"They call themselves Macedonians"

[Pelister]

"They call themselves Macedonians"

A Greek source:

In 1925 the Chief of Staff of the Tenth Army Division (of Greece), a man by the name of Salvanos who was located in Western Macedonia, was given the job of reporting on the make up of the demographic of the Lerin (Florina) region.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=69973&postcount=38

"He (Salvanos) wrote that those with pure Greek national consciousness are insignificant minority...while the Slavophone population is divided into three groups...The latter, the third group, stressed Salvanos, constitutes the majority of the population and call themselves Macedonians. They consisted of between one half and three quarters of the toal population in a given village...and last, the Slavophone group with Greek sentiment was only from one to five families within a village. "

Minorities in Greece, by Richard Clogg, 2002, p.129

[George S.]

thanks daskale good article.

[Daskalot]

[Pelister]

"They call themselves Macedonians"

It is usually the case that we have foriegners speaking for the Macedonians, and on behalf of them, almost always misrepresenting who they are, and how they call thesmelves. Occasionally however we get a more honest glimpse of the historical demographic, and it is these accounts that have been ommitted in Greek historiography. The Macedonians have not only disappeared from the story, all references to them, have been noramlly expunged by ommission, from the record. Or as the case may be, never included in the first place.

During the "Ilinden" Uprising of 1903 the Greek government sent a Greek Official, G. Tsorbazoglou to Macedonia to report on the social conditions in Macedonia, at that time. What was interesting was that Mr. Tsorbazoglou had some time to spend among the Macedonians, to speak with them and learn more about them.

Some of the findings of his 'report' on the Macedonian uprising, and the people, were first brought to light by the Greek historian Litoxou (The Greek Anti-Macedonian Struggle, 1903-1905), and expanded on by George Vlahov in his review of that book.

As Litoxou demonstrates with extensive quotations from Tsorbazoglou’s reports, they absolutely shatter the official Greek “historical” stance on both the Ilinden Uprising and the IMRO. For example, after broad and regular tours of Macedonia in general and central Macedonia in particular, Tsorbazoglou concludes that the “...revolution in Macedonia is not Bulgarian...” (Litoxou, 2004: 31) and that the IMRO has been very successful in garnering support from the masses “...on account of one single reason...that they have no aim other than to liberate the Macedonians, as Macedonians” (Litoxou, 2004: 32).

[George S.]

great george very interesting.
George S.

[Mikail]

Thanks George. That is very well written.

[AMHRC]

Thanks Daskale, Pelister and Mikail (and anyone else who likes it, lol),

Actually as I indicated above, the article originally appeared in the AMHRC Review, number 3 Autumn 2010. Here again is the link:

http://www.macedonianhr.org.au/wip/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&catid=34&Itemid=50

I don't think an English translation is available at the moment; however, a couple of members of the AMHRC are working on a translation and the book might become available in English, at some point early next year.

[Daskalot]

What a great article George. Thank you for taking the time to write it. Is there an English version available of the 'Anti-Macedonian struggle'?

[Pelister]

Thats a great read, thanks George. If we are going to have any impact in this area its important to challenge Greek lies and myths head on.

[AMHRC]

The Greek Anti-Macedonian Struggle 1903-1905
In Review: a Journey from Myth towards History

Nationalism is a word that is difficult to define. Perhaps the most sensible way to treat it is to accept that there are numerous varieties of it. There are for example, decent versions that are interested in liberating cultural groups from excessive exploitation and inequitable treatment. In direct opposition are those streams of nationalism with an inability to cope with difference and which tend towards attempts to exterminate it, both physically and symbolically. Of course all versions of nationalism can possess sub streams that defy the dominant tendency within their group – social life is complex and often the neat categories devised by historians, journalists and others, fall far too short of presenting its discrepant intricacies.

Indeed, it is impossible to record history precisely, as if one could take a photograph of it and thereby illuminate every little detail. Actually, all good photographers realise that any type of lighting will always veil some aspects and are also acutely aware of how readily framing can serve to deceive. Historians need to begin from such premises and then proceed with a desire to capture as honestly as possible all the contradictions that muddle up their prejudices and assumptions. For historians inhabiting a national milieu predominantly belonging to the more intolerant versions of nationalism, this can be a very difficult task to perform. In fact it is not unusual for such historians to be little more than hubristic self-serving myth makers. In their chronicles, to quote Orwell: “Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied” (Orwell, 1984: 314).

