Macedonian Truth Forum   

Go Back   Macedonian Truth Forum > Macedonian Truth Forum > Exposing Lies and Propaganda

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-27-2009, 04:30 AM   #41
Soldier of Macedon
Administrator
 
Soldier of Macedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Macedonian Outpost
Posts: 13,112
Soldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I believe Slovak has an educational background, to what extent I am not sure, but his approach is always based on the logic of information available and accurate assessment.
__________________
In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a full blooded Macedonian.
Soldier of Macedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 12:04 AM   #42
The LION will ROAR
Senior Member
 
The LION will ROAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia, Sydney
Posts: 3,233
The LION will ROAR is on a distinguished road
Default

Slavs are indigenous to the Balkans

By Mario Alinei

Here are some excerpts of Dr. Mario Alinei’s study concerning the Slavic populations in the Balkans. It is congruent with Dr. Florin Curta’s conclusions about the invention of the “arrival of the Slavs in the Balkans”.

“I have to commence by clearing away one of the most absurd consequences of the traditional chronology, namely, that of the ‘arrival’ of the Slavs into the immense area in which they now live. The only logical conclusion can be that the southern branch of the Slavs is the oldest and that from it developed the Slavic western and eastern branches in a differing manner and perhaps at different times.”
“Today only a minority of experts support the theory of a late migration for the Slavs… because none of the variant versions of such late settlement answers the question of what crucial factor could possibly have enabled the Slavs to have left their Bronze-Age firesides to become the dominant peoples of Europe. The south-western portion of the Slavs had always bordered on the Italic people in Dalmatia, as well as in the areas of the eastern Alps and in the Po lowlands.”
“The surmised ‘Slavic migration’ is full of inconsistencies. There is no ‘northern Slavic language’, it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic… The first metallurgic cultures in the Balkans are Slavic… and connected with Anatolia… Slavic presence in the territory, nearly identical to the one occupied by them today, exists ever since the Stone Age… The Slavs have (together with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples developed agriculture… agriculturally mixed economy, typically European, which later enabled the birth of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin urbanism. Germanic peoples adopted agriculture from the Slavs… The Balkans is one of the rare regions in which a real and true settlement of human groups coming from Anatolia is proven…].”

REFERENCES:

Mario Alinei, Origini delle lingue dEuropa, Vol. I: La teoria della continuit, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1996;
Vol. II: La continuit delle principali aree etnolinguistiche dal Mesolitico allet del Ferro, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2000.

BIOGRAPHY:

Mario Alinei is Professor Emeritus at the University of Utrecht, where he taught from 1959 to 1987.
Founder and editor of “Quaderni di semantica” review.
He is president of “Atlas Linguarum Europae”.
.Mario Alinei, Origini delle lingue dEuropa, Vol. I: La teoria della continuit, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1996;
Vol. II: La continuit delle principali aree etnolinguistiche dal Mesolitico allet del Ferro, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2000.
__________________
The Macedonians originates it, the Bulgarians imitate it and the Greeks exploit it!
The LION will ROAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 01:41 AM   #43
I of Macedon
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 222
I of Macedon is on a distinguished road
Default

Barbarians in Dark-Age Greece: Slavs or Avars? Florin Curta

John of Ephesus, to whom the “accursed Slavs” were the instrument of God for punishing persecutors of the Monophysites, claims that they were still occupying Roman territory in 584, “as if it belonged to them.” The Slavs had “become rich and possessed gold and silver, herds of horses and a lot of weapons, and learned to make war better than the Romans.”

For the first time, we are told that the Sclavenes brought with them their families, for “they had promised to establish them in the city [Thessalonica] after its conquest” (Miracles of St Demetrius II 1.180). This suggests that they were coming from the surrounding countryside, for the author used “Sclavenes” as an umbrella term for a multitude of tribes, some of which he knew by name: Drugubites, Sagudates, Belegezites, Baiunetes, and Berzetes. It is hard to believe, however, that those tribes were responsible for the devastation of the Islands of Thessaly, the Cyclades, of most of Illycrium, and of parts of Asia. There are two other “lists of provinces” in Book II of the Miracles of St Demetrius, one in which betrays the administrative source. It is therefore likely that, in describing a local event – the attack by the tribes on Thessalonica – of relatively minor significance, the author framed it against a broader historical and administrative background, in order to make it appear of greater importance.

