Modern Greece 1st constitution, a "Greek" is a Christian, 1827!

[Sweet Sixteen]

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=1111

The chief authority was conceded to the Albanian shipowners; George Konduriottes of Hydra was elected president of Greece, and Botasses of Spetzas vice-president…..The Greeks are the most prejudiced of all Europeans when there is a question of the purity of the Hellenic race, and no people regards education with more favour; yet with all this nationality and pedantry they intrusted their public affairs, in a period of great difficulty, to two men who could not address them in the Greek language. (George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution)

Fine, I'll move the discussion there

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1111

That's because the first Greek constitution used religion as a criteria, not ethnicity. And you're delusional if you think the Albanians weren't significant in the creation of modern Greece. The Albanian language was widely spoken from the armed forces to the politicians to the peasants. And the argument of Christian Albanians accepting Greek (or rather Romaic) as the official language doesn't have much weight given that the Muslim Albanian Ali Pasha also used Greek in official correspondence. In some ways, this Ottoman quasi-state was the precursor to the future Greece.

The first Greek Constitutions (of 1820s-1830s) are typical National Constitutions that speak of Greeks, not of Greeks and Albanians, or of Christians of unclear ethnicity. All Constitutions and National Proclamations of the Revolution can be found on-line either in Greek or English.

The way you put it, it’s like “Albanians accepted the Greek language” as an unnatural concession when it isn’t so. Maybe it’s Finlay who misleads you. The people you’re talking about were never even called Albanians or Arvanites as the term was used solely for the enemies or (at a certain point) possible allies of the Greeks, the Muslim Albanians (often called Turk Albanians). People like Countouriotes were considered Greek, Romans, Christians and their side was clear.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The first Greek Constitutions (of 1820s-1830s) are typical National Constitutions that speak of Greeks, not of Greeks and Albanians, or of Christians of unclear ethnicity.

The one prerequisite of being a 'Greek' in the first Greek constitution is religion, and that essentially rendered all other factors as irrelevant. Stop lying and start reading:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=393&highlight=greek+constitution+christian+aliens

The way you put it, it’s like “Albanians accepted the Greek language” as an unnatural concession when it isn’t so.

How was it a 'natural concession' when they formed a significant portion of the population and their native language was not Greek?

Maybe it’s Finlay who misleads you.

I think it is you who has been misled by that garbage you've been force-fed all your life.

The people you’re talking about were never even called Albanians or Arvanites as the term was used solely for the enemies or (at a certain point) possible allies of the Greeks, the Muslim Albanians (often called Turk Albanians).

At this point I am not sure if you're trying to deliberately act stupid or if you really are that stupid.

People like Countouriotes were considered Greek, Romans, Christians and their side was clear.

They were Albanians and were considered as such. What led them to be considered as 'Greeks' also was their religion and the state they found themselves in.

[Sweet Sixteen]

The one prerequisite of being a 'Greek' in the first Greek constitution is religion, and that essentially rendered all other factors as irrelevant. Stop lying and start reading:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ristian+aliens

Actually this is the (so called) Political Constitution, the third of the Draft Constitutions during the Revolution that was never applied, but that's irrelevant to the main debate.

I can't see anything weird apart from the confirmation of what I said, not what YOU said. The only thing that differs from a modern constitution is that it says “Greeks” where a modern text would say "Greek citizen" or "Citizen of Greece". It's a passionate nationalistic text during a Struggle for Liberation.

It doesn't have one prerequisite, but five.

I will further move the discussion there and add more comments

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=393&highlight=greek+constitution+christian+aliens

How was it a 'natural concession' when they formed a significant portion of the population and their native language was not Greek?

No, as I said before, they were not significant enough and they had various degrees of Hellenisation, both politically and linguistically.

Ask yourself, why among the numerous, ferocious civil conflicts of the Revolution, the separating factors are local, personal, economical, socio-political, exogenous but not (as you would put it) "ethnic".

At this point I am not sure if you're trying to deliberately act stupid or if you really are that stupid.

They were Albanians and were considered as such. What led them to be considered as 'Greeks' also was their religion and the state they found themselves in.

They were not “found in” this state, the people you’re talking about co-founded it. Nope, I was not kidding you; I was talking seriously based on my reading of Greek texts from that era. I can’t find anyone using Finlay’s spirit, categories and characterizations.

The importance of religion as a decisive factor is clear throughout Roman or Ottoman Empire. For instance, If Colocotrones was arrested by Turks, before being executed (actually tortured to death) he would be given the option to convert to Islam and join them. Conversion was always used this way by Turks, as an ultimate (political) submission, humiliation and redemption and they had solved several problems with this practice.

[Sweet Sixteen]

The 1st Constitution of the Greek State, in the year 1827.

??? ---> 4. Provinces of Greece are all those that were taken and will be taken by weapons against the Ottoman Dynasty.

1) ---> 6. Greeks are:
2) ---> a. All those indigenous people of the Greek State who believe in Christ.
3) ---> b. All those, believers in Christ, who under the Ottoman slavery, came or they will come to the Greek State to struggle or to reside in it.
4) ---> e. All those aliens, who come and enrol as citizens.

