What's in a name?

[Bill77]

The city is under Greek rule. But the people are still Italian.

So what will these greek rulers become now? Still greek? Italians? If they are Italians all of a sudden, please explain why.

[johnMKD]

Well, thats the difference between Greek and Turkish mindset my friend.

We got millions of people here in Turkey, like the one you met in Italy. We know who we are and we are proud to be like that. None of Balkan immigrant hesitates to express his roots here. No one with reasonable IQ here claims to be %100 Turk.

I even wrote this in forum b4;
http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=46383#post46383


Our republic`s founder, Ataturk is probably half Macedonian and half Turk and this was never a problem for us. His parents could be Greek too but this doesn't concern us and can never be a problem.

The question is, is there anyone in Greece who is brave enough to admit that your former president "Kostas Karamanlis" has Turkish roots????? This is the difference of mindset i am talking about? Capish??

Well, if you ask me, yes. On the contrary, I never denied me having Turkish blood either. I think we share almost the same views, friend, which is really nice.

[johnMKD]

Why don't you try to explain the following:

So you deny point 1. Which means that clearly no place called Greece actually existed in the time of ancient Macedonia. You have already proven the stupidity of your Wikipedia statement.

Feel free to tackle the remaining points. Your lack of real dialogue is bordering on trolling. It won't be tolerated for very long.

I have been asking for material to read since this morning, Risto, to help me understand your views. Feel free to do as you like.

[johnMKD]

So what will these greek rulers become now? Still greek? Italians? If they are Italians all of a sudden, please explain why.

Greek rulers are still Greek. Italian people living in the region are still Italian. This is my whole point.

[DIMO]

you cant be macedonian because if yok ask a macedonian what he/her feels in their heart they will tell you obedineta makedonija, egei, vardar, pirin i mala prespa, the macedonian land not greek bulgarian or serbian.

[Daskalot]

Just venture in to our History section, most documents are there for your reading pleasure. Or use our search function if you are looking for something specific.

[Prolet]

The question is, is there anyone in Greece who is brave enough to admit that your former president "Kostas Karamanlis" has Turkish roots?????

Onur, I thought Karamanlis said that he is Macedonian? It wont surprise me if he is Turkish

[johnMKD]

Just venture in to our History section, most documents are there for your reading pleasure. Or use our search function if you are looking for something specific.

Ok, thanks a lot. I'll definitely do it.

[Bill77]

Greek rulers are still Greek. Italian people living in the region are still Italian. This is my whole point.

So why is it diferant today in Sth Macedonia which is illegally ocupied by Greek rulers. Why are these Greeks all of a sudden Macedonian aswell but the ethnic Macedonians can't be.

[Daskalot]

In short John: A Macedonian will always put Macedonia first and foremost.

[Onur]

Why don't you try to explain the following:

So you deny point 1. Which means that clearly no place called Greece actually existed in the time of ancient Macedonia. You have already proven the stupidity of your Wikipedia statement.

Feel free to tackle the remaining points. Your lack of real dialogue is bordering on trolling. It won't be tolerated for very long.

Risto, have a mercy for them.

I consider them as poor victims of assimilation and policy called "Hellenism" but i am still optimistic. Sooner or later, they will accept the truths but you know how difficult to overcome the prejudices.

This "Hellenism" nonsense lived longer than enough already. The time of enlightenment for Greek people will come soon.

[Daskalot]

John do you consider the Romans as Greek?

[fyrOM]

Having reread my posts I feel I need to add a caveat to them to remove any misgivings about my points raised. Experience tells me sometimes I fall foul of the we hold these truths to be self evident principle and as such where I think my words are clear enough and cannot be taken in any other way I am confounded by the twists in peoples minds when they say did you mean this other thing when my words are very clear and explicit.

A recent example was in a different thread the mistaken idea I had racist tendencies. As the recipient of racial vilification I know well and truly how bad it feels but at the same time I think I have made it clear I do not subscribe to the notion that everybody is exactly equal in all aspects and thus should be afforded exactly equal rights and privileges in everything. One may ask how can it be reconciled when I say one thing and with almost the same breath say what some might say is its opposite. Human nature. You are not me and this principle can be extrapolated to my wider community. We are not exactly the same and therefore do not feel about each other exactly the same. I attempted to explain this principle by example of how if we hear of a disaster in some other country we may pause from our activities and look at the TV news report and as humans we may feel empathy towards the people. This should in no way be confused and considered we think all people are exactly equal. I further pointed this out by comparing our reaction if the news report was of a disaster in Macedonia even if the area might be away from where my relatives and friends live. Our attention immediately pricks up and we pay greater attention and we may even strongly tell others in the room to be quiet. Why. Human nature. Are the other people less deserving of our sympathy. Quite simply human nature says yes.

