Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[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.

[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]

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.

.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Buktop]

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.

Rogi, just because you know Vangelovski and assume that his "qualifications" make him the authority and only informed person on this topic say's a great deal about you. I am very surprised, especially when Vangelovski hasn't really said much in this thread besides insults.

[Buktop]

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".

Whether or not it was described as such it did not exist as a State. Local level self government was still overseen by the Turkish officials, meaning a Macedonian sovereign political entity did not exist.

Have a look at the definition of State, there is an official definition, and you should take the time to learn it.

[Buktop]

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.

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]

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.

Please go back and reread everything I have posted and stop trying to lie and say that we deny the historical existence of Macedonian history. If this is the type of game you like to play then you are not worth my time.

[Buktop]

I am really growing tired of having to repeat myself so many times, can everyone please do themselves a favor and READ the DEFINITION of State, THANK YOU!

[Buktop]

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.

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?

[Daskalot]

Buktop, you are pouring gasoline on our neighbors fire, in my honorable opinion.
What is your aim? What are you striving to accomplish with this debate?