The Greek colonization of Macedonia since 1913!

[Mastika]

Response to Soldier of Macedon.

Where does Kanchov obtain his figures from, or was it independent research on the ground level that led him to believe he knows the linguistic affiliation of each village in Macedonia. Here is what Verkovich wrote in the mid 1800's: "........Slavs are the most numerous compared to all the other people, and after them are Vlachs. The numbers of the Greeks and Turks are very small................Generaly, Greeks are located where there were once old Hellenic colonies, like : Amphipolis, Eion, Neopolis, etc, however everywhere in very small number. (S. Verkovich, 1860.)"

I find it hard to take such an expert seriously if he is claiming that the number of Turks is very small, given that in 1900, according to Kanchov, they were the second most numerous group at c.500,000. Interestingly Verkovich in 1889 puts the number of Greeks at 222,740 whilst claiming that there were 240,264 Turks. 200,000+ does not seem like a “small” number to me at all. Regardless, I seriously question data put forward by a man who believes that there were more Vlachs then Turks. Simply by comparing the 40 or so Vlach settlements with the hundreds and hundreds of Turkish speaking villages, one can see that his assertion is incorrect. He doesn’t even mention where this Vlach population is populated, if the Vlachs can outnumber the Turks who comprised c. 500,000 people you would assume that they occupied a large part of Macedonia.

Here is what Brailsford wrote in the early 1900's: “They are not a very numerous stock, though without their aid the Greeks would cut a poor figure among the statistics of the Macedonian races. The so-called "Greeks" of Monastir are Vlachs to a man. They form a considerable and continuous group along the Pindus range, wedged between Thessaly and Epirus. They are numerous once more between Olympus and Kara-Veria (the ancient Beroea). Elsewhere they have scattered villages, all built like Pisodéri among the rocks. Kruchevo, Neveska, and Klissoura are the most notable of these mountain-nests. (H. N. Brailsford, 1906)”

Brailsford is right in labelling the “Greeks” of Bitola as Vlachs, in essence that is what they were. So too, were the “Greeks” of Lerin or of Voden, however I am not talking about sell-out Vlachs, rather real Greeks who lived 100 kilometres to the South. A number of people, not specifically you, have confused their experiences with Grkoman “Greeks” with those of real ethnic-Greeks from Southern Macedonia.

Brailsford is wrong in claiming that the Vlachs lived between Olympus and Kara-Veria/Ber. The only Vlach villages of the region, were a compact group comprising of Gorno Šel, Dolno Šel, Crkovchan, Maruša, Doljani, Valoda, Kserolivadon and Kastanja with c. 10,000 inhabitants (1900AD) and were to the East of Negus and Ber, and to the north of the Bistrica river.

If one happens to draw direct line from Olympus to Ber, the only villages within the proximity will be Greek villages. Apart from the listed 8, there are no more Vlach villages in the region (except for some on the Southern slopes of Olympus, thus falling outside of Macedonia).

The 'Greeks' in Macedonia during 1900 were essentially nothing without Vlachs. The area between Olympus and Beroea where these Vlachs live is south of the Bistrica. I will grant you some Greeks south of this river in Macedonia, but I won't be blind as you are, and accept everybody there as 'Greeks' for the sake of conclusion.

Its not about being blind for the sake of conclusion, its about making a conclusion based on the evidence presented. The Vlachs had a limited presence in Macedonia confined to 40-50 mountains villages (through all parts of Macedonia) along with some small colonies established in the local towns.

“The area between Olympus and Beroea where these Vlachs live is south of the Bistrica.”

This is not true, please consult a topographic/accurate ethnographic map. You will notice that all of the Vlach villages of the region were located to the West of Ber/Negush and to the North of the Bistrica river. The three Vlach villages around Olympus are located outside the geographical limits of Macedonia.

For all you know your 'ethnically Greek' fishing villages were in that particular area for only a generation prior as descendants of refugees from elsewhere. Or are you suggesting that such a small group of people survived in the same area unscathed since the ancient Hellenic colonies in Macedonia were destroyed by Phillip II during the 4th century BC?

