Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • DimitarP
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2011
    • 28

    First of all communist bulgaria from 1989 and democratic bulgaria 2011 are quite different.

    First of all bulgaria is not as centralized now as it used to be in communist times (i think this is obvious).

    The ex-communists in the parliament are always trying to keep the status quo as this keeps the laws and regulations in the country more obscure and imperfect, which allows for mafia-like structures, who sponsor their politic campains, thriving and making millions.

    However Kostov's government 1997-2001 made some massive reforms and started negotiations for joining NATO and the EU. Now the whole process of joining EU required more massive reforms and laws to be implemented. Effectively the european laws guarantee the rigts of the idividual (in theory). However the corrupt judisial system was and still is a problem. Bulgaria has paid millions to people who have sued the country in Strasbourg. The european commission puts enormous pressure on bulgaria to reform further and this is the necessary path to join the Schengen zone.

    Bulgaria kicking anyone out is completely impossible at the moment. The gypsies are a problem as long as they stay uneducated and keep commiting numerous crimes. In fact this is going to be addressed very soon. There probably will be EU programs for regional development where money will be given for dealing with the poverty and poor infrastructure in ghetos where gypsies in bulgaria live. Their rights are guaranteed by the law but they aren't given the same chance as the rest of the bulgarians when it comes to finding ordinary jobs.

    So bulgaria has embraced the european path again after 50 years of communism. The communism is something that noone actually chose, it was forsed upon bulgarian and eastn europe by russia. the 50 years of communism are a black page in the history books. Super centralized power that manipulated, exploited and discriminated against its own people. Everything was done to suit ideological doctrines of the regime, while people who would disagree were sent to prisons and Belene (the bulgarian analog of Sibir/Gulag in russia)
    Last edited by DimitarP; 01-15-2011, 03:58 PM.

    Comment

    • Onur
      Senior Member
      • Apr 2010
      • 2389

      Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
      First of all communist bulgaria from 1989 and democratic bulgaria 2011 are quite different.

      Bulgaria kicking anyone out is completely impossible at the moment. The gypsies are a problem as long as they stay uneducated and keep commiting numerous crimes. In fact this is going to be addressed very soon. There probably will be EU programs for regional development where money will be given for dealing with the poverty and poor infrastructure in ghetos where gypsies in bulgaria live.
      Yes it is different but not "THAT" different. You cant become democratic and prosperous state in a day just because you are not a communist anymore. It`s a long process which requires experience and collective social memory as a result of it. Look at Greece, they thought they became rich in a day when they entered EU and Euro zone since credit rating firms increased their rating to AA+ in a day. Now they are facing hard truth after the big guns turned off the taps. As far as i heard, Bulgaria is still trying to replace it`s bureaucracy by kicking out 100s of ex-communist bureaucrats these days. I saw Bulgaria last year and there was communist style buildings everywhere in Sofia. It was plain ugly. Small towns and cities in eastern Bulgaria, where Turks lives was much better and cozier than Sofia because of beautiful nature. Well, the beautiful nature was the only thing i liked about Bulgaria. So, I think Bulgaria still needs more time and lots of money to recover.


      Why impossible? 2 different party, Ataka and Vmro openly recommends for the expulsion of Turks and gypsies again. Bulgarians cant have babies for some reason!! and their population keeps dropping for a long time while Turks has normal population increase rate and gypsies reproduce like cats&dogs. If this continues, gypsies will overrun you in the future, so what you gonna do about it?

      By the way, you shouldn't trust EU funds since they are in crisis for more than a year and i don't think German taxpayers would like to give money to Bulgaria just to resolve your gypsy problem. I think they would prefer what Sarkozy did few months ago, instead of spending money for gypsies. Also forget about educating or trying to integrate them in to your society cuz they cant do that. They have exactly same lifestyle for centuries and they don't wanna change it. They live in their own world, not in ours.
      Last edited by Onur; 01-15-2011, 04:47 PM.

      Comment

      • Risto the Great
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 15658

        Onur, you often refer to Turkic tribes as being Turkish which I think is incorrect and falling into similar traps that Greeks do. If the Bulgars were Turkic, how does that make them Turkish?
        Risto the Great
        MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
        "Holding my breath for the revolution."

        Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

        Comment

        • DimitarP
          Junior Member
          • Jan 2011
          • 28

          Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
          Onur, you often refer to Turkic tribes as being Turkish which I think is incorrect and falling into similar traps that Greeks do. If the Bulgars were Turkic, how does that make them Turkish?
          That's spot on, turkic tribes does not mean turkish tribes. there is a big variety of turkic tribes. The bolgars were believed to be a turkic tribe that roamed across asia long before they reached the balkans or the volga river. Nowadays some believe that they also had borrowed a lot from the iranian tribes that they came in contact with at some stage.

          In fact modern bulgarian linguist have found words with similar root in modern bulgarian and in the iranian languages Pushtu and Farsi-Dari.
          http://lukferi2.webs.com/linguistic.htm..
          Last edited by DimitarP; 01-16-2011, 01:06 AM.

          Comment

          • DimitarP
            Junior Member
            • Jan 2011
            • 28

            Originally posted by Onur View Post

            All these are for medieval Bulgars tough and as you said, currently there is no relation whatsoever between early Bulgars and current Bulgarians. I am talking about the philosophy and ideas of current Bulgarians, not about your DNA since it doesn't matter how much early Bulgar, Tatar blood you have. So, Bulgarians kinda hijacked the name Bulgars and using it atm.

            http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...0&postcount=25
            Well.. some bulgarian historians put the number of the bulgars who came with Asparukh (name of iranian origin) to the Danube river to up to 300 000. However they can only find some evidence for about 50 000 at best... Now this is info from my grandma who used to be ethnographer back in bulgaria and that was one of the research topics that her friend was involved with. They actually went to Romania to investigate places of bulgar settlements... Now 50 000 is a big fig figure if all these people were fighters with weapons, but good many of them must have been women, anyway.. if we are talking about assimilation of 50 000 bolgars though, I don't think that 50 000 stands as such a big number. Even the most bulgaristic historians say that there were at least 250 000 slavs south of Danube at the time (thats a conservative estimate). More over soon after the establishment of Asparukh's bulgar kingdom (less than 200 years) the slavic alphabet was adopted..

            Comment

            • DimitarP
              Junior Member
              • Jan 2011
              • 28

              "...So, Bulgarians kinda hijacked the name Bulgars and using it atm."

              I don't think that ist's a case of highjacking.

              The kingdom of the bulgars was called accordingly because the bulgars were the top officials, the millitary commanders and the early organization of the state was similar to that of Old Great Bulgaria. (Old Great Bulgaria is a name given by the Byzantium to the state at the north coast of the black sea lead by the bulgar/bolgar khan Kubrat). So the state run by the danube bulgras was called bulgaria. However, the population of this kingdom was quite a mixture of ethinic groups. The name of bulgaria and the bulgarians has survived through the centuries though.

              The bulgarians were a recognized ethnic group in the Turkish empire, who spoke bulgarian language throughout the whole 5 centuries of turkish domination. Now that indicates that this isn't a made up or highjacked name. It refered to some particular group of people, who were identified as bulgars or bulgarians as opposed to vlahs, serbs, thracians or for example makedons. The bulgarian awakening in the turkish empire started with "Istoria slaviano-balgarska" - a historical document meant for those who called them selves bulgarians. Then those people fought in the april uprising for freedom.

              How those people who were a mixture of ethnicities, i asume with predominant slav representation, became one bulgarian people I do not know. The fact is they took up the cirilic alphabet and east orthodox christianity as a religion, which may have been a unifying factor... I really don't know, perhaps TM has some docos that would bust the myth of bulgarian ethnicity in the turkish empire... however no other ethnicity fought for independance in Moesia, it was predominantly bulgarians with bulgarian names and language who fought, wasn't it? And when they got so to speak "liberated" by the russians the new kingdom was called Bulgaria.
              Last edited by DimitarP; 01-16-2011, 04:12 AM.

              Comment

              • DimitarP
                Junior Member
                • Jan 2011
                • 28

                Link to an article about Australian dude who lives bulgaria, what he thinks about bulgaria and the bulgarians, it's sad in a way. The good thing is: things are being adressed: http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_iko...desh_seriozen/

                Sorry the article is in bulgarian, i'm no demonstrating anything, but may be some macedonians could understand it. I can understands some macedonian but not everything.. if anyone is interested can give it a try. I found it interesting.

