What a lovely response by Alexandra Aleksovska

[Risto the Great]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94499

Istor recently responded to my article on ethnicity ("On ´On Ethnicity´" of March 10 – although fortunately he didn´t name his response "On ´On ´On Ethnicity´´"). He posed the question "Who is a Macedonian?" which is a reasonable enough question. However then he offered I guess what can be described as a ´false trichotomy´ (which is a real word, MS Word just doesn´t know it yet). His ´false trichotomy´ was as follows:

"Regarding that famous and glorious campaign that Macedonians did to spread Greek Language and Civilization to the World, peoples are divided in three parts

a) Those who are proud of it

b) Those who are ashamed of it

c) Those who don´t care about it all or those who care as scientists"

Being proud of the Ancient Macedonian campaign (including the conquering of Greece in 338BC) does not make you an Ancient Macedonian, anymore than being proud of how Bilbo Baggins snuck past the Dragon in ´The Hobbit´, would make you a Hobbit.

A legitimate question to ask is why is someone proud of something that occurred 2,500 years ago that had nothing to do with them? If they are ashamed of it, on the other hand, what would it matter in 2009?

After trying to demonstrate that pride can make us Ancient Macedonians and, by the same logic, Hobbits, he once again banged out the same tune on his "Propagandaphone" with "Because Language is the main objective ethnic indicator", without any reference to back it up. Ethnicity is not a simple issue with one criterion. Here is a challenge for you Istor: Find one modern ethnographer that states that ´Language is the main objective ethnic indicator´. Many things are used to determine ethnicity around the world: country of birth, nationality, language spoken at home, parent´s country of birth, skin color, racial group, and religion. Stating that ´language´ alone is the ´main ethnic indicator´ is ridiculous.

If we are to use these wider determinants to answer the question Istor posed as "Who is a Macedonian" it could be answered a number of ways.

It could be someone born in Macedonia (either the country Republic of Macedonia, or the geographic region – including Greece); It could be someone who has been nationalized in the ´Republic of Macedonia´; it could be someone who speaks Macedonian in the home – but was born in Australia or Canada for example; it could be someone who has Macedonian parents or ancestors. There is no restrictive rule on how someone identifies as a Macedonian.



The UN Human Rights Council went into Greece in 2008 and found evidence of an Ethnic Macedonian ethnicity. It doesn´t matter how Greek nationalists choose to define ´minority´ or ´Macedonian´ – because the relevant definition is that used by the UN. The rest of the world recognizes us as Macedonians – if Greeks choose not to, they are only making themselves look like bigots to the rest of the world.

Istor stated that ´Loring Danforth clearly states that Blood and DNA are not related to ethnicity´. This is incorrect as, on page 15 of his book ´The Macedonian Conflict´, he states that cultural forms such as ´blood´ and ´race´ are used in the construction of an identity. It appears that Istor is trying to put words into Loring Danforth´s mouth without reference to what Danforth actually states. Istor, you will note that throughout his book he refers to Ethnic Macedonians in Greece as ´Macedonians´ and Ethnic Greeks as ´Greeks´; the conflicts are always between ´Greeks´ and ´Macedonians´

Whether someone identifies as Macedonian, Greek or even Hobbit, shouldn´t be an issue in a modern state – in fact the UN stated such in their report on Greek minorities. Greece has Ethnic Macedonians – they were there before Greece invaded their land in the early 20th century. While Greece has banned language, changed names, exiled Macedonians and force-Hellenized the population – there are still some there that identify as Macedonians. While we can´t change the past, we can recognize what has happened, and change things so that minorities are protected. That is what the UN and by extension, the rest of the world, is asking Greece to do.

[Risto the Great]

I for one think Aragorn should have tapped Eowyn when the Elf chick wasn't looking.
But that is a separate discussion.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Nice response and article, bravo Alexandra. I am sure it wasn't a difficult task, making Istor look like an idiot hardly requires effort as 99% of the work is done by Istor.

[Daskalot]

Alexandra wiped the floor with his imbecile article, please give us MORE ISTORS! Greece needs village idiots like him!

[Soldier of Macedon]

I agree, so long as we have imbeciles like him fighting the 'Greek' cause of propaganda in Macedonia, simple refute is but a formality.

[Daskalot]

I agree, so long as we have imbeciles like him fighting the 'Greek' cause of propaganda in Macedonia, simple refute is but a formality.

