How is 'ethnicity' defined?

[Risto the Great]

Pontian is not its own language, but a dialect of Greek.

Russian is a dialect of Macedonian.

[Spartan]

Brother, I am talking about the contemporary sources, can you show me a Byzantine writer from the middle ages that spoke about "hellenization".

This is what Ive found so far -

Constantine Paleologos, speaking to his troops two days before the fall, he called them "descendants of the Hellenes and Romans" and he termed Constantinople "the hope and joy of all Hellenes"

http://books.google.com/books?id=Yo8g7FhPFO8C&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q=&f=false

https://

https://
https://

https://
https://


“These people (i.e. the barbarian invaders) have never enjoyed the
imperial benevolence, and have no Hellenic manners to behave…”
“The Administrator’s Report on the Crimean Peninsula.” (in 964) #2


“Marianos, speaking in their language, advised the Latins… not to
fight against fellow-Christians. But one of the Latins hit him… with
his cross-bow… a weapon quite unknown to the Hellenes…”
Anna Komnini (in 1148-53).
“Alexiad”: 10.8.5-6


“Because we are Hellenes in terms of stock, as our language and ancestral education betray… And also, this land… Hellenes always have been inhabiting…”
Georgios Plithon Gemistos (in 1418)
“About the Matters in Peloponnisos”



“…and one can not but bless himself for not being a barbarian but
having been born an Hellene. The same thing saying myself…”
Nikiforos Grigoras (in 1327).
“Epistle to Sir Andronikos Zaridis”



“You push them back… and preserve… the freedom and faith of all
the Hellenes who live in Asia…”
Dimitrios Kydonis (in 1366).
“Advising the Romans”



“Because these words do not come from (the lips of) people who are unwise or ignorant of what is precise and commendable in the language
of Hellas…”
Arethas of Kaisaria (in 900s), “Public Anathematization of Polygamy”



“…these mountains [the Pindos Mountain-range near Kastoria] were the limits between the [despotate of]`Old and New Epeiros’, and our Hellenic lands.”
<Georgios Akropolitis,`Annales’, Patrologia
Graecae, vol.140 col: 1196a (80)>




“His pronunciation (i.e. of M.Psellos) was such as you would expect of a Latin who had come to our country as a young man and learnt the
Hellenic (language) thoroughly, but was not quite clear in his articulation.”
Anna Komnini (in 1148-53), “Alexiad”: 5:8.8

[Spartan]

Mate,I was talking about Pontian and Cypriot languages. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem Risto, I also am sorry for the misunderstanding.

I have no doubt a modern Greek would struggle in a village in Cyprus talking to an old person in their native language.

Their native language is Greek, they just pronounce some letters differently. Cypriot is a dialect, not a language.
My best friend and koumbaro is a Cypriot. I have known him and his family for close to 20 years. Although when talking to his grandfather(who is a 'village Cypriot') I must really pay attention, there are very few phrases and words I do not understand. I can hold long conversations with the man with little problems.

The Pontians ((like many of the ethnicities transferred into Greece) had their own unique characteristics and they deserved their own nation.

I dont believe Pontian is its own ethnicity, and I dont think they do either.
Perhaps they did deserve their own nation though, and they definitely have unique charachteristics.

Although I suppose it could be argued that (after removing Turkisms) the Pontian language stemmed from a more archaic variant of a Hellenic language.

Pontian is not its own language, but a dialect of Greek.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Good question (and thread) SoM.
The key here is that we simply cannot because it is open for a very wide interpretation. Therefore we should ultimately look at the unique factors present in modern societies.

If we were to take a completely objective look on the matter, the history of East Rome must largely be viewed from a shared perspective, belonging to most of the Balkan people and not to any one individual group. Several groups contributed something to the mix, and we all shared the common cultural elements that came with the Christian faith of the east. However, this should not hinder efforts of Macedonians at claiming a connection to certain elements for which they have a legitimate case. And in such instances, Macedonians do generally have the best case in comparison to the claims made by some of their neighbours.

