Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[sf.]

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.

No, not really. You're very quick to judge and throw accusations, all based on your interpretation and extrapolation of history into current political consequences/meaning. You believe in a neat historical narrative, and knowing that you're a Macedonian patriot, have deemed anyone who strays from or criticises aspects of this narrative as treacherous to the Macedonian cause. So now I'm an UMD-ovist promoting a capitulationist program.

[Bratot]

Im not pretending to be stupid I am making a valid point.

Yes you are pretending(or maybe it's simply a fact) even in this post and making a valid point from something understands that you have got the true point of what I've said, though you don't.

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.

Again... Macedonia was first occupied and than annexed and that was not a volountary annexation.
So, the international military laws(even that contemporary) are clearly saying that until there is a organized and constant resistance from the subject of occupation or annexetion the statehood and legimity does not cease but continue so long as there is resistance and striving for reestablishment of autonoumous state.

That's the case with Macedonians on Macedonian territory no matter who occupied or annexed the whole or the parts of it and there are no time limits.

Then you are suggesting that to show continuity for a state, there needs to be some form of organised resistance againt the Ottoman Empire.

And here you make another stupid presumption in order to invent a suitable replay on something I never stated.

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).

Macedonia was not a self-governing entity and was not a state but nor the Ottoman rule was legal and did not expressed the population desire in this area, which one is too hard to understand?

It's the same case with every other country that was occupied and annexed by Germany in Europe, it's the same with every country that was under Austro-Hungarian rule for whole 10 centuries where the statehood legimity did not ceased.

There was no a legal transition of a statehood from the previous self-governing entity.

Capisco?

The statehood continuity is based on the right of self-determination, consequently there have to exist such aspirations of the communities for the purpose of creating a State.

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

The next stupid replay of yours will be just ignored and you can answer your inventions for yourself.

[Orfej]

Yes you are pretending(or maybe it's simply a fact) even in this post and making a valid point from something understands that you have got the true point of what I've said, though you don't.



Again... Macedonia was first occupied and than annexed and that was not a volountary annexation.
So, the international military laws(even that contemporary) are clearly saying that until there is a organized and constant resistance from the subject of occupation or annexetion the statehood and legimity does not cease but continue so long as there is resistance and striving for reestablishment of autonoumous state.

That's the case with Macedonians on Macedonian territory no matter who occupied or annexed the whole or the parts of it and there are no time limits.



And here you make another stupid presumption in order to invent a suitable replay on something I never stated.



Macedonia was not a self-governing entity and was not a state but nor the Ottoman rule was legal and did not expressed the population desire in this area, which one is too hard to understand?

It's the same case with every other country that was occupied and annexed by Germany in Europe, it's the same with every country that was under Austro-Hungarian rule for whole 10 centuries where the statehood legimity did not ceased.

There was no a legal transition of a statehood from the previous self-governing entity.

Capisco?

The statehood continuity is based on the right of self-determination, consequently there have to exist such aspirations of the communities for the purpose of creating a State.




The next stupid replay of yours will be just ignored and you can answer your inventions for yourself.

Bratot I think the ``continuation theories`` (of states and nations) are being labeled as absurd for a long time, at least by the academic community. They were dominant when nation-states started to form and that was in the end of the 18 and beginning of the 19 century. You, many others and even states (particularly in the Balkans) still try to cling on to such theories which supposedly are the corner-stone of every nation. We, the Macedonians are not excluded. We are just following our neighbors, trying to beat them in who will make a more stupid claim. The Greeks for example have `` our state is a continuation of the Ancient Greek state(which in fact never existed)`` while we have `` our state is a continuation of the Ancient Macedonian one``. Both claims are beyond reasoning even if we take your thoughts into consideration!! Here’s how you try to explain the existence of the Macedonian statehood trough the centuries:

Again... Macedonia was first occupied and than annexed and that was not a volountary annexation.
So, the international military laws(even that contemporary) are clearly saying that until there is a organized and constant resistance from the subject of occupation or annexetion the statehood and legimity does not cease but continue so long as there is resistance and striving for reestablishment of autonoumous state.