Correct, I wonder why Istor has not signed up to this forum? Does he not dare to? :-)

[makedonin]

Greek salad

Istor or Akritas of Bouf is a joke........

[Pelister]

I for one think Aragorn should have tapped Eowyn when the Elf chick wasn't looking.
But that is a separate discussion.

Haha.

She makes a good point, but basically Macedonians are persecuted not because of their nationality, but because of their ethnicity. An Albanian who claims to be a Macedonian national because he has Macedonian citizenship, would have alot less trouble in Greece precisely because his ethnicity is Albanian, and not Macedonian.

[Bill77]

Here is another from Alexandra Aleksovska. This time she is taking on Stephen Miller. Its written back in july so it might be old news for some. Wow she is good.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/109816

[TrueMacedonian]

She got it hook, line, and sinker. Nice article

[Risto the Great]

For those of us who are lazy:

About a month ago I wrote an article on Stephen Miller's petition that was sent to Obama in order to reverse the Bush Administration's recognition of the Republic of Macedonia – something unashamedly sought by Greece and Greek lobby groups. Since that petition was circulated, Miller was widely criticized. On June 22nd, Stephen Miller posted an update on his website where he stated that he is not calling on the US to reverse the recognition of the Republic of Macedonia.

Just so that we can all grasp the context, I will explain what has happened previously. On May 18 he proudly posted his letter, calling on Obama to fix up what Bush had done, where he stated:

"On November 4, 2004, two days after the re-election of President George W. Bush, his administration unilaterally recognized the "Republic of Macedonia." This action not only abrogated geographic and historic fact, but it also has unleashed a dangerous epidemic of historical revisionism, of which the most obvious symptom is the misappropriation by the government in Skopje of the most famous of Macedonians, Alexander the Great. We believe that this silliness has gone too far, and that the U.S.A. has no business in supporting the subversion of history."

OK – now seeing that he is pleading for Obama to "intervene to clean up some of the historical debris left in southeast Europe by the previous U.S. Administration", how do you think that is supposed to happen? Notice who Miller is stating is the culprit here - the Bush Administration. What did the Bush Administration do? It recognized Macedonia by its constitutional name – the 'Republic of Macedonia'. That is the only thing that the Bush Administration did. According to Miller 'the U.S.A. has no business' in this. Dear reader, looking at the quoted paragraphs above, what do you think Miller was trying to achieve? The obvious goal of the petition was to beg Obama to reverse the US recognition of the name 'Republic of Macedonia'. How else could Obama 'intervene' to 'clean up' 'historical debris left' 'by the previous U.S. Administration'? There is no other logical request that can be reasonably deduced from his statements.

Now this caused a storm of condemnation. Human rights organizations, Greek history academics, anthropology academics and journalists like myself have weighed in in condemnation of Miller's petition. Readers of my last article on Miller in the American Chronicle (and elsewhere on the internet and print media) have stated their disgust, and I am happy to say, many of them are not even Macedonian. Miller, no doubt, has received the same type of emails I have received and seen – and has had second thoughts. Maybe UCLA has told him not to put their name with his when he makes statements that condone the abuse of human rights? As a consequence, on June 22nd he issued the following statement:

"A point of clarification about our intentions is perhaps in order since they have been misinterpreted in some quarters. We do not ask that the United States withdraw its recognition of the "Republic of Macedonia". We do ask that the weight of US diplomacy be used to stop the theft of history and historic figures, starting with Alexander the Great."

Misinterpreted? Really? So you were not asking the United States to withdraw the recognition of the Republic of Macedonia? Strange, because that seems to be the main thing you were requesting of Obama in your original petition. Stephen, please be clear in what you 'ask', otherwise people may look at what you have 'requested' and think that is what you 'ask'.

Now when you state 'weight of US diplomacy' – do you mean the same US diplomacy that Greece is so hostile towards? The same US diplomacy that Greeks respond to with burning US flags? What does the average Greek think of America? Greek cultural icon, the person Greece nominated for a Nobel peace prize, Mikis Theodorakis stated "I hate Americans and everything American. I hope the youth begin to hate everything American". Is he representative of Greece? Surely if they disagreed with that statement, they wouldn't nominate him as the Greek most deserving of a peace prize. Why should the US bother to help Greece build its ethnic mythology, given Greece's childish attitude?