Therefore, figures like Justin I, Justinian the Great, Niketas the Patriarch, Basil the Macedonian, Cyril and Methodius, John Kukuzel, etc, although featuring during the reign of East Rome in the Balkans and Macedonia, should also rightfully be included in the chapters of Macedonia's chronology, because they do occupy specific and significant places in our history and (in some cases) development as a people over the centuries.

While I am happy to consider them part of the overall Roman history in the Balkans, I would require a certain acknowledgment of the above facts when reading into the issue in more detail. If there is any ethnicity that the above figures can be identified with today, it can only be the Macedonian.

[Risto the Great]

So, with this in consideration, where does one draw the line of distinction in the Roman period, and highlight the differences between that which was exclusively Greek and that which was collectively Roman?

Good question (and thread) SoM.
The key here is that we simply cannot because it is open for a very wide interpretation. Therefore we should ultimately look at the unique factors present in modern societies.

[Risto the Great]

With all do respect Risto, how do you know? If you know Greek, and Im mistaken, my sincerest apologies.
The Greek of a hundred years ago, is not that different from the Greek of today, and I can understand it, read it, and have even translated it in the past for a member or 2 of the MTO.

Mate,I was talking about Pontian and Cypriot languages. Sorry for the confusion. I chose 100 years ago because the Pontians have merged with modern Greeks and the Cypriots have intermarried and watched far too many Greek films. I have no doubt a modern Greek would struggle in a village in Cyprus talking to an old person in their native language. As for the Greek language over the last 100 years, I would not be so naive to suggest such a thing. But would be tempted to explore the pre-Katharevousa language of pre-1830.

About 50-60% Id say, Cypriot 70-80%.

For myself, I would say Serbian 50-60% and Bulgarian 50-60%. My case in point. These are in fact different nations. And the Pontians could almost have had theirs. The Cypriots have but went from being England's lapdogs to Greece's lapdogs. The Pontians ((like many of the ethnicities transferred into Greece) had their own unique characteristics and they deserved their own nation. 50 million Kurds will tell you that it does not always happen. Do Kurds "deserve" an ethnicity even though they do not have a nation? The Greeks are very supportive of the Kurds. Particularly those that live in Turkey. We all know that sole motivator is because Greece likes to stir the pot in Turkey. Greece is far from being a champion for human rights. The Kurds draw maps of Kurdistan that shows large chunks of 3 sovereign nations in it. There are people called Macedonians that sometimes do this and are labeled as extremists for showing where the Macedonian ethnicity exists/existed.

I still see the parallels with Latin and the emerging nations that never happened for the Pontians amongst others. Although I suppose it could be argued that (after removing Turkisms) the Pontian language stemmed from a more archaic variant of a Hellenic language.

[Spartan]

Spartan, I take it that 'Greece proper' does not include Macedonia and Thrace, correct?

Correct, imo. Others Im sure would disagree

As much as any other people native to the Balkan region.

Agree.

As did many others. Therefore, the Romans, collectively, were not Greeks who happened to call themselves Roman, but people who happened to speak Greek.

Collectively, yes I agree.
Part of this 'collection' were native Greek speakers prior to the adoption of the new identity though.

So, with this in consideration, where does one draw the line of distinction in the Roman period, and highlight the differences between that which was exclusively Greek and that which was collectively Roman?

Good question SoM.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Spartan, I take it that 'Greece proper' does not include Macedonia and Thrace, correct?

However, the people who were the Hellenes did change culture, but they are still the same people as far as Im concerned.

As much as any other people native to the Balkan region.

I agree that all Romans were not Greek. Im saying that the Greeks who inhabited what is today Greece in those times, began refering to themselves as Romans.

As did many others. Therefore, the Romans, collectively, were not Greeks who happened to call themselves Roman, but people who happened to speak Greek. The waters become muddy due to the official language being Greek from a certain period and one of the many ethnicities that formed the Roman citizenry also speaking Greek as a mother-tongue. This has made it considerably easy for some people to manipulate facts and details in favour of this or that argument.

There are Englishmen that call themselves Australlian today though.