Some may have been newly founded villages (30 years or so), however it is more likely that many were founded much earlier then that. Both our comments (where I have quoted you, and my own comments in this paragraph) are speculation however. I’m not suggesting that they are the descendants of people from 400BC, however many towns such as Poligeros on the Chalcidice have around for hundreds of years, during which time the population has been recorded as being Greek speaking. There is no evidence of Vlach’s populating the Chalcidice, yet the population emerged as Greek speaking, I can only see one plausible explanation.

Don't get too excited, all of your maps are either from the 19th or 20th centuries, none of them correspond to each other exactly, some differ significantly, and others still will exclude groups that existed by placing them under 'umbrella' terms such as Greeks and Bulgars.

All the maps vary, this is 100%. However the later maps tended to get more accurate, as better studies were organised, and more homogenous. The maps over and over again show Macedonians as the majority group around Lerin, Kostur, Negush, Voden, Kukush, Demir Hisar/Valovista, north of Ser and north of Drama. Turks are consistenly shown around Kavala, Pravista, Sari Shaban, around Bogdanska Planina/Suho village near Solun, between Kukush and Ser, South of Ostrovsko Ezero, Kajlar and north of Kozani. Greeks are consistently shown around Grebena, Satista, Lapcista, Katerini, Serfidze, the Chalcidice and the mouth of the Struma. The Megleno-Romanians and the Vlachs near Ber/Negush are also generally shown.

Although individual maps have flaws (generally minor ones), the general distribution of the ethnicities are continuously corroborated by consecutive maps. As of yet I have not seen a map which placed people under umbrella terms such as Greeks (generally due to affiliation with the Patriachate) and as Bulgarians (due to affiliation with the Exarchate). All maps seems to correctly classify the Greeks as those being ethnically Greek, not as hellenised Macedonian or as Macedonians who were affiliated to the Patriachate.

You haven’t been able to discredit the maps which seem to back up the point I am trying to make.

Although Verkovich refers to the Macedonian population as 'Bulgarian' (side note: he gives an explanation why he does this), see what he writes about the 'Greeks' at the mouth of the Struma: “From Demir-Hisar, where begins the big Serezian lowland, on both sides of the river Struma, till the ruins of Amphipolis by the sea, and east from Amphipolis towards Kavala, on both sides of mountain Pangea, which is today called Pernar by locals, there are more than 100 Bulgarian villages, the same number of Vlach villages, whereas there are barely 20 Greek villages. (S. Verkovich, 1860)”

Not only does Verkovich ‘forget’ about the large Turkish presence in this region, however he claims that there were around 100 Vlach villages in the region. Which villages exactly were populated by Vlachs? From my understanding the only considerable presence of Vlachs in this region was in Serska Dzumaja and Karli Kyoy (20% Vlasi), Oravishte with 100 Vlachs (44% of the village), Boren near Drama with 18% Vlasi and Prosochen with 16% Vlasi. In the region described by Verkovich out of a total population of 296,339 (Ser/Demir Hisar/Z’hna/Drama/Kavala/Pravista kaza’s) it seems that there are only 4,802 Vlachs in total (1.6%). Although there were probably more then is counted by Kanchov, especially in the Urban centres, by no means does this support Verkovich’s claim of c. 100 Vlach villages compared to only c. 20 Greek ones.

I’m not going to use this data as the “be all and end all”, I acknowledge that it too, is has its flaws. However I have never heard of such a large group of Vlach’s living in this area of East Macedonia, nor have I come across the demographic data to back it up. Given Verkovich’s track record about underestimating the number of Turks, it seems that here he has confused Turks with Vlachs. If not, please tell me which villages were the Vlach villages? Where did they live? Why is it that in 1860 there were 100 Vlach villages whilst in 1900 there was not one ethnically Vlach village?

Should he be dismissed because you only wish to look at a narrow window of time or prefer to trust misinformed propagandist maps from the 19th and 20th century?

He should not be dismissed, but rather if his work is to be taken more seriously it needs to be backed up with facts supporting his view. His claims of ‘one hundred Vlach villages’ and of ‘the number of Turks being small’, are very easily disputed, as I have done here, and are borderline ludricrous.

