Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Vangelovski]

Buktop,

As promised, here is some reading material for you. I recommend that you start with the first one in order to gain a minimal understanding of some of the most basic concepts and terminology. Don’t be put off by some of the titles (or covers), they contain very good discussions on states and another concept you struggle with – nations.

Heywood, A., 2000, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Beetham, D., 1991, The Legitimisation of Power, Macmillan, London.

Dunleavy, P. & O’Leary B., 1987, Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy, Macmillan, London.

Flatham, R., 1980, The Practice of Political Authority, Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Freedman, M., 1996, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach, Clarendon, Oxford.

Green, L., 1988, The Authority of the State, Clarendon, Oxford.

Baycroft, T., 1998, Nationalism in Europe, 1789-1945, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brubaker, R., 1996, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Conner, W., “The Nation and its Myth”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 1/2, January 1992, pp. 48-57.

Day, G. & Thompson, A., 2004, Theorizing Nationalism, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire.

Eley, G. & Suny, R. (eds.), 1996, Becoming National: A Reader, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gellner, E., 1983, Nations and Nationalism, Blackwell, Oxford.

Hutchinson, J. & Smith, A. (eds.), 1994, Nationalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Smith, A., 1981, The Ethnic Revival, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Smith, A., 1999, Myths and Memories of the Nation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Smith, A., 2000, The Nation in History: Historiograhpical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism, University Press of New England, Hanover.

Smith, A., 1991, National Identity, Penguin Books, London.

[Vangelovski]

The Pirin region has been described as "a State within a State" many times.

The problem here is UMD's and Buktop's very narrow and revisionist definition of what constituese "a State".

UMD, and its cheerleaders, have consistently attempted to convince us that Macedonian history began somewhere in the 19th century, calling any discussion of earlier history as "antiquitisation" and making the claim that the FIRST Macedonian state to call itself "Macedonia" was the one established in 1944.

[makedonche]

Mastika
I understand the points you raise, I hope you understand the issues I have raised in relation to Bratot's post and it's interpretation.

Quote:
"I do remember that 100 years of statehood was celebrated in 2003. However, a Macedonian state simply did not exist during 1903-1944."

It begs the question then, what were we celebrating, and on what basis?

Quote:
"As for the last part of your post. Yes the Macedonians may have run the local village amenities etc. 200 years ago. however we were apart of the Ottoman Empire. That was the state that ruled Macedonia for 500 years. Yes some parts of the country were run by the Macedonians, but Macedonia was ruled by the Turks."

Would you consider that South Australia - a state - has it's own government but is still ruled by Australia (Canberra- the National Body), and that this gives rise to potential state within a state structure?

Quote:
"The modern Macedonian "state" was founded in 1944. This is fact, whether people like it or not."

I disagree, I think this only applies if you are prepared to accept modern day definitions of what a state is. If for example the definition of a state, by Macedonian standards, is one which is established by having over a hundred Macedonians living within 5km of each other for more than 1 year, then we have had statehood for much longer. The question is what makes the modern day definitions correct?

Quote:
"I think a good comparison to Macedonia 1913 is Kurdistan 2010. The Kurdish people are a nation without a state. The same goes for Macedonia c.1900, we were a nation, however we had no state of our own. "
I can see how this comparison was arrived at quite logically, however I would strongly disagree that it is a good one, from a Macedonians perspective anyway!

[Mikail]

I would ask you, if you have not yet, to have a read of the articles I posted at Some Macedonian Truths http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=3200

There appear to be Macedonians still with the Kolishevski view point

The events surrounding the formation of the Macedonian state within Jugoslavia in 1944 did not work positively for Macedonians.

The Truth is out there, only if you care to find it.

Events in 1944 worked against us!

[Rogi]

Tom,

You are the one here with the academic credentials to back up what you are saying, perhaps you can share that background too so that those who may be posting, without really having any substantive understanding of the concepts, yet still argue, may actually read and consider, rather than argue and debate blindly and for the sake of it.

[Vangelovski]

Tom,

You are the one here with the academic credentials to back up what you are saying, perhaps you can share that background too so that those who may be posting, without really having any substantive understanding of the concepts, yet still argue, may actually read and consider, rather than argue and debate blindly and for the sake of it.

Rogi,

Even if I did post my 'credentials' I don't think it would make a difference in this case. The UMD cheerleaders are so unashamed that they blatantly dismiss logic itself - I doubt making my credentials known to them would make any difference. Besides, you're about to witness Buktop ignore the well-informed and well-researched theories and arguments of internationally respected scholars of nationalism and political science, why would he listen to me a lowly cleaner from the ACT

At least their uninformed and contradictory arguments and theories show their level of "competance" and provide an insight to the public of the calibre of "professionalism" within the organisation of late...

