Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[makedonche]

100 godini makedonska drzhavnost - 100 years of Macedonian statehood WAS an SDSm (and other sellouts) imposed slogan that many Macedonian patriots REJECTED and BOYCOTTED for EXACTLY the same reason that you say you prefer - MACDONIAN STATEHOOD TRADITION BEING OLDER THAN 2500 YEARS!

Indigen
I know! I understand what you are saying! The purpose of my posts was to challenge those who have fixated dates/times/definitions and are trying to impose them on all others here, without giving any creedence to others opinions, but alas as you can see I was wasting my time!

PS
It's just as dangerous to say we only became a state in 1944, as it is to say - we became a state 100 years ago, because that is what we celebrated!

[TrueMacedonian]

Hi TM,

Thats one definition of a nation. There are many definitions, some objective, some subjective, some with a combination of both markers. The real problem with the definitions of a nation (unlike the definitions of a state) is that it can be such a complex area that no one definition covers all examples of nations we have.

Until recently, one of my personal favourite definitions was:

But even this is problematic, because it excludes groups that are widely accepted as nations who are not attempting to create or maintain their own state - for example, the Macedonians in Pirin and Aegean. It also ignores self-identification where no objective characteristics are present - for examples Austrians vs Germans. And there is a conceptual dificulty with another abused term - ethnicity. Some like to deprive a group of 'nation status' if they are not actively seeking the creation/maintainance of a state by regulating their 'status' to an ethnie. Other than that, there is really no objective/subjective difference between a nation or an ethnie.

One of the key problems, in my view, with Symmons' definition is that he considers that a nation needs to be "territorily-based". This excludes the diaspora, which most scholars (and I think MTO) consider an integral part of the nation. Further, he uses "modern culture". What is "modern culture" and why does it have to be "modern"? I think only Symmons can answer that one. His definition is also self-contradictory in that if, in order to be a nation, a group needed to possess a "historically-rooted conciousness of national identity" then by definition (of many scholars) they would already be a nation. The other contradiction is that he calls for a "historically-rooted conciousness" on the on hand, but demands a "modern culture" on the other?

Just a few thoughts.

Nice post Vangelovski. And taking into consideration what you stated on Symmons-Symonolewicz definition of Nation I will post his definition of Nationalism;

The active solidarity of a group claiming to be a nation and aspiring to be a state. When seen as a national movement, nationalism represents a series of stages in a struggle of a given solidary group to achieve its basic aims of unity and self-direction.

Concerning our people living under rule in Aegean and Pirin is it wrong to assume that Rainbow and OMO-Ilinden are not just groups seeking human rights but a "solidary group(s) to achieve its basic aims of unity and self-direction"? I am not making Symmons-Symonolewicz the be all, end all either. This is his interpretation of Nationialism. I am sure Smith, Gellner and of course Anderson have their own definitions/interpretations.

However concerning these definitions we must remember that these definitions have no impact on the Macedonian Cause because the Cause, in my opinion, has been outlined to cover all areas specifically.

As for the Diaspora, ethnically we are Macedonians. "Territorily-based" I would gather his meaning is for the geographical area (example, Macedonia). So in defining a Nation he is defining a place where "individuals derive(d)" (IMRO would be a good examples of this).

[Buktop]

"OfficiaL, codified" definitions!?!?!?!?!? By who????? I didn't even know there was such a thing. Another statement by an amatuer.

Buktop,

Rather than making a tool out of yourself (which you can get away with because noone really knows who you are) and blindly defending UMD's ill-thought out statements, why don't you actually try to learn something.

You really are just one poor excuse after another.

I asked for YOUR opinion on how my notions on a Nation and a State differ from those Authors you referred to me, why is that so difficult?

[Buktop]

There was on in ancient times...from circa 800 BC to circa 145 BC. This is exactly what the Metovisti like yourself ignore, while preferring the "self-governing autonomous political entity called Macedonia" that was established in 1944.

no one ignored the existence of an ancient state, I have acknowledged it numerous times in this thread, can you understand English? or should I bring out my crayons and draw you a picture? Do you deny the fact that the modern Macedonian State was founded in 1944?

[Vangelovski]

I have not made up any definitions, all of the definitions I have used are official, codified, and generally accepted definitions.

I have not ignored anything, I asked for YOUR opinion on how my notions on a Nation and a State differ from those Authors you referred to me, why is that so difficult?

"OfficiaL, codified" definitions!?!?!?!?!? By who????? I didn't even know there was such a thing. Another statement by an amatuer.

