Tweet
How long will the Greeks go on lying that...
How long will the Greeks go on lying that there are no ethnic Macedonians living in Greece
Gandeto
April 12, 2009
One should not be surprised when Greeks attack anything found in print that does not coincide with their pre-programmed government´s agenda. Indeed, their track record is as dependable as the saliva produced by the dogs in the Pavlov´s experiment. They are being conditioned to respond—like sharks to blood in water—to anything that runs contrary to their school imbued "purity of greekness". And in the process, they are not being constrained by any scientific norms and principles—which they hold others responsible to—but plunge forward with their version of the truth—read lies and distortions—as if they are the ones holding the high moral grounds from where they can dispense it as they see fit.
For example, they even attacked the report issued by Ms. McDougall, the Independent Expert on Minority Issues at United Nations, who urged Greece to withdraw from the dispute over whether there is a Macedonian or a Turkish minority in Greece and focus on protecting the rights to self-identification, freedom of expression and freedom of association of those communities.
Greece has "misunderstood" its obligation in this matter; it is not up to the Greek government to identify these minority groups living in Greece, but rather, to allow them to self identify as such. Their blatant, bigoted statements that there are no ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, stems from their inherently shortsighted approach to their overindulged pomposity and egotistically maniacal self inflated aggrandizement. Little do they know that others—with arched eyebrows in pitiful bewilderment—either calmly see through their empty arrogance or view them with passing indifference.
In the latest article published in this magazine "Macedonism in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the dogma of the Macedonian genes" by Tymphaios on April 10, 2009 we find—among other incorrect statements—the following denial:
"The statement that the Macedonians were considered by the Greeks as "non-Greek barbarians" is not referenced and it is not made in ancient sources. An allegation by Demosthenes that Philip was a barbarian was specific to Philip and indeed the same insult was made against Demosthenes by his political opponents."
Let us peruse the facts in the available literature and prove exactly the opposite:
It is a fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as barbarians. The word ´barbaroi´ was reserved for any foreigners who did not speak the Greek language. To the chauvinistic Greek ear the foreigners spoke a language that sounded like ´bar-bar´, thus the name barbarians, a non-Greek. ´Barbaros´, as it was used in the ancient time, did not imply that the people were primitive, backward and uncivilized. It did not mean loathing or contempt (Kitto 1951), it simply meant people who did not speak Greek, for if they spoke Greek, they were classed as Greeks. "The language was an important element of what, to a Greek, it meant to be a Greek, should not perhaps be thought surprising. As is well known, the Greeks called non-Greek barbaroi, a term usually taken to refer pejoratively to the babble of foreign speech" (T. Harrison, Herodotus´ Concept of Foreign Languages HISTOS vol. 2 (1998).
There are numerous anecdotal references preserved from the ancient chronographers to attest the veracity of this matter. This fact alone merits a considerable attention since it has occupied a pivotal position in the latest historical scholarship regarding the ethnicity/race status of the ancient Macedonians. The scholars, who support the thesis that ancient Macedonians were a distinct and a separate ethnic group from the ancient Greeks, take it as a proof that testifies how ancient Greeks, themselves, saw their northern neighbors. While the opponents of this thesis (Daskalakis), although, acknowledging the existence of such documents, where the ancient Macedonians are being referred to as barbarians, believe that the reference ´barbarian´ was not used as a racial distinction between Hellenes and Macedonians, but rather as either, social, political, cultural and or moral one.
In other words, ancient Macedonians were called barbarians because, they were perceived by the ancient Greeks as inferior, backward, uncivilized, unintelligent, corrupt, immoral and socially retrograded and overall, not in a same intellectual level with the ancient Greeks, who saw themselves as superior to any other nation or race on the earth. The proponents of this thesis have largely ignored, or have purposely dismissed, the fact that Greeks in antiquity were quite cognizant of the existence of marvelous other civilizations in the east, whose cultures they have benefited from themselves. Greeks were in some respects indebted to the splendor of Babylon, Persopolis, and Memphis, or the wisdom of Egypt. Then, what is it that the Greeks possessed that the foreigners, the ´barbaroi´ did not have that forced the Greeks to distinguish themselves from the rest of the people who did not speak Greek? In the eye of the ancient Greek, once an individual was found to speak Greek, that individual was rightfully accepted in the family of Greeks/Hellenes and was found to be in possession of the most fundamental element for Greekness – their language.