Historians emerging from a context obsessed with uniformity will need to exhibit and consistently maintain a very high level of moral courage, if they earnestly desire to be loyal to the spirit of their vocation. For it is obviously in the nature of their social realm to punish the authors of prose that deviate from its essentialist canonical foundation yarns; which in actuality have been spun to conceal the existence and persecution of very real human beings. The punishments ‘naturally’ vary, depending upon circumstances, from ostracism to exile, incarceration, or even death.

Most of us, even though we may reside in a more flexible culture, will have, at one time or another experienced at least a transient moment of painful alienation inflicted by peers for the transgression of some minor norms. The scars of even such short lived episodes can never-the-less remain with some people, for very substantial periods. It is difficult then, for those of us inhabiting relatively more tolerant life-worlds, to imagine what it is like for individuals that are required by their avocation to place themselves in a situation where they become almost constantly ostracised by all of the surrounding social structures - from the family to the state. These are structures that we strangers observing the xenophobia from a safe distance, mostly take for granted. If they were to suddenly become unaccommodating, the shock, regardless of the idiosyncrasies characterising our individual natures, would be significant; for these structures provide for our freedom and security - for our existence, as we know it.

Greece is a country that has welded ethnicity to national citizenship. It is a nation-state that refuses to recognise even the existence of any ethnic minorities within its borders – even though it is quite eager to complain about the treatment of Greek minorities within other countries. As the American Anthropologist Loring Danforth has explained, there is a “...fundamental incompatibility of the Greek nationalist conception of the ‘ethnos as an integrated entity embodied in the state’ and a philosophy of inalienable human rights” (Danforth, 1995: 130).

Dimitris Litoxou, a Greek author of historical prose, resides in Athens, the capital of Greece. Over two decades ago he decided that he would take historical discourse seriously and accept the moral challenge demanded by the field through which he has chosen to express himself. By all accounts, this has resulted in great personal hardship, for it led to a type of the social ostracism we briefly outlined above. His courage needs to be recognised and commended. Without individuals like Litoxou, who can serve as models for others to be guided by, Greek ethno-nationalistic hubris is not likely to be undermined.

In 1998 a book Litoxou had written in Greek and entitled “Greek Anti-Macedonian Struggle 1903 - 1905” was published in Greece. I had heard many good things about its content though not being literate in Greek I was unable to see for myself until a Macedonian translation of the Greek original (by Vasko Karaja) was published in 2004. Right from the introduction of the book, Litoxou makes it clear that it is his intention to deconstruct all the unquestioned fairy tales that Greek historiography has been propagating about the “Macedonian question” for decades.

“I am characterising as the Greek anti-Macedonian struggle that which in Greek national history is recognised as the Macedonian struggle. A major chapter in recent Balkan history, which Greek historiography has presented in such a way that it makes historical truth unrecognisable; it has created a completely mythological story – structured upon various lies and the wiping out of historical occurrences” (Litoxou, 2004: 7; the responsibility for the translations throughout this essay, from Macedonian to English is mine – GV).

Greek “historians” and politicians alike, as Litoxou demonstrates with numerous quotations, have attempted to present the Macedonian struggle “...as a heroic struggle by the Greeks from Macedonia in the period 1904 – 1908, for the preservation of their national identity and for their independence. That is, a battle which from a national aspect should be adjudged as the second fundamental point after the uprising of 1821” (Litoxou, 2004: 8).

By researching not only the published and unpublished memoirs of the participants in this struggle, but also the Greek state archives in Athens, Litoxou made discoveries that lead in the direction of a very different version of events: “... that heroic struggle exists only in the books of Greek historians. That which actually occurred, could only engulf the majority of present day Greek citizens, with feelings of shame and regret” (Litoxou, 2004: 8). The problem for Litoxou and others like him is that the elites maintaining the dominant ideology, for utterly selfish reasons employ their power towards drowning out peripheral voices of reason. Never-the-less, we must admit the possibility of challenging and eventually altering hegemonic structures – for they are man made and therefore can be subjected to meaningful change. From this perspective, we must applaud Litoxou’s efforts and consider them to be extremely significant.

