The Greek colonization of Macedonia since 1913!

[Risto the Great]

Well,you seem to live in Australia.
So..let's change a bit the words..

"You call the Christian Australian Nationals as Macedonians. Many cannot even speak anything resembling Macedonian"

Should i call you christian Australian?

By all means. I will leave it up to you to work out the Australian ethnicity though. While you are at it, this would make your Greek buddies here Australians as well.

But your example is stupid. You know that the various people who came from Turkey were far to diverse to be called a singular ethnicity much less Greek!

Besides until your land was annexed by Serbia in 1912,you were Turkish nationals too.

Wrong. Turkey did not exist until 1922. You should check your history books instead of relying on the "vibe" of Hellenism.

And then you became Yugoslavian nationals until 1991.
Does this imply anything about your ethnicity?

No, my people came from what is now Greece. Laughable I know because we were the dominant people there and spoke a completely different language.

Since you identify as Macedonians,you are,and there is no doubt for me.

Well done. We can have an ouzo together. Since you identify as Greeks, there is no doubt for me either. Sounds like we don't have a problem at all ... please write to your politicians.

It is true that many scolars,travelers and historians defined your ancestors as Bulgarians -is it a taboo for you>??

Many scholars did include Macedonians as Bulgarians. Some even included Serbs as Bulgarians as well. Many did not know where the Bulgarian language came from either. How could they have any idea who we were and are?

Have you seen this thread?

http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3066

Perhaps you can show us the Greek dialect employed in Macedonia 500 years ago. I hope you can find something, it is very difficult to see a language from 500 years ago and see how unchanged it is like the Macedonians from Kostur in the above thread. Nevertheless if you do find anything, show me how it is called "Macedonian". While you are at it, show me some solid stuff that suggests you were actually Greeks instead of Romios at the same time?

I am doing some research at the moment Coastal, perhaps you can find me some text about how Greece was trying to liberate Macedonia from the Ottomans in the name of Macedonians. Can you find anything for me? All I can find is Macedonians who were trying to liberate Macedonia for the Macedonians. There is some stuff about Greeks (or were they Cretans) trying to take Macedonia, but that was hardly an internal uprising, I am sure you would agree.

I have not read your list of references confirming how Bulgarian the Macedonians were. But do take note of the time period and I would make mention of the Kresna Uprising at around the same time. You should read the constitution, it is an incredible document. Do you find it odd that they did not even bother talking about a Greek population in Macedonia at the time, instead referring to "Any Christian or Moslem Macedonian, Turk, Albanian, Wallachian or anyone else". Just goes to show how important those Greeks were in the region at the time. In case English is your third language, I am telling you there were not many "Greeks" in Macedonia in the 1800's. Which is a suitable observation given the title of this thread.

[Daskalot]

Presenting the sources that you do not like is a restricted in here?
If yes,you must add in the forum rules and regulations,that any mention in Sources that are against your will are a taboo and will be tolerated.

Stay on topic, please provide material on the colonization of Macedonia or start yourself a new topic with the appropriate title.

[Orfej]

Firstly this has nothing to do with what i wrote before.
I guess you undesrtood it- Greeks coming replaced Turks leaving.

Or as the Cretans and local Macedonians said ``the unbaptized Turks left and the baptized Turks came``




So don’t worry, I understand perfectly.

The irony also Orfej..is that you don't recognize my right to be called Macedonian.And also of all the local Greeks.
Maybe my ancestors were here ,before yours came. As yours were here,before the Greek refugees came.

And something else..you deny also this right to the Greek refugees who came 87 to 96 years before.(of course all the living now were born here...and many are of mixed local and refugee origin)

so..What is the crucial date ,from wich on someone can be called a Macedonian? One century ? Five..? Fifteen ?

This question should be addressed to your country, you punk!! She is the one that doesn’t allow for our country to carry the name it’s people chose. Your people is the one denying our identity. As for your Greek `Macedonian identity` is concerned, I personally am disgusted by it. You nitwits think that by identifying as `Macedonians` you can deny our right to the same name? You think that a bunch of refugees who 80 years ago had no idea what or where Macedonia was can tell me that I’m not Macedonian? Or a bunch of Grkomans can tell me that I’m Slav and that my ancestors called themselves Bulgarians? Or Vlachs telling me how Greek they are? Or a Cretan andarte who slaughtered IMRO fighters who died for an independent Macedonia can tell me about their sacrifices for Macedonia? They sacrificed themselves, but not for Macedonia, for Greece.