You recall in my previous post the example about an Australian minister of Italian descent and the opening of english-language schools. So, if we go forward 50 years from now in Australia, the grandchildren of the Italian will say, "our grandfather did this during his time in the government", and no doubt, he did. However, at the same time, there is another group of people who are of Anglo descent that say "he established schools in the English language, he promoted the English language, all his correspondence was in English, etc". Does that make the person in question or his native language, English? Of course not.

So, with this in consideration, where does one draw the line of distinction in the Roman period, and highlight the differences between that which was exclusively Greek and that which was collectively Roman?

[Spartan]

You would have barely been able to understand them 100 years ago.

With all due respect Risto, how do you know? If you know Greek, and Im mistaken, my sincerest apologies.
The Greek of a hundred years ago, is not that different from the Greek of today, and I can understand it, read it, and have even translated it in the past for a member or 2 of the MTO.

Can you honestly say you can understand someone speaking pure Pontian?

About 50-60% Id say, Cypriot 70-80%.

[Spartan]

Where exactly do you think it was the main language, in all the Balkans?

No sir. Definitely in the Peloponnese, and I would imagined it lessened the farther north you went. Basically what we consider 'Greece proper' today.

However, let's take for example somebody like Emperor Justin, who came from peasant origins in Bederiana (Bader village near Skopje), an illiterate commoner who rose to the highest rank. Do you think Greek was the main language for people like him?

No I do not.

As stated previous, depopulation, repopulation, change in circumstances, change of rule, etc. You can say that Greek-speakers didn't change ethnicity and instead only their name, but the culture of the Romans and what it came to be after Christianity is not the same culture of the ancient Hellenes,

Agreed. The Hellenes did change culture, but they are still the same people as far as Im concerned, albeit with new customs.

No problem, although I just want to highlight that your interpretation appears to be based on the assumption that all Romans were Greeks, which is clearly not the case.

I agree that all Romans were not Greek. Im saying that the Greeks who inhabited what is today Greece in those times, began refering to themselves as Romans.

Let's look at Basil the Macedonian for example, who was either of Slavic-speaking or mixed Armenian/Slavic-speaking ancestry. He was a Roman who happened to speak Greek because that was the official tongue of East Rome at the time - He was not a Greek who happened to call himself Roman. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

They do, but they won't forever, and there are significant populations that are not of an Anglo background. In the case of myself, I am an Australian of Macedonian descent who happens to speak English, and not an Englishman who happens to call himself Australian. You see where i'm coming from?

I do SoM, 100%.
There are Englishmen that call themselves Australlian today though.

Given the multi-ethnic character of East Rome, is it really that impossible that similar cases took place there, or is the superiority of Greek-speaking numbers always the telling factor that must go unquestioned? Think about it Spartan, just take a look at the long list of emperors in East Rome and how few would qualify as ethnic Greeks.

Perhaps, yet that doesnt mean that the native Greek speaking population that they ruled in what we consider 'Greece proper" at the time, were not the descendants of those who were once known as the Hellenes. Obviously not all, and the numbers as I said before can definitely be debated, but they were there.

[Risto the Great]

Linguistically they are.
The majority of Pontians and Cypriots consider themselves ethnic Greeks

You would have barely been able to understand them 100 years ago. They had collective experiences that were different to yours. When you say they call themselves "Greek", I see an unfortunate choice of wording that should equate with Latin. They did not identify with the modern Greek State of 100 years ago.

Can you honestly say you can understand someone speaking pure Pontian? They had to learn Greek when they came to Greece from Turkey.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Im pretty sure , wether 'official' or not, that greek was the main language prior to the 600s as well.

Where exactly do you think it was the main language, in all the Balkans? And in what context? I would agree that prior to the switch from Latin to Greek initiated by Heraclius of Carthage in Africa, the Greek tongue was still used for religious and educational purposes, several Roman emperors, officials, nobles, etc acquired the tongue through learning. However, let's take for example somebody like Emperor Justin, who came from peasant origins in Bederiana (Bader village near Skopje), an illiterate commoner who rose to the highest rank. Do you think Greek was the main language for people like him? I can tell you for a fact that it wasn't, because, like most others in the Balkans, Greek (along with Latin) was a tongue acquired through learning and not through the family and its generations.