Well it turns out, Greece has already used US diplomatic channels, a number of times. About once a year ethnic Greek US senators and representatives hold hands with others that need to buy the American Greek vote and decide to pass a resolution condemning Macedonia for violating the Interim Agreement. It's like a low-rent version of the Arab League's regular anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. According to these resolutions, Macedonia has done such horrible things as teaching children that Macedonia was divided in 1913. Mind you the 'Interim Agreement' that they accuse Macedonia of violating is the same 'Interim Agreement' in which Greece stated that they would not interfere with Macedonia's admission to NATO and the EU. Greece has since taken every opportunity to block Macedonia's introduction in to these organizations and consequently earned themselves a place in the defendant's booth at the International Court of Justice.

So Stephen Miller, having changed his mind, has accepted the use of the name 'Republic of Macedonia' and now wants the US to use its diplomacy to protect Alexander the Great from 'theft'. He wants to save Alexander, according to his website. To which I would say, he is about 2,332 years too late to help him. How can anybody steal Alexander the Great? How does anybody even 'have' him to steal? Alexander is long dead. He lives as a concept – concepts can be thought or transmitted, but they can't be stolen. It being a mental construct, if someone stole my concept of Alexander, I could just close my eyes and replace it with a new one.

Oliver Stone used an inaccurate Alexander in a movie to make about $12 million. Did he steal Alexander? Robin Lane Fox wrote a book on Alexander to make money. Did he steal Alexander? Peter Green writes plenty of books on Alexander, and they seem to go against the ideals that Greece holds. Did he steal Alexander? Seeing that there isn't even much agreement as to who he actually was and what he was like, how can any modern people claim to own him? The ideas that people have are contradictory, who do we believe? Do we see Alexander as Tarn's unifier of mankind or Green's glory seeking dictator; an avid promoter of Greek culture or an exploiter of conquered Greek subjects; someone who didn't trust the Greeks or someone who looked forward to the modern Greek state. We aren't all talking about the same Alexander; the Alexander in my head is a composite from a number of US Ivy League writers. Others have a concept based on whichever sources they prefer. This naturally leads to there being many Alexanders and who can say which is correct? I am not stealing the Greek Alexander, as their idea of him is probably much different to mine. So why are people worried about him being stolen?

Don't worry Greece, Macedonia isn't making a statue of the Greek government version, or the Robin Lane Fox version of 'Alexander', I think they are actually making a statue of Peter Green's 'Alexander'. Personally, I'd rather them make a statue of Oliver Stone's 'Alexander'; an eight story statue of Colin Farrell would be far sexier than any alternative.

So if there are many ideas of who Alexander was, why do we have a problem? Alexander the Great became an important part of the modern Greek state's nationalist mythology. Greece was pieced together by European powers in the 19th century. In order to maintain political stability in an area where modern European style borders didn't exist for centuries they decided to pretend that they didn't have minorities and that these newly formed modern Greeks are the same people as the ancient Greeks. The value of this myth is that it unifies people, who presumably forget who their ancestors were before 1830 in the case of Greece, and who their ancestors were before 1913 in the case of Ethnic Macedonians. If you are worried that your newly acquired people will cooperate with your neighbors and become a threat to your rule, you drum nationalism into their heads. You don't want them recounting great ancestors that may have inconvenient links to other nations, so you give them new great ancestors to look back on. Alexander was one of these heroes that was rebranded as a Greek patriot. Modern Greek Macedonians, most of whose ancestors were living in Turkey a hundred years ago, are now claiming that they are descended from Alexander, the 'greatest' Greek – as they recently voted him. As the great scholar of Ancient Macedonia, Peter Green observed when he was in Greece: 'the Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits; the Greeks of the fourth century B.C., to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did.'


The Greeks need Alexander. Without Alexander being rebaptised as Greek, the idea that Macedonia is Greek falls in a heap. Telling themselves that Alexander was Greek justifies in their mind, the part of Northern Greek history that Greece prefers not to mention. This inconvenient truth is the fact that Northern Greece (since 1989 called Macedonia) was a land stolen from the Macedonians in 1913 and then used as a dumping ground for Greek refugees from Turkey. Without Alexander and the Macedonians being labelled Greek, in their minds there may be no moral justification for Greece's behavior. Their Alexander myth, therefore helps them deal with what their government has done. That is why they are very sensitive about Alexander.

Even if somehow we could 'steal' Alexander the Great, who are we stealing him from? Greece? What does modern Greece, a mere politically expedient creation of the 19th century Great Powers of Europe have to do with Ancient Macedonia? The Ancient Macedonian Empire at its height, was 60 times the size of Greece in the 19th century (the first time a nation called Greece ever existed) when none of the ancient 'Kingdom of Macedon' was within Greek borders. But modern Greece is trying to monopolise the identity of this ancient kingdom that had little to do with them and with this monopoly, deny the human rights of people who are, genetic studies have shown, actually partially descended from the Ancient Macedonians.

Greece has made some very strange comments about its links to Ancient Macedonia and Ancient Greece. They proudly make these claims in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Greece is free to believe that they are genetically pure and directly related to the Ancient Macedonians – we don't make them defend that in court or academia – who cares? They can believe what they want. The problem starts when they try to use this mythology against others. Greece has sought to attack others with this mythology for the last 18 years. In 1992 they paid for advertising stating such strange points as "Macedonia has been Greek for 3,000 years" in the New York Times – the point being that they were using that myth as justification for Macedonia not to be recognized by its constitutional name. It failed – but they have continued to press the issue. Greece has attempted to throw around the 'weight of Greek diplomacy', and frankly, that hasn't worked very well. So now they are looking elsewhere.

It now seems that Miller is seeking 'the weight of US diplomacy' to help Greece. Since when has it become the responsibility of the United States to protect modern Greek ethnic mythology from cold reality? Given that diplomacy of itself is powerless unless it is supported by economic incentives or military intervention, what form would the ultimate extension of 'the weight of US diplomacy' be? Would they ask Macedonia not to use the name 'Alexander' for anything? Would they ask Macedonia not to build statues of Alexander? More importantly, what would happen if Macedonia did continue to build Alexander statues? What would Stephen Miller want to happen?

Let us not forget that Stephen Miller, in his letter to Archaeology Magazine (who know crazy when they see it and didn't print his letter), has previously discussed the idea of Greece annexing Macedonia, albeit flippantly. So in the same vein, I imagine that his idea of extreme diplomatic action in defence of Alexander would be a military assault. If Stephen Miller got his way, I imagine it might be something like 'Saving Private Ryan', maybe 'Saving Private Alexander'; a full amphibious assault with US forces storming onto a beach, on Lake Ohrid I guess, but in Macedonia the only Germans they have are backpackers with Eurail passes who probably wouldn't put up much of a fight. Maybe as part of Miller's diplomatic solution, the US can develop a new Special Forces team, Alexander Force, that can helicopter in from an Amphibious Assault Ship, 'fast rope' down to an offending statue and remove it, carrying the statue of Alexander south to safety where it can only be admired by the 'born-again Macedonians' of Greece. Well it wont happen, but I am sure it, or something like it, plays inside Miller's head, and in any case it would make a good movie for the Greek domestic market.

So Stephen, lets get this straight, given that it is not about the name 'Republic of Macedonia', are you seriously writing to Obama to get him to stop the Macedonians from claiming Alexander? You feel this is so important to you that you created a website and then petitioned everyone you could to sign it. Let me ask one embarrassingly obvious question: Why Obama?

What did you think Obama was going to do? Pass a law to stop Ivy League Greek historians disagreeing with Greece and yourself? Anybody can build a statue of Alexander, but someone like Badian, Bosworth or Green, with well argued books and papers, have done much more damage to the official Greek idea of Alexander than an 8 storey statue of Colin Farrell could. You'd be better off doing a YouTube video like Chris Crocker and start crying 'Leave Alexander the Great Alone!'. Last of all Stephen, if you are so concerned about Alexander the Great, why haven't you ever written a book on him? Your latest book being published at the moment shows that you are more concerned with the authenticity of a bust of Plato sitting in a Californian basement than you are about Alexander. It just seems awfully odd that somebody who has never written on Alexander, suddenly decides that they need to 'Save Alexander'.

So what I am saying is, I don't believe you. What seems most likely is that you actually were trying to get the USA to stop recognizing Macedonia by it's constitutional name, and when you saw that most of the world was against you, you backed down and claimed it was all about protecting a guy who has been dead for 2,300 years – a guy you have never written about, from an ancient kingdom you have never written about. You were caught helping Greece deny human rights, and you backed down when the world gave you the condemnation that you deserved.