I am Romios.
I never denied it.
I won't be offended if you call me so.

You, on the other hand ...seem to deny your past .

--

My god, you don’t even realize how essentially different was the `Romioi` identity from this neo-Hellenic one.
You also don’t realize how essentially different was the term `Bulgarian` in the past and now.

Ironically you are writing on this threat `Greek colonization`, but it seems you are constantly avoiding to stay on the subject, wanting to write about something else, something THAT SHOULD NOT BE YOUR INTEREST.
And tell me this: if you know that attempts to connect our past with Bulgaria and the modern Bulgarians is irritating for us, then why the hell are you repeating it constantly? Especially on threats like this one - which has nothing in common with what you are trying to impose. You try to pose as a friend, but you are constantly provoking - how hypocritical.

[Coastal]

I am doing some research at the moment Coastal, perhaps you can find me some text about how Greece was trying to liberate Macedonia from the Ottomans in the name of Macedonians. Can you find anything for me? All I can find is Macedonians who were trying to liberate Macedonia for the Macedonians. There is some stuff about Greeks (or were they Cretans) trying to take Macedonia, but that was hardly an internal uprising, I am sure you would agree.

If i can find what? That there were Greeks in Macedonia trying to liberate it ?
My great grandfather was local Greek speaker,and was assassinated by Komitajis in November of 1907.
My Grandma still calls his long dead assasssins Bulgarians of the nearby village.
Maybe it is not politically correct in here...you can send her a letter about your objections and your concerns about terminology.

I have not read your list of references confirming how Bulgarian the Macedonians were. But do take note of the time period and I would make mention of the Kresna Uprising at around the same time. You should read the constitution, it is an incredible document. Do you find it odd that they did not even bother talking about a Greek population in Macedonia at the time, instead referring to "Any Christian or Moslem Macedonian, Turk, Albanian, Wallachian or anyone else". Just goes to show how important those Greeks were in the region at the time. In case English is your third language, I am telling you there were not many "Greeks" in Macedonia in the 1800's. Which is a suitable observation given the title of this thread.

So,you are telling that a document-that is supposed to be a monument of falsification by many-of some peasants in a town called Kresna-away from Greek inhabited Macedonia, means more than what all the Neutral (but also hostile) historian,scholars,writers,travellers saw in Macedonia:Greeks.

---
That's all abt it.I won't answer to off topic remarks anymore.The admin may tell you that you shouldn t make more off topic comments-who knows ..maybe he will

I haven't received an answer on the plain simple this:
In Florina region ,where Macedonian speakers were the vast majority (some 80%)... out of the 638.000 Greek refugees...settled some 7.000
This is a slight more than 1%.

If the intention was the Refugees to colonize lands inhabited by Macedonians..why on Earth this didnt happen in their number 1 region ?

can anybody give anything close to a convincing answer,without posting quotes about Alexander the Great ,Gaugamela or Cretans?

[Serdarot]

Coastal, you are here on an agenda, to negate us...

not sure if he is working here, or just spending his free time, but bro, they are poluted with that b-sh1t to the bones.

since their childhood they are poisoned with such non-sence...

and they simply have perception problem.

Ancient Greeks were settlers. A newborn Nation and Culture that was created in the period between 12th and 8th century BC.

Many of the Modern Greeks are settlers. A newborn Nation and Culture that was created ~ 200 years ago...

so simple, but for them so hard to understand...

@Coastal:

there are several topics about the term Bulgar and it´s usage.

instead poluting the topics, debate about the Bulgar and Bulgarians there

[Orfej]

I haven't received an answer on the plain simple this:
In Florina region ,where Macedonian speakers were the vast majority (some 80%)... out of the 638.000 Greek refugees...settled some 7.000
This is a slight more than 1%.