Now I would like from you to explain how would this apply to the period from 146 BC up to 976 AD. That’s the period between the end of the Ancient Macedonian state and the beginning of the Tzar Samuil state. A period of about 11 centuries of occupation for the Macedonian people- as you put it!! Tell us how many organized resistance and rebellions were there in this huge period of 1100 years?

[Vangelovski]

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).

TM,

Without further explanation, I'm not really sure what Symmons means in some parts of his definition. He seems to be part of the school of thought that defines nationalism as a 'movement' (see below). It also seems that he's saying that a nationalist movement's key aim is to achieve "unity and self-direction" - whatever that means??

Without knowing much about his work, he sounds like he adhere's to another particular school of thought (which I won't comment on just yet).

The three key definitions look at nationalism as basically ONE of the following (they are fundamentally different):

1. a 'patriotic sentiment', a sense of pride and loyalty to both state and nation;

2. a movement; and

3. a doctrine/worldview with a set of core values.

Personally, the theory that nationalism is a 'movement' (and the one supported by Symmons) is least appealing to me - the theoretical waffle and empirical evidence to support it, in my view, is fairly light. Though, other than Smith, few scholars have put much effort into providing a well-reasoned and a well-researched discussion on WHAT nationalism is.

[Mastika]

"Bratot" I am not going to continue discussing this with you until you stop labelling others and until you actually back up anything of what you have said with historical actualities and happenings, and not what you wished had occured/existed.

[Bratot]

Bratot I think the ``continuation theories`` (of states and nations) are being labeled as absurd for a long time, at least by the academic community. They were dominant when nation-states started to form and that was in the end of the 18 and beginning of the 19 century. You, many others and even states (particularly in the Balkans) still try to cling on to such theories which supposedly are the corner-stone of every nation. We, the Macedonians are not excluded. We are just following our neighbors, trying to beat them in who will make a more stupid claim. The Greeks for example have `` our state is a continuation of the Ancient Greek state(which in fact never existed)`` while we have `` our state is a continuation of the Ancient Macedonian one``. Both claims are beyond reasoning even if we take your thoughts into consideration!! Here’s how you try to explain the existence of the Macedonian statehood trough the centuries:

That's how you perceive the history and claiming that something did not existed because of the lack of evidences doesn't also mean evidence of unexistence.

The history as a science is a selective one and the things we know are only fragments of a broader developments in the suggested period.

It's up to you and me how we can define those fragments on the assumption that they are only a slice of the whole circumstances.

Now I would like from you to explain how would this apply to the period from 146 BC up to 976 AD. That’s the period between the end of the Ancient Macedonian state and the beginning of the Tzar Samuil state. A period of about 11 centuries of occupation for the Macedonian people- as you put it!! Tell us how many organized resistance and rebellions were there in this huge period of 1100 years?

Enough to gain civil freedom and semi-authonomous rule under the Roman Empire.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K0I6MLFjuxkC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=macedonian+resistance+against+Roman&source=bl&ots=dYK_PuJmWY&sig=W8ZszOwgw3Vn4MxwIR_sYwqDGpI&hl=pl&ei=j7jAS4nCAtyUONfopJcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=macedonian%20resistance%20against%20Roman&f=false

Also you can simply google for the: civil wars of the late Roman Republic.

Roman Empire can be defined as ancient federation, where Macedonia remained as a territorial unit.

With Justinian begins a new trend...

[Buktop]

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.

I am asking for your opinion Vangelovski, not the opinion of a book. I will gladly read them once you can identify the differences in my notions and the authors.

You label my notions ridiculous, yet you are unable to substantiate your claims, or rather choose not to. Can you point to specific points in my notions that are ridiculous?

Once again, in a broader sense of the definition of State, we may label ancient entities as States, but this in no way connects the modern State with the Ancient. Even looking at historical contexts with modern concepts causes discrepancies. The Identity and the territory are proven to be continuous, evidence of a related line of States however is lacking.