And, thus, the other concomitant characteristics like religion, way of thinking, way of conduct and the peculiar to all Greeks- the way of life, would be easily attached later. Language, religion and blood, components shared by all Greeks, were so intricately interwoven in the Greek mind and nature that he saw himself as a free man, different and apart from any other man on earth, as opposed to the barbarians who were slaves. Hence, when Herodotus describes the ´answer´ the Athenians gave to the Spartans 8. 144.2, we find these major components that all Greeks possessed, emphasized and enumerated anew. Greek language, religion, and blood encompassed and characterized the Greek race.
This ´inherited´ superiority of the Hellenic race over the barbarians was evident in the common racial merit of the Greek people, which was manifested through their moral qualities accompanied by superior intellect, and their collective Greek conscience. These inborn fundamental differences provided a marked contrast between themselves and the rest of the barbarians.
The intellectual superiority, writes Daskalakis, was even noticeable among the Greek peoples themselves, with Athenians holding the most advance place in the Greek world. This created, and assumed superiority of the Athenian people, transposed into the political platforms of the orators, writers and philosophers of the time. Thus, the "barbarian" connotation assumed a political face instead of a racial one. Accordingly, asserts Daskalakis, when the ancient Macedonians were referred to as ´barbarians´ it meant one of the following (a) being uncivilized and primitive (b) being ruled by a despot (c) lacking intellect (d) lacking cultural institutions (e) displaying conduct alien to Hellenic way of life, and (f) for political libels.
Tactfully side stepped, and religiously avoided is the connection between a ´barbarian´ and a ´foreigner´, (as of a different race), and a ´barbarian´ and a ´speaker of non-Greek language´. Thus, the word "barbarian", according to Daskalakis´ design, used by the ancient Greeks when referring to the ancient Macedonians can be interpreted to mean any of the above, except "race", and/or "different language". These two powerful components of the equation are being eliminated as non-factors, meaning that the author, as a good tactical chess player, would like to disarm the opposition by introducing his own rules for the game, and by so doing, he inadvertently revealed his ´moves´ and thereby exposed his battle strategy. We, shall, therefore, attempt to show that the word "barbarian" used by the ancient Greeks to describe the Macedonians meant exactly the opposite, a "foreigner" and a non-Greek language speaker.
Furthermore, a "foreigner" will be shown to mean a person of a different race, and a ´non-Greek language speaker´ will be attested to mean a non-Hellene person.
Herodotus 5 .22 reports that Alexander I was regarded as ´barbaros´, a foreigner, a non-Greek by the Greek competitors at Olympia. The Olympic Games were reserved for Hellenes only. We are not concern whether he was later adjudged by the Hellanodikai as Greek. (Perhaps, Alexander I carried his "driver´s license" with him.) The point to remember is that he was not recognized as Greek to start with.
Isocrates 5.108, 154, paid tribute to Philip II as blue-blooded Greek and made it clear that Macedonians were not Greeks. "Isocrates himself", writes Werner Jeager, "the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil. 108. He purposely avoids the word Barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene" (Jeager 1968: 249 n.7). Noteworthy point is Isocrates side stepping the people of Macedonia who would not be the rulers over Greece but their king Philip, who, naturally, is not a son of these Macedonians, but ethnologically proven to be a Heraclid, and thus of pure Greek extraction. Jeager, in regards to race, places the Macedonians outside the Greek fold and sees no historical excuse to use the race card in legitimizing the Macedonian conquest and dominion over the Greeks. In other words, the role of the Macedonians in their conquest of Persia does not have to travel through Greece and be viewed through a Greek perspective.
