Tweet
Technological progress is viewed as an element alienating people from their own identity and ultimately threatening national authenticity.
-
Well, they are very, very authentic as we speak.Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com -
page 73
During the nineteenth-century contest among Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians over Ottoman Macedonia, the Greeks employed this national narrative as an effective weapon to counteract Bulgarian claims to the region (Kofos, 1989a: 238). The Greeks utilized the continuity between ancients and moderns to strengthen their “historical” claims to Macedonian territory. In this interpretation, “Macedonia” means the territory of the ancient kingdom in the era of Philip II. Operating under these assumptions, Greek historiography does not allow for the development of divergent views. In this respect, it is not accidental that works nearly one hundred years old have preserved their centrality in the Greek national narrative.23 The Balkan Wars of 1912-13 led to the occupation of most of this territory by Greece, satisfying national aspirations concerning the liberation of Macedonia. The complex Macedonian Question appeared to have been resolved, at least from the Greek standpoint.
and here is footnote 23 on page 81;
Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict - by Victor Roudometof23. In a 1992 collection of articles dealing with the linguistics of Macedonia (Babiniotes, 1992), 110 out of 275 pages are reprints of two works by G. N. Hatzidakis (dated 1896 and 1911) arguing that the language of the ancient Macedonians was a Greek dialect. The contemporaries' work is based on the same assumptions and repeats the same or similar arguments. This mode of argumentation is meaningful only within the context of the Greek national narrative; it is of limited value when addressing a non-Greek or an academic audience.Comment
-
Who are the New Greeks?
MODERN GREEKS.
Modern Greeks
To the Editor of the Daily News
Sir – I was out of town on Saturday, Or I would have joined your correspondent ‘Cosmopolite’ and sent you a few notions respecting the modern Greek, with whom he deals to my mind much too gingerly. It is a question for ethnologists whether the modern Greeks are really Greeks. But let that pass. In other respects they may bear some resemblance to the ancestry they claim – treachery and fickleness being the elements in which the majority of them move and have their being. Rebellion at home, arson at Varna, alliance with our enemy carried to such a pitch that the commanders of the Allied Powers had to make a clean sweep of them at Balaslava. These are some of their distinguishing characteristics. Great rejoice is there amongst them at any little disadvantage or delay occurring in the East. For hours – some times for days – for they know everything before hand – there is a buzzing and a gibbering amongst them from which the bystanders habitually and justly conclude that bad news is in the wind. Such was more signally the case respecting the fire at Varna; an event, the coming off of which they no doubt knew full well, and when we all knew their joy exceeded that which we should show over a great and honourable victory. Let them deny that some of them hailed the beastly affair at Sinope as equal to the honourable achievements of our immortal Nelson, at Trafalgar. This has been asserted to me by one, who I doubt not, would shrink not from making publicly good his assertion. Open treachery to be sure is better than secret treason – though it might become though harmless, offensive though silly, nauseating. When the toast of army and navy were brought out to late dinner (the Sheriff’s of London I believe), the Greeks retired in a body. Soon after, the Lord Mayor announced the victory of the Alma, compensating I believe, the company assembled for the absence of the recreants; yet could indecency have gone further?
There is an absurdity in our commercial legislation which has lifted up these modern Greeks to eminence or Change. They raise their capitals by subscription, in the manner of joint stock concerns, their multitudinous partners residing abroad. When foul weather threatens their undertakings, the burden is slyly shifted on the few men here present, the remainder having backed out some six or twelve months in anticipation, as was the case with the Castelli’s. What wonder they should shove our Levant merchants from off their stools, and carry everything before them?
To conclude, there is nothing classical about these modern Greeks but their treachery, their inconsistency and their ingratitude. For what can be more treacherous than their indefatigable exertions in favour of the enemy – what more inconsistent than their worship of the shrine of autocracy and iron despotism – what more ungrateful than their rages of a hospitable nation’s feelings by indecent rejoicing over our mishaps? I wonder what they will subscribe to the patriotic fund – I am, etc. N”
Daily News (London, England), Friday, November 3, 1854; Issue 2639Comment
-
page 420
I didn't bother underlining anything. It's all relevent. The funny thing is the institute for NEO-Hellenic research has this book on its file - http://pandektis.ekt.gr/pandektis/handle/10442/161738
Maybe Habesci is an early "Skopian Agent"???Comment
-
Originally posted by TrueMacedonian View Post
TM, there are 100s of traveler notes like that about Greeks in 18-19th century. These travelers are usually missioners came from Germany, France and Britain for specific purpose; to investigate the life of Greeks and sometimes other minorities in Ottoman Empire. These people educated in their own countries by learning how beautiful the ancient Greeks was and as they were the source of western world etc. but when they came to Ottoman Empire, they usually got disappointed about modern Greeks by seeing that they have no relation whatsoever with the ancient Greeks they learned from the books.
Ofc their primary purpose was creating some kind of Greek consciousness among them which might lead to destruction of the Ottoman Empire from inside because they knew that it was nearly impossible to beat them by openly declaring a war without getting an external support from their opponent.
Even with their early disappointment and pessimistic thoughts about Greeks, they managed to succeed tough since we have about 10 million Greeks in the world now who considers themselves as descendants of Achilles and Homer. But these missioners worked hard for this. The date of this book`s author`s journey is 1757, so this means they tried to create Greek uprising for about 100 years.Comment
-
-
Was that the script the Turks used back in 1453 Ottoman?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here mate.
Greeks have a history, so do Macedonians and so do Turks.
Thankfully none of them stopped.Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.comComment
-
Of course not, Constantine XI the last Byzantine Emperor fell to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II.
Mehmed II declared himself as the new caesar of Rome.
The fall of Constantinople is a painful wound in Greek history.Last edited by Ottoman; 12-27-2010, 05:51 PM.Comment
-
Do you have more information about this? Any proof of his exact wording? It is consistent with the people calling themselves Romans however.Originally posted by Ottoman View Post
I am not convinced it was as painful to Greeks (at the time) as you are suggesting. It might be painful now but revisionism is common amongst victors.Originally posted by Ottoman View PostRisto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.comComment
-
My big question is this:
Would you like to live in the Byzantine Empire under the rude rule of Constantine XI?
Or you prefer a life in the Ottoman Empire under the rule of Mehmed II who tolerated other religions?
After Mehmed II sacked Constantinopel his army wanted to destory it but he halted his troops and gave the surviving people a chance to start a new life as Ottomans. Constantinopel just never changed, because Mehmed II respected it too much.Last edited by Ottoman; 12-28-2010, 05:06 PM.Comment
-
From meeting greeks they regard costantinople as greek & many of them go on a pilgrimage to instanbul.But they do admit things were actually better under mehmed II.Funny how the greeks think that they regard it as theirs still & how they live in fantasyland.
The thing is you can never trust a greek where as in macedonian you have friend for life."Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
GOTSE DELCEVComment
-
An Englishman Greek-hater attacks Greeks in the time of the Crimean War,because Greek volunteers fought alongside the Russians against the allied armies of England,France and Turkey?England and France even sent troops to occupy the port of Piraeus for 3 years (1854-1857)Originally posted by Pelister View Post
"What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
Polybius, Histories, 9.35Comment
-
Too bad to confuse history with footbal.This banner was not a proper thing to do,epsecially the inscription,"Death for you".Originally posted by Ottoman View PostThe only Greek history I know is this.
"What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
Polybius, Histories, 9.35Comment
-
Sure,Mehmed II was famous for his "tolerance".You can ask the last Byzantine Grand Duke Lukas Notaras for this:Originally posted by Ottoman View PostMy big question is this:
Would you like to live in the Byzantine Empire under the rude rule of Constantine XI?
Or you prefer a life in the Ottoman Empire under the rule of Mehmed II who tolerated other religions?
Ottomans "tolerated" Christians because it was the Christians who had to pay all the taxes,it's as simple as 1+1=2!No Christians=Decreased incomes for the Ottoman state.However despite this "tolerance" speaking in general terms,there are many cases of individual Christians having being executed for refusing to converst to Islam,or being forced to become Muslims:
Why did the "tolerant" Ottomans put to death any Muslim who converted to Christianity?
"What high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the Greeks?"
Polybius, Histories, 9.35Comment
-
You Greeks couldn't clear up these contradictions nearly for 200 years. You better decide which one you gonna use as anti-Turkish propaganda; Turks needed christians for taxes OR Turks forced Christians to convert as muslims???? If you claim both, then you contradict with yourself!!!Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai View Post
You really believe this crap??? without a quote, footnote, source from 1453 AD???Sure,Mehmed II was famous for his "tolerance".You can ask the last Byzantine Grand Duke Lukas Notaras for this:
I really mean it, you Greeks really believe that Mehmet II conquered istanbul just to fck some 14 year old royal Greek asses??? Whatta stupid story this is; World`s strongest and wealthiest leader of 15th century openly asks for 14 year old Greek boys to fck in the ass at the royal court and poor Greeks suffers, right??!!! You were going to make me cry with this dude, poor Greeks, just like the Jesus Christ, innocent ones, oww, how sad!!!
Bunch of nomadic barbarians invades constantinople, then they rape your pretty asses and destroy beautiful Hellenic culture...These barbarians had no language, no culture, one eyed blood drinking monsters oppressing the innocent ones, just like the story of Jesus Christ.... this is what you have been told since primary schools??? right?
Also, one wonders why Greeks always make up stories like that without a proof and write countless books with it instead of turning back 200 years more to 13th century and write the true story of the siege of constantinople by Catholics. You don't need to make up stupid stories like that either cuz everything is written by Byzantines and Latins themselves; Close to 50.000 people massacred in constantinople and whole city burned by them and then everyone gone exile from there, city turned into a ghost town. Byzantine emperor gone exile and asked for help from the Turks. Whores sat down to throne and crusaders set up gang bang party in Hagia Sophia. Frescoes damaged in the church and all mosaics covered up with human feces. Famous library of constantinople has been burned and several monuments has been stolen and gone to Rome, Venice etc. Then Byzantines took back the city with the help of Turks who also protected exiled monarchy.
Why you guys doesn't write all these events?? It`s 100% truth unlike your stupid stories about Mehmet II. OR this doesn't fit to your current political policy??? so you concentrate on usual "blame the Turks for everything" policy???Last edited by Onur; 01-01-2011, 04:33 PM.Comment
Comment