                Comment

                • Soldier of Macedon
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 13670

                  Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                  Dimitar, hopefully you won't allow the prevalent anti-Macedonian view of official Bulgarian policy to get in the way of your pursuit for knowledge. I agree with you regarding the lack of significance that the actual Bulgars have in today's Bulgarians, and would also argue that the Bulgarian label perpetuated more from precedence rather than ethno-linguistic connotation. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think that today's Bulgarians should be called something else, Thracians perhaps? Do you recognise a distinct Macedonian people?
                  Dimitar, do you not wish to address the above?
                  In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                  Comment

                  • Ottoman
                    Banned
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 203

                    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
                    Onur, you often refer to Turkic tribes as being Turkish which I think is incorrect and falling into similar traps that Greeks do. If the Bulgars were Turkic, how does that make them Turkish?
                    You can compare the term Turkic with Slavic, the term Turkish is indeed not correct because that term is used to describe people from Turkey.

                    Comment

                    • DimitarP
                      Junior Member
                      • Jan 2011
                      • 28

                      "I agree with you regarding the lack of significance that the actual Bulgars have in today's Bulgarians, and would also argue that the Bulgarian label perpetuated more from precedence rather than ethno-linguistic connotation. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think that today's Bulgarians should be called something else, Thracians perhaps? Do you recognise a distinct Macedonian people?"

                      Ok so there's three questions in there... Here's my three answers:

                      1. At this moment I disagree with you on the first question, because as I said there has been a recognized bulgarian ethnic group in the turkish empire, which spoke bulgarian (sort of a slavic language). Their name and language hasn't survived for such a long time because of a random precedence, it was a recognized ethnicity and language and has been around for a long, long time. This group has not only survived under that name but also organised it self and rebelled and sought independance. We don't know about any thracian minorities in the ottoman empire who had tried to liberate them selves (or do we? let me know if there are materials that talk about uprising of ethnic thracians or thracian awakening at that time).

                      2.This gives an answer to your second question. Those who fought for independance called them selves bulgarians, whatever meaning this word "bulgarian" has had at the time. They were also known and described as bulgarians. So their state would logically be called Bulgaria (unless a thracian minority claimed that a different name would be more appropriate but i don't think that anyone has come up with such suggestion at the time (again if there is evidence that i have missed let me know).

                      3. The main thing for me is that the macedonians feel dfferent from everybody else, therefore they are a separate people, therefore I recognise them as such.

                      Comment

                      • Onur
                        Senior Member
                        • Apr 2010
                        • 2389

                        Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
                        That's spot on, turkic tribes does not mean turkish tribes. there is a big variety of turkic tribes. The bolgars were believed to be a turkic tribe that roamed across asia long before they reached the balkans or the volga river. Nowadays some believe that they also had borrowed a lot from the iranian tribes that they came in contact with at some stage.

                        In fact modern bulgarian linguist have found words with similar root in modern bulgarian and in the iranian languages Pushtu and Farsi-Dari.
                        http://lukferi2.webs.com/linguistic.htm..
                        Well, i made a mistake by writing Turkish for Bulgars. It would be Turkic but in 8th century, there was no Anatolian Turkish state, so there was no "Turkish" already. All was "Turkic" instead.

                        Only small part of Persians had steppe culture and there was only one Iranian major tribe called Alans. Big majority of Central Asian steppe people was Turks, like 70% of them was belonged to the Turkic tribes in early medieval era, 10% was Iranians, 10% was Mongolians and 10% Hungarians.

                        Recently invented Iranian theory has no base. I don't think you Bulgarians came from Afghan mountains. We have some Iranian words from that era too but it`s because of cultural interaction with other steppe people like Alans who spoke IE language. Not because of we or you Bulgars are Iranians.



                        Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
                        Well.. some bulgarian historians put the number of the bulgars who came with Asparukh (name of iranian origin) to the Danube river to up to 300 000. However they can only find some evidence for about 50 000 at best... .
                        Asparukh is an Iranian name??? I doubt it. We have people with Asparuh surname in Turkey too and the Bulgar Asparuh used title Khan as other Bulgar rulers. Only Turks uses the title Khan, not Alans, IE speakers. Also it`s a fact that old Bulgars used Turkic script and Turkic language. Also even if Asparuh is Iranian, other rulers of 1st and 2nd Bulgar kingdoms like Shismans are Turkic and all their name exist in today`s Turkish.