[Vangelovski]

I am asking for your opinion Vangelovski, not the opinion of a book. I will gladly read them once you can identify the differences in my notions and the authors.

You label my notions ridiculous, yet you are unable to substantiate your claims, or rather choose not to. Can you point to specific points in my notions that are ridiculous?

Once again, in a broader sense of the definition of State, we may label ancient entities as States, but this in no way connects the modern State with the Ancient. Even looking at historical contexts with modern concepts causes discrepancies. The Identity and the territory are proven to be continuous, evidence of a related line of States however is lacking.

Buktop,

First you claimed that you've read these books, now you say you'll only read them if I tell you which parts!?!?

Its difficult to be specific about which part of your idea of states and nations are wrong as you change your understanding with every post. And although your understanding changes, it does not improve. This is because you refuse to do any research, rather, you're relying on your own preconcieved (uninformed and ill-reasoned) ideas and attempting to defend Meto at the same time. In a nutshell, your understanding of what a state IS and what a nation IS, is funamendally wrong.

As I suggested in my post with the references to those books, you should read that first one - its nicely set out, providing short (1-3 pages) discussions on each key concept. You should read the section titled "State", its only 3 pages long. You can find the page number in at the front in the "Table of Contents". For further, and more detailed information, you should read the following books on states. The second half of that list relates to nations.

The good thing about these particular books, and most academic works, is that they don't only put forward their theories (however well-reasoned they may be), but they actually test them against real case studies and then have them peer reviewed (by critics). In contrast, when relying on Google information, most of it is garbage someone wrote off the top of their heads, which neither makes any sense or has any basis in reality. I think that is the most important thing that you need to know. That's why if you want to be serious in your debate, you should refer to scholarly work - not to 'look' smart, but to actually make sense.

[makedonche]

Buktop
You asked for these reference materials, they have been provided so at the very least you should go and read them and then make your posts!

[Phoenix]

The problem is that UMD (and its disciples like Buktop) don't give a toss about history.

I beg to differ Pelister, I would argue that Buktop is quite an accomplished tosser...

[Soldier of Macedon]

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

What does it say? And why is it a concern (or suprise) for you that Rogi is familiar with others here so 'intricately'? Were you supposed to know?

Officially meaning that we attained an independent state, before then there was no state, just like Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832......

Refer me to the evidence where there was a continued unofficial reference to Hellas or Hellenes prior to the 1800's, as this will validate your point about the parallel made with Greece.

This was the case too in Albania, Greece of 1830, Bulgaria of 1878, however not to the extent as it was in Macedonia.

Macedonia was more diverse in 1900 than Greece was in 1830? Can you show me the population census', demographic statistics or any other material that corroborates your assertion?

Nonetheless, it is the word Macedonia which has gone down in history due to its diversity and cultural abundance.

That is one interpretation from people who didn't recognise the Macedonian identity, why are you espousing their arguments?

The state of Philip II was a state for the Ancient Macedonians, not what we are today, which is Modern Macedonians. We are our own people with our own customs, language, traditions, religion etc., however some of our descent lies with the Ancient Macedonians.

Whatever heritage there is of the ancient Macedonians in modern populations, cultural, genetic or otherwise, it is the Macedonians of today who carry the greatest share. I don't see a break, like you seem to do, I see evolution. Your efforts to distance the Macedonians of today from their history in the past, be it ancient or medieval, are misguided.

Marko was a medieval king ruling parts of Macedonia. He was not "the King of Macedonia" and was never titled as such.

Your technicalities are irrelevant, RoM is also "parts of Macedonia", yet still, a Macedonian state. Marko was indeed the king of Macedonia, irrespective if such a title wasn't in existence during that period, you may want to look a little deeper.

There were many medieval kings and princes who ruled over Macedonia, however none ruled the Kingdom of Macedonia.

Marko's was a kingdom in Macedonia, consisting of Macedonian territory, it wasn't a peripheral region that was ruled by somebody with no ties to the region.