The Sclavenes asked the qagan for assistance (negotiating an alliance) These were not subjects of the qagan. That other Sclavenes, however, were still obeying the orders of the qagan is shown by the composition of the army the qagan eventually sent to Thessalonica (Miracles of St Demetrius II 2.197-198). Two years after being offered the alliance of the Sclavene tribes who had failed in capturing Thessalonica, the qagan marched against the city (between 617 or 618AD).

…The author of Book II mentions a Sclavene craftsmen building a siege machine. He also mentions Sclavene tribes living at a considerable distance and not taking pat in the Sclavene alliance against Thessalonica. The Belegezites, who lived near Thebes and Demetrias, even supplied the besieged city with grain.

….Justinian II settled groups of “Scythians” around the gorges of the river Struma, thus laying the foundations of the Struma Kleisoura, later to become the theme by the same name. Many historians believed the “Scythians” to be either Slavs or Bulgars. To be sure, a tenth century scholium on Stabo’s Geographia does indeed refer to “Scythian Slavs” However, Peter Charanis first showed that Constantine Porphyrogenitus used “Scythians” in reference not to Slavs, but to Steppe nomads, such as Khazars or Magyars.

…In the mid-tenth century, Constantine VII wrote of two other tribes, the Ezeritai and the Milingoi, fiercely defending their independence against Byzantine encroachment. In both cases, the difference between various groups was important, because of differing political interests linked with various ethnicities. Some of the tribes that besieged Thessalonica were viewed as savage, brutish and heathen. Others like the Belegezites, were friendly, and, at times, potential and important allies, who were able to supply the besieged city with food. To Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Ezeritai and the Milingoi, were different from all Slavs “and other insubordinates of the province of Peloponnesus,” because of their successful resistance against various military governors of the theme.

...There, is no pattern of a unique, continuous, and sudden invasion of either Slavs or Avars. Moreover, until the siege of Thessalonica during Heraclius’ early regnal years, there is no evidence at all for outward migration, in the sense of a permanent change of residence. No raid recorded between 578 and 620 resulted in large-scale settlement. John of Ephesus claims that in 584, after four years of raiding, the Sclavenes were still on Roman territory, but this could hardly be interpreted as an indication of Slavic settlement.

In all those cases, ethnicity was a function of power in a very concrete and simple way. Ethnic groups were not classified in terms of language or culture, but in terms of their military and political potential. Names were important, therefore, because they gave meaning to categories of political classification.
__________________
No need to sit in the shade, because we stand under our own sun
I of Macedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 09:12 AM   #44
Momce Makedonce
Member
 
Momce Makedonce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 493
Momce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud ofMomce Makedonce has much to be proud of
Default

http://vostokian.com/the-slavic-label/

The Slavic Label
Identity in Eastern Europe has been a based on multiple, constantly differing criteria over the course of history. Whether it is language, religion, or ethnic affiliation, identities for many Balkan people have had a fluid meaning. One of these identities is the Slav-ethnic identity, a term with a heavily politicized connotation. Past theories held that that all Slavic-speaking people are of one bloodline and are invaders who migrated into the Balkans and Central Europe. These theories are then used in modern politics to support an outdated status quo or the territorial ambitions of non-Slavic groups. However, evidence[hs2] , both recent and historic, paints a different story. Slavs are united by the bonds of language, but not necessarily blood and homeland and those who assume the latter have often used this assumption to justify their own territorial claims and undermine those of others.

