In 1905, Mary Edith Durham claimed in her book, "The Burden of the Balkans" (pp. 77-79), to "have met people who believe in a special race which they call Macedonian" and who told her their language is not Bulgarian saying herself "the dialect... is neither Serbian or Bulgarian".
I did an analysis of her work and about 3 other dozen works from 1900-1925 written by Western authors. Basically, the overwhelming consensus of these Western authors is that the Macedonians were neither Serbs, Bulgars nor Greeks, but just Macedonians...and more importantly, those that called themselves one or the other mostly only did so due to propaganda. These are things we Macedonians know, but I poured over these early 20th century books to examine the truth about what Westerners said about Macedonians and not what the Bulgarian/Greek propagandists claimed they said in isolation or out of context.
Amazon.com: Defining the Macedonians: Western Perspectives on the Macedonian Identity in the Early 20th Century eBook : Sinadinoski, Victor: Kindle Store
Highly recommend watching Tomche Shirkov from roughly 5:00 to 14:20.
That was really interesting Carlin. Thanks for sharing. I watched close to an hour of it late last night and I really enjoyed it. I'm about to watch the rest of it tonight and I recommend others watch it too as it shines a light on a number of very interesting facts about the modern Bulgarians which, I imagine, they'd rather not speak of. Who knew that there are areas in north-eastern Bulgaria, especially the Dobruja region where there are still compact communities who are descendants of the proto-Bulgars and still speak the old Turko-Tatar language which they brought with them from Asia. That same Turko-Tatar language was in use well into the 16th Century in Bulgaria and known simply as Bulgarian by all who spoke it. And they have the nerve to suggest the Macedonian language is in fact a dialect of Bulgarian today. The point was also stressed that the fact of the matter is, the Russians had a significant role to play in constructing the Bulgarian national identity around 200 or so years ago as it helped to serve a Russian agenda in the Balkans.
What I found especially interesting was the point made by Natasha with regard to the Ohrid Archbishopric before it was abolished by the Turks. Apparently, when the Ohrid Archbishopric had jurisdiction over the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Montenegrins referred to themselves as "Macedonians". This shows us that the Ohrid Archbishopric was more Macedonian in character than we probably realise or tend to give it credit for. Often there's a Bulgarian cloud hanging over it but I think that's got more to do with Bulgarian propaganda rather than reality.
That was really interesting Carlin. Thanks for sharing. I watched close to an hour of it late last night and I really enjoyed it. I'm about to watch the rest of it tonight and I recommend others watch it too as it shines a light on a number of very interesting facts about the modern Bulgarians which, I imagine, they'd rather not speak of. Who knew that there are areas in north-eastern Bulgaria, especially the Dobruja region where there are still compact communities who are descendants of the proto-Bulgars and still speak the old Turko-Tatar language which they brought with them from Asia. That same Turko-Tatar language was in use well into the 16th Century in Bulgaria and known simply as Bulgarian by all who spoke it. And they have the nerve to suggest the Macedonian language is in fact a dialect of Bulgarian today. The point was also stressed that the fact of the matter is, the Russians had a significant role to play in constructing the Bulgarian national identity around 200 or so years ago as it helped to serve a Russian agenda in the Balkans.
What I found especially interesting was the point made by Natasha with regard to the Ohrid Archbishopric before it was abolished by the Turks. Apparently, when the Ohrid Archbishopric had jurisdiction over the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Montenegrins referred to themselves as "Macedonians". This shows us that the Ohrid Archbishopric was more Macedonian in character than we probably realise or tend to give it credit for. Often there's a Bulgarian cloud hanging over it but I think that's got more to do with Bulgarian propaganda rather than reality.
Contemporary evidence: 16 August 1903 US newspaper The San Francisco Call reports that Bulgarian Premier Petroff regards uprising [Ilinden] in Macedonia as purely a Macedonian affair & nothing to do with Bulgaria. Petroff happy at Ottoman Turks brutally suppressing it.
The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, April 07, 1930, Final City Edition, Page Page Two, Image 2, brought to you by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL, and the National Digital Newspaper Program.