Interesting you bring up the issue of the propagandist maps, sure they show propaganda by depicting Macedonians as Serbs and Bulgarians, but what benefit would a Serbian/Bulgarian/Pan-Slavist get out of showing ‘Hellenised Vlachs’ or ‘Hellenised Macedonians’ as Greeks? You would assume that in order to discredit the Greek propaganda at the time the ethnographers would show the Greek population as being either Vlach or Macedonian, ie. Non-Greek. It is interesting that none of these ethnographers, many of whom were anti-Greek, chose to represent this ‘non-Greek’ population as a Greek-speaking one. One would assume that the anti-Greek propagandists would have made the link that you have made here about these people’s “true” ethnicity.

It's not irrelevant, except to people like you who readily accept over-simplified narratives which just so happen to be at the expense of your 'own' people's existence. Some of my grandparents were born in the early 1900's, they were Macedonians, their grandparents were born in the 1800's, a few generations earlier, 1700's, etc, etc, and it keeps going back. True ethnic identity doesn't just change with each century, and can endure even in the harshest of environments. There are also those of weak mind or questionable integrity.

We don’t know what ethnic identity our great-great-great-grandparents really were, especially in a time of virtually no record keeping. If people didn’t want their past to be known they would simply not pass that information on to their children. I agree with you, true ethnic identity can endure the harshest environments, however no ethnic identity has existed from the beginning of time. That means in everyone’s ancestry there was a period where the ancestors had an identity which doesn’t correspond with the identity of their descendants in the 21st century. No doubt these ancestors had a different form of identity, whether it was tribal, or religious, or cultural, no ethnic identity is static.

What I am saying is not at the detriment of my own people’s existence, rather they are two separate matters. The existence of Greeks in Macedonia 100 years ago does not reduce our right to be known as Macedonians nor does it reduces our ‘Macedonian-ness’. What will affect us negatively however is the creation of a national myth which does not correctly reflect historical actualities.

What evidence do you have to indicate 'hundreds of years' of Greek-speakers in Macedonia in any given area except for some of the main towns?

Some of the earliest maps such as Ami Boué 1847 and Pavel Jozef Šafárik 1842 depiction’s of the Balkans display this indication of the Greek presence in the 3 zones which I keep talking about. I am not a fan of the religious based affiliations which existed before this time which unfairly classified people as being Greek merely based on affiliation to the Patriarchate.

I showed you Verkovich. He too considers Bistrica as a natural border but south of Macedonia is Thessaly, and there the Vlachs were even more numerous.

This doesn’t answer my question. Verkovich possibly chooses to use the Bistrica as a border because it broke up the Macedonian-Turkish speaking population of the North with the Greek speaking population to the south of the river. Later academic developments however chose to include the area south of the Bistrica as apart of Macedonia, even if the demography was completely different to the Northern region.

It's not a speculation or hypothetical, prior to the 1760's 'native' Greek-speakers were basically nowhere in Macedonia. There are no census' based on language or ethnicity in those earlier years, historical accounts vary but they do also speak of Macedonians.

Once again, I am looking at the period around the turn of the 20th century. In the 1700s the area known as ‘Macedonia’ had not yet been established, ie. It did not take the shape of the Macedonia we know today. Historical accounts do differ, however again your statement is very broad. The 1700s is very under documented and therefore any conclusions made from that period a potentially affected by the bias of the author. If by “basically nowhere” you mean no-where except the Chalcidice, mouth of the Struma and south of the Bistrica, then you are probably right in your conclusion. The line between Macedonian-Turkish and Greek speakers may indeed have been 10 or 20 kilometres to the south of the established positions by 1900, however after 140 or roughly 7 generations it is hard to claim these people as being anything but Greek. SoM if you found out that in 1860 your family decided to stop being Albanians (for example) and began to assimilate into Macedonians, would you suddenly stop feeling Macedonian? Would you feel Albanian all of a sudden? Should you feel Albanian all of a sudden?