Buktop,

Rather than making a tool out of yourself (which you can get away with because noone really knows who you are) and blindly defending UMD's ill-thought out statements, why don't you actually try to learn something.

[Buktop]

Buktop,

If you had read and understood any of these books, you wouldn't be putting forward your made up definitions (perhaps a concoction of google/dictionary/wikipedia info) that you are.

This is the second occasion that I have genuienly provided you with good reasearch material and you have ignored it in order to maintain your blind faith in yourself.

I have not made up any definitions, all of the definitions I have used are official, codified, and generally accepted definitions.

I have not ignored anything, I asked for YOUR opinion on how my notions on a Nation and a State differ from those Authors you referred to me, why is that so difficult?

[Buktop]

You are the only one here disputing a state in modern meaning, if you haven't noticed.

Well according to the definition of State that I asked you for, and that you provided me, you were also basing your arguments on the modern definition.

If you hold strictly onto definitions among which there are several different viewpoints and none can be accepted as ultimately right than your just a subject of succeful convincing, but not a right side.

We are speaking of a State, there is but one sense of the word State that was intended when the founding of the Macedonian one that took place in 1944 was mentioned in this thread.

The state can be defined as it was by several doctrines all chronologically and substantly different.

That is why I asked you, in the beginning of this thread which definition of State you were using, you gave me the definition of the modern sense, which is what we are discussing. Had you given me a different definition, this conversation would have taken a different course.

The purpose of this discussion did not intented an involvment in academic lecturing but since you insist attending this discussion you better sit and do your homework first.

my homework is long done, you need to specify which topic you are discussing because you are blurring the lines between apples and oranges.

The genesis of the definition of a state starts with Aristotel, Plato and Cicero, it continued with medieval doctrins 1.teological by St. Augustin and St. Tomas 2. pathriarchal by Robert Filmer 3. patrimonial led by Ludwig van Heller and later you have the recent or modern doctrins founded by Spinoza, T.Hobbes, J. Locke and J.J.Rousseau. Their opponents were E.Dhtringa and L. Gumplowicz.


You can define 5 types of definitions of a state:

1. Functional of XVII cent. led by Hugo Grotius and continuated by J.R.Pennock and D.G.Smith
2. Elementary - structural def. by Georg Jellinek (most popular)
3. Psychological def. founded by Leon Petrażycki
4. Sociological by W.Wesołowski very close to the approach of Aristotel
5.'Class' definition of K. Marks and F.Engels.


So, if you think the only problem in our discussion is a DEFINITION than here we are... I will wait for you to decide which one is accurate since obviously for you there is no use in using your own brain but following as mule and understanding nothing of what you follow.

This is exactly why I asked you to define which definition you were using. You provided me with the exact same definition and in the case of that definition your argument is not plausible. Why don't you respecify which definition you would like to use, rather than telling me one thing, and discussing another.

What now... we gonna run to the library and study or it's maybe way too late for that or we can simply agree that we cannot agree ?

If we cannot agree, then I must respect your decision.

I was underlining something different than just a definition but even if we chose to follow them there is nothing unchangably defined for eternity.

If you read what I posted before, but carefully and not in a hury to replay the opposite maybe we can set this discussion as gentelments do or you will remain on the dumb-deaf side.

I am all for gentlemanly discourse, I believe that we have reached a misunderstanding.

[Vangelovski]

Definition of a Nation;

A territorily-based community of human beings sharing a distinct variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity,and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government.

Konstantin Symmons-Symonolewicz

Hi TM,

Thats one definition of a nation. There are many definitions, some objective, some subjective, some with a combination of both markers. The real problem with the definitions of a nation (unlike the definitions of a state) is that it can be such a complex area that no one definition covers all examples of nations we have.

Until recently, one of my personal favourite definitions was:

A body of individuals who claim to be united by some set of characteristics that differentiate them from outsiders, who either strive to create or to maintain their own state.

But even this is problematic, because it excludes groups that are widely accepted as nations who are not attempting to create or maintain their own state - for example, the Macedonians in Pirin and Aegean. It also ignores self-identification where no objective characteristics are present - for examples Austrians vs Germans. And there is a conceptual dificulty with another abused term - ethnicity. Some like to deprive a group of 'nation status' if they are not actively seeking the creation/maintainance of a state by regulating their 'status' to an ethnie. Other than that, there is really no objective/subjective difference between a nation or an ethnie.