What do I consider Krali Marko as? Hmm, Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgarian? None. The modern nation states which arose from the 18th-20th centuries simply did not exist in the 1300s. It would be wrong to associate any historical figure with a movement/nationalism that simply did not exist in their lifetime.

I don't cosider the Macedonian identity a "movement", I consider it a continued reality for centuries that has evolved over time, that has been overshadowed by other elements during certain periods, but one that has never died. I consider Marko a figure more relevant to Macedonians than any Serbs or Bulgars. His state was in Macedonia, his capital was in the Macedonian city of Prilep, his citizens and soldiers were therefore of Macedonia, he is also identified in church frescoes with Macedonian saints such as Clement of Ohrid. If any nation of today has a legitimate right to consider Marko an ancestor and significant part of their heritage, it is the Macedonians.

[Orfej]

That's how you perceive the history and claiming that something did not existed because of the lack of evidences doesn't also mean evidence of unexistence.

The history as a science is a selective one and the things we know are only fragments of a broader developments in the suggested period.

It's up to you and me how we can define those fragments on the assumption that they are only a slice of the whole circumstances.

It’s true!! History is both selective and subjective! Still some subjective thoughts are in conflict with pure logic and rational way of thinking!! The ``continuation theories`` of the nation and state through time(as far as 300 or 500 BC) is one of them. Furthermore those are the theories in which the selective approach flourishes. Emphasizing one thing, while ``forgetting`` dozen others which contradict with it. Clinging on to them like ``davenik za stap `` is not something that a free mind should do.

Enough to gain civil freedom and semi-authonomous rule under the Roman Empire.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K0I6MLFjuxkC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=macedonian+resistance+against+Roman&source=bl&ots=dYK_PuJmWY&sig=W8ZszOwgw3Vn4MxwIR_sYwqDGpI&hl=pl&ei=j7jAS4nCAtyUONfopJcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=macedonian%20resistance%20against%20Roman&f=false

Civil freedom yes, but as citizens of Rome, not of Macedonia!! They obeyed Roman laws, paid taxes to Rome etc. And Macedonia was never a semi-autonomous state. It was just a province governed by a Roman proconsul elected by the Roman Senate. So what kind of sovereignty did Macedonia had when it’s consuls were elected by the Roman senate??

And the link that you provided speaks about the period up to 148 BC. I was speaking about the period from 148 BC up to 972 AD. That's the period where your explanation doesn't make any sence.

[Mastika]

Macedonia was more diverse in 1900 than Greece was in 1830? Can you show me the population census', demographic statistics or any other material that corroborates your assertion?

I managed to name over 20 cultural/religious groups living in the Macedonia of 1900. As for those who lived in Greece of 1830; Orthodox Greeks, Muslims Turks, Orthodox Albanians/Arvanites, Muslim Greeks, Orthodox Aromanians (if there were any in the extreme north of the country), Catholic Greeks, Jewish Romaniots and Orthodox Armenians. Have I missed any out? I do not have time to go trawling through the internet looking for sources, however I am sure that you will bombard me with many showing the truly Albanian nature of the Greek state etc. etc. My point is that Macedonia of 1900 was less ethnically homogenous in regards to the number of different cultures coexisting and operating (not like in the case of Greece of 1830 where is was largely Greek with some Albanian).

Although I do not like it, the Wikipedia page [Demographic history of Macedonia] gives a number of different views regarding the ethnic composition of Macedonia at the time and will save me listing them all here.

That is one interpretation from people who didn't recognise the Macedonian identity, why are you espousing their arguments?

What argument? That Macedonia was a "mixed salad"? It has been for hundreds of years and hopefully will always be. Are you suggesting that it is not a 'mixed salad'?

Whatever heritage there is of the ancient Macedonians in modern populations, cultural, genetic or otherwise, it is the Macedonians of today who carry the greatest share. I don't see a break, like you seem to do, I see evolution. Your efforts to distance the Macedonians of today from their history in the past, be it ancient or medieval, are misguided.