Where have I said that no Bulgars, Greeks, Albanians or Serbs exist? I will tell you where, nowhere. So what was the point of that rant? Nothing. Have another drink of your namesake.

This comment was not directed at you, you are smarter than this, but at others who truly believe in the non-existence of neighbouring ethnicities.

Some of your 'methodologies' have no good reason, because you haven't properly researched all of the necessary sources. You don't sound stupid so I don't think you're ignorant, which probably means that you're still the same self-loathing and self-negating 'Macedonian' that you were the first time you arrived here.

I am interested in this “self-loathing and self-negating 'Macedonian'” statement. I am proud to be Macedonian. I have no hesitations in saying this, I do not loath my ethnicity, nor the Macedonian heritage which my ancestors were apart of. Such a statement should be reserved for a Grkoman, who is truly ashamed of their heritage and seeks solice in the ethnicity of a foreign group. This is not appropriate for someone who simply chooses to question the exaggerations which have arisen.

You have acknowledged that there were in fact Greeks living to the south of the Bistrica and posted a source in support of the Greek presence around the Struma (I am assuming that you agree with Brailsford assertion that Greek villages were in existence there). Now if you add to these groups the population of Greeks on the Chalcidice, is not possible for them to have outnumbered the Vlachs?, who after all lived only in a small number of settlements.

[Onur]

You can give me some quotes from people claiming that there were Vlachs posing as Greeks, etc. etc., I agree this happened. But where did these Vlachs live? Give me more detail rather then summative and innacurate statements. I know that some Vlachs posed as Greeks, Vasil Kanchov for example still counts them as Vlachs, because that was their mother language. Show me proof that Vlachs settled the regions which are marked upon demographic maps as being "greek".

It`s not only claims of "some people" as you said. It`a fact since there are 100s of incidents reported by Vlachs to Turkish authorities between 1850s to 1913.

I already translated some of the government archive records at this message;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=51391#post51391

All of these are facts. There are names, dates and detailed reports of the incidents with the signed testimony of the eyewitnesses.

Yesterday`s poor Vlachs but today`s proud Hellenes in Greece should read all of these. They can even find the testimonies of their own grandparents since it`s "that" many.

Especially in the last 10 years of Turkish reign in Aegean Macedonia, there was no public order or security outside Salonika city center and there was lots of armed Greek bandit groups who terrorized in Vlach and Macedonian villages. They were forcibly trying to convert them to accept Greek identity by kidnapping, raping and murdering their priests and teachers.

In one archival record, it was saying that Greek bandits gathered all Vlachs to their church in some village and orders them to not speak in Vlach language anymore. They murder their priest, burns every bible and documents written in Vlach language. Then they kidnap 2 men by telling them that if they don't speak and pray in Greek language when they return to the village again, they will kill the kidnapped villagers.


Now Mastika, while the situation was like that in Aegean Macedonia, do you think that it was possible to gather correct data about who is Macedonian, who is Vlach, who is Greek from there? These poor victims had to accept Greek identity or die, especially after 1890s.

[Mastika]

It`s not only claims of "some people" as you said. It`a fact since there are 100s of incidents reported by Vlachs to Turkish authorities between 1850s to 1913.

I already translated some of the government archive records at this message;

All of these are facts. There are names, dates and detailed reports of the incidents with the signed testimony of the eyewitnesses.

Yesterday`s poor Vlachs but today`s proud Hellenes in Greece should read all of these. They can even find the testimonies of their own grandparents since it`s "that" many.

Especially in the last 10 years of Turkish reign in Aegean Macedonia, there was no public order or security outside Salonika city center and there was lots of armed Greek bandit groups who terrorized in Vlach and Macedonian villages. They were forcibly trying to convert them to accept Greek identity by kidnapping, raping and murdering their priests and teachers.

In one archival record, it was saying that Greek bandits gathered all Vlachs to their church in some village and orders them to not speak in Vlach language anymore. They murder their priest, burns every bible and documents written in Vlach language. Then they kidnap 2 men by telling them that if they don't speak and pray in Greek language when they return to the village again, they will kill the kidnapped villagers.

