Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Mikail]

TM, one cannot say that Macedonia officially existed under Jugoslavian rule and at the same time say it never existed under Ottoman, Eastern Roman and Roman rule.

In 1913 Macedonia was officially divided. Her conquerors officially removed reference to her name for the very first time in history. Tito rightfully re-instated the name in 1944.

I don't see what the bone of contention is outside of these simple facts.

[Mikail]

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.

You really are getting yourself caught up in semantics. This is where Greece tries to pin us down. And we cannot allow ourselves to be locked in such an argument.

We all know the why's of what happened. Let us not justify them!

[Buktop]

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

Page 7 post 65

[Vangelovski]

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.

Buktop,

You should hold back on providing the "proper" meaning of a state until you do some research. I will provide a list of books - will you read them so that you can start making some sense?

[TrueMacedonian]

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.

I think there is more confusion than agreeing with Macedonia's neighbors. Too many people are jumping the gun and have fast reflexes. Officially Macedonia was not only a Kingdom but also one of the largest stretched Empires history has known. It existed as Macedonia under Roman rule as well (albeit with outstrecthed borders that included Illyria, Achia, etc). But officially during the thematic era of the East Roman empire 'Macedonia' was a theme not located on actual Macedonia. Macedonia was not forgotten by the people during the early Ottoman rule as evidence will showcase the numerous Macedonian Coat of Arms that state 'Macedonia' as well as many other documents (like the letters Bishop Atanas sent to the King of Spain in the 16th century promising him Macedonia if they help get rid of the Turks). And we all know what happened to Macedonia when it was occupied on all fronts by the wolves. Officially Macedonia has not been a continuos name of the country. Unofficially though (as pointed out a few times) Macedonia was indeed part of the sentiments of the people.

So again,,, what is the arguement? That Macedonia existed Officially continuosly or un-officialy?

[Buktop]

TM, one cannot say that Macedonia officially existed under Jugoslavian rule and at the same time say it never existed under Ottoman, Eastern Roman and Roman rule.

Under Yugoslavia Macedonia was a sovereign, semi-autonomous state participating in a federation, or union of autonomous states. We had our own government, our own citizenship, our own identity, our own language, our own institutions and laws. Under Ottoman, Eastern Roman and Roman rule, all we maintained was Identity, this does not constitute the existence of a state, even if we were to apply the definition to historical contexts.

In 1913 Macedonia was officially divided. Her conquerors officially removed reference to her name for the very first time in history. Tito rightfully re-instated the name in 1944.

I don't see what the bone of contention is outside of these simple facts.

The state was established by ASNOM in 1944, and was recognized and included in the Yugoslav federation by Tito.

[Buktop]

You really are getting yourself caught up in semantics. This is where Greece tries to pin us down. And we cannot allow ourselves to be locked in such an argument.

We all know the why's of what happened. Let us not justify them!

It is not so much semantics as fact. A person in this thread made a contention about the existence of a historic Macedonian 'state', and became upset at the notion that our state was established in 44. This is the debate, not the existence of a historic Macedonian people or kingdom.

[Pelister]

It is not so much semantics as fact. A person in this thread made a contention about the existence of a historic Macedonian 'state', and became upset at the notion that our state was established in 44. This is the debate, not the existence of a historic Macedonian people or kingdom.

Aren't you one for taking things out of context.

The original issue I raised was Meto saying Macedonia has only been a country since 1994. He used the term "country" - not State and not Government.

The Macedonians were largely GOVERNING their own affairs at the local level during the Ottoman Era. Jane Sandanski was more than just a rebel - He "Governed" a large part of Macedonia in all areas of government, legal, municipal ... such things as sanitation, roads, schooling ...etc. The Pirin region operated "as a Macedonian State within a State" for decades before 1913 and before 1944.