In the Histories (Herodotus), as we have just touched it upon, we find the Athenians giving reasons to the Spartans as to why they would not betray Greece (8.144.2); besides the destruction of the Greek shrines and the images of gods laying strewed on the ground and the burning desire for revenge by all Greeks, they include the following attributes common to all Greeks: common blood, common religion, common customs, common sacrifices and common language, and then, all together comprise the common way of life that separates the Greeks from all other foreigners i.e., barbarians. Here the language is one of the typically peculiar ´thing´ to Greeks only. He says that the Greeks always spoke Greek (1.58.1), and that Pelasgians a non-Hellenic population spoke a barbarian language that he could not understand. Only after learning Greek language did they become Greek (1.57.3).
Indeed, if one could speak Greek one would unquestionably be classed as Greek. Asiatics, and specifically Persians and Egyptians, whose cultural advances permeated into the Greek life, were classed as barbarian speaking peoples - meaning by ´barbarian´ no more then non- Hellenic. There are very few instances recorded in literature where a Greek learns a foreign language. Plutarch reports that Themistocles spoke Persian (Them. 29.5), but for the most part we find the other races learning Greek. As a matter of fact, Greeks behaved as if learning a foreign language was reserved for the barbarians only, who could not speak Greek and it was their duty to learn it. There was this persistent, and a high degree of arrogant lack of interest in learning a foreign language.
"The Greek language was seen as a symbol of Greek unity, and of Greeks belonging to their land; it was also a weapon" (Harris "Herodotus Conception of Foreign languages" HISTOS Vol 2 1998). Naturally, it was understood, and readily accepted, that speakers of a same language must have had a common descent. A common descent meant sharing of some primordial connections to, and acquiring inborn influences from, a distant progenitor whose progeny enjoyed, and subsequently passed on the learned social manifestations, customs and religious observances. These social belonging and interactions, coupled with the unifying glue called language, produced the first awareness of ethnicity among the ancient people.
Hence, genos and syngeneia expressed the notion of common belonging, of ´sameness´, of kinship. This awareness of kinship was transmitted through the element of haima, blood, and thereby, we come to a point where blood is taken to represent the essence of connectedness with the original progenitor. In Herodotus we find ´blood´ as one of the principal determinant of Greekness, of purity, and we have also established the connection between language and ethnicity, where language came to reinforce ´blood´ in defining ethnic groups. Thus, ethnicity was characterized through purity of blood, expressed through social and cultural interactions and defined and/or determined through the usage of a language. In sum a foreigner is any person who does not speak Greek, and thus, he is a barbarian, meaning non-Hellene.
Thuc. 20. 80.5-7; 2. 81.6; 4. 124.1 puts the Macedonian contingents among the barbarians. Badian in "Greeks and Macedonians" n.21 writes: "from the very etymology of that word "barbarians" were people whom Greeks could not understand. When the ancient Macedonian kings were called barbarians it was not done for political reasons or a personal vendetta, but it was a calculated choice used to denigrate their culture, their race, their origin and their way of life; in other words ´barbaroi´ meant ´I hold you, and your institutions and your way of life as beneath me, because you lack the basic determinants/attributes of which a Greek is in possession of. You neither speak like a Greek, do not live like a Greek, nor do you think like a Greek.
And, once again, we came to this often visited intersection; there are some very progressive Greeks who do not subscribe to this middle-age Greek thinking and who see the people in the Balkans living in peace and harmony—these are the true Greeks and then, there are newly created Greeks, those whose heritage has been wiped out and replaced with the newly "morphed" ethnicity "Greek-Macedonian". Since they—in this Greek created problem—stand to lose the most, they are the "true" Greek soldiers in the forefront fighting the battle. I am sure they wouldn´t dare dig deeper into their past because they will inevitably find "skeletons" which have another story to tell: their grandfathers did not even speak Greek nor did they share in these "megali" Greek dream. What they dreamed the most and with a heavy heart longed for, were their abandoned homes, forsaken culture and their way of life in their Asia Minor communities.
Sooner than later all these Greek lies and fabrications will run their course and Europe will have no choice but to put an end to this Greek farce.