                        These Iranian theory invented cuz you Bulgarians have been called as Turkic for 1000+ years in every possible historical records and after you have been "liberated" by Russians, this became problematic since they had to cut any possible tie between Turks and Bulgarians. So, nearly every ottoman building has been destroyed in central and northern Bulgaria. Russians also did reform in your language and thats why you use immense number of Russian words today unlike Macedonians who were out of Russian sphere of influence. I heard Russians even re-wrote your history after 1878 by destroying whatever didn't suit to their needs.



                        Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
                        "...So, Bulgarians kinda hijacked the name Bulgars and using it atm."

                        I don't think that ist's a case of highjacking.
                        Well, "hijacked" maybe too harsh, cuz you use it for more than 1000 years but i wanted to indicate that current Bulgarians has no relation whatsoever with the founders of danube Bulgaria kingdoms. I mean today`s Turkic speaking Bulgars around Volga are much more closer to the Asparuh then you.

                        Comment

                        • Onur
                          Senior Member
                          • Apr 2010
                          • 2389

                          Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
                          In fact modern bulgarian linguist have found words with similar root in modern bulgarian and in the iranian languages Pushtu and Farsi-Dari.
                          http://lukferi2.webs.com/linguistic.htm..
                          This website is a joke. It`s obvious that this list has been prepared by a stupid amateur. Take a look at these words;

                          You have learned these words from Turks in ottoman era. You didnt learn these from Asparuh cuz there was no meihana, chai, badem in 8th century; Halka, Chai-Tea, Sinjir-Zanjir-Chain, Badem, Tambura- musical instrument, Roshvet, Kesmat / Shans-chance, mehana-bar


                          These words are Turkish for sure. These are not Iranian; Renk( proto- Bulg.) / Boia, cviat, Job-Jeb-Pocket, Chorba-Shorwa-soup, sapun-Sabun-soap, Torba-bag, Bashta-Padar-Father, Chainik-tea-pot, Shishe-glas, Kuche-Spai-Sag-dog, Perde-Curtain, Parche-Piece, Bazar / Pazar-market, Cheshma, Topka-Top-Ball, Portokal-Orange

                          Also it`s so funny for me to see words like "Renk, boia, cep-jeb, bash, kuchu, portakal" as proto-Bulgarian!!!! lol, these are Turkic/Turkish words and wtf is proto-Bulgarian? Current Bulgarian is a slavic language and portakal, boia, bash, kuchu IS NOT proto-Bulgarian(slavic).. It`s simply Turkic, nothing else.

                          The "Proto" of some Slavic language CANNOT be Turkic nor Persian!!!


                          Besides, i know that Iranians refuses your Bulgars being Persian claims. It`s really stupid to list Iranian words that you have learned from Turks during Ottoman era and naming Turkic words as "Proto-Bulgar" then claiming that you came from Afghan mountains and spoke IE language!!!

                          Comment

                          • Soldier of Macedon
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 13670

                            Originally posted by DimitarP
                            At this moment I disagree with you on the first question, because as I said there has been a recognized bulgarian ethnic group in the turkish empire, which spoke bulgarian (sort of a slavic language).
                            Not 'sort of' - Bulgarian is a Slavic language, like Macedonian, Croatian, Slovak and Russian, in the same way that Italian, French and Spanish are Latin languages.
                            Their name and language hasn't survived for such a long time because of a random precedence, it was a recognized ethnicity and language and has been around for a long, long time.
                            I have no doubt that the people of Moesia possessed some sort of common affiliation with each other, but I am talking about the 'Bulgar' name. It came to be found in the Balkans as a result of Turkic (with Iranic admixtures) peoples establishing a kingdom in Moesia during the 7th century AD. As these Turkic Bulgars were no more than 50,000, it didn't take long before they were assimilated by the local Thracians and 'Slavs' they had subjugated. Shortly after the time of Boris the old Bulgars were all but gone, but their name remained due to the precedent they set. When Bulgaria was toppled by East Rome in the 10th century, the empire established by Samuel was referred to as 'Bulgaria' because of precedent; when Basil II defeated Samuel he created a new theme in Macedonia called 'Bulgaria' - again, because of precedent (*significant to note is that actual Bulgaria in Moesia was not included in the 'Bulgaria' theme).