If the intention was the Refugees to colonize lands inhabited by Macedonians..why on Earth this didnt happen in their number 1 region ?

can anybody give anything close to a convincing answer,without posting quotes about Alexander the Great ,Gaugamela or Cretans?

The intention was to colonize the annexed part of Macedonia, thus making the Greeks a majority, something which before the population exchange – and especially before the Balkan wars was not the case. Who cares in what exact part of land they’ve settled, what matters is that they managed to change the demography of the region. Here’s how approximately things were just before the population exchange:



With more then 600 000 newcomers, plus the ones that were exchanged earlier, things changed dramatically in Greeks favor. That’s the recipe, you annex a land where you are a minority, then you colonize it and in the end by any means possible you try to assimilate the rest of the groups living there. Does that seems rightful to you?

[Coastal]

The intention was to colonize the annexed part of Macedonia, thus making the Greeks a majority, something which before the population exchange – and especially before the Balkan wars was not the case. Who cares in what exact part of land they’ve settled, what matters is that they managed to change the demography of the region. Here’s how approximately things were just before the population exchange:


With more then 600 000 newcomers, plus the ones that were exchanged earlier, things changed dramatically in Greeks favor. That’s the recipe, you annex a land where you are a minority, then you colonize it and in the end by any means possible you try to assimilate the rest of the groups living there. Does that seems rightful to you?

I don't deny that the demography changed for ever.
After this actually every claim on Greek Macedonia is futile.

My objection was in how this was a plan designed against the Macedonians.

This was not the case because:
1)the exchange was not decided by the Greek government
2)the Greek refugees were NOT settled systematically among Macedonians in order to change the ratio in the particular lands..but where the Turks left,in order them to take their place.
That's why -as i mentioned-their ratio is low in Florina and Kastoria.

you annex a land where you are a minority,

This is the map you posted...highlighted..

Considering that :
1)Macedonians were traditionally rural population,Greeks urban (cities concentrate great numbers..but this is not depicted on ethnological maps)
2)This map is by far the most pro-Macedonian ethnilogical map of the era you can find. (9 of 10 don't even depict Macedonians separately)

take again a look at it..and tell me you were the majority

[Daskalot]

Considering that :
1)Macedonians were traditionally rural population,Greeks urban (cities concentrate great numbers..but this is not depicted on ethnological maps)
2)This map is by far the most pro-Macedonian ethnilogical map of the era you can find. (9 of 10 don't even depict Macedonians separately)

take again a look at it..and tell me you were the majority

1) what you describe here is a class structure, why else would every Greek be urban? People became Greeks in the Ottoman emipre when they moved to the cities or became merchants, this is a known fact.

2)Remember the everyone had an agenda towards Macedonia, Greek propaganda was in work, the same goes for Serbian and Bulgarian. And their respective protector amongst the Powers of the day.
Would you like to see a map that was produced by a Macedonian?

Are we the majority on this one?


This map is called “Karta Makedoniia po programa na Makedonskite narodnici” and made by D. Chupovski in 1913, St Petersburg. Original size 62×37 cm, scale 1:1000000.

[Coastal]

This is the geographical area of Macedonia.
(as it was finally formed after San Stefano treaty/ late 19th-early 20th century)
This is not an ethnological map.

Besides i can see some weird things, such as Pieria is not considered Macedonia -actually Pieria together with Emathia was the birthplace of kingdom of Macedon.
On the other hand Skopje lies in Macedonia,which wasn't a Macedonian city since ever and also Xanthi is Macedonian,which was and is Thracian town...

[TrueMacedonian]

Well,you seem to live in Australia.
So..let's change a bit the words..

"You call the Christian Australian Nationals as Macedonians. Many cannot even speak anything resembling Macedonian"

Should i call you christian Australian?

----
Besides until your land was annexed by Serbia in 1912,you were Turkish nationals too.
And then you became Yugoslavian nationals until 1991.
Does this imply anything about your ethnicity?



Am i ?
I clarified that i respect your self-identification,and that's all.
Since you identify as Macedonians,you are,and there is no doubt for me.