Until next time….
Gandeto
April 12, 2009
One should not be surprised when Greeks attack anything found in print that does not coincide with their pre-programmed government´s agenda. Indeed, their track record is as dependable as the saliva produced by the dogs in the Pavlov´s experiment. They are being conditioned to respond—like sharks to blood in water—to anything that runs contrary to their school imbued "purity of greekness". And in the process, they are not being constrained by any scientific norms and principles—which they hold others responsible to—but plunge forward with their version of the truth—read lies and distortions—as if they are the ones holding the high moral grounds from where they can dispense it as they see fit.
For example, they even attacked the report issued by Ms. McDougall, the Independent Expert on Minority Issues at United Nations, who urged Greece to withdraw from the dispute over whether there is a Macedonian or a Turkish minority in Greece and focus on protecting the rights to self-identification, freedom of expression and freedom of association of those communities.
Greece has "misunderstood" its obligation in this matter; it is not up to the Greek government to identify these minority groups living in Greece, but rather, to allow them to self identify as such. Their blatant, bigoted statements that there are no ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, stems from their inherently shortsighted approach to their overindulged pomposity and egotistically maniacal self inflated aggrandizement. Little do they know that others—with arched eyebrows in pitiful bewilderment—either calmly see through their empty arrogance or view them with passing indifference.
In the latest article published in this magazine "Macedonism in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the dogma of the Macedonian genes" by Tymphaios on April 10, 2009 we find—among other incorrect statements—the following denial:
"The statement that the Macedonians were considered by the Greeks as "non-Greek barbarians" is not referenced and it is not made in ancient sources. An allegation by Demosthenes that Philip was a barbarian was specific to Philip and indeed the same insult was made against Demosthenes by his political opponents."
Let us peruse the facts in the available literature and prove exactly the opposite:
It is a fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as barbarians. The word ´barbaroi´ was reserved for any foreigners who did not speak the Greek language. To the chauvinistic Greek ear the foreigners spoke a language that sounded like ´bar-bar´, thus the name barbarians, a non-Greek. ´Barbaros´, as it was used in the ancient time, did not imply that the people were primitive, backward and uncivilized. It did not mean loathing or contempt (Kitto 1951), it simply meant people who did not speak Greek, for if they spoke Greek, they were classed as Greeks. "The language was an important element of what, to a Greek, it meant to be a Greek, should not perhaps be thought surprising. As is well known, the Greeks called non-Greek barbaroi, a term usually taken to refer pejoratively to the babble of foreign speech" (T. Harrison, Herodotus´ Concept of Foreign Languages HISTOS vol. 2 (1998).
There are numerous anecdotal references preserved from the ancient chronographers to attest the veracity of this matter. This fact alone merits a considerable attention since it has occupied a pivotal position in the latest historical scholarship regarding the ethnicity/race status of the ancient Macedonians. The scholars, who support the thesis that ancient Macedonians were a distinct and a separate ethnic group from the ancient Greeks, take it as a proof that testifies how ancient Greeks, themselves, saw their northern neighbors. While the opponents of this thesis (Daskalakis), although, acknowledging the existence of such documents, where the ancient Macedonians are being referred to as barbarians, believe that the reference ´barbarian´ was not used as a racial distinction between Hellenes and Macedonians, but rather as either, social, political, cultural and or moral one.
In other words, ancient Macedonians were called barbarians because, they were perceived by the ancient Greeks as inferior, backward, uncivilized, unintelligent, corrupt, immoral and socially retrograded and overall, not in a same intellectual level with the ancient Greeks, who saw themselves as superior to any other nation or race on the earth. The proponents of this thesis have largely ignored, or have purposely dismissed, the fact that Greeks in antiquity were quite cognizant of the existence of marvelous other civilizations in the east, whose cultures they have benefited from themselves. Greeks were in some respects indebted to the splendor of Babylon, Persopolis, and Memphis, or the wisdom of Egypt. Then, what is it that the Greeks possessed that the foreigners, the ´barbaroi´ did not have that forced the Greeks to distinguish themselves from the rest of the people who did not speak Greek? In the eye of the ancient Greek, once an individual was found to speak Greek, that individual was rightfully accepted in the family of Greeks/Hellenes and was found to be in possession of the most fundamental element for Greekness – their language.