One of the key problems, in my view, with Symmons' definition is that he considers that a nation needs to be "territorily-based". This excludes the diaspora, which most scholars (and I think MTO) consider an integral part of the nation. Further, he uses "modern culture". What is "modern culture" and why does it have to be "modern"? I think only Symmons can answer that one. His definition is also self-contradictory in that if, in order to be a nation, a group needed to possess a "historically-rooted conciousness of national identity" then by definition (of many scholars) they would already be a nation. The other contradiction is that he calls for a "historically-rooted conciousness" on the on hand, but demands a "modern culture" on the other?

Just a few thoughts.

[Vangelovski]

The point is not about recognition by other states, it is about it's actual existence. Since when has there existed a self governing autonomous political entity called Macedonia?

There was on in ancient times...from circa 800 BC to circa 145 BC. This is exactly what the Metovisti like yourself ignore, while preferring the "self-governing autonomous political entity called Macedonia" that was established in 1944.

[Vangelovski]

Great, now perhaps you could tell me in your own opinion how my definition and analysis of the term State differ from anyone of these authors, I have actually read works from several of the authors.

Buktop,

If you had read and understood any of these books, you wouldn't be putting forward your made up definitions (perhaps a concoction of google/dictionary/wikipedia info) that you are.

This is the second occasion that I have genuienly provided you with good reasearch material and you have ignored it in order to maintain your blind faith in yourself.

[indigen]

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!

100 godini makedonska drzhavnost - 100 years of Macedonian statehood WAS an SDSm (and other sellouts) imposed slogan that many Macedonian patriots REJECTED and BOYCOTTED for EXACTLY the same reason that you say you prefer - MACDONIAN STATEHOOD TRADITION BEING OLDER THAN 2500 YEARS!

[Bratot]

Definition of a Nation;

A territorily-based community of human beings sharing a distinct variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity,and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government.

Konstantin Symmons-Symonolewicz

Very good one I must agree.

[Bratot]

The point is not about recognition by other states, it is about it's actual existence. Since when has there existed a self governing autonomous political entity called Macedonia?

You are the only one here disputing a state in modern meaning, if you haven't noticed.

If you hold strictly onto definitions among which there are several different viewpoints and none can be accepted as ultimately right than your just a subject of succeful convincing, but not a right side.

The state can be defined as it was by several doctrines all chronologically and substantly different.

The purpose of this discussion did not intented an involvment in academic lecturing but since you insist attending this discussion you better sit and do your homework first.

The genesis of the definition of a state starts with Aristotel, Plato and Cicero, it continued with medieval doctrins 1.teological by St. Augustin and St. Tomas 2. pathriarchal by Robert Filmer 3. patrimonial led by Ludwig van Heller and later you have the recent or modern doctrins founded by Spinoza, T.Hobbes, J. Locke and J.J.Rousseau. Their opponents were E.Dhtringa and L. Gumplowicz.


You can define 5 types of definitions of a state:

1. Functional of XVII cent. led by Hugo Grotius and continuated by J.R.Pennock and D.G.Smith
2. Elementary - structural def. by Georg Jellinek (most popular)
3. Psychological def. founded by Leon Petrażycki
4. Sociological by W.Wesołowski very close to the approach of Aristotel
5.'Class' definition of K. Marks and F.Engels.


So, if you think the only problem in our discussion is a DEFINITION than here we are... I will wait for you to decide which one is accurate since obviously for you there is no use in using your own brain but following as mule and understanding nothing of what you follow.


What now... we gonna run to the library and study or it's maybe way too late for that or we can simply agree that we cannot agree ?


I was underlining something different than just a definition but even if we chose to follow them there is nothing unchangably defined for eternity.

If you read what I posted before, but carefully and not in a hury to replay the opposite maybe we can set this discussion as gentelments do or you will remain on the dumb-deaf side.

[TrueMacedonian]

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3051

Daskalot's recent post on Macedonia being a Nation within the Yugoslav State is a good topic to look at. There are many many topics in the history section that show Macedonians from all eras fighting for freedom. Look at what happened during WWII when Macedonian Autonomists scared the Bulgarians and Tito when they were declaring their right for freedom. Any fool nowadays that still preaches the business that Tito "created" or "invented" Macedonia or the Macedonians is in for a very rude awakening if he/she crosses paths with this forum.

[TrueMacedonian]

Definition of a Nation;

A territorily-based community of human beings sharing a distinct variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity,and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government.

Konstantin Symmons-Symonolewicz