Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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).

[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!

[Vangelovski]

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,

Read the books and you'll see for yourself - at the moment your "notions" are beyond ridiculous. Though, I'll give you credit for your most recent definition of a state where you finally acknowledge that the 1944 state was NOT the FIRST and hence you have gone against your Metovist tendancies.

[TrueMacedonian]

Prolet,

We have people (that you support) that argue that we only officially began using our state name in 1944/45 - as if the name "Macedonia" was never used by a Macedonian state prior to that year. Even worse, this group has at times argued that we 'chose that name in 1991'. Take a guess who's run that line and remained silent when questioned on it? I'll give you a hint - its initials are UMD. It's also interesting that they have run this line of arguement:

The Republic of Macedonia has always taken the position that it does not hold exclusive rights over the name Macedonia in geographic, cultural, historic, or commercial terms.



Shared history, shared geography, shared culture. Sounds like UMD believes the Macedonians and Greeks are the same people.

Unfortunately too many Macedonian politicians have stated that Macedonia does not hold anything exclusively. No Macedonian politician has actually put the arguement forward to their southern neighbors that the majority of the people living in Aegean Macedonia are recent imports who have nothing to do with historical Macedonia except live in it today.

[Mastika]

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.

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.

Im not pretending to be stupid I am making a valid point. Yes there is a difference between occupation and annexation. Macedonia was annexed to the Ottoman Empire. It became a core part of its domain. Macedonia was a vassal ONLY under Krale Marko, after that it became a annexed to the ottoman empire. That was the END of any local state in Macedonia until what Karposh managed to achieve in 1689.

Then you are suggesting that to show continuity for a state, there needs to be some form of organised resistance againt the Ottoman Empire. Lets see, in the hundreds of years after the end of Krale Marko's reign there were no attempts to try and revive his kingdom and crown one of his descendants king. You have absolutely no evidence for what is coming out of your mouth given that during the 500 years of Ottoman rule Macedonia was not a self-governing entity (State) nor were there efforts to bring back the last one (Kingdom of Prilep).

Contrary to any historical facts you keep bringing up this 'State' and then try to treat me as a fool. Sram da ti e.

[sf.]

But you see, this is how our dear neighbors like to see it, the Macedonian State was "created" and Tito also "created" us Macedonians with the stroke of a pen.

Regardless of how we phrase the creation/formation of the modern Macedonian state, our opponents that hold the above retarded views will continue to do so. In the sphere of public opinion, we need to counter their arguments logically and truthfully, not with absurd counter-claims. Judging by some of the posts in this thread, I fear that many Macedonians lack this ability.

[indigen]

Regardless of how we phrase the creation/formation of the modern Macedonian state, our opponents that hold the above retarded views will continue to do so. In the sphere of public opinion, we need to counter their arguments logically and truthfully, not with absurd counter-claims. Judging by some of the posts in this thread, I fear that many Macedonians lack this ability.

Would you care to expand on what arguments are "absurd" and what are "logical and truthful"?

Judging by your previous posts, I suspect that you are just another UMD vojnik/strojnik and apologist, like Buktop and Mastika, attempting to promote a CAPITULATIONIST program that is inherently anti-Macedonian.

[indigen]

"...The western powers, including Russia, convened in Berlin on June 13th, 1878 and by July 13th they had concluded, among other things, to allow Bulgaria to become an autonomous state and to give Macedonia back to the Turks. So Macedonia was free from the Ottomans for 132 days from March 3rd, 1878, when the San Stefano Treaty was signed, to July 13th, 1878 when Congress of Berlin decided to give it back to the Ottomans....

....Dissatisfied with the way the reforms were carried out, particularly by the attitude of the Great Powers, Macedonian leaders began to look inwards to find a solution to their problems.

A number of prominent leader....got together and held a National Assembly from May 21st to June 2nd, 1880 in Gremen, Ostrovo Region (Aegean Macedonia). Among other things, one of the items on the agenda was the Macedonian situation after the Berlin Congress. On this item the Congress concluded that the reason Macedonia was given back to the Ottomans was because of the neighbouring propaganda, mainly that of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, which falsely represented the ethnic composition of the Macedonian population. The Congress came to the conclusion that once the foreign propaganda was exposed and neutralized, the Macedonian people would have a better chance of uniting behind a Macedonian cause and creating an Autonomous Macedonian state within the Ottoman Empire or creating a Macedonian independent state. The Assembly also decided to challenge Ottoman authorities on articles 23 and 62 of the Treaty of Berlin which called for political and religious rights for the Macedonian people. If those rights were ignored then the Macedonians would have no other choice but to arm themselves and fight under the slogan "Macedonia to the Macedonians, for reestablishing Ancient Macedonia". (Vanche Stojchev. "Military History of Macedonia". Military academy. Skopje, 2004. Page 252)....."

Macedonian Struggle for Independence
By Risto Stefov

--------------

RULES OF THE MACEDONIAN REBEL COMMITTEE (923) 1878
The Macedonian Rebel Committee codifies,
It is well-known to all of us that this ill-fated country of ours, Macedonia, owing to the egoistic aims of the Great Powers, was again left to Turkey after the Congress of Berlin.
As a result of that, in certain regions of our fatherland many scenes full of blood, know to all of us, took place. Desiring to throw off the Turkish yoke from our fatherland, each one of us, as much as possible. Rose up to sacrifice himself, since help was needed from each of us. We rebelled as advocates of freedom. With the blood we shed allover the Macedonian fields and forests, we serve freedom, as the Macedonian army of Alexander of Macedon did, with our slogan “Freedom or Death!” Yet, owing to the events and the liberation of a great number of villages by our rebels, and the crying need to introduce order in the areas where the rebels are in action, we have decided to proclaim certain rules of the Macedonian Rebel Committee, or rather a Constitution, to which we shall all conform and the rules of which we shall all observe till the liberation of the whole of our fatherland, Macedonia.

(923) These Rules of the Macedonian Rebel Committee were proclaimed at the time when the Macedonian (Kresna) Uprising was at its height. They represented a programme of the Macedonian national liberation movement, which at the period of the Eastern Crisis meant an important event in the struggle for liberation of the Macedonian people.
(Page 267, The University of “Cyril and Methodius”, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume I)

Something worth pondering about.

[Pelister]

We have people (that you support) that argue that we only officially began using our state name in 1944/45 - as if the name "Macedonia" was never used by a Macedonian state prior to that year. Even worse, this group has at times argued that we 'chose that name in 1991'. Take a guess who's run that line and remained silent when questioned on it? I'll give you a hint - its initials are UMD. It's also interesting that they have run this line of arguement

UMD have been undermining the determination of many Macedonians who ask for nothing more than some justice at the injustices committed against them and just a little bit of historical perspective. The problem is that UMD (and its disciples like Buktop) don't give a toss about history. They have their eyes set on our admission to the E.U - (their Holy Grail) and make the case that the negotiations are the only way to get there. Their whole point is that politics can and will overcome this historical dispute through compromise. When UMD write our history it is severely clipped (censored is probably a better word) because they are writing to and for a Western audience. UMD want to be seen as the "soft-side" of Macedonia - it is supposed to represent and stand for our (Macedonians) willingness to compromise and willingness to appease Western demands. That is all UMD is about. That is why Meto Koloski was calling for a name change, because the West was calling for a name change.

Ultiamtely Meto Koloski is a Macedonian working for foriegn interests that want us wiped out.