And, thus, the other concomitant characteristics like religion, way of thinking, way of conduct and the peculiar to all Greeks- the way of life, would be easily attached later. Language, religion and blood, components shared by all Greeks, were so intricately interwoven in the Greek mind and nature that he saw himself as a free man, different and apart from any other man on earth, as opposed to the barbarians who were slaves. Hence, when Herodotus describes the ´answer´ the Athenians gave to the Spartans 8. 144.2, we find these major components that all Greeks possessed, emphasized and enumerated anew. Greek language, religion, and blood encompassed and characterized the Greek race.
This ´inherited´ superiority of the Hellenic race over the barbarians was evident in the common racial merit of the Greek people, which was manifested through their moral qualities accompanied by superior intellect, and their collective Greek conscience. These inborn fundamental differences provided a marked contrast between themselves and the rest of the barbarians.
The intellectual superiority, writes Daskalakis, was even noticeable among the Greek peoples themselves, with Athenians holding the most advance place in the Greek world. This created, and assumed superiority of the Athenian people, transposed into the political platforms of the orators, writers and philosophers of the time. Thus, the "barbarian" connotation assumed a political face instead of a racial one. Accordingly, asserts Daskalakis, when the ancient Macedonians were referred to as ´barbarians´ it meant one of the following (a) being uncivilized and primitive (b) being ruled by a despot (c) lacking intellect (d) lacking cultural institutions (e) displaying conduct alien to Hellenic way of life, and (f) for political libels.
Tactfully side stepped, and religiously avoided is the connection between a ´barbarian´ and a ´foreigner´, (as of a different race), and a ´barbarian´ and a ´speaker of non-Greek language´. Thus, the word "barbarian", according to Daskalakis´ design, used by the ancient Greeks when referring to the ancient Macedonians can be interpreted to mean any of the above, except "race", and/or "different language". These two powerful components of the equation are being eliminated as non-factors, meaning that the author, as a good tactical chess player, would like to disarm the opposition by introducing his own rules for the game, and by so doing, he inadvertently revealed his ´moves´ and thereby exposed his battle strategy. We, shall, therefore, attempt to show that the word "barbarian" used by the ancient Greeks to describe the Macedonians meant exactly the opposite, a "foreigner" and a non-Greek language speaker.
Furthermore, a "foreigner" will be shown to mean a person of a different race, and a ´non-Greek language speaker´ will be attested to mean a non-Hellene person.
Herodotus 5 .22 reports that Alexander I was regarded as ´barbaros´, a foreigner, a non-Greek by the Greek competitors at Olympia. The Olympic Games were reserved for Hellenes only. We are not concern whether he was later adjudged by the Hellanodikai as Greek. (Perhaps, Alexander I carried his "driver´s license" with him.) The point to remember is that he was not recognized as Greek to start with.
Isocrates 5.108, 154, paid tribute to Philip II as blue-blooded Greek and made it clear that Macedonians were not Greeks. "Isocrates himself", writes Werner Jeager, "the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil. 108. He purposely avoids the word Barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene" (Jeager 1968: 249 n.7). Noteworthy point is Isocrates side stepping the people of Macedonia who would not be the rulers over Greece but their king Philip, who, naturally, is not a son of these Macedonians, but ethnologically proven to be a Heraclid, and thus of pure Greek extraction. Jeager, in regards to race, places the Macedonians outside the Greek fold and sees no historical excuse to use the race card in legitimizing the Macedonian conquest and dominion over the Greeks. In other words, the role of the Macedonians in their conquest of Persia does not have to travel through Greece and be viewed through a Greek perspective.