                            To be historically accurate, the only persons that can be referred to as true 'ethnic' Bulgars are the Turkic peoples that established Bulgaria. For the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the empire, theme or kingdom which carried such a name, it held no ethnic significance (except to those that claimed a heritage from the Turkic Bulgars). They instead made use of the term in the generic sense, which is how it came to be applied to Slavic languages and letters across the greater Balkan region.
                            We don't know about any thracian minorities in the ottoman empire who had tried to liberate them selves (or do we? let me know if there are materials that talk about uprising of ethnic thracians or thracian awakening at that time).
                            I never said there were 'ethnic' Thracians in the Ottoman Empire, I merely provided an alternative name due to the insignificant Bulgar element in today's Bulgarians (which you agree with). At least the Thracians were Indo-Europeans who spoke a language that shares affinities with Slavic languages, unlike the Turkic Bulgars.
                            The main thing for me is that the macedonians feel dfferent from everybody else, therefore they are a separate people, therefore I recognise them as such.
                            The Macedonians feel different from their neighbours because they are distinct, and there is a mass of evidence to support that 'feeling'. Genuine recognition is based on more than just a 'feeling' or 'you are what you are because you say you are', it is the acknowledgement of existence, the acceptance of reality.
                            In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                            Comment

                            • Risto the Great
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 15658

                              Originally posted by Ottoman View Post
                              You can compare the term Turkic with Slavic, the term Turkish is indeed not correct because that term is used to describe people from Turkey.
                              Yes that is a fair comparison to the extent it relates to historic peoples existing outside of modern nations. Whilst we do not know what Turkic or Slavic precisely means, it is convenient for classification purposes.
                              Risto the Great
                              MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
                              "Holding my breath for the revolution."

                              Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

                              Comment

                              • Onur
                                Senior Member
                                • Apr 2010
                                • 2389

                                Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                                I have no doubt that the people of Moesia possessed some sort of common affiliation with each other, but I am talking about the 'Bulgar' name. It came to be found in the Balkans as a result of Turkic (with Iranic admixtures) peoples establishing a kingdom in Moesia during the 7th century AD.

                                To be historically accurate, the only persons that can be referred to as true 'ethnic' Bulgars are the Turkic peoples that established Bulgaria.
                                I fully agree to that.

                                It`s also highly possible that Bulgar people who came to danube also had Iranian people(maybe Alans) with them cuz they were all steppe people in Eurasia. Steppe people like Turks, Alans(Iranians), Hungarians cooperated a lot of times `till 13th century since they had similar culture and they lived close to each other for a long time. That even includes slavic tribes during Hunnic expansion to Europe.

                                People had same concerns as us 1000+ years ago. Vlachs and Cuman Turks along with the monarchy of 1st Bulgar kingdom used same name "Bulgar" when they formed 2nd Bulgar kingdom simply to have a historical base. Bulgar name probably continued to be used by these people to have a historical right for their own state on that particular territory. So, thats also why they didn't use any other name like Thracians cuz Thracians never formed their own state but Bulgars did that simply because in medieval era, warfare skills of steppe people was superior comparing to Romans, so they were able to defeat them and create their own state.

                                What disturbs me is; Bulgarians trying to transform early Bulgars like they were supposedly some Iranian tribe, living in Afghan mountains, spoke IE language. This is stupid cuz Bulgars are Turkic tribe and we have countless proofs for that. Volga Bulgars has their historical documents of their own from 9-10th century and it`s Turkic language. I know that danube Bulgarians are ashamed to be related with Turks in any way because of Ottoman era but it`s pointless to create stupid Iranian theories and stole the name of a medieval Turkic tribe and turn it to a Iranian one.


                                For the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the empire, theme or kingdom which carried such a name, it held no ethnic significance (except to those that claimed a heritage from the Turkic Bulgars).
                                This is true. For slavic speaking people, the name Bulgar has no ethnic significance. It can only have ethnic significance for Turkic speaking people.

                                AFAIK, some Gagauz people claims to have early Bulgar heritage and as far as i read from some Bulgarian scholars, some Turkish speaking people in the region of "Deliorman" in Bulgaria are thought to be descendants of old Bulgars. They claim that because of archaic features in their Turkish language.
                                Last edited by Onur; 01-16-2011, 07:11 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X