This is a totally different story and has nothing to do with what i said:
Do you deny the sources?
Is it restricted to mention them?
It is true that many scolars,travelers and historians defined your ancestors as Bulgarians -is it a taboo for you>??

such as ..

ENGLISH
James Wyld -1877
Georgina Muir Mackenzie and Adeline Paulina Irby -1863

FRENCH
Ami Boué in 1840
Guillaume Lejean in 1861

GERMANS
August Heinrich Rudolf Griesebach -1841
J. Hahn -1858 and 1863
August Heinrich Petermann -1869
Heinrich Kiepert -1876

AUSTRIANS
Karl Sax -1878

CZECHS
J. Erben -1868
F. Brodaska -1869

SLOVAKS
Pavel Jozef Safarik -1842

SERBIANS
Davidovitch -1848
Constant Desjardins -1853
Stefan I. Verković -1860

RUSSIANS
Viktor I. Grigorovič -1848
Vinkenty Makushev -1867
M.F. Mirkovitch -1867

These are just 20 of the most prominent of their time.
Do you have 20 -or 5 ....-who had a different opinion ?
I guess sources should not be ignored or demonized -even if we don't like their opinion...they can be proved useful for our better understanding.

That's funny considering that Bulgarians were sometimes mistaken for Serbs and Croats;



Imagined Communities, By Benedict Arnold (I recommend you read this book Coastal. It would be an eye opener for you).

If i can find what? That there were Greeks in Macedonia trying to liberate it ?
My great grandfather was local Greek speaker,and was assassinated by Komitajis in November of 1907.
My Grandma still calls his long dead assasssins Bulgarians of the nearby village.
Maybe it is not politically correct in here...you can send her a letter about your objections and your concerns about terminology.

I'm sure your yaya's neighbor probably called your family Vlahos. But I guess anyone that speaks romaika is a hellene somehow lol

[Daskalot]

This is the geographical era of Macedonia.
(as it was finally formed after San Stefano treaty/ late 19th-early 20th century)
This is not an ethnological map.

Besides i can see some weird things, such as Pieria is not considered Macedonia -actually Pieria together with Emathia was the birthplace of kingdom of Macedon.
On the other hand Skopje lies in Macedonia,which wasn't a Macedonian city since ever and also Xanthi is Macedonian,which was and is Thracian town...

It is a map of the MACEDONIAN NATION by a Macedonian.

You seem to be stuck in your obsession of Antiquity.
Are you denying that Skopje is a Macedonian city? Are you denying our capital as a part of Macedonia?

[Coastal]

It is a map of the MACEDONIAN NATION by a Macedonian.

You seem to be stuck in your obsession of Antiquity.
Are you denying that Skopje is a Macedonian city? Are you denying our capital as a part of Macedonia?

It wasn't in antiquity.
It is now.
Are you denying Pieria is in Macedonia?

[Coastal]

Imagined Communities, By Benedict Arnold (I recommend you read this book Coastal. It would be an eye opener for you).

Ok then ..since Benedict has a tiny quote about Bulgarians belonging to the same nation with other Slavic people..then ok.

Let's burn all Sources ,Scolars, Historian, Travellers of the 19th and 20th century ))

[Orfej]

I don't deny that the demography changed for ever.
After this actually every claim on Greek Macedonia is futile.

My objection was in how this was a plan designed against the Macedonians.

This was not the case because:
1)the exchange was not decided by the Greek government
2)the Greek refugees were NOT settled systematically among Macedonians in order to change the ratio in the particular lands..but where the Turks left,in order them to take their place.
That's why -as i mentioned-their ratio is low in Florina and Kastoria.

You simply can’t put 2 and 2 together. If the settlement of 600 000 Greeks in Macedonia was in Greece’s favor, then it certainly was against the interests of the Macedonians who, besides being split in half with the Bucharest treaty, with this colonization become a minority in Aegean Macedonia. So yes, this worked for the Greeks and against the Macedonians who wanted Macedonia independent and united - as you said `after this every claim on Aegean Macedonia is futile`, meaning against Macedonian interests. It’s irrelevant if the refugees were settled in Lerin or Seres, because we don’t look at particular areas, but at the whole Macedonian land.