NOTE: To become a Greek, it was enough to be a Christian!

This document proves that Greeks have a very short memory. They do not remember how the Greek State was made and also who the modern Greeks are.
Why should we Macedonians have to prove that we are Macedonians since antiquity when the Greeks do not have to prove anything for being Greeks.
The fact is that about 180 years ago anybody who was a Christian in the Greek State became a Greek automatically, why does that not bother the modern Greeks?

Yes, this is normal, why should it bother us? The bulk of local population (Orthodox Christians) became citizens of the new state. Greeks from outside the current borders, philhellenes and anyone who would "take the Greek vow" and fight besides them would become citizen. Many prominent Greeks today are partial descendants of foreigners (of that era) and bare foreign surnames (e.g. Horn, Ebert etc.). Many honors have been given to these people.

You see, if someone was a Jew or a Muslim or a Catholic, he/she was excluded immediately.

This isn't so. Chapter 1 (at the top of the page) says every religion is free and acceptable. The stance of the religions you mentioned throughout the Revolution is interesting but I can’t see this reflected in the Constitution.

Muslims and Jews were enemies while Catholics had remained neutral. In Peloponnesus (Morea), 43,000 Turks/Muslims had been totally erased or left by 1828, but in Continental Greece (Rumeli) half of them (11,000 out of 21,000) had remained. Lastly the Christian population had been reduced during the Revolution by 130,000 due to fights, massacres, slavery (12,000 captives were sold as slaves mostly in Egypt), starvation etc.

Most people do not know that, but Jews had fanatically fought against us. The Jewish community of Tripolis was slaughtered along with the Turks (except for 12 Jews). Jewish troops participated and had major role in the slaughters of Naousa and Chios while Greeks (at the time) often mentioned the gruesome and enthusiastic role of Jews in the dismemberment of Patriarch’s body (after his execution). In fact, three Jewish merchants had simply bought (!) the Patriarch’s dead body in order to ramble it around the city for the mob to disgrace it and make some (harmless) profit.

---

[George S.]

if that's the case why were the macedonias told they don';t exist??Also why call us slavophones or slavs as they are derogatory terms,By greek standards the greeks should be slavs.Do you understand the greeks were never Macedonians & the greeks never step foot prior to 1912.Do you know how Macedonia was annexed?So the greeks do not have a valid claim to Macedonia calling it the occupied territories,The province of Macedonia.Calling a place a province Or Rom a country called Macedonia is not conflicting.Why would a prople call themselves Macedonian if they weren't Macedonian.But evidence shows they were Macedonians.They desrve their name.If aan individual or group calls themselves Macedonian they must be Macedonian.Not the 20 century greek created prosfeges Macedonian greek fakery.What a joke might is not right & the truth prevails.
SS Greece like the bully it is denies Macedonians exist go to the last bottom thread you will see the Macedonian language existed in the 16 century.What evidence do we need.
Also ss do you know what the greek church tried to to their Christian brethren they tried to force them to convert to the greek doctrine church.Emphasis on force agains't ones will.

[Sweet Sixteen]

if that's the case why were the macedonias told they don';t exist??

If that's the case? Which case? What are you talking about? Who told the Macedonians they don't exist? This is a thread about the First Greek Constitutions of 1820s. Did you mean to put your post in another thread?

--

[George S.]

THey were called endopi the original settlers or the indigenous people.Why weren't those included in the constitution.Looks like you are wasting my time you don't know that the greeks have been denying that there are Macedonians in the Aegean.Only certain officials have said there are Macedonians the govt dogma of the time denied Macedonian existence.Examples of Macedonian existence is pavlos melas who in one of his letters home said he learned Macedonian.
Also if Macedonians were Christian they deserved far more respect & recognition from their occupiers as you say in the constitution greeks are christions.It says a lot about Christianity it wasn't practicsed as such in the Aegean area.

[Sweet Sixteen]

THey were called endopi the original settlers or the indigenous people.Why weren't those included in the constitution.

Macedonia and Macedonians are included in the above mentioned sections 4 and 6b (translated in post#1). Also, representatives of Macedonian revolutionaries were present in all four National Assemblies of 1820s (I believe there's a thread about them).

[Risto the Great]

Most people do not know that, but Jews had fanatically fought against us. The Jewish community of Tripolis was slaughtered along with the Turks (except for 12 Jews). Jewish troops participated and had major role in the slaughters of Naousa and Chios while Greeks (at the time) often mentioned the gruesome and enthusiastic role of Jews in the dismemberment of Patriarch’s body (after his execution). In fact, three Jewish merchants had simply bought (!) the Patriarch’s dead body in order to ramble it around the city for the mob to disgrace it and make some (harmless) profit.

Do you have more about this? Sounds interesting. Safe to say the Turks and the Greeks were as bad as each other in the region of Drobolitsa (Tripolis). Hard to find anything about the Jews as aggressors in the region. Anyhow, given the photos of Greek Bishops blessing Ottoman cannons in the past, I dare say these weren't the most peace loving of people.

