Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Mastika]

If one does not seek to provide counter arguments of Greek that Macedonian state was created in 1944 only and the state before belonged to "Greek" origin than he (un)consciously accept a new name-term to differ the Greek from the newly created state of Macedonia.

Probably not many understand my point and argue about third things... however...

What are you trying to say? That we need to make up our own ficticious history in order to reject the Greek point of view. No Thank you. We have our own history, which whether you like it or not, included 500 years of subdugation by the Ottomans, during which time a Macedonian state simply did not exist.

So what if our current state was founded in 1944? Does that make us less of a people then the Greeks whose own country was only founded some 114 years before ours? No it does not. We are our own people and we achieved our own self-determination in our own time. As Macedonian people we should not be less proud of the actions surrounding the foundation of our country and the brave partisans who liberated Macedonia from fasicist rule just because some Greeks south of the border believe that it was in that year (1944) that we suddenly emerged as an ethnic group.

[Buktop]

Why didn't you read the books that I provided you references for on Maknews?

tick tock...

[makedonche]

Can you tell me where the Macedonian state was from 1903-1944?

Buktop
That was a fairly straightforward question, I had asked/mentioned the same thing to Volk and he gave a reasonable response, why is it that you have failed to answer the simple question and yet seek necessity to have your question answered? I truly hope you can see what you are doing here on the MTO because I think most people can, you need to realise that your accusations of ducking and weaving, cast upon other members, is inappropriate when you yourself engage in the very same tactics. If you intend on using a particular methodology don't complain when someone does it to you!

[Mastika]

Dude.. you are spitting on your history, if not the medieval or ancient than on the Ilinden Uprising and the Krushevo Republic, you spit on so many uprisings which ideal was getting freedom and authonomy of the constant ethnically geographycal boundaries.

You simply does not understand that the current state of RoM emerged as the result of all efforts in historical continuity and every even 'temporary' sovereignty through history provide a direct evidence of a deep historical ethnic identification within this territorial unit and counsciousness of belongness to a state in exactly those boundaries.

That consciousness like it or not is reaching the Macedonian Kingdom and has been preserved in such form till nowadays.

Sorry, but an insurrection simply does not cut it as being a state. The Krusevo Republic is the only such uprising worthy of bieng called some sort of entity, because only it had some degree of power and authority over its realm, which in this case happened to be only Krusevo.

What Macedonian kingdom are you talking about? Macedonia has no king.

[Vangelovski]

tick tock...

Buktop, you know the list is coming, but will you take any notice of it? Or will you ignore it like you did the last one on Maknews and continue to invent your own uninformed and contradictory theories and definitions?

[makedonche]

Quote:
"What are you trying to say? That we need to make up our own ficticious history in order to reject the Greek point of view. No Thank you. We have our own history, which whether you like it or not, included 500 years of subdugation by the Ottomans, during which time a Macedonian state simply did not exist."

Mastika
Please explain how you managed to arrive at this conclusion from Bratot's post? I don't see anywhere that he suggests we make up stories.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I never denied the existence of the identity, as for my concept of a Macedonian state, please reread what I have posted already, it has been answered.

Refer me to your post no. Buktop, there are already well over 10 pages on this thread and many comments made.

I am not saying that the rest of the Empire was ethnically pure. I am just saying that at the turn of the 20th century Macedonia was one of the most ethnically diverse areas of Europe.

This is what you wrote: This diversity is what seperated Macedonia from the rest of the Ottoman realm and is what helped to make our country unique. Be a little more clinical, it is either "one of the" or "this", you can't keep changing the wording to suit your current argument. In any case, you're wrong, and deliberate or not, you're making the case for our detractors.

Macedonia was populated by Orthodox Macedonians, Protestant Macedonians, Muslim Macedonians, Muslim Turks, Yoruk Turks, Gauguz people/Circassians, Orthodox Greeks, Muslim Greeks, Jews, Muslim Albanians, Orthodox Albanians, Catholic Albanians, Orthodox Serbs, Orthodox Aromanians, Muslim Aromanian, Bulgarians and Roma. There have even been reports of Armenians, Georgians, Caucasians and even of Africans living in Macedonia. Not to mention all of the foreigners.

Thanks for the history lesson. Given that Macedonia is in the centre of the Balkans, would you care to explain how it came about that we have all of these people in our country yet the lands around us remained without such diversity? Are you a mixture of all of the above that you have cited?

Such a mix has even gone down in culinary history, the French salad Macedoine.