7 April 1930 - US workingman's newspaper. The Daily Worker alleges that Britain has ordered Bulgaria to come down very hard on ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria.
1913 London Daily Telegraph, UK, story in an Australian newspaper
Rival Claims in Macedonia.
"The Macedonian Slavs, strictly speaking, are neither Servians nor Bulgarians. Ethnically, and by their language they stand midway between them, being, however, by their dialect, their traditions, customs and folklore, nearer to the Servian than to the Bulgarians."
Undoubtedly, and unfortunately, the divergence of opinion between Servia and Bulgaria concerning the partition of Macedonia is great and grave enough. But ...
"A century previously, the very concept of ‘Bulgarian’ was practically unheard of...In the 19th century, then, this amorphous group was constituted into a Bulgarian nation."
-Becoming Bulgarian: the articulation of Bulgarian identity in the 19th century - Sampimon, J.
THE BULGARIAN HORRORS: CULTURE AND THE INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF THE GREAT EASTERN CRISIS, 1876-1878 by Cameron Ean Alfred Whitehead
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)
April 2014
Bulgarian identity still hadn't established itself fully even by the 1870s. Rumelian Christians didn't identify as Bulgar & opposed the Bulgar April Uprising against the Turks.
THE BULGARIAN HORRORS: CULTURE AND THE INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF THE GREAT EASTERN CRISIS, 1876-1878 by Cameron Ean Alfred Whitehead
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)
April 2014
Bulgarian identity still hadn't established itself fully even by the 1870s. Rumelian Christians didn't identify as Bulgar & opposed the Bulgar April Uprising against the Turks.
I read an essay by a Bulgarian academic few years back that also claimed the general population in what became Bulgaria opposed the April Uprising as well, or were at least indifferent to it. The essay was in a compilation book, it may have been On the Macedonians' Matters
I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Found this video on Youtube quite interesting, a native Bulgarian speaker trying to understand various Macedonian phrases. She doesn't do too well, even though the Bulgarians claim both languages to be identical!
Admittedly not sure where this girl is from in Bulgaria, as that could obviously make a difference with how similar her dialect is to Macedonian.
I haven't ever come across any Bulgarians so have never been put in a situation where I have to try and understand them, from the little I have been exposed to it can understand bits and pieces. Definitely not the same though and I think it would be difficult to hold a conversation and properly interact.
Found this video on Youtube quite interesting, a native Bulgarian speaker trying to understand various Macedonian phrases. She doesn't do too well, even though the Bulgarians claim both languages to be identical!
Admittedly not sure where this girl is from in Bulgaria, as that could obviously make a difference with how similar her dialect is to Macedonian.
I haven't ever come across any Bulgarians so have never been put in a situation where I have to try and understand them, from the little I have been exposed to it can understand bits and pieces. Definitely not the same though and I think it would be difficult to hold a conversation and properly interact.
When I was in Macedonia in 2012 my cousins took me to Dorjan. I went for a walk by myself and came across a takeaway shop selling roast chickens. The owner started to speak to me and I had real difficulty in understanding him, I could grasp a couple of the sentences he was saying but it was basically incomprehensible to me to the point he gave up speaking to me. When I got back to where my cousins were I told them what had transpired. They explained to me that in the far eastern parts of Macedonia closest to the Bulgarian border the Macedonians speak with a heavy Bulgarian inflection.
Likewise with Serbian, I can get some of the meaning but it has to be spoken really slowly to me for me to get the gist of it.
They explained to me that in the far eastern parts of Macedonia closest to the Bulgarian border the Macedonians speak with a heavy Bulgarian inflection.
I wouldn't refer to it as a "Bulgarian" inflection. Some features common to both eastern Macedonia and Bulgaria exist because of the dialect continuum in the Balkans. The Macedonian literary language is based on the western dialects so it can take a little effort to adjust when communicating with speakers of eastern dialects. This isn't unusual, for example, the native dialect of Zagreb bears more affinity with Slovenian than it does with standard Croatian.
In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.
Comment