Defining an ethnic group in any context can be difficult so it is best to start at the beginning with the word Slav itself. The word Slav is ultimately a corrupted form of Sloveni which is what the Slavic tribes called themselves. However, it is not clear if these two terms are synonymous. Slav is a proper noun, representing an ethnicity. Sloveni is a descriptive noun that is a relational term. It equates itself to an imagined or real kinship by way of linguistic similarity between at least two different populations. In other words, a Macedonian cannot technically be a Slovene by oneself. A Macedonian and Serbian can be Sloveni because they both speak a common tongue. In fact, the very word Sloveni comes from the common Slavic word slovo, meaning “word”. Thus , people who called themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand each other to a degree. Structural linguistics show that if two words do not carry the same meaning, they cannot be cognates, such as in the case between Slavs and Sloveni., However, the fact that these people share a common language does not necessarily prove that there was a large migration of Slavs who managed to conquer and re-settle most of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, while being virtually unnoticed beforehand.

Most proponents of the Slavic migration theory focus on the medieval invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Like all other empires it was subject to attacks, pillages, and raids by various tribes. By the 6th century a group of obscure “barbarians” began to amass along the Danube River and began regularly attacking Byzantine territory. Primary sources show that there were Illyrians, Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians, Getae, Veneti, Sarmatians, and Scythians among other nations located around the Danube at the time.

The Thracians, according to Herodotus[1], were the most numerous nation in Eurasia, only outnumbered by the Indians. Furthermore, Polybius[2] wrote that Macedonians and Thracians were even related. The remnants of the Thracian language also support this conclusion, because it shares a striking similarity to modern Balto-Slavic languages. If modern historians were to accept this notion it would present a huge discrepancy in the Slavic Migration model because it is widely accepted that the Thracians were indigenous to Eastern Europe. Much of the remaining Thracian glossary is Slavic[3] as the following hypothetical sentence shows, constructed entirely from known Thracian words.

THRACIAN: SERDE GORD, AS BRUZA DADON ZELKIA ANA DZVERI OSTA

translation: At the center of the city, I quickly gave vegetables to the beast mouth

MACEDONIAN: SRED GRAD, JAS BRZO DADOV ZELKA NA DZVER USTA

translation: At the center of the city, I quickly gave lettuce to the beast mouth

Nevertheless, the theory remains that a tribe, which was unrecorded before the 6th century, appeared from behind the Carpathian Mountains to become the largest ethno-linguistic group in Europe replacing the Thracians, who were previously the largest ethnic group in Europe. Not only did Thracians territorially cover most of the same regions as modern Slavs do, but their languages were related as has been clearly demonstrated. There are detailed records of the migration of the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Goths, Tartars, Mongols, Turks, and other groups yet the Slavic-migration, which would be arguably one of the most massive migrations in recent history, went virtually unnoticed by historians. This begs the question -could the Slav label simply be a new reference for existing populations?

The first mention of Slavs came from Pseudo-Caesarios of Nazianzum in the 6th century who referred to them as Sklavenoi. Most sources placed the Sklavenoi right along the Danube River, and no source indicates a recent arrival. In fact, Byzantine chronicler Theophylact Simocatta gives an interesting perspective as to what Sklavenoi could have meant to Byzantines. He states, “As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace”[4]. The Getae were an indigenous Thracian tribe that has been recorded since ancient times. It is clear that they did not migrate from anywhere, nor were they previously called anything but Getae. A possible explanation is that they became labeled Sklavenoi because they, along with other tribes, started to attack the Byzantine Empire. Sklavenoi was a Byzantine-era slang term for the various tribes that began to attack the empire. More importantly, it was not limited to the attackers; it soon became used to refer to local populations who also rebelled against the empire. For example, some Slavic “tribal” names, such as the Timochani, Strymonoi, Caranatianians are clearly Balkan in origin, yet the groups it referred to were still labelled Sklavenoi. Therefore, Sklavenoi, based on Sloveni, came to signify a rebel, with a derogatory connotation. In other words, they did not become Sklavenoi because they exclusively spoke in a Slavic tongue. In fact, some Slavic tribal names have Iranian and Nordic roots[5]. Even though some groups may have used Slavic languages as a lingua franca, the important takeaway is that they all became Sklavenoi because at least some of the participating groups used the relational term “Sloveni” to signify kinship. By the time indigenous pockets of population began to support their attacks and started forming rebel enclaves called Sklavinaes, the derogatory term became synonymous with an anti-Byzantine rebel or marauding barbarian.