You are right about us having the greatest share of the legacy of the Ancient Macedonians. Does this make them us? No. We are own people only partly descended from them with our own language and culture, these people lived 2000 years ago for heavens sake. Should we be proud of them? Yes, of course they are apart of our history. Should we live in their shadow? No, we have no reason to live in the shadow of a people who disapeared thousands of years ago. I reject the notion of some claiming that we are the direct and "cisti" descendants of these people. Interesting how we try to avoid claiming descent from less glorious nations who ruled over Macedonia, sadly many people are obsessed with competing with the prostotija which is espoused by many Greeks, in some sort of attempt of proving how much older/better we are then them, when in reality we should look to the present rather then the past to do this.

Your technicalities are irrelevant, RoM is also "parts of Macedonia", yet still, a Macedonian state. Marko was indeed the king of Macedonia, irrespective if such a title wasn't in existence during that period, you may want to look a little deeper.

In the case of titles technicalities are relevant. Marko was the King of Prilep and ruled that Kingdom. The only such Kingdom of Macedonia/Macedon was the one that existed in the ancient era. As for your RoM example, Mount Athos could declare independance tomorrow it too would be a "Macedonian state", but unlike RoM it wouldn't be an "ethnic Macedonian State".

Marko's was a kingdom in Macedonia, consisting of Macedonian territory, it wasn't a peripheral region that was ruled by somebody with no ties to the region.

Stefan Dushan's capital was in the Macedonian city of Skopje. He proclaimed himself emperor in Ser. Does this mean that he was somebody with no ties to the region? Does this mean he was ethnically Macedonian? No, such a concept didn't exist back then. Neither did other modern concepts of nationalism such as being "ethnically Greek" or "ethnically Bulgarian" (before somebody accuses me of working for their interests). Constantine Dragas probably ruled a similar amount of Macedonia as did Krale Marko, we dont suddenly claim direct descendence from his realm either.

I don't cosider the Macedonian identity a "movement", I consider it a continued reality for centuries that has evolved over time, that has been overshadowed by other elements during certain periods, but one that has never died. I consider Marko a figure more relevant to Macedonians than any Serbs or Bulgars. His state was in Macedonia, his capital was in the Macedonian city of Prilep, his citizens and soldiers were therefore of Macedonia, he is also identified in church frescoes with Macedonian saints such as Clement of Ohrid. If any nation of today has a legitimate right to consider Marko an ancestor and significant part of their heritage, it is the Macedonians.

Of course he is relevant to us, our nation state occupies the area which his realm did 600 years ago. I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be proud of him however I am suggesting that we should treat him as a medieval Macedonian, not an 'ethnic Macedonian', there is a difference. Ideologies such as Macedonism/Macedonian nationalism, Serbian nationalism etc. etc. simply did not exist back then and it is these ideas that have given rise to people calling themselves 'ethnically this' or 'ethnically that'.

I disagree with you in regards to Macedonian identity as not being a movement. Personally I believe that the nationalism/ethnic identity assertion of the past/present will eventually give way to much broader identifiers which is already happening in many parts of the world for example. 1. due to mass intermarriage between different groups and 2. the arising of pan-ethnicity and regional affiliation above that of national ones. All movements run their course (nationalism being one) and if conflict doesn't break out to reassert this nationalism and patriotism (as is the case across history), there is no reason to suggest that maybe in 100 years time our great-grandchildren will identify firstly not as ethnically this or that but as "European", "Australian", "American".

[Bratot]

It’s true!! History is both selective and subjective! Still some subjective thoughts are in conflict with pure logic and rational way of thinking!! The ``continuation theories`` of the nation and state through time(as far as 300 or 500 BC) is one of them. Furthermore those are the theories in which the selective approach flourishes. Emphasizing one thing, while ``forgetting`` dozen others which contradict with it.

If you pay attention to most of European states there is a same continuity, if you want take the German tribal states, Polabians, Gauls, Romans, I'm not advocating special status of some national-state of ours but why would we be the exception?

I have the right to flourish my selective approach, if you want to follow Greek approach it is your choice.