The findings emerging from Litoxou’s ‘excavations’ required him to characterise the “Greek Macedonian struggle” as in fact, anti-Macedonian; as a “...systematic effort implemented by the Greek state at the beginning of the 20th century, to inflict a blow upon the national – democratic autonomist movement of the Macedonians. In that struggle, the Greek state and the nationalistic Para-state became allies of the Ottoman establishment at that time. They had at their disposal, a high amount of finance and firearms for the formation and sending forth of guerrilla bands to Macedonian territories where Greeks did not reside, in order to terrorise the inhabitants and to stop the process of Macedonian national revival. The Greek mercenary bands, under the leadership of Greek officers, occupied themselves with violence, plunder and slaughter. They sowed horror and death throughout Macedonian villages and they unsuccessfully attempted to block the development of a Macedonian national ideology and of the democratic-autonomous struggle of the Macedonians” (Litoxou, 2004: 7 – 8). As already indicated, Litoxou methodically utilises primary Greek sources to corroborate his assertions which he describes as a “...journey from myth towards history” (Litoxou, 2004: 8).

In 1903, Macedonians launched an uprising against Ottoman rule that became known as the “Ilinden Uprising” because it was launched on August 2nd – St. Elijah’s day. Litoxou explains that the uprising was “...systematically prepared by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO)...The participation of the village Christian peasantry, [Macedonia was at this time a mostly peasant farmers land – GV]...was general in the regions where the uprising broke out (especially in western Macedonia). Ilinden was hostilely met by the Greek state whose consular organs co-operated with the Ottomans for its suppression. The eruption of a revolutionary movement fighting for the creation of an independent Macedonian state, similarly frightened both the Turks and the Greeks. The former would lose the European part of their empire, while the latter would lose the inheritance of the great sick brother. The Ilinden Uprising was bloodily suppressed. The Patriarchate [Greek Orthodox Church – GV] and the spies of the Greek government placed themselves at the service of the Ottoman army and Bashibozuks [Muslim paramilitaries – GV]. The burning down of villages, the killing of innocent women and children and the plunder of...everything was the response of the Ottoman state. The whole of Europe would come down on the side of the Macedonian rebels – except Greece, which would condemn them and slander them” (Litoxou, 2004: 9).

Moreover, as Litoxou underlines, Greek “historians”, have consistently portrayed Ilinden as an insignificant event not widely supported by the local population that was exported to Macedonia by the Bulgarian state, for the purpose of trying to strengthen Bulgarian claims upon Macedonia (Litoxou, 2004: 9 – 10).

It is Litoxou’s contention that in order to present to the public such formulations on Ilinden, Greek “historians” have permitted prejudices emanating from their cultural baggage to determine the nature of their literary output. Indeed, Litoxou demonstrates that these Greek “historians” have regularly ignored and excluded mention of important primary Greek and non-Greek evidence. In connection with the Ilinden Uprising, the most striking example of ignoring evidence that Litoxou uncovered, are reports written in 1904 by a Greek official named G. Tsorbazoglou. He was sent to Macedonia by the Greek Foreign Ministry and his task was to systematically analyse the social conditions in Macedonia and in particular to find out more about the IMRO. He was in other words, charged with writing a series of ethnographic reports. Until Litoxou, the findings of these reports were simply excluded from the accounts given by Greek “historians” (Litoxou, 2004: 29 – 30). Why?

As Litoxou demonstrates with extensive quotations from Tsorbazoglou’s reports, they seriously undermine the official Greek “historical” stance on both the Ilinden Uprising and the IMRO. For example, after broad and regular tours of Macedonia in general and central Macedonia in particular, Tsorbazoglou concludes that the “...revolution in Macedonia is not Bulgarian...” (Litoxou, 2004: 31) and that the IMRO has been very successful in garnering support from the masses “...on account of one single reason...that they have no aim other than to liberate the Macedonians, as Macedonians” (Litoxou, 2004: 32).