Now Mastika, while the situation was like that in Aegean Macedonia, do you think that it was possible to gather correct data about who is Macedonian, who is Vlach, who is Greek from there? These poor victims had to accept Greek identity or die, especially after 1890s.

Very true, incidents against Vlachs did happen, sadly. However I am not talking about Hellenised Vlachs, regardless of whether they were forced or not. Sadly many Vlachs were indeed subject to discrimination due to their ethnic identity. However, I am talking about those Greeks who at the turn of the 20th century were not Hellenised Vlachs or Hellenised Macedonians, but people who knew only how to speak Greek and only of themselves having a Greek-speaking heritage, mainly found in the three regions I have been talking about.

Do I think it is possible to gather correct data? "Correct" is not the right word, as "accurate as is possible" is better wording. Yes I do believe that this is possible. It is well documented which villages were Vlach at the turn of the century, I have already listed them here a number of times. Whether or not some villages were forced to adopt Hellenism, the inhabitants are still counted as Vlachs, which is what they truly were. Even if some were Grkoman's or Romanian-leaning, Kanchov still counts them as Vlachs. Dimitar Mishev in 1905 again counts them as Vlachs, with those who were either Romanian or Greek leaning. Greek statistics from 1904 count them as "Vlachophones", either as "Greeks" or "Romanians". Despite assimilative preassures placed against many, there are still numerous records of the existence of both Hellenised and non-Hellenised Vlachs. By using the population of the villages we can arrive at good estimates, it is the cities/towns where a larger discrepancy can be caused. However by using village-by-village data one can attain more accurate ethnographic maps etc.

Of course we will not arrive at the exact number of any group, we can get a rough idea of the size of the population and the distribution of the group. The limited number of Vlachs and Vlach settlements puts them way out of reach of overtaking Greeks as the third most populous group, which is the point I have been trying to make here. However the upside, this makes accounting for the entire Vlach population easier due to the limited number of settlements.

Now, If you did a survey of the "Greeks" in Aegean Macedonia in 1955 you will find that many of them were 'second-generation Greeks' with their grand-parents in fact being Aromanians or Macedonians, who had been Hellenised.

[Bill77]

Very true, incidents against Vlachs did happen, sadly. However I am not talking about Hellenised Vlachs, regardless of whether they were forced or not. Sadly many Vlachs were indeed subject to discrimination due to their ethnic identity. However, I am talking about those Greeks who at the turn of the 20th century were not Hellenised Vlachs or Hellenised Macedonians,

Then you must mean Hellenised Albanians.

but people who knew only how to speak Greek and only of themselves having a Greek-speaking heritage, mainly found in the three regions I have been talking about.

So the language used by people by itself identifies their ethnicity?
Do you know for sure these people that have a greek speaking heritage actualy inherited Greek from there papoo and yaya? Its a long time between turn of the 19th century (when the west inserted the idea that they actually are sons, grandchildren and relatives of Pericles, Demostenisa and sons of Socrates.) and the turn of the 20th century.

[Sovius]

Mastika,
Would it be possible for you to provide the sources you studied that led you to the conclusion that there were real Greeks living in Macedonia prior to the 19th Century? Also, what about Vaillant’s and Giannelli’s work regarding the Macedonian language as it existed during the 16th Century? You mentioned that Macedonia wasn’t truly thought of as Macedonia (or Macedonian) prior to a certain point in time and, yet, languages are typically classified according to the regions and/or ethnicities of the people who speak them. What sources did you read to form such a belief? If the Macedonian language existed during the 16th Century (as a living language), what about the 15th Century? At what point in time was what is considered today to be Macedonian not Macedonian and what was this language and ethnicity classified as?

[Pelister]

The problem is that non-Greek estimates of the number of 'Greeks' in Macedonia have them at below 10% or thereabouts of the total population consistently.

Now if any part of this 10% includes ethnic Vlachs, partially Hellenized Macedonians and others - just how many 'Greeks' should we expect find in Macedonia around 1900 ?

Very, very few.

[VMRO]

The Kozani area apparently was almost exclusively Turks from Konya, while the inhabitants of Kozani itself who were mostly of Vlach origin.