The fabled migration is conspicuously absent from oral or written accounts in Slavic folklore. Macedonian folklore, still containing songs and stories about ancient Macedonian kings, neglects to refer to Macedonians as Slavs, nor even mention a move from behind the Carpathian Mountains. However, with 19th century nationalism sweeping the Balkans, the Slav term re-emerged as an integral part of one’s identity, this time with an ethnic connotation. While previously denoting kindred people, the 19th century, the era of mass historical revisionism, saw the birth of the new Slav term, Strongly influenced by the German theory that all nations must have ancestors in the ancient world, the futile search for a Slavic origin relied on linguistic and philological enterprise, instead of historiography and archeology as a means of identifying ethnicity.

The first theory put forth was based off of a linguistic analysis of Slavic vegetation terms. Linguists determined that given the large amount of German loan-words for certain types of trees, Slavs had to have come from an area devoid of those tree-types[6] . The area they settled on was the Pripet Marshes in modern-day Ukraine. Unifying and confining the numerous Slavic nations’ origins to the Pripet Marshes had a twofold effect. First, it demonstrated that Slavic-speakers were not indigenous to their lands, thus justifying the conquest and occupation of Slavic lands. the By choosing to solely identify diverse peoples with the Slav ethnonym the Great powers signified the inferiority of Slavic nations. This label not only associated them with the sense of having no clear origin, but also with “slaves”. This association is still seen in many other languages, with Spanish using esclavo for slaves, and Arabic using Saqaliba.

Modern research has revealed the fallacy of using such an approach to denote origin. In an attempt to solidify the homeland of the Slavs, geneticists isolated a special haplogroup- a group of similar DNA variations-to be the “Slavic gene”. Named Haplogroup R1a, it naturally showed its highest frequencies in Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus, averaging 65%-70%[7]. In the Southern Balkans, however, the national frequencies averaged only about 15%, not nearly enough to show evidence of mass-migration. More troublesome for the Slavic Migration Theory is that some Scandinavian countries show a higher frequency, about 30%, than the Southern Balkan populations do. Furthermore, the one haplogroup that is the highest defining haplogroup for the region, Haplogroup I2, is simply dubbed as being “Southern Proto-European”.

The problem with the Slav title being used to denote origin and bloodline does not affect only Macedonians. In the 20th century Croatians launched an attempt to rekindle their Illyrian ancestry, and Poles their Sarmatian ancestry. Both attempts were suppressed by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empire, respectively. By the time World War II came around, the strong unity created by the Slavic ethnic identity came at a tremendous cost. In Hitler’s mind, by virtue of the Bolshevik Revolution having had Jewish leaders, all Slavic people were deemed untermenschen (subhuman) by ethnic association. Since Slavic people like Czechs and Slovaks also “occupied” German land, the invader theory of origins also played nicely for the Nazi ideology. The truth is, all nations become affected by such a titles. Eastern Europe in particular is a treasure trove of vibrant histories, cultures, and people. The ethnic Slav label creates a forged unity, at the cost of people’s identities.

It comes as no surprise that this label was most used during the period of communism and socialism in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia under Tito’s regime constantly suppressed nationalism and non-state identities. Grouping people under the Slav ethnicity made all Yugoslavs (literally South Slavs) not only have a common history and origin, but in turn, a common future. The Slavic ethnicity and migration also worked well for Russia, which was able to reaffirm its view of being “Mother Russia” by showing that all Slavs originated from then-Russian territory. Greece’s modern-day use of this communist-influenced ethnicity to label Macedonians and others simply Slavs, serves the same purpose now as it did then: it generalizes a group and forces an identity upon them. By painting Macedonians as Slavs, Greece succeeds in blurring the distinct nature of their identity and history by connecting them to the history of the numerous other Slavic nations. Furthermore, the generalization of Macedonians as Slavs, makes claiming Macedonian history, such as that of Alexander the Great, laughable since Slavs are supposed new-comers to the Balkans.