So what changed other than the greek-speakers now identifying as Romans? I dont think the peoples ethnicity changed, just what they referred to themselves as.

As stated previous, depopulation, repopulation, change in circumstances, change of rule, etc. You can say that Greek-speakers didn't change ethnicity and instead only their name, but the culture of the Romans and what it came to be after Christianity is not the same culture of the ancient Hellenes, for a good 750 or so years until the 600's, Latin was the language of administration in the Balkans. That is a significant fact, and in the case of Greek-speakers, even moreso, as for a continued period of about 2,000 years, this generic identity was the only identity they had, inclusive of various other ethnicities.

My good man, we will have to agree to disagree here.
The interpretation of this line is a matter of opinion, and i see it a little differently.

No problem, although I just want to highlight that your interpretation appears to be based on the assumption that all Romans were Greeks, which is clearly not the case. I guess there needs to be a middle ground here so that the line Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans is not made exclusive and non-accepting of actual native Greek-speakers that identified as Romans. Let's look at Basil the Macedonian for example, who was either of Slavic-speaking or mixed Armenian/Slavic-speaking ancestry. He was a Roman who happened to speak Greek because that was the official tongue of East Rome at the time - He was not a Greek who happened to call himself Roman. Do you agree or disagree?

Dont Anglos still make up the majority though? Not sure about Australlia, but here in Canada they definitely do.

They do, but they won't forever, and there are significant populations that are not of an Anglo background. In the case of myself, I am an Australian of Macedonian descent who happens to speak English, and not an Englishman who happens to call himself Australian. You see where i'm coming from? It is due to circumstance that I speak English as it is the official language of the state, but the fact that I am Australian is a given. Tomorrow the language of the state can change to German, I will still be an Australian who happens to now speak German and not a German who happens to call himself Australian. I trust you see the point I am trying to make.

A small difference in circumstance when comparing Australia to East Rome is that the English language was established in the former as a result of colonisation, whereas in the latter the Greek language was revived based on the precedent of formely being a language of not only colonies, but trade, religion and education also in the greater region.

Yes SoM, but dont forget, for the non-greeks to become greeks, there must have been some greeks around to greekesize them. The actual numbers can definitely be debated.

That is true, but from another angle, the minister for education in Australia may be somebody of Italian descent, and he is actively engaged in opening new state (naturally english-speaking) schools in regions where there has been a large influx of recently arrived immigrants. He is doing his job for the state, promoting the official langauge of the state through education, clearly he is not an Englishman, although English is the language he is promoting.

Given the multi-ethnic character of East Rome, is it really that impossible that similar cases took place there, or is the superiority of Greek-speaking numbers always the telling factor that must go unquestioned? Think about it Spartan, just take a look at the long list of emperors in East Rome and how few would qualify as ethnic Greeks.

Let me ask you this though, how much time must go by, before a non-greek can claim to be greek? Or a non-Macedonian Macedonian?
For example. An Arvanite family moves into the Peloponesse in the 1300s. Within 2-3 generations (1400s) say, they speak greek as their mother tongue, and have adopted the customs of the people. Are they greeks yet? How about by the 1500s after another 100 years of solidifying their identities?
Same with a Macedonian. How long until a non-Macedonian can be considered macedonian?

Good question, and to be honest, I don't think there is one single answer that can apply here due to varying dimensions. There is no doubt that there are those cases where in a 100 years the settlers will fully integrate into the existing society, then there are those cases where the people are all 'Romanised' over time and by circumstance happen to acquire Greek, which does develop into their only tongue if the state and other local influences are too strong for their native language to endure. However, there are again those situations where, as in the case of the Albanians in Athens who settled there centuries ago, were still speaking Albanian at the time of Greek independence and decades later. Were it not for the creation of the Greek state Athens would still be Albanian-speaking, so I think circumstances are the dominant factor here, and not time.