In the aftermath of Ilinden, the Greek state attempted to take advantage of the weakened condition of IMRO by exporting Greek guerrilla bands to Macedonia for systematic proselytising among the Macedonian peasantry. What does Litoxou tell us about one of the leaders of these exported Greek guerrilla bands, the celebrated in Greek national mythology, Pavlos Melas? Melas was a Greek military officer who led a Greek guerrilla band, throughout the county of Kostur (today located in Greece and called Kastoria) in Macedonia for a short period after the Ilinden uprising; and Litoxou unveils enough to destroy numerous Greek myths. For example, during his ‘tours’ Melas wrote to his wife complaining that in village after village, the women cannot speak “even one word of Greek” (Litoxou, 2004: 43). Which language did they speak? Melas’ correspondence explains it was reported to him that in one Macedonian village, in order to lift the spirits of the Greek military officers, the local school teacher asked his students to sing a song – however, Melas wrote that he isn’t sure about which language they sang in, “Macedonian or Greek” [!!] (Litoxou, 2004: 43). In an attempt to some extent overcome the communication problem and gain at least a little trust from the Macedonian villagers, Melas informed his wife that: “I have learnt some Macedonian words, which I use among the women and especially the mothers...” (Litoxou, 2004: 44).

Apart from the language barrier, Melas wrote to his wife about his fear of the locally born Macedonian revolutionary leader, Yankov. Melas complained that Yankov had “poisoned” the consciousness of Macedonians with the idea that they constitute a nation “independent...from all other nations” (Litoxou, 2004: 44). What a surprise; in Macedonia during the early 1900’s there were people who considered themselves to be distinctly Macedonian and who spoke a language that they called and which Melas recognised as, “Macedonian”?! Well, probably more like a shock for those who have had the misfortune to only possess access to texts written by Greek “historians”!

At around a quite concise 100 pages, Litoxou’s “Greek Anti-Macedonian Struggle” is an excellent read that I could not put down and read from start to finish in one sitting. Even if you are not highly conversant with Macedonian, it is worth making the effort to accompany Dimitris Litoxou on a “journey from myth towards history”.


George Vlahov


Bibliography
Danforth, Loring. The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995.
Litoxou, Dimitris. Grchka Anti-Makedonska Borba 1903 – 1905, Az-Buki, Skopje, 2004.
Orwell, George. The Penguin Essays of George Orwell, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984.

AMHRC Review number 3: http://www.macedonianhr.org.au/wip/i...d=34&Itemid=50

[Bratot]

One powerful knock-out of all propagandas:

Извештај од М.В.Р.Н.З. селска управа на Дихово од Битолската околија бр. 36, со дата 18.06.1942 година со ознака „Поверливо“ адресиран до Обласниот Директор и Околискиот Управител на гр. Битола.

Извештајот започнува со надополнување на одговорите во врска со статистичките прашања на кои Кметот Ник Атанасовски пропуштил да му ги одговори на Околискиот Управител при неговата последна посета истиот месец.

Според народноста тој ги дава следниве бројки: село Братиндол 198 Бугари, 58 Албанци и 2 Романци, Трново 75 Бугари, 9 Грци, 102 Албанци и 132 Романци, Магарево со 62 Бугари, 8 Грци, 1 Албанец и 94 Романци, Ниже Поле со 123 Бугари, 25 Грци, 2 Срби, 100 Албанци и 295 Романци, Снегово со 181 Албанец.

„Останатите села се со бугарско население“.

Понатаму продолжува со својата оцена:

„Како што Ви е познато ова население било политички 500 години под Турците, духовно под Грците и над 20 години под Србите. Грците работеле усилено и скоро со мал исклучок бугарското население било припоено кон грчката патријаршија. Училиштата, црквите, учителите и свештениците биле Грци.
Во време на владеењето на Србите, истите работеле да го придобијат бугарското население кон себе.

Општо земено национална самоопределоност во широк смисол на зборот спрема мојата преценка не постои.

