Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Buktop]

For fun I did an easy search on the internet for a definition and here's what this link states; http://geography.about.com/cs/politi...tatenation.htm

While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

THANK YOU TM!
Somebody finally decided to look up the definition... Even after I posted them several times.

Good find TM, that disproves the notion that Macedonia has been a state since 1944. Well done, the term state been able to be used interchangeably as country.

Perhaps Mastika can take note of this.

Julie, Since when has Macedonia been a self-governing political entity?

[julie]

Good find TM, that disproves the notion that Macedonia has been a state since 1944. Well done, the term state been able to be used interchangeably as country.

Perhaps Mastika can take note of this.

[TrueMacedonian]

For fun I did an easy search on the internet for a definition and here's what this link states; http://geography.about.com/cs/politi...tatenation.htm

While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

[Mikail]

You're right rogi. You know it's 5 years now that we have known each other. I found an article I saved about the Roma when I would have just started out on MakNews and it's dated 2005. AN interesting read, I'll put it up for all to look at.

[Rogi]

Volk,

What I do know is when to read and learn from those on this forum who are better read and more informed than I am on particular topics. That is, rather than argue without having an argument.

As for having an intricate knowledge of everyone here, it's only natural to pick up and to learn more about each person over the years of posting and reading. I just pay attention to what people post.

[Bratot]

You seem to be suggesting that a Macedonian state existed under Ottoman Rule. That is ficticious.

Lets cut the crap, you are not here to agree with me but to oppose, so don't waste your time in pretending to be stupid and not understanding.

Statehood exists under occupation, however it does not exist when an area is completely annexed and integrated into the conquering countries' realm. An example of this may be De Gaulle's Free French, however Macedonia until 1944 never had any governing body of its own claiming to represent the ethnic Macedonian people. There was no continuity of the State of Krali Marko (the last before Ottoman subjugation) under the Ottoman empire to even support your claim.

You see... you are walking contradiction, there were VAZALS even under Ottoman Occupation.. wait a second.. did I said occupation... or it would be annexation... hmm.. do you make a difference or your birdy brain is not programmed to follow this streaming?

There is volountary annexation and forcibly, the first is legal the second not and untill the organized resistance of the annexed territory exist in any form and not accepting the new authorities that provides a statehood continuity even if the country is annexed or occupated.

In order to have statehood you need to have some form of governing structures and features which define a country as a state. Macedonia until 1944 simply did not have any of this. You keep on raving about this state existing, well who was the leader of the state then? What did this state do? Where was its capital? How did it function? Please tell me, apparently alongside the Ottoman Empire there was another 'state' in power in Macedonia.

In order to stop making fool of yourself read some book, if you need a suggestion of a one let me know.

Untill then stop sweating my balls.

As for your last sentence, Yes, Macedonia's Geographical boundaries were drawn up, NOT the boundaries of any state.

The geographycal boundaries as you call them were not set by natural phenomen you dumbass, but emerged as historical product of the Macedonian Kingdom and were kept preserved untill today.

.

[Mastika]

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.

You seem to be suggesting that a Macedonian state existed under Ottoman Rule. That is ficticious.

Statehood exists under occupation, however it does not exist when an area is completely annexed and integrated into the conquering countries' realm. An example of this may be De Gaulle's Free French, however Macedonia until 1944 never had any governing body of its own claiming to represent the ethnic Macedonian people. There was no continuity of the State of Krali Marko (the last before Ottoman subjugation) under the Ottoman empire to even support your claim.

In order to have statehood you need to have some form of governing structures and features which define a country as a state. Macedonia until 1944 simply did not have any of this. You keep on raving about this state existing, well who was the leader of the state then? What did this state do? Where was its capital? How did it function? Please tell me, apparently alongside the Ottoman Empire there was another 'state' in power in Macedonia.

As for your last sentence, Yes, Macedonia's Geographical boundaries were drawn up, NOT the boundaries of any state.

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.

So what if they were fighting? Does this mean that a state apart from Ottoman Empire existed during this time? No! Just because some people did not accept the legitimacy of Ottoman rule doesnt mean that another state existed. If I get a few of my friends to stage a rebellion tomorrow does that mean we have our own state?

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?

South Australia is one of the 'states' of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a state within a commonwealth. It has formal structures and has been given the authority to undertake its own affairs in regards to say roads, schools etc. It has lineated borders and is an official entity. Pirin Macedonia was NOT an official entity, nor was it given the authority by its rulers to undertake its own affairs. Sure, Macedonians looked after some aspects of their life but they were at all times subject to the rule of the Sultan and it was him and his authorities that had the legal jurisdiction over the land.

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?

If you disagree when that this is when it was founded when exactly was it founded? A group of people with shared customs and language living together is an example of a community, not a state.

[Bratot]

Again and again you miss the point, and honestly I'm tired of explaining over and over again.

I don't know why I bothered myself at first place, stick to w/e you like.

[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.

[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]

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?

[julie]

Bratot, as always, fantastic post

[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.

[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]

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.