Civil freedom yes, but as citizens of Rome, not of Macedonia!! They obeyed Roman laws, paid taxes to Rome etc. And Macedonia was never a semi-autonomous state. It was just a province governed by a Roman proconsul elected by the Roman Senate. So what kind of sovereignty did Macedonia had when it’s consuls were elected by the Roman senate??

There were Macedonians involved in the administration and Macedonia was divided into 4 republics with the duty of paying tax and millitary support.

You have dozens of generals and later even Emperors originated from Macedonian soil.

The term Romans as citizens was only a political term, but if you start reading some of the sources there is clear ethnic differentiation.

And the link that you provided speaks about the period up to 148 BC. I was speaking about the period from 148 BC up to 972 AD. That's the period where your explanation doesn't make any sence.

I provided only a start point for you but I got the feeling that you haven't read the whole text properly.

However you may go now with the marble from Isar Marvinci which stands in front of the Government:



"MAKEDONIARHΩNTON NAONTHPATRIDI
PANTITΩKOΣMO TO ΘKT ETEI".

meaning:

"To Macedonian kings, a shrine of the Fatherland
from the whole nation"

That was a marblestone from the shrine/temple in 329 year or first half of the 4 century A.D.(officially) or according to Kamburovski year 56-65 A.D.; dedicated to the great Macedonian kings and represents a symbol of pride and disobeying.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I do not have time to go trawling through the internet looking for sources........

But you have the time to go 'trawling' through the forums making such statements? Show some principle and corroborate your statements.

...........in the case of Greece of 1830 where is was largely Greek with some Albanian).

Another fantastic statement. You are either extremely uninformed, or Greek, or both.

What argument? That Macedonia was a "mixed salad"? It has been for hundreds of years and hopefully will always be. Are you suggesting that it is not a 'mixed salad'?

I am suggesting that it is not as 'mixed' a salad as has been assumed by foreigners. You, on the other hand, have bought the stories of foreigners over your own people, hook, line and sinker, either that, or you are on some sort of agenda. Your understanding of Macedonian history is naive.

I reject the notion of some claiming that we are the direct and "cisti" descendants of these people.

So do I, as it isn't possible to be directly descended from populations that lived thousands of years ago. Our difference is that I still consider the heritage we have from them as significant, whereas you seem to consider it irrelevant.

In the case of titles technicalities are relevant. Marko was the King of Prilep and ruled that Kingdom.

Mate, don't waste my time by playing word games, your point of argument is irrelevant. There is no title called "King of Prilep" either, and Marko was king of much more than Prilep, you obviously don't know much about Macedonian history during that or any other period.

As for your RoM example, Mount Athos could declare independance tomorrow it too would be a "Macedonian state", but unlike RoM it wouldn't be an "ethnic Macedonian State".

Another irrelevant comparison, with which you're implying that the ancestors of the Macedonians, the people who spoke our language, who practiced our culture and religion, etc, did not exist in Marko's kingdom. You clearly have no clue, and I am starting to realise this with each of your replies.

Stefan Dushan's capital was in the Macedonian city of Skopje. He proclaimed himself emperor in Ser. Does this mean that he was somebody with no ties to the region? Does this mean he was ethnically Macedonian?

Macedonia was a peripheral territory that was absorbed into Dushan's empire, someone who had no prior ties to the region. Marko's kingdom was solely based in Macedonia, his mother was from the greater region, his father and uncle ruled there before him. Have a closer look at all of the particulars before you continue to utter ignorance.

I am suggesting that we should treat him as a medieval Macedonian, not an 'ethnic Macedonian', there is a difference.

I don't need your opinion for confirmation that differences exist between the people of the medieval period and today. The issue here is that you're using elements of the modern interpretation of 'ethnicity' to diminish the significance of Macedonia's heritage.

I disagree with you in regards to Macedonian identity as not being a movement.

The Macedonians asserting their identity during efforts at gaining liberty, self-empowerment, etc was a movement, the Macedonian identity itself is not a movement, it is a historical reality to all Macedonians, except those like you who are so sure of Greece's 'homogenous' population yet so quick to comment against any Macedonian demonstrating an established link to our historical past.