In the Histories (Herodotus), as we have just touched it upon, we find the Athenians giving reasons to the Spartans as to why they would not betray Greece (8.144.2); besides the destruction of the Greek shrines and the images of gods laying strewed on the ground and the burning desire for revenge by all Greeks, they include the following attributes common to all Greeks: common blood, common religion, common customs, common sacrifices and common language, and then, all together comprise the common way of life that separates the Greeks from all other foreigners i.e., barbarians. Here the language is one of the typically peculiar ´thing´ to Greeks only. He says that the Greeks always spoke Greek (1.58.1), and that Pelasgians a non-Hellenic population spoke a barbarian language that he could not understand. Only after learning Greek language did they become Greek (1.57.3).
Indeed, if one could speak Greek one would unquestionably be classed as Greek. Asiatics, and specifically Persians and Egyptians, whose cultural advances permeated into the Greek life, were classed as barbarian speaking peoples - meaning by ´barbarian´ no more then non- Hellenic. There are very few instances recorded in literature where a Greek learns a foreign language. Plutarch reports that Themistocles spoke Persian (Them. 29.5), but for the most part we find the other races learning Greek. As a matter of fact, Greeks behaved as if learning a foreign language was reserved for the barbarians only, who could not speak Greek and it was their duty to learn it. There was this persistent, and a high degree of arrogant lack of interest in learning a foreign language.
"The Greek language was seen as a symbol of Greek unity, and of Greeks belonging to their land; it was also a weapon" (Harris "Herodotus Conception of Foreign languages" HISTOS Vol 2 1998). Naturally, it was understood, and readily accepted, that speakers of a same language must have had a common descent. A common descent meant sharing of some primordial connections to, and acquiring inborn influences from, a distant progenitor whose progeny enjoyed, and subsequently passed on the learned social manifestations, customs and religious observances. These social belonging and interactions, coupled with the unifying glue called language, produced the first awareness of ethnicity among the ancient people.
Hence, genos and syngeneia expressed the notion of common belonging, of ´sameness´, of kinship. This awareness of kinship was transmitted through the element of haima, blood, and thereby, we come to a point where blood is taken to represent the essence of connectedness with the original progenitor. In Herodotus we find ´blood´ as one of the principal determinant of Greekness, of purity, and we have also established the connection between language and ethnicity, where language came to reinforce ´blood´ in defining ethnic groups. Thus, ethnicity was characterized through purity of blood, expressed through social and cultural interactions and defined and/or determined through the usage of a language. In sum a foreigner is any person who does not speak Greek, and thus, he is a barbarian, meaning non-Hellene.
Thuc. 20. 80.5-7; 2. 81.6; 4. 124.1 puts the Macedonian contingents among the barbarians. Badian in "Greeks and Macedonians" n.21 writes: "from the very etymology of that word "barbarians" were people whom Greeks could not understand. When the ancient Macedonian kings were called barbarians it was not done for political reasons or a personal vendetta, but it was a calculated choice used to denigrate their culture, their race, their origin and their way of life; in other words ´barbaroi´ meant ´I hold you, and your institutions and your way of life as beneath me, because you lack the basic determinants/attributes of which a Greek is in possession of. You neither speak like a Greek, do not live like a Greek, nor do you think like a Greek.
And, once again, we came to this often visited intersection; there are some very progressive Greeks who do not subscribe to this middle-age Greek thinking and who see the people in the Balkans living in peace and harmony—these are the true Greeks and then, there are newly created Greeks, those whose heritage has been wiped out and replaced with the newly "morphed" ethnicity "Greek-Macedonian". Since they—in this Greek created problem—stand to lose the most, they are the "true" Greek soldiers in the forefront fighting the battle. I am sure they wouldn´t dare dig deeper into their past because they will inevitably find "skeletons" which have another story to tell: their grandfathers did not even speak Greek nor did they share in these "megali" Greek dream. What they dreamed the most and with a heavy heart longed for, were their abandoned homes, forsaken culture and their way of life in their Asia Minor communities.
Sooner than later all these Greek lies and fabrications will run their course and Europe will have no choice but to put an end to this Greek farce.
Until next time….
Comment