A generalisation will never be more accurate than a detailed breakdown. For Greeks today in particular, I think it is important to never forget the status of the Greek language in past centuries, and to not confine certain matters which realistically cannot be made exclusive. I mean, right now, I am watching a segment from Al-Jazeera, and all reports, interviews, etc from this Arabic and dare I say perceived 'anti-western' program are in English! Why? Circumstances.

[Spartan]

To suggest the Pontians/Cypriots/etc and the modern Greeks are one and the same is optimistic to say the least.

Linguistically they are.
The majority of Pontians and Cypriots consider themselves ethnic Greeks

[Risto the Great]

Yes, i believe it is.
Well, I dont know anyone who speaks Latin anyways, lol.
As far as I know,It has broken into the 5 or 6 romance languages.
The level of intelligibility of these 5 or 6 languages is very low with proper Latin I believe. And although a part of the same linguistic family, they are different languages from each other, and latin.

It is alive in the church.
And can therefore be argued that it has never died.
The languages it has broken into are indeed indicative of the different ethnicities that utilise them. They are not completely intelligible and no different from the way the many ethnicities sprung from the ancient Hellenes. To suggest the Pontians/Cypriots/etc and the modern Greeks are one and the same is optimistic to say the least.

[Spartan]

where from the 600's the official language became Greek, and where the people collectively referred to themselves as Romans.

Im pretty sure , wether 'official' or not, that greek was the main language prior to the 600s as well. Even more so than after 600. So what changed other than the greek-speakers now identifying as Romans? I dont think the peoples ethnicity changed, just what they referred to themselves as.

It was a generic identity, loosely applied to fit all citizens of all ethnicities, that is why the people were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans.

My good man, we will have to agree to disagree here.
The interpretation of this line is a matter of opinion, and i see it a little differently.

In the same way, when we look at modern nations today such as that of Americans, Canadians and more specifically Australians, it could be said of the citizens in a multi-ethnic country like Australia, that the people are Australian who happen to speak English, and not Englishmen who happen to call themselves Australian. And while there are bonding factors like the official language we all speak here, our culture, customs, native languages, etc greatly vary, as did that of the Romans in the Balkans.

Dont Anglos still make up the majority though? Not sure about Australlia, but here in Canada they definitely do.

Only in the Morea and some coastal areas would I agree that there was a continuation of native Greek-speaking groups, the rest of the people that came to be solely Greek-speakers over the subsequent centuries were, as you yourself have said, non-Greeks who became Greeks.

Yes SoM, but dont forget, for the non-greeks to become greeks, there must have been some greeks around to greekesize them. The actual numbers can definitely be debated.

I am glad you brought up this point, as I find it an excellent parallel for another situation - The Macedonian-speakers in Samuel's Empire were often referred to as Bulgarians, but if they were actual Bulgarians, shouldn't they be speaking Turkic? I trust you see my point.

I do....its common sense!

The Roman identity was shared by us all, but certain circumstances like the official language of the state and church, and the later control of the Roman Millet in the Ottoman Empire by Greek-speakers contributed to limiting this identity with only Greek-speakers and their Grkoman followers, who were in large part Macedonians, Albanians and Vlachs by ethnicity. However, this was a later development in the second half of the Ottoman reign in the Balkans, and cannot be applied to the overall history of the (east) Romans in the Balkans. You can understand then, how the jump to a Hellenic identity and the circumstances surrounding it, can raise a number of questions and doubts, and I guess if it weren't for the anti-Macedonian position of the Greek state, we never would've bothered to delve so far into the history of the (east) Romans ourselves, at least not in the context of a Greek 'hunt'. But here we are

Again, I see your point.
Let me ask you this though, how much time must go by, before a non-greek can claim to be greek? Or a non-Macedonian Macedonian?
For example. An Arvanite family moves into the Peloponesse in the 1300s. Within 2-3 generations (1400s) say, they speak greek as their mother tongue, and have adopted the customs of the people. Are they greeks yet? How about by the 1500s after another 100 years of solidifying their identities?
Same with a Macedonian. How long until a non-Macedonian can be considered macedonian?