The preservation of our own genes is foremost. This sense of our then extends to our immediate siblings then half siblings then sometimes blended siblings the cousins ect. This sense of our then extrapolates to our immediate community or town ect. This is human nature. Sometime ago I saw a documentary examining this very idea. People were asked to hold their breath underwater for as long as the could. They were told the longer they could hold their breath underwater the more money would be given to someone they knew. Eg a parent for their child then for their brother or sister then for their niece or nephew ect. The participants were not only asked to try their hardest but were also offered a financial inducement which was a portion of the of the recipients amount and would be proportionally diminished if they held their breath less for other members. The members all claimed they tried their best yet what was found was that consistently over a number of participants they all held their breath less the greater the recipient was less related to them. The conclusion reached was that we all care about our benefit and what benefits our genes which diminished the less we saw the recipient representing our genes. The sense of our does extend beyond us personally but diminishes by how much our we perceive in the other person.

I have never claimed to subscribe to the notion of political correctness only logic and reason and what is a reasonable course of action towards another person. This in no doubt is not exactly equal to all people at all times and is sharply curtailed by the counterweight of cold reason not allowing myself to fall into the romanticised politically correct trap of overextending help to almost literally the nth degree where some people keep asking themselves is there anything else I can do for you. There is helping and then there is taking advantage.

The point that it is human nature to protect our own and what is meant by the term our own should now be clear. This forms the basis of my caveat on my previous post lest there be any confusion.

Much has been said about Ruth from the bible and the principle she is supposed to represent so much so that many people use quotes about her in their wedding vows. Yet what is the principle expressed by these passages. In short a person usually the woman may choose to take on the values and identity of another people say of her husband. The community can then recognise a preservation of the wider our own and in doing so afford her the rights and privileges which would be offered to a member of there community. This then brings us to my previous post and the notion of leaning.

In my previous post I posed the idea of leaning as an element in a reply to the question what’s in a name. Although this does bear truth it by no means is the be all and end all and in itself is totally apposed to my point of view. I asked do we count fractions and percentages or are we still simply Macedonian. The question of fractions and percentages is in some sense is not relevant. I think this is where I went the so called wrong in the we hold these truths to be self evident department. The question of fractions may not be relevant in say a situation where say a Macedonian in Australia or anywhere else for that mater marries an Australian girl. He may feel Macedonian and like Ruth the girl may have adopted the ways of her husband and the children raised with a Macedonian identity. Lets further say the son then marries another Australian girl and again like Ruth she adopts her husbands ways. Are the children Macedonian. This is where the element of leaning comes into the equation. It was never intended to imply much more than this let alone others who might move into the Macedonian region behave act and feel like x but for being born on Macedonian territory infers they can call themselves Macedonian and put forward that the attributes of x are now what a Macedonian is. The Macedonian identity is not a free for all to claim if they feel they can fulfil any one part of its attributes. I do see Romi and Albanian decent people and all the other minorities as Macedonian citizens but I cannot see them as Macedonian ethnics. There is more to the Macedonian identity than being born in the region and being a citizen. RTGs posted in a different thread that he had it on good authority that in some parts all you had to do was feel a certain way to me a member. There is more to the name Macedonian.

So NO JohnMKD my statements are NOT a flying endorsement that anyone can say they feel Macedonian and therefore they are. You say you are 100 percent Greek. From what I have read a person feeling Greek therefore they are is a Greek thing. But then even what is Greek is a debatable thing. See other threads. But your so called 100 percent Greek is what precludes you being Macedonian even in your twisted perversion of the principle of Ruth. Your other posts betray you as not being that stupid then the only conclusion one can reach is you are being deliberately deceptive under the disguise of wanting to learn or so called open discussion. Tricky Greek . Try going to http://www.topix.com/forum/world/macedonia where you will find Greeks and self appointed I feel “Macedonians” where you can trade insults and post scripts of prefabricated half-truths and outright lies. Its not my site so I cannot ban you but to such pretenders opening discussions under the false pretence of learning or open discussions I say pissoff. I have no time to post with people who take my words twist them around and pretend they didn’t understand then yet at the same time in other posts show you are not that stupid.

[Onur]

Onur, I thought Karamanlis said that he is Macedonian? It wont surprise me if he is Turkish

His parents was from Karaman, Central Anatolia Turkey. Their name was "Kalaycioglou"(It means, son of a tinner) b4 they gone to Greece. Then they choose the name "Karamanlis" in Greece like most Cappadocia and Karaman immigrants have similar names as this. Kostas Karamanlis came to Turkey when he was the president and he visited his parents house in Karaman too.

I don't know if he is partly Macedonian as well, maybe he has Macedonian relatives too, after they migrate to Greece(possibly to Aegean Macedonia?). So his story is quite possibly similar with JohnMKD here.

[johnMKD]

John do you consider the Romans as Greek?

Of course not. Romans are Romans. Greeks are Greeks.