the Ancient. Even looking at historical contexts with modern concepts causes discrepancies. The Identity and the territory are proven to be continuous, evidence of a related line of States however is lacking.

How many contradictions is this now?

My understanding of the words and concepts have not changed throughout my posts in this thread, I would ask you to please identify where they have.

Is this enough?

you obviously don't understand anything I have commented on in this thread.

Not really.

Now tell me how my notions differ from those of this scholarly work.

Where do I begin?

[Phoenix]

Could Buktop really be Meto...?

[julie]

Vangelovski, your analysis is amazing, I am in awe,

and more confused

[julie]

Phoenix, methinks your on to something here! Very possible.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, your analysis is amazing, I am in awe,

and more confused

Julie,

My head hurts....

[julie]

Vangelovski, am not surprised - reading that synopsis was doing mine in, very well done I must say

you know those spinning heads in those cartoons - mine was doing that , you have amazing analytical skills

[Rogi]

Pushing the actual topic and arguments aside for a moment, I have to say Tom, that post is fantastic, it would have taken ages to put it together, but it is really fantastic, great structure, it flows so well... if ever the construction of a post could be considered an art, then that is a masterpiece.

I'm really sincerely impressed and bookmarking it for future reference.

[TrueMacedonian]

Look I am not Greek and have nothing at all to do with Greece. I can see how some of my comments may have been taken that way, I do apologise if that is how they may have come across. What I do like to see however is history to be shown without bias or strong influence from nationalism and patriotism (I know that this is hard). A non-biased history is the best history, sadly the Balkans is such a petty region that this is not possible. Hopefully this bickering will one day end and maybe the people of the Balkans can work together. And I know that this requires Greece and Bulgaria to get their heads of their arses so to speak and show some respect towards the Macedonian people. However it does not help if we lower our historical standards and knowledge to a level parallel to theirs. Why should we degrade ourselves just to make a point to some Greeks? Who gives a f*&k what the Greeks or Bulgarians think?! I'm not going to say things just to compete with the "historical" bullshit which comes out of Athens every year for the sake of it.

Look from now on i'll stick to social issues, clearly an opinion about history which strays from the Aleksandar Donski style - Македонизам is not accepted here.

What a cop out. When have I ever used 'Donski style' (whatever that means)? How is it I am able to produce solid-based information when all you do is write your own words, which isn't credible at all just like your dialect from Demir Hisar.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Mastika may have done a stint in Demir Hisar's institution(s).

[makedonche]

Vangelovski

Tom, extremely well done on putting all those quotes together, I have been following this thread closely and most of what you point out is frighteningly correct!