Garbage. Some French fool that probably heard multiple languages used by the 'trgovci' coined the term, and some Macedonians actually fell for it, you give our enemies ammunition by supporting such false and inaccurate notions. Where did this guy travel to make such an assumption? Do you know? You made the statement, so I look forward to your response. Even the article in Wikipedia (that usually supports the so-called "theories" that go against the truth about Macedonians) disagrees with your assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(food)
According to the etymologist Juan Antonio Cincunegui, the word Macedonia was popularised at the end of the 18th Century to refer to mixed fruit salad,[3]. It is sometimes said that it refers to the ethnic mixture in Ottoman 19th century Macedonia, but the chronology and contemporary sources do not support this interpretation. Macedoine can be used of any medley of unrelated things, not necessarily edible. [4]

Now what?

On the top of my head I can't think of another region of the Ottoman Empire c. 1900 with such a dramatic ethnic mix. The holy land possible? Thrace? But even they can't claim the same diversity which was found in Macedonia.

Maybe the information you're looking for isn't in your head.

The first truly "Macedonian" state, in my opinion, was the Krusevo Republic.

I must have missed this earlier. Your opinion is wrong. What was the state of Phillip II?

What Macedonian kingdom are you talking about? Macedonia has no king.

Mastika, what do you consider the realm of King Marko as? What do you consider Marko as?

[TrueMacedonian]

I am very happy to see a debate like this because I guarantee anybody that many Macedonians have differing views on this topic.

I think the first thing that everyone needs to organize are some facts like when we mean a continuos Macedonian State do we mean an official Macedonian State run by Government, Empire, Warlords?

or

A Macedonia that was known to People's, Locals of the region, and the Natives?

There is no denying that Macedonians have fought the Ottoman's since the Ottomans set foot in Macedonia. Many uprisings occured and these are well documented. And these uprisings called for Macedonians or Macedonian Christians. The Sultans letters of the 17th century looked like this - http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...read.php?t=918

the Macedonian Coat of Arms is another example of Macedonians identifying with the land on which they were natives to.

However officially Macedonia was carved to pieces and some parts were called "Northern Greece" or "Southern Serbia" or "Western Bulgaria" officially. And we cannot forget that officially during the East Roman or 'Byzantine' era Macedonia became a theme that was not centered on actual Macedonia.
So now here's the dillema alot of people are having. I think we all need to address this step by step instead of accusing or slamming each other because it's all too obvious that everyone has a different opinion on here as do many readers.

[Mastika]

Mastika
Please explain how you managed to arrive at this conclusion from Bratot's post? I don't see anywhere that he suggests we make up stories.

To me it seems like he is suggesting that we find some entity which existed pre-1944 which used the title Macedonia and attach ourselves to it in order to counter Greek claims. Such a nation state is ficticious. Us (the modern ethnic Macedonians) did not have a state before then, called Macedonia.

The Macedonian state was founded in 1944, the Greek in 1822. Does that mean our ethnicity is 70 years old?, and their 180 years old? Of course not! That is just an example of the petty minded neighbours to the south.

This is what you wrote: This diversity is what seperated Macedonia from the rest of the Ottoman realm and is what helped to make our country unique. Be a little more clinical, it is either "one of the" or "this", you can't keep changing the wording to suit your current argument. In any case, you're wrong, and deliberate or not, you're making the case for our detractors.

Solder Of Macedon, I am not trying to make a case for our detractors. We should be proud of our historical cultural melting pot and of our mixed and varied past. Does that make us less Macedonians? Of course not, infact this cultural melting pot has enriched both our culture and language.

SOM, I will happily make the claim that at the year c.1900 Macedonia was the most demographically/culturally diverse area of the Ottoman Empire and one of the most diverse in Europe (alongside those other areas I mentioned). If you do not agree with please find me another area with greater ethnic diversity which by 1900 was still in Ottoman hands.

Thanks for the history lesson. Given that Macedonia is in the centre of the Balkans, would you care to explain how it came about that we have all of these people in our country yet the lands around us remained without such diversity? Are you a mixture of all of the above that you have cited?

Am I suggesting that the countries around us were ethnically homogenous? No, but they were more homogenous then Macedonia. All balkan countries had/still have ethnic/religious/cultural minorities, however Macedonia had 100 years ago had the most varied mix. There were tens of seperate cultural/religious/ethnic communities coexisting. This was the case too in Albania, Greece of 1830, Bulgaria of 1878, however not to the extent as it was in Macedonia.

Am I a mixture? Of course not. But we all share customs, words, cuisine, etc. our neighbours. Some of which we have given them, some of which they have given us.

Garbage. Some French fool that probably heard multiple languages used by the 'trgovci' coined the term, and some Macedonians actually fell for it, you give our enemies ammunition by supporting such false and inaccurate notions. Where did this guy travel to make such an assumption? Do you know? You made the statement, so I look forward to your response. Even the article in Wikipedia (that usually supports the so-called "theories" that go against the truth about Macedonians) disagrees with your assertion.