Your response I assume was that the Macedonian State and Government was first "founded"/"created" in 1944. A State and Government was created in 1944, but it was by no means the first, as Meto suggested, and as your suggesting now. What is it with you morons? Does something need to be recognized in shape and form by the West - as Western - for you to believe it is real?

The first Macedonian State and the first Macedonian government was not founded/created in 1944. This is what Greeks would have us believe, and this is the kind of bullshit historical revisionism being pushed by UMD and yourself, Buktop. The way You and UMD take facts out of their historical context is a problem for all of us. I know that UMD has this moronic belief Politics "is above history" and I know you believe it too.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, one cannot say that Macedonia officially existed under Jugoslavian rule and at the same time say it never existed under Ottoman, Eastern Roman and Roman rule.

In 1913 Macedonia was officially divided. Her conquerors officially removed reference to her name for the very first time in history. Tito rightfully re-instated the name in 1944.

I don't see what the bone of contention is outside of these simple facts.

Mikail Macedonia officially lost its name to the actual country during the East Roman (Byzantine) thematic era. And again during the Occupations.
Officially there has been lapses in history with use of the name Macedonia for the actual country of Macedonia. In some cases, like Stephen Dushan who proclaimed himself Macedonian Emperor, the name of the country becomes some-what official again. Again the issue here is obvious,,, Official or Un-official?

[Buktop]

Buktop,

You should hold back on providing the "proper" meaning of a state until you do some research. I will provide a list of books - will you read them so that you can start making some sense?

You still haven't posted the list?!?! Whats taking so long? Perhaps you should have just chosen one or two books and then maybe we could get on with our lives?

[Mikail]

[QUOTE=Buktop;46808]

Under Yugoslavia Macedonia was a sovereign, semi-autonomous state participating in a federation, or union of autonomous states.

So was she autonomous or not?

We had our own government,

A puppet government

our own citizenship,

sorry wrong again, you were yugslavians

our own identity, our own language,

We never lost it

our own institutions and laws.

controlled by Belgrade, again puppets

[Buktop]

Aren't you one for taking things out of context.

How might that be?

[Buktop]

So was she autonomous or not?A puppet government sorry wrong again, you were yugslavians We never lost it controlled by Belgrade, again puppets

I would suggest you do some research on Yugoslavia before you start making sweeping generalizations. If you wish to discuss the Macedonian state under the Yugoslav Federation perhaps we should start another topic where I would be happy to share some riveting information with you.

[Mikail]

Mikail Macedonia officially lost its name to the actual country during the East Roman (Byzantine) thematic era. And again during the Occupations.
Officially there has been lapses in history with use of the name Macedonia for the actual country of Macedonia. In some cases, like Stephen Dushan who proclaimed himself Macedonian Emperor, the name of the country becomes some-what official again. Again the issue here is obvious,,, Official or Un-official?

Thank you TM! Very valuable input!

We continue to chase our tales in semantics. Macedonian states or kingdoms officially existed through history and history shows us Macedonians always desired autonomy.

The events surrounding 1944 is another chapter in her history.

Buktop, do you want to see us all bow to Tito? is this it?

[makedonche]

Mastika
here is Bratot's initial post:

"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..."

here's your reply:
"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."

My response:
"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"

Your reply:
"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."

My response:
I still can't see how you arrived at either of the conclusions, I understood Bratot to be saying that if we don't question the Greek version of when they say Macedonia was created/became a nation/a state then we unconsciously accept that they are correct and in so doing we add weight to their argument that we are "new" macedonians/slav macedonians, created in 1944 by Tito and therefore should be deemed "Northern Macedonia" to identify us differently to the Macedonians in Greece who are "ancient Macedonians" and therefore Greeks and have always been Greek. Can you see this??????????????

I would also add that in 2003 the RoM & Diaspora celebrated 100 years of statehood - do you remember?
My Uncle traced our family tree back to the beginning of our village, some 200-300 years ago - Macedonian run by Macedonians!
But I prefer Mikails response - Macedonia has been a state thousands of years!