And based on the middle ages name, Drobolitsa, it sounds like a few others might have been massacred along the way .... sshhhhhh.

[George S.]

a bit of collateral damage from our cghristian friends.We don't even exist,we have been made a minority in our own land.The indigenous,the endopi people treated like second class citizens & used as cannon fodder in wars to come & tod they are fighting for their freedom .A lie on a lie after a lie.We can only take so much.

[Sweet Sixteen]

Do you have more about this? Sounds interesting. Safe to say the Turks and the Greeks were as bad as each other in the region of Drobolitsa (Tripolis). Hard to find anything about the Jews as aggressors in the region.

This is an extended collection of sources about "the role of Jews in the 1821 Revolution" by anti-Semitic author Constantine Pleures (in Greek). If you disregard his bias and comments, it’s fairly good.

http://www.afipnisis.gr/1821-t779.html

And based on the middle ages name, Drobolitsa, it sounds like a few others might have been massacred along the way .... sshhhhhh.

This is also an extended semi-serious text about “Slavs in Peloponnesus” by Pericles Rodaces. The author is a known leftist amateur historian. This has tons of info, toponyms and details on specific areas. No sources unfortunately. (in Greek again)

http://athriskos.gr/881/

[Sweet Sixteen]

a bit of collateral damage from our cghristian friends.We don't even exist,we have been made a minority in our own land.The indigenous,the endopi people treated like second class citizens & used as cannon fodder in wars to come & tod they are fighting for their freedom .A lie on a lie after a lie.We can only take so much.

Do you put your posts in random threads? What are you talking about?

[Soldier of Macedon]

It's a passionate nationalistic text during a Struggle for Liberation.

Your anachronistic interpretation is irrelevant, because the text itself clearly opens the door for anybody to become a Greek. It is an all inclusive appeal to basically anybody without regard for common ancestry, language, culture, history or geographic location. I don't see why you have such a problem understanding this, but I do find it ironic when I see modern Greeks harp on about a "4,000 year old history" (a dubious figure itself) that many of them either had nothing to do with until the 19th and 20th centuries or they were manufactured into new Greeks after centuries of belonging to other ethno-linguistic groups. It also speaks of Greek hypocrisy when they criticise other national awakenings.

.......they were not significant enough and they had various degrees of Hellenisation, both politically and linguistically.

I expect that coming from you. But I don't have the time to waste proving the obvious fact of how significant Albanians were as a population in the regions which became the modern Greek state. This forum has plenty of evidence of that and it is easy to find. If you want to continue living in delusion that is your problem. By the way, even the term 'Hellenisation' in that period is an anachronism.

They were not “found in” this state, the people you’re talking about co-founded it.

I think you need a few lessons in English syntax to understand context.

Conversion was always used this way by Turks.......

Coversions were used by Greeks too, in a similar manner, both before and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

[George S.]

real hellenisation ceased to exist when alexander conquered Greece.Think about the greeks greek is a latin word.also were called romaoi or romans.THat's what the greeks are doing now they have an identity crisis.They dream up myths & identities.THey are devoid of any sense of reality.So virtually anyone could become a greek.By simply speaking greek you could be a greek .Even though they say being a Christian is a requirement how about the prosfeges,they easily made them greek.

[Sweet Sixteen]

Your anachronistic interpretation is irrelevant, because the text itself clearly opens the door for anybody to become a Greek. It is an all inclusive appeal to basically anybody without regard for common ancestry, language, culture, history or geographic location.

This is from 1827, when Greece is not a country yet and Revolution has not prevailed. Saying that foreigners who will come and fight for Greece will become (in an honorary manner) its' citizens is simply normal and does not seem very attractive. It also doesn't mean that Greece is just populated by a bunch or irrelevant foreigners.

I expect that coming from you. But I don't have the time to waste proving the obvious fact of how significant Albanians were as a population in the regions which became the modern Greek state. This forum has plenty of evidence of that and it is easy to find. If you want to continue living in delusion that is your problem. By the way, even the term 'Hellenisation' in that period is an anachronism.

When you regard Arvanites as significant, can you give us an idea of a number or percentage?

I've seen your (amazing) evidence and have been in most of the relevant threads; sometimes I was banned in the middle of discussions that were left unfinished; if I have missed something, please point it to me.

The term Hellenisation was not used in an anachronistic manner. Example: Remember a thread where someone (Epirot?) was pointing that around 1750-1800 most ships of Arvanite owners had Greek mythological names, while most ships of Greek owners had Christian names (e.g. names like St. Nikolaus)?

I only said that Orthodox Christians of Arvanite ancestry were (since centuries) in the same group with Romans and there was no big deal with their participation in the Revolution. On the contrary, Greek-speaking Catholics were not in the same group and (for a certain period and several occasions) followed a different (more neutral) path.

I think you need a few lessons in English syntax to understand context.

I don't get you, or you don't get me.

Coversions were used by Greeks too, in a similar manner, both before and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Maybe, the point was that through religion someone changes side (not only religion but country or nation), eventually a Greek becomes a Turk, or vice versa.


===