Nonetheless, it is the word Macedonia which has gone down in history due to its diversity and cultural abundance.

I must have missed this earlier. Your opinion is wrong. What was the state of Phillip II?

Mastika, what do you consider the realm of King Marko as? What do you consider Marko as?

Maybe I should have written "modern" before my statement. The state of Philip II was a state for the Ancient Macedonians, not what we are today, which is Modern Macedonians. We are our own people with our own customs, language, traditions, religion etc., however some of our descent lies with the Ancient Macedonians.

Marko was a medieval king ruling parts of Macedonia. He was not "the King of Macedonia" and was never titled as such. There were many medieval kings and princes who ruled over Macedonia, however none ruled the Kingdom of Macedonia.

What do I consider Krali Marko as? Hmm, Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgarian? None. The modern nation states which arose from the 18th-20th centuries simply did not exist in the 1300s. It would be wrong to associate any historical figure with a movement/nationalism that simply did not exist in their lifetime.

[Mastika]

I think the first thing that everyone needs to organize are some facts like when we mean a continuos Macedonian State do we mean an official Macedonian State run by Government, Empire, Warlords?

or

A Macedonia that was known to People's, Locals of the region, and the Natives?

What are you suggesting by "A Macedonia that was known to People's, Locals of the region, and the Natives?". Can you please clarify what you mean. Are you talking about village councils etc?

[Mikail]

It's unbelievable how many times this conversation has gone round in circles.

Macedonia has been in existence in the same region since the time of Alexander the Great. Macedonia has been conquered and whilst under occupation her borders always kept in tack to some degree. Therefore the state always existed!

The division of Macedonia in 1912/13 was the first time this land was divided and her subsequent territories controlled by different occupiers!

Now, if you really want to make a stand for the event of 1944 and maintain this was the very first time a Macedonian state came about then you fully support the Greek and now Bulgarian argument that Macedonia and Macedonians were created by Tito!

If you support the Tato of your Macedonia so much then I suggest you simply pledge your allegiance to him now.

Otherwise, stop with the stupidity of the argument. Go back and read through the last 10 pages and you'll see why I have written what I have written.

Macedonia did not come into existence in 1944. Macedonians are all proud of an independent state since her division. Macedonians all look forward to her unification under the auspices of the European or some other kind of union.

Anyone who wishes to support a "slav" tag to our identity should leave the Macedonian brotherhood and take camp with any one of Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian fronts.

[TrueMacedonian]

Mikail said;

Macedonia has been in existence in the same region since the time of Alexander the Great. Macedonia has been conquered and whilst under occupation her borders always kept in tack to some degree. Therefore the state always existed!

Officially or unofficially? This is the dilemma.

[julie]

Mikail, I agree with your post, and its interesting reading all the different viewpoints, and what everyones viewpoints are on what they perceive to be their truth.
It astounds me that forum members continue to support the argument made by Greeks and Serbs and inflames me that they agree with the notion there was no Macedonian state or kingdom prior to 1944, or 1830.

[TrueMacedonian]

What are you suggesting by "A Macedonia that was known to People's, Locals of the region, and the Natives?". Can you please clarify what you mean. Are you talking about village councils etc?

Here's my post to Vangelovski on page 12 that will answer your question;

Vangelovski said;

Quote:

it has been used as the name of our state (as it existed historically) and as the name of our homeland continuously.

Hmmm, that depends on what you mean by continuosly. In other words was the name Macedonia used continuosly officially by governments, Empires, etc? Or was it a term people, locals, natives in Macedonia used? Because there was an East Roman Theme system that used the term Macedonia,,, but geographically it was not centered in or around where Macedonia is to be found prior the theme system or after it. However there is evidence that suggests something different than the "official" empirical thematic system such as the synod records of the Ohrid archbishopric at the beginning of the thirteenth century that contain the words, "Ivan Ierakar by birth Macedonian" or the fact that there was a community of Macedonians who migrated from Macedonia (not the theme) and settled in what they called Macedonia village (Timis county)which is one of the first Macedonian settlements in Romania, documented by Catholic Church records in 1332-1337 under the name of Machadonia.

So the 'official' continuity of Macedonia as to the local sentiments of the time seem to differ in the examples I posted above.

[Buktop]

Macedonia has been in existence in the same region since the time of Alexander the Great. Macedonia has been conquered and whilst under occupation her borders always kept in tack to some degree. Therefore the state always existed!

look at the definition of state, no one denies the existence of a Macedonian Identity or territory, but a state, in the proper meaning of the word, did not exist until 1944, and to a lesser extent in 1903, but these are two separate instances of a state.