[Babazuba]

Slavs are not the owners of Macedonian land
or history and heritage. Macedonians do not
derive from Slavic nation, So how can it be
posible to call ancient Macedonian descendants
Slavs. Lespa? As for north Macedonia, its a
danger waiting to happen.

[Volk]

Tom,

You are the one here with the academic credentials to back up what you are saying, perhaps you can share that background too so that those who may be posting, without really having any substantive understanding of the concepts, yet still argue, may actually read and consider, rather than argue and debate blindly and for the sake of it.

That says something about your opinion of this forum.. I did not know you knew everyone here so intricately.

[Bratot]

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.

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.

If you don't understand what I'm saying don't make a fictional replay to my post.

I'm more aware of the history and the widely accepted understanding of a statehood continuity.

In short, a statehood form continue to exist even if the state falls under the occupation or annexation but the ppl does not accept that forcely imposed authority of the allien country and if there is constant resistance with striving to restoration, reestablishment of the previous souvereignty boundaries.

That's how it's internationally perceived and that give a legitime right of certain group of ppl to proclaim a state on the basis of the ongoing tendency to restore their previous state boundaries.

Macedonian boundaries were more less precizely drawn since the kingdom of Philip and later as part of the Roman province, kept in that form by the tetrarchy of his brothers and the monarchy of his own as Samoil kingdom, than the Ochrid Archbishopric, the Karposh uprising, Kresna, Razlog etc. etc. up to Ilinden and ASNOM.

[Bratot]

Pelister, just because they were governing their own affairs at a local level doesnt mean that they were in their own state. They were apart of the Ottoman empire. They were subjects of the Sultan. I am struggling to see why people cannot comprehend this?!

You are struggling only your insufficient knowledge, Macedonian territory was annexed forcely and Macedonian resistance continued on the tendency of fighting for the freedom, authonomy of the historical boundaries of the region within which the ppl are identifying themselfs with and that means there was not given legitimacy of the occupation nor annexation.

[Bratot]

About the 100 years of modern statehood that we celebrated in 2003:


"...International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law."

Source: The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press, James Crawford (2005).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutive_theory_of_statehood

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States(1933) declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states.

Moreover, the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states. Indeed, according to the Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention): "Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit...."

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug01/beres.htm

So, that's why we celebrated those 100 since the Krushevo Republic, as statehood defined by the modern International Law.

[julie]

Bratot, as always, fantastic post

[Volk]

Macedonian territory was annexed forcely and Macedonian resistance continued on the tendency of fighting for the freedom, authonomy of the historical boundaries of the region within which the ppl are identifying themselfs with and that means there was not given legitimacy of the occupation nor annexation.

Bratot no one is denying this... The most basic meaning of a nation state, is a nation that governs itself and has recognized boundaries. Macedonia did have recognized boundaries (as far as I am aware) within the Ottoman empire however it did not rule itself, nor did it have autonomy which means it is not considered a state during this period of time. This means Macedonia has not always been a state since ancient times.

I would like to know of 1 State in the world that has?

[Bratot]

Bratot no one is denying this... The most basic meaning of a nation state, is a nation that governs itself and has recognized boundaries. Macedonia did have recognized boundaries (as far as I am aware) within the Ottoman empire however it did not rule itself, nor did it have autonomy which means it is not considered a state during this period of time. This means Macedonia has not always been a state since ancient times.

I would like to know of 1 State in the world that has?

It's crucial how you define it, we are not talking about existance of a state in continuity but a state under occupation and annexation, which does not deny the statehood itself of the country if the population does not accept the imposed authorities and show resistance, more to add is the striving to reestablishment of the previous boundaries.

That's why we celebrated 100 years of statehood and not 58 in 2003.

And we have many other examples of Macedonian emmigration as authoritative represetatives of the occupied Macedonia declaring themselfs as a government and seeking autonomy of Macedonia.

If you study the Macedonian insurections and proclamations you can follow this continuity of recalling the same historical boundaries since very very old times.


May it be for some of you an unrealistic definition but Macedonia is very unique example in history preserving it's boundaries, territorial unit, which is the basic and main element of founding a state, than it's the ongoing population and identification with the statehood and the struggle to preserve and defend.

[Volk]

Bratot, There is a difference between having a state and fighting to have one. This is the whole point of the insurrection.

Generally this whole discussion is defined by ones perception of the meaning of what a state is, although there are clear cut guidelines that I outlined in my previous post.