"and in Shatishta and Kozhani in which two latter towns the hellenized Vlachs form the strongest part of the Greek population" - Wace. A

The area around Olympus was also settled by Vlachs, many vlachs migrated from Livadi (a center which was the biggest in the area) to Katerini.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Mastika, you failed to answer my question with regard to Kanchov. Where does he obtain his figures from? Or was it independent research on the ground level that led him to believe he knows the linguistic affiliation of each village in Macedonia?

I find it hard to take such an expert seriously if he is claiming that the number of Turks is very small, given that in 1900, according to Kanchov, they were the second most numerous group at c.500,000.

Verkovich may well have given a higher figure for both Turks and Greeks decades later, but he travelled through Macedonia in the years prior to 1860 in the citations I provided, are you aware of the events that took place between then and 1900? If so, do you know what the consequences were for Macedonia? I will give you a hint, the answer is in your sentence quoted above.

Brailsford is wrong in claiming that the Vlachs lived between Olympus and Kara-Veria/Ber.

Is he also wrong when says his:

The Greeks are not a Macedonian race, though they have a powerful Church and a considerable party in Macedonia. If one takes the linguistic test there are practically no villages in European Turkey whose mother-tongue is Greek, save along the coasts of the Aegean and the Black Sea, in the peninsulas of Chalcidice, and the Thracian Chersonnese, and in the extreme south of Macedonia near the Thessalian frontier.

Brailsford himself admits that the Vlachs were not a very numerous stock, but also states that "without their aid the Greeks would cut a poor figure among the statistics of the Macedonian races". He was in a better position to know this than either of us.

Some may have been newly founded villages (30 years or so), however it is more likely that many were founded much earlier then that. Both our comments (where I have quoted you, and my own comments in this paragraph) are speculation however. I’m not suggesting that they are the descendants of people from 400BC, however many towns such as Poligeros on the Chalcidice have around for hundreds of years, during which time the population has been recorded as being Greek speaking.

I suspect there would have more than a mere 'some', aside from Poligeros which other town in Chalcidice has been around for centuries? Also, can you show me a record from centuries ago indicating that people from Poligeros spoke Greek as a mother-tongue?

All the maps vary, this is 100%. However the later maps tended to get more accurate, as better studies were organised, and more homogenous..........As of yet I have not seen a map which placed people under umbrella terms such as Greeks (generally due to affiliation with the Patriachate) and as Bulgarians (due to affiliation with the Exarchate)........

Later maps also received a flood of information that emanated from refined and rampant propaganda machines in the service of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. Their accuracy is immediately compromised. Who do you think these foreign cartographers got their sources from, if not those representing their respective millets in the empire and of course the Ottoman census' which were based on religious affiliation? Few of them travelled all or most of the villages and towns in Macedonia to draw such 'accurate' statistics which you so blindly subscribe to.

You haven’t been able to discredit the maps which seem to back up the point I am trying to make.

The point you're trying to make is based on misconceptions, and that renders your point inaccurate. Can you show me some equivalent maps that date from the 18th century and prior?

Not only does Verkovich ‘forget’ about the large Turkish presence in this region, however he claims that there were around 100 Vlach villages in the region.

He doesn't 'forget' the Turks, they simply weren't there in such numbers during the mid 19th century. The Vlach villages, on the other hand, which were there (according to Verkovich who travelled through Macedonia during the same period), are all 'Greek' villages by the beginning of the 20th century. And you still can't see what is going on.

However I have never heard of such a large group of Vlach’s living in this area of East Macedonia, nor have I come across the demographic data to back it up.

Have you went through all records and documentation since the Roman invason of Macedonia to confirm there have been no settlements in the area?

Interesting you bring up the issue of the propagandist maps, sure they show propaganda by depicting Macedonians as Serbs and Bulgarians, but what benefit would a Serbian/Bulgarian/Pan-Slavist get out of showing ‘Hellenised Vlachs’ or ‘Hellenised Macedonians’ as Greeks? You would assume that in order to discredit the Greek propaganda at the time the ethnographers would show the Greek population as being either Vlach or Macedonian, ie. Non-Greek.