This is the map you posted...highlighted..

The line you draw is far from being correct. Pieria was not included in the definition of Macedonia according to most cartographers, excluding the Greek ones. The southern border of Macedonia follows the Haliacmon river. Maybe someone from this forum can draw the correct line according to these maps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Borders_of_Macedonia_according_authors_%281843-1927%29.png

And if you attempt to include Pieria under the excuse that it was part of Ancient Macedonia, then you also should include Bitola, Gevgelija, Dojran, Demir Kapija, Ohrid, Resen, Kavadarci and other towns who were inside Ancient Macedonia - but unlike Pieria, the huge majority of the population in this towns was Macedonian. Maybe it would suit us more, since the population in the towns mentioned overcomes the population of Pieria by far. So this will increase the number of Macedonians much more then of any other ethnicity.

Considering that :
1)Macedonians were traditionally rural population,Greeks urban (cities concentrate great numbers..but this is not depicted on ethnological maps)

Exactly - which means the Greeks were scattered all along Macedonia, in every bigger town and not just in Aegean Macedonia. So if their total was around 200 000, in Aegean Macedonia was even less (excluding the Greeks in the urban central and norther cities of Macedonia).

2)This map is by far the most pro-Macedonian ethnilogical map of the era you can find. (9 of 10 don't even depict Macedonians separately)

Matter of fact it's not `by far the most pro-Macedonian`. Maybe this one is!


Or maybe it isn't?!

take again a look at it..and tell me you were the majority

Even though the map itself shows that the territories occupied by the Macedonians are larger, it doesn't mean much. A small area can have a large percentage of the population. That's why we look at statistics. And the statistics( as i mentioned in my previous posts) tells us that the Greeks were around 200 - 250 000 people. Coastal, 200 - 250 000 was not the majority in Aegean Macedonia, yet alone in the whole of Macedonia.

One more thing i want to ask you. Could you explain to us the principles of the division of Macedonia in 1913? I'm really confused about it.

[Risto the Great]

If i can find what? That there were Greeks in Macedonia trying to liberate it ?
My great grandfather was local Greek speaker,and was assassinated by Komitajis in November of 1907.
My Grandma still calls his long dead assasssins Bulgarians of the nearby village.
Maybe it is not politically correct in here...you can send her a letter about your objections and your concerns about terminology.



So,you are telling that a document-that is supposed to be a monument of falsification by many-of some peasants in a town called Kresna-away from Greek inhabited Macedonia, means more than what all the Neutral (but also hostile) historian,scholars,writers,travellers saw in Macedonia:Greeks.

---
That's all abt it.I won't answer to off topic remarks anymore.The admin may tell you that you shouldn t make more off topic comments-who knows ..maybe he will

I haven't received an answer on the plain simple this:
In Florina region ,where Macedonian speakers were the vast majority (some 80%)... out of the 638.000 Greek refugees...settled some 7.000
This is a slight more than 1%.

If the intention was the Refugees to colonize lands inhabited by Macedonians..why on Earth this didnt happen in their number 1 region ?

can anybody give anything close to a convincing answer,without posting quotes about Alexander the Great ,Gaugamela or Cretans?

Coastal, we don't hear answers from you about many questions. And you feel compelled to rant about how few christian Turks ended up in Lerin. I have seen heaps of them. But accept that most of them ended up in Solun. Which was pretty empty after you wiped the Jews & Turks out of there.

Misirkov barely rates the Greek presence in Macedonia as well.

Your great grandfather (a greek speaker .... hey like Misirkov) was no doubt fighting for a liberated Macedonia and that is why you want to call yourself a Macedonian now. Or maybe he simply wanted Macedonia to be a part of Greece because he felt himself to be Greek. Which makes him a modern Greek who died for his wish to make Macedonia Greek. It was a dying wish no less.

Which brings me to my final point before deleting you:
How dare you compare the name of the country Macedonia with all of its ethnic and national connotations with some Greek provinces using Macedonia as part of their names. There is no comparison and your dialogue here is pointless and childish.

When Greece renames itself as Macedonia we will have a problem. Even then, we won't.