Јазикот со кого се зброува е фактички бугарски-македонско нречие, но материјалните интереси се над се’.
Независно од тоа силната пропаганда на така наречените автономисти на Иван Михајлов спрема мојата преценка нема (при)врженици.
Аспирациите на Италија за создавање на голема Римска империја говорот на грчкиот министер претседател за неизвесноста како ќе изгледаат границите по војната го тераат бугарското население да има резервисано поведение (држење). Но имам впечаток дека ако е прашање (да Бугарите си) определат сами каква управа сакаат и каде би сакале (да се приклучат) со сигурност и смело можам да тврдам со мали исклучоци, дека ќе (сакаат) да бидат присоединети кон Бугарија.
Што се однесува за Албанците и Цинцарите – како што тие се викаат Румуни и сметаат дека се наследници на Римјаните не гледаат со симпатија на нашата власт. Предпалзиви и прикриени се до крајност, платци се добри и ги исполнуваат законските прописи, но во душата си мечтаат да се ослободат од бугарската власт.“

Во документот Македонците се третирани како Бугари, но да го проследиме и крајот од писмото:

„Мене лично ми прави впечаток, специално во мојата општина дека македонскиот Бугарин кога ќе му се постави прашањето при давање на разни податоци за својата националност сака да се именува како Македонец а не Бугарин и кога ќе му се објасни, дека Македонија е провинција и дека во неа живеат различни народности (Турци, Албанци, Цинцари и др.) и дека ако и тие се викаат обшто Македонци нема да има меѓу нив разлика, едвај тогаш се именува Бугарин“

Од овде станува јасно како изникнале бугарските статистики и уште појасно како се декларирале самите Македонци, како посебен народ.

Оваа вкоренета македонска свест и припадност се потврдува преку односот и значењето на историјата за Македонците:

„Во разни случаеви кога му се зборува за Бугарија е равнодушен, но кога ќе му се зборува за минатото за Самуила, св. Кирил и Методија, св. Наум и св. Климент, браќата Миладинови, Д. Груев, Г. Делчев и Т. Александров со восхит слуша.
Од тоа правам заклучок дека нема потполна национална самоопределеност.

КМЕТ: Ник Атанасов, с.р. (печат)“

source: Macedonian Spark



"I personally have impression, especially in my council that the Macedonian Bulgarian when he is questioned on various data on their nationality he wants to call himself Macedonian and NOT Bulgarian, and when it is explained to him that Macedonia is a province and that different nationalities live in it (Turks, Albanians, Cincari etc..) and that if they were also called Macedonians in general there will be no difference between them, hardly even then he called himself Bulgarian "

From here it becomes clear how were invented the Bulgarian statistics and even more clearly that Macedonians declared themselves as Macedonians and as distinct nation.

[TrueMacedonian]

In 1890, Komarov's ethnographic map, published in St. Petersburg, became the first to recognize the Macedonians by giving them a seperate color.

Macedonian Language and Nationalism During the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries by Victor Friedman

[Pelister]

"They call themselves Macedonia"

Letter dated 22nd June, 1891, written by the Macedonian priest, Gologanov.

Cited in H. Andonov-Poljanski (1985), Documents on the Struggle...,p.315.

We the Macedonians do not suffere as much by the Turks ... as by the Greeks, the Bulgarians and the Serbs who have set upon us like vultures upon a caracass in ths tortured land and want to split it up.

We clergyen, Macedonians in origin, should unite and urge our people to awaken, throw off foriegn authority, throw off even the Patriarchate and th eExarchate, and be spiritually unified under the wing of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, our only true Mother Church.

Both passages are cited in Anastasovski, N., The Contest for Macedonian Identity, 1870-1912, (Pollitecon Publications), p.336

[Pelister]

"They call themselves Macedonians"

On the other hand, with the assistance of their chauvinist newspapers they endeavor to present us Macedonians as "Slavophones" and "pure Greeks". (Makedonsko Delo , X/195, February 1935, p.8)

New Greeks have been trying to distort the picture, to alter peoples interpretations and ideas about who we were, and who we are - for about a century now.

One thing that was clear (from the evidence) was that the Macedonians 'rejected' Greek propoganda, and Bulgarian propoganda about who they were.

[Daskalot]

Mikail where is the quote in your signature taken from, do you have a source?

From the village of P’pezhani, Tashko Popov, Dimitar Popov-Skenderov and Todor Trpenov were beaten and sentenced to 12 years prison. Pavle Mevchev and Atanas Popov from Vrbeni and Boreshnica joined them in early 1927, they were soon after transferred to Kozhani and executed. As they were leaving Lerin they were heard to shout "With our death, Macedonia will not be lost. Our blood will run, but other Macedonians will rise from it"

It is a very strong message to all Macedonians all over the world; "With our death, Macedonia will not be lost. Our blood will run, but other Macedonians will rise from it"