For a Serb or Bulgar to accept the existence of Macedonians would go against their own propaganda. It was in their greater interest to carve Macedonia between themselves and Greece rather than support the Macedonians, because the latter option would leave them with no prize of additional territory. I can certainly see the (stupid) reasons they had and indeed used in their cunning efforts to justify 'their' places in Macedonia.

We don’t know what ethnic identity our great-great-great-grandparents really were, especially in a time of virtually no record keeping.

To each his own Mastika, as far as my inquiries have went with some relatives using the names of ancestors to build a family tree, I can (at the moment) go back to my great-great-great grandparents, about the mid to late 1800's, my family (on both sides) has resided in the same area since memory and there is nothing about settling the area. The chances that the people that came before them were anything other than Macedonians are slim.

The existence of Greeks in Macedonia 100 years ago does not reduce our right to be known as Macedonians nor does it reduces our ‘Macedonian-ness’. What will affect us negatively however is the creation of a national myth which does not correctly reflect historical actualities.

The 'Greeks' in Macedonia 100 years ago were overwhelmingly non-Greek by mother-tongue. What affects us negatively is the element in our society today that buys into outdated anti-Macedonian garbage while ignoring all of the facts and set precedences that expose the flaws in their 'estimations' and, more importantly, paints the picture of disunity among Macedonians.

In the 1700s the area known as ‘Macedonia’ had not yet been established, ie. It did not take the shape of the Macedonia we know today.

The frontiers of Macedonia have altered over the years, I don't see your point.

SoM if you found out that in 1860 your family decided to stop being Albanians (for example) and began to assimilate into Macedonians, would you suddenly stop feeling Macedonian? Would you feel Albanian all of a sudden? Should you feel Albanian all of a sudden?

Give me a scenario of when an Albanian in the 1860's would start being a Macedonian, and by what reason and incentive? It was the Macedonians who were being forced to assimilate into other groups.

I am interested in this “self-loathing and self-negating 'Macedonian'” statement. I am proud to be Macedonian. I have no hesitations in saying this, I do not loath my ethnicity, nor the Macedonian heritage which my ancestors were apart of. Such a statement should be reserved for a Grkoman, who is truly ashamed of their heritage and seeks solice in the ethnicity of a foreign group. This is not appropriate for someone who simply chooses to question the exaggerations which have arisen.

You don't see any collective history prior to the 19th century for the nation you're apparently so 'proud' to call yourself a part of, yet you have bought many of the lies that deny Macedonian existence and the accurate reflection of that existence.

[Rogi]

Despite all this posted in this thread, we still have the Greeks using that old "territorial aspirations" chestnut.

Of course, they quite easily forget their own "territorial aspirations", including even those against the Republic of Macedonia.

Here's a paid advertisement by the Greek community in Australia going back some 15 years or so...

[Risto the Great]

Thanks Rogi,
I never knew "Slavs" existed in Macedonia.
Does anyone know what they look like? They are obviously not Bulgarians or Serbians if we are to accept that seemingly brilliant advertisement from theo Chris.

Is it too late to send them my name to win a trip to Greek Macedonia?

[sf.]

They have their perspective that they want to promote, but this ad was factually innacurate. They've become a little more sophisticated in their deviousness these days, and in the absence of Macedonians to provide counter-arguments, are getting away with murder... literally.

[thessalo-niki]

You have eys but you cannot see.

Take those 65 years then go back only a further 45 years....where's your Greece??

At 1890 or 1900 Greece was, you know where. What’s interesting is that all my ancestors were Greeks, yet they were outside Greece. It’s not hard to guess what would come next, since Ottoman Empire was collapsing.

No different to how the Bulgrian State was created in the 1800s it goes on record that people wanted and faught for an autonomous Macedonian State. This is around the time when the other Balkan states were created.

The only difference is we had no allies to see it through.

Actually, in your case the difference is that it is not so much on record. Also, you shouldn’t confuse the idea of an autonomous multi-national Macedonia, with the idea of an ethnic-Macedonia (imagined as a national country, populated by ethnic-Macedonians, i.e. your people). Muslim (Turks), Bulgarians, Greeks, Jews were the main entities who had to live together. Back then, your people were considered a key-factor population who was in-between, was illiterate, had no leaders or clear identity and would easily be either Hellenized or Burglarized. (I omit Serbia, because I don’t know much about the Northern areas).

Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian feeling was only created in Macedonia by propaganda. You are part of that propaganda. Congratulations and bravo for upholding that. You must feel proud of that 100 or so years of history of deep concern and propaganda.

Yes, but ethnic-Macedonian consciousness is also a propaganda (that came too late).

Macedonians have wanted to live as free men and women for thousands of years. Free from any oppression. The oppression came from the Greek city states as well not only Persians. That is the Macedonian History.

I don’t know if Phillip oppressed Thebes or vice versa. Who cares now? Actually, the most glorified moment of Macedonians was a conquest beyond belief, so you have to be kidding.

If Macedonia had a true Greek history your Athenian government wouldn't have had to change so many names of people places and things in a short time.

Some names were correctly changed back to their initial names (e.g. Thessaloniki or Edessa). In case of villages etc. you are right. In case of people names you are more than right. They should change it only if they wanted to. Even today, they should be let, to change their names back, if they want.
__________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is what is interesting.

Thessaloniki on Macedonians: ethnic-Macedonia, ethnic-Macedonians, i.e. your people, ethnic-Macedonian consciousness.

Thessaloniki on Greeks: Greece, Greeks, Greece, Greeks.

---------------------

Personally, I have had enough. You've continued to behave like an idiot ad infinitum, and have show a complete lack of respect for Macedonians by constantly including prefixes to our Macedonian name when not required or out of context. You have never applied the same idiotic standards to Greeks. You have had ample time and notification to stop this, but you haven't. Consequently, I can only consider you one of two things, an idiot, or a racist (possible a hybrid of both).

You have been relieved of your membership from the MTO for a week, take note of what I have just written. The next time you enter the MTO and start talking in the following manner: Greeks, Bulgarians, ethnic-Macedonians, Serbs, Albanians, etc - Will be your last. I have had it with people like you who deliberately pretend to be stupid and waste my time with such miniscule matters that a primary school child would have grasped by now.

[Pelister]

I think that this can be added here.

It is a record of a conversation between the Greek Prime Minister, Venizelos and Mr. Harold Nicolson of the British foreign office. The letter is dated January 22, 1925.

“He (Veniselos) did not think that any federation between Bulgaria and Serbia was practical politics for the moment, although he admitted that it might come one day and that when it came the position of Greek Macedonia would become precarious. If, however, Greece could have ten, or even five years of peace in which to populate the district (with Greeks) and to introduce British and American capital...then she would be able to look with less anxiety towards the north”.

Source: National Archives of Australia; A 981/4, ‘Record of Conversation between N. Veniselos and Mr. Nicolson’, Item, 176601

[thessalo-niki]

Personally, I have had enough.

No, you haven’t. Neither have I.

You've continued to behave like an idiot ad infinium, and have show a complete lack of respect for Macedonians by constantly including prefixes to our Macedonian name when not required or out of context.

It was certainly NOT out of context, you can see that if you exclude prefixes, then read again my second paragraph and try to see if it makes sense. I didn’t know that after Slav-Macedonian, now the term ethnic-Macedonian has become derogatory. The Rainbow Party doesn’t know it either, because they give a fierce fight to establish it in Greece. I never accepted the term (and never bought the arguments behind it); funnily, I used it because YOU asked me to. So, I don’t have a problem, I won’t use it again.

You have never applied the same idiotic standards to Greeks. You have had ample time and notification to stop this, but you haven't.

Actually, the same questions could be applied in the case of Greece or Bulgaria, but their national identity was not questionable by 1900, for various reasons. If someone was Christian and Bulgarian speaker and had joined the Bulgarian Exarche, then I guess he was Bulgarian.

Consequently, I can only consider you one of two things, an idiot, or a racist (possible a hybrid of both).

For you, every Greek is a combination of racism and stupidity, so it doesn’t really matter.
_________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul