Greece, History, Truth

[Carlin]

Thanks for the article Carlin. Check this out: http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=2256

Thanks. It seems that Fallmerayer was right all along when he stated:

“Φυλετικό κράμα Σλάβων και Αρβανιτόβλαχων οι σημερινοί Έλληνες”

http://antiethnikistiki.blogspot.ca/2011/11/blog-post_9570.html

[damian]

This is your first warning. They were not "Slavs" they were indigenous Macedonians.

And the Muslims (Turks) learned the local language to communicate with the majority in the region. Yes, they spoke Macedonian.

Who are not Slavs? The majority of people in Macedonian were Makedonci before the Balkan Wars. Louis you say 1915 but Macedonia was under military administration for a few years if Im not mistaken and no one can know for sure what was happening there(Im sure we all know).

[TrueMacedonian]

Macedonia "greek" for 4000 years

[makedonche]

Macedonia "greek" for 4000 years

TM
Your'e a champion! - good stuff.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM
Your'e a champion! - good stuff.

Thanks makedonche. But should we all be surprised by now? Today's "Hellene" was more than likely something that Demosthenes and Socrates would not recognize at all. Hell even one supposed educated "hellene" or "greek" nearer to their times thought that Rome was a "Greek city". This shows us that "Greek" was never one definition at one constant time but many definitions and ideas at many times. Never consistent, always changing, and always shifting to meet the means of the day. This isn't "hellenism" either. This is fabrication of history.

[TrueMacedonian]

Mistracona let's take your conversation about national identity here.

[TrueMacedonian]

[Mistracona]

Karakasidou's excellent and scholarly study "Fields of Wheat Hills of Blood" explained through meticulous research the spread and affirmation of the Greek language in a part of the Ottoman territory of Macedonia that was incorporated into the Greek state, what Herzfeld calls "the progressive Hellenization of Greek Macedonia."

Because of their topic, books like Karakasidou's generate discussions, often heated, in any culture. This was certainly the case with "Fields of Wheat." Hertzfeld states that "the Greek establishment" objected to it without clarifying what he means by "Greek establishment" and giving the impression that the book was universally condemned which is not the case. The part of the "Greek establishment" that roundly condemned the book was the sclerotic and highly conservative Greek Orthodox Church which strongly objected to Karakasidou's passages saying the "secret schools" that were run by the Church and which "saved Hellenism for humanity" (the Church says) never existed.

Another part of the "Greek establishment" that condemned the book were the Nazi thugs and their fellow-travelers in the extreme right like the supporters and apologists of the former dictatorship, some of whom have positions in academia and in the media. There were others who objected on their own grounds. This is normal in any society.

Mr Hertzfeld's work also deserves some attention. In one underlined passage he invents a , "... persistent stereotype of Greeks as irrational Balkan lunatics..". By doing so, Hertzfeld disqualifies himself of any pretence of seriousness and objectivity and reveals a personal animus belonging to those, like the Greek Nazi Party whose discourse is motivated by racial epitaphs.

Pity that Hertzfeld did not see the 20 odd instalments of the historical analysis called "1821" produced by a Greek TV station where the real Greek establishment consisting of historians, writers, journalists, professors, authors, linguistics, artists and others from Greece and abroad discussed in the construction of the Greek state and the period preceding it. They talked about the role Germany played in constructing the national myth of foundation, the often peaceful and accommodating relationship between Greeks and Turks in many places and times during the Ottoman period. It was a mature, thorough, "warts and all" analysis of a country's historical begginings that would certainly have caused a "fury" if it had ever been done in the, say, the United States where national myths not only persist but are persistently expanded.

The quotes reveal that Hertzfeld's agenda is neither knowledge nor seriousness but racist deconstruction. And he is good at it. He has come to the right place. Enjoy!

[TrueMacedonian]

Karakasidou's excellent and scholarly study "Fields of Wheat Hills of Blood" explained through meticulous research the spread and affirmation of the Greek language in a part of the Ottoman territory of Macedonia that was incorporated into the Greek state, what Herzfeld calls "the progressive Hellenization of Greek Macedonia."

Because of their topic, books like Karakasidou's generate discussions, often heated, in any culture. This was certainly the case with "Fields of Wheat." Hertzfeld states that "the Greek establishment" objected to it without clarifying what he means by "Greek establishment" and giving the impression that the book was universally condemned which is not the case. The part of the "Greek establishment" that roundly condemned the book was the sclerotic and highly conservative Greek Orthodox Church which strongly objected to Karakasidou's passages saying the "secret schools" that were run by the Church and which "saved Hellenism for humanity" (the Church says) never existed.

Another part of the "Greek establishment" that condemned the book were the Nazi thugs and their fellow-travelers in the extreme right like the supporters and apologists of the former dictatorship, some of whom have positions in academia and in the media. There were others who objected on their own grounds. This is normal in any society.

Mr Hertzfeld's work also deserves some attention. In one underlined passage he invents a , "... persistent stereotype of Greeks as irrational Balkan lunatics..". By doing so, Hertzfeld disqualifies himself of any pretence of seriousness and objectivity and reveals a personal animus belonging to those, like the Greek Nazi Party whose discourse is motivated by racial epitaphs.

Pity that Hertzfeld did not see the 20 odd instalments of the historical analysis called "1821" produced by a Greek TV station where the real Greek establishment consisting of historians, writers, journalists, professors, authors, linguistics, artists and others from Greece and abroad discussed in the construction of the Greek state and the period preceding it. They talked about the role Germany played in constructing the national myth of foundation, the often peaceful and accommodating relationship between Greeks and Turks in many places and times during the Ottoman period. It was a mature, thorough, "warts and all" analysis of a country's historical begginings that would certainly have caused a "fury" if it had ever been done in the, say, the United States where national myths not only persist but are persistently expanded.

The quotes reveal that Hertzfeld's agenda is neither knowledge nor seriousness but racist deconstruction. And he is good at it. He has come to the right place. Enjoy!

Milti, please elaborate further. I am curious to know exactly what Herzfeld's agenda is? Is it like the agenda of Hagen Schulze;

[Mistracona]

@ TrueMacedonian:

If I referred you to a book whose author claimed a stereotype of "Slavic-speaking Macedonians who are irrational and hysterical Balkan lunatics" what would you think of it and how would you assess the author's competence and motivation?

Many times the works of Eugene Borza have been quoted and praised on this site. Borza was a major historian and professor. I re-produced a quote from Borza's "Macedonia Redux". In case you didn't get a chance to read it, here it is again:

"If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of a different order. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions - mostly emigres from the United States, Canada and Australia - even attempt to establish a link to antiquity."

--Eugene Borza, Macedonia Redux.

[George S.]

there never was writteb so much crap about the supposed hellenes.Even to day ,whois the real hellene.In my view there is no such thing the whole thing is a masquerade.Why??
Hellenism When alexander conquered greece ended.No use saying alexander spread hellenism ,he didn't.So if hellenism ended with the arrival of alexander then,the macedonistic age entered.So many people are pretending that hellenism is still alive.It isn't don't try to be what your'e not.

[Nexus]

Many times the works of Eugene Borza have been quoted and praised on this site. Borza was a major historian and professor. I re-produced a quote from Borza's "Macedonia Redux". In case you didn't get a chance to read it, here it is again:

"If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of a different order. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions - mostly emigres from the United States, Canada and Australia - even attempt to establish a link to antiquity".

--Eugene Borza, Macedonia Redux.

Ouch ! I need to say something about this quote. First "slav", "slavic" are not ethnicities and this is incorrect to define someone as "slav", my eyes are bleeding when i see what Borza said. Today, "Slavs" as a whole are mostly a linguistic group, not even cultural (Balkan Slavic-speaking peoples have a lot more in common culturally with other Balkanians than with Poles or Russians). This is just a linguistic term, linguistic term! But some peoples still referring the slavic-speaking peoples as "slavs", and think that they were in the past "one people" who originated from a same place, located in the actual territory of Ukraine. This is also the main argument used by the greeks (and albanians now) to prove that the slavic-speaking peoples of the Balkans didn't belong to theirs lands, that they are "invaders" ...

I think all this came from a big confusion. I will try to explain that later, there is so much to say about that.

[TrueMacedonian]

@ TrueMacedonian:

If I referred you to a book whose author claimed a stereotype of "Slavic-speaking Macedonians who are irrational and hysterical Balkan lunatics" what would you think of it and how would you assess the author's competence and motivation?

Many times the works of Eugene Borza have been quoted and praised on this site. Borza was a major historian and professor. I re-produced a quote from Borza's "Macedonia Redux". In case you didn't get a chance to read it, here it is again:

"If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of a different order. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions - mostly emigres from the United States, Canada and Australia - even attempt to establish a link to antiquity.

I have no issue with Borza and what he wrote. If the claim is based on ETHNICITY no one in the balkans can establish a link to antiquity. He is correct. I think the slav colonizers in what is known today as greece ultimately lumps you and your folk in that category.

[TrueMacedonian]

Milti this is what you wrote in another topic on this forum to RistotheGreat;

Your statement that the Greeks had no "Greek" identity other than that introduced my katharevousa itself is belied by the fact that the katharevousa experiment did not succeed, primarily because it clashed with the spoken Demotic Greek of the population which absorbed elements of it.

It is rather extravagant (to say the least) to argue that Greek identity was formed recently by the creation of an artificial language experiment which was abandoned (officially in the 1970s as you state).

Attempts to replace the unwieldly purified versions used in literature and for official purposes with the ordinary speech of the people, known as demotic, were regarded as blows directed against the feeble unity of the country and its life-giving national myths.There were riots in Athens following the publication in 1902 of a demotic version of the New Testament.
William St. Claire That Greece Might Still Be Free

The Ancient Greece evoked by Koraes was essentially the invention of Western philhellenes. Even katharevousa, although ostensibly meant to 'refine' those who spoke and wrote it, making them more elegant, wise, freedom-loving, and virtuous (although not necessarily peaceful) by eliminating from their vocabulary the barbarity of Turkish words that kept them chained to their degeneracy - even katharevousa was produced not just for the Ottomanized Greeks, but also for Western philhellenes, as Koraes reveals when he confesses that his notes, "written in our common tongue, were ready for the printers when some friends of mine - philhellenes expert in our ancient but not our modern language - eventually persuaded me to hellenize [my notes] so that they might be understood . . . by the scholars of Europe, who are ignorant of Modern Greek" (Bien 1972:51, citing Koraes 1833:41).

Such, more or less, was the first form of invented Greek nationality -the initial vision, if you will, of the myth that, replacing (or at least displacing) the Christian world-view, provided at the deepest level a metaphysical rationale for life and death: a meaning for what would otherwise be a futile, meaningless existence. No matter that it was a double distortion: a distortion of Ancient Greek reality, and a distortion as well of Modern Greek reality. It provided (and to some degree still provides) a sense of connectedness to something apparently admirable, something that matters, and something even 'eternal', for, as I mentioned earlier, no nation can imagine its own death. As for its beginning, Ancient Greek culture lay far enough back in hazy antiquity to seem never to have not been there. In sum, Greece imagined in this way as the inheritor of ancient glory was a way to cheat contigency and fate by giving existence a kind of supernal meaning.
Peter Bien Inventing Greece

[Mistracona]

@ TrueMacedonian:

Your issue then is only with the word "ethnicity." You agree with the part of the quote that says "modern slavs both Macedonian and Bulgarian cannot establish a link with antiquity as the slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom."

The Greeks most definitely have a DNA/biological connection to the Slavic peoples. To some extent, the two peoples are the same. The peoples even have a cultural connection since the Orthodox Church was adopted by the Slavic people and the Slavic alphabet came through missionaries of that Greek-speaking church. Presumably and to the best of my knowledge, before Cyril and Methodius the Slavic language was not a written one.

The Greeks have a linguistic connection to antiquity. It is well-recognised empirically and academically in universities, in texts and museums throughout the world and established and even affirmed on a daily basis as you see throughout the world's media reporting on the modern Greek financial crisis endless illustrations connecting the modern state to the ancient world and to ancient references (if anything it is way overdone).

What is the connection that the Slavs have with antiquity? What is the connection that the Slavic-speaking people of the ROM have with the ancient kingdom?

Borza's words are crystal-clear: "the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom." You say you "have no issue with Borza's words." Settled then.

Much of the effort on this site is "disproving" the Greek connection to antiquity. OK, for the sake of argument, there is none.

Now, What is the connection of the slavic-speaking people with antiquity? What is the connection of the Republic of Macedonia with antiquity?

Borza clearly says there is none. What do you say?