Like all labels, it leads to assumptions, generalizations and misconceptions when heard by others. Fortunately, the move to separate politics from history has begun, and leading anthropologists and historians like Florin Curta, Mario Alinei, and Charles Abraham Bryant now call into question the Slav label and migration theory as a whole. Identity in the Balkans has the potential to shift once more. Restoring the Slavic term to its original purpose-denoting kinship- will not only allow individual identities to be reclaimed, but for differences to be accepted and celebrated.





I found this an interesting read. First time I`ve come across this website. It seems two of the three editors of the website are Macedonian, the other a Bulgarian American.

About the site
"The Vostokian was founded in 2015 as a forum on which students and young professionals could publish their writings on politics and economics in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It is completely self-funded by our editorial staff. The Vostokian was the first to cover the Political Bomb crisis in Macedonia and has provided the most comprehensive timeline of sanctions leveled on and by Russia. Work published on our site has also been recommended as reading by the Foreign Policy Association, cited by the Soufan Group and discussed on talk radio."
__________________
"The moral revolution - the revolution of the mind, heart and soul of an enslaved people, is our greatest task." Goce Delcev
Momce Makedonce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 09:16 AM   #45
Liberator of Makedonija
Senior Member
 
Liberator of Makedonija's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,295
Liberator of Makedonija is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momce Makedonce View Post
http://vostokian.com/the-slavic-label/

The Slavic Label
Identity in Eastern Europe has been a based on multiple, constantly differing criteria over the course of history. Whether it is language, religion, or ethnic affiliation, identities for many Balkan people have had a fluid meaning. One of these identities is the Slav-ethnic identity, a term with a heavily politicized connotation. Past theories held that that all Slavic-speaking people are of one bloodline and are invaders who migrated into the Balkans and Central Europe. These theories are then used in modern politics to support an outdated status quo or the territorial ambitions of non-Slavic groups. However, evidence[hs2] , both recent and historic, paints a different story. Slavs are united by the bonds of language, but not necessarily blood and homeland and those who assume the latter have often used this assumption to justify their own territorial claims and undermine those of others.

Defining an ethnic group in any context can be difficult so it is best to start at the beginning with the word Slav itself. The word Slav is ultimately a corrupted form of Sloveni which is what the Slavic tribes called themselves. However, it is not clear if these two terms are synonymous. Slav is a proper noun, representing an ethnicity. Sloveni is a descriptive noun that is a relational term. It equates itself to an imagined or real kinship by way of linguistic similarity between at least two different populations. In other words, a Macedonian cannot technically be a Slovene by oneself. A Macedonian and Serbian can be Sloveni because they both speak a common tongue. In fact, the very word Sloveni comes from the common Slavic word slovo, meaning “word”. Thus , people who called themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand each other to a degree. Structural linguistics show that if two words do not carry the same meaning, they cannot be cognates, such as in the case between Slavs and Sloveni., However, the fact that these people share a common language does not necessarily prove that there was a large migration of Slavs who managed to conquer and re-settle most of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, while being virtually unnoticed beforehand.

Most proponents of the Slavic migration theory focus on the medieval invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Like all other empires it was subject to attacks, pillages, and raids by various tribes. By the 6th century a group of obscure “barbarians” began to amass along the Danube River and began regularly attacking Byzantine territory. Primary sources show that there were Illyrians, Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians, Getae, Veneti, Sarmatians, and Scythians among other nations located around the Danube at the time.

The Thracians, according to Herodotus[1], were the most numerous nation in Eurasia, only outnumbered by the Indians. Furthermore, Polybius[2] wrote that Macedonians and Thracians were even related. The remnants of the Thracian language also support this conclusion, because it shares a striking similarity to modern Balto-Slavic languages. If modern historians were to accept this notion it would present a huge discrepancy in the Slavic Migration model because it is widely accepted that the Thracians were indigenous to Eastern Europe. Much of the remaining Thracian glossary is Slavic[3] as the following hypothetical sentence shows, constructed entirely from known Thracian words.

THRACIAN: SERDE GORD, AS BRUZA DADON ZELKIA ANA DZVERI OSTA

translation: At the center of the city, I quickly gave vegetables to the beast mouth

MACEDONIAN: SRED GRAD, JAS BRZO DADOV ZELKA NA DZVER USTA

translation: At the center of the city, I quickly gave lettuce to the beast mouth

Nevertheless, the theory remains that a tribe, which was unrecorded before the 6th century, appeared from behind the Carpathian Mountains to become the largest ethno-linguistic group in Europe replacing the Thracians, who were previously the largest ethnic group in Europe. Not only did Thracians territorially cover most of the same regions as modern Slavs do, but their languages were related as has been clearly demonstrated. There are detailed records of the migration of the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Goths, Tartars, Mongols, Turks, and other groups yet the Slavic-migration, which would be arguably one of the most massive migrations in recent history, went virtually unnoticed by historians. This begs the question -could the Slav label simply be a new reference for existing populations?

The first mention of Slavs came from Pseudo-Caesarios of Nazianzum in the 6th century who referred to them as Sklavenoi. Most sources placed the Sklavenoi right along the Danube River, and no source indicates a recent arrival. In fact, Byzantine chronicler Theophylact Simocatta gives an interesting perspective as to what Sklavenoi could have meant to Byzantines. He states, “As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace”[4]. The Getae were an indigenous Thracian tribe that has been recorded since ancient times. It is clear that they did not migrate from anywhere, nor were they previously called anything but Getae. A possible explanation is that they became labeled Sklavenoi because they, along with other tribes, started to attack the Byzantine Empire. Sklavenoi was a Byzantine-era slang term for the various tribes that began to attack the empire. More importantly, it was not limited to the attackers; it soon became used to refer to local populations who also rebelled against the empire. For example, some Slavic “tribal” names, such as the Timochani, Strymonoi, Caranatianians are clearly Balkan in origin, yet the groups it referred to were still labelled Sklavenoi. Therefore, Sklavenoi, based on Sloveni, came to signify a rebel, with a derogatory connotation. In other words, they did not become Sklavenoi because they exclusively spoke in a Slavic tongue. In fact, some Slavic tribal names have Iranian and Nordic roots[5]. Even though some groups may have used Slavic languages as a lingua franca, the important takeaway is that they all became Sklavenoi because at least some of the participating groups used the relational term “Sloveni” to signify kinship. By the time indigenous pockets of population began to support their attacks and started forming rebel enclaves called Sklavinaes, the derogatory term became synonymous with an anti-Byzantine rebel or marauding barbarian.

The fabled migration is conspicuously absent from oral or written accounts in Slavic folklore. Macedonian folklore, still containing songs and stories about ancient Macedonian kings, neglects to refer to Macedonians as Slavs, nor even mention a move from behind the Carpathian Mountains. However, with 19th century nationalism sweeping the Balkans, the Slav term re-emerged as an integral part of one’s identity, this time with an ethnic connotation. While previously denoting kindred people, the 19th century, the era of mass historical revisionism, saw the birth of the new Slav term, Strongly influenced by the German theory that all nations must have ancestors in the ancient world, the futile search for a Slavic origin relied on linguistic and philological enterprise, instead of historiography and archeology as a means of identifying ethnicity.

The first theory put forth was based off of a linguistic analysis of Slavic vegetation terms. Linguists determined that given the large amount of German loan-words for certain types of trees, Slavs had to have come from an area devoid of those tree-types[6] . The area they settled on was the Pripet Marshes in modern-day Ukraine. Unifying and confining the numerous Slavic nations’ origins to the Pripet Marshes had a twofold effect. First, it demonstrated that Slavic-speakers were not indigenous to their lands, thus justifying the conquest and occupation of Slavic lands. the By choosing to solely identify diverse peoples with the Slav ethnonym the Great powers signified the inferiority of Slavic nations. This label not only associated them with the sense of having no clear origin, but also with “slaves”. This association is still seen in many other languages, with Spanish using esclavo for slaves, and Arabic using Saqaliba.

Modern research has revealed the fallacy of using such an approach to denote origin. In an attempt to solidify the homeland of the Slavs, geneticists isolated a special haplogroup- a group of similar DNA variations-to be the “Slavic gene”. Named Haplogroup R1a, it naturally showed its highest frequencies in Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus, averaging 65%-70%[7]. In the Southern Balkans, however, the national frequencies averaged only about 15%, not nearly enough to show evidence of mass-migration. More troublesome for the Slavic Migration Theory is that some Scandinavian countries show a higher frequency, about 30%, than the Southern Balkan populations do. Furthermore, the one haplogroup that is the highest defining haplogroup for the region, Haplogroup I2, is simply dubbed as being “Southern Proto-European”.

The problem with the Slav title being used to denote origin and bloodline does not affect only Macedonians. In the 20th century Croatians launched an attempt to rekindle their Illyrian ancestry, and Poles their Sarmatian ancestry. Both attempts were suppressed by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empire, respectively. By the time World War II came around, the strong unity created by the Slavic ethnic identity came at a tremendous cost. In Hitler’s mind, by virtue of the Bolshevik Revolution having had Jewish leaders, all Slavic people were deemed untermenschen (subhuman) by ethnic association. Since Slavic people like Czechs and Slovaks also “occupied” German land, the invader theory of origins also played nicely for the Nazi ideology. The truth is, all nations become affected by such a titles. Eastern Europe in particular is a treasure trove of vibrant histories, cultures, and people. The ethnic Slav label creates a forged unity, at the cost of people’s identities.

It comes as no surprise that this label was most used during the period of communism and socialism in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia under Tito’s regime constantly suppressed nationalism and non-state identities. Grouping people under the Slav ethnicity made all Yugoslavs (literally South Slavs) not only have a common history and origin, but in turn, a common future. The Slavic ethnicity and migration also worked well for Russia, which was able to reaffirm its view of being “Mother Russia” by showing that all Slavs originated from then-Russian territory. Greece’s modern-day use of this communist-influenced ethnicity to label Macedonians and others simply Slavs, serves the same purpose now as it did then: it generalizes a group and forces an identity upon them. By painting Macedonians as Slavs, Greece succeeds in blurring the distinct nature of their identity and history by connecting them to the history of the numerous other Slavic nations. Furthermore, the generalization of Macedonians as Slavs, makes claiming Macedonian history, such as that of Alexander the Great, laughable since Slavs are supposed new-comers to the Balkans.

Like all labels, it leads to assumptions, generalizations and misconceptions when heard by others. Fortunately, the move to separate politics from history has begun, and leading anthropologists and historians like Florin Curta, Mario Alinei, and Charles Abraham Bryant now call into question the Slav label and migration theory as a whole. Identity in the Balkans has the potential to shift once more. Restoring the Slavic term to its original purpose-denoting kinship- will not only allow individual identities to be reclaimed, but for differences to be accepted and celebrated.





I found this an interesting read. First time I`ve come across this website. It seems two of the three editors of the website are Macedonian, the other a Bulgarian American.

About the site
"The Vostokian was founded in 2015 as a forum on which students and young professionals could publish their writings on politics and economics in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It is completely self-funded by our editorial staff. The Vostokian was the first to cover the Political Bomb crisis in Macedonia and has provided the most comprehensive timeline of sanctions leveled on and by Russia. Work published on our site has also been recommended as reading by the Foreign Policy Association, cited by the Soufan Group and discussed on talk radio."


Vostokian? Have it opened in a tab, haven't gotten around to reading it myself.
__________________
I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Liberator of Makedonija is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2020, 07:47 PM   #46
dave_petro
Junior Member
 
dave_petro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 14
dave_petro is on a distinguished road
Default

Stumbled across this beauty.

Academic Study on the Slavic Migration Myth:

https://www.academia.edu/2572082/The...ard=view-paper
__________________
'Nothing is impossible to him who will try"
dave_petro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2020, 08:05 PM   #47
Liberator of Makedonija
Senior Member
 
Liberator of Makedonija's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,295
Liberator of Makedonija is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_petro View Post
Stumbled across this beauty.

Academic Study on the Slavic Migration Myth:

https://www.academia.edu/2572082/The...ard=view-paper
Have that one downloaded and will read one day but Basil Chulev isn't exactly the most academic of authors.
__________________
I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Liberator of Makedonija is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump