Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[TrueMacedonian]

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.



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'?



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.



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".



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.



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".

Look stop playing make believe. We know you're a imposter hellene. It's sad you people always have to play make believe, don't you think? You make believe you're descendents of the ancient hellenes, you make believe you're descendents of the ancient Macedonians, and now you're making believe that you're a Macedonian. Isn't it sad that your toilet bowl state is chin deep in financial collapse and you're here posing as one of us? All because this is how you are brought up from birth. To live in a lie and in other peoples shadows. Another notch on the headboard of greatness for the counterfeit hellenes, yet again.

[Soldier of Macedon]

TM,

I would hope it is a Greek pretending to be Macedonian, which would explain their (predictable) naivety about Macedonian (and Greek, for that matter) history, rather than an actual Macedonian who supports such ridiculous notions.

[sf.]

I don't think he is Greek, but he needs to further study our history. Macedonia was overwhelmingly populated by Macedonians, and like most flurishing regions of the empire, had elements of many ethnic communities.

The 'Macedonian salad' reference is a foreign one that a) was introduced by foreign western forces after their increased interest and involvement in the region; b) represents the suppression of the Macedonian people and their voice; c) is indicative of neighbouring aspirations and strateigies in the country; d) is a satirical description of the absurdity of the situation caused by the previous 3 points.

[Volk]

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'.

Mastika, today's Macedonians are the sole inheritors of everything Macedonian. Identities change and evolve, however who has a right to our forefathers past?

[Mastika]

Look stop playing make believe. We know you're a imposter hellene. It's sad you people always have to play make believe, don't you think? You make believe you're descendents of the ancient hellenes, you make believe you're descendents of the ancient Macedonians, and now you're making believe that you're a Macedonian. Isn't it sad that your toilet bowl state is chin deep in financial collapse and you're here posing as one of us? All because this is how you are brought up from birth. To live in a lie and in other peoples shadows. Another notch on the headboard of greatness for the counterfeit hellenes, yet again.

Look I am not Greek and have nothing at all to do with Greece. I can see how some of my comments may have been taken that way, I do apologise if that is how they may have come across. What I do like to see however is history to be shown without bias or strong influence from nationalism and patriotism (I know that this is hard). A non-biased history is the best history, sadly the Balkans is such a petty region that this is not possible. Hopefully this bickering will one day end and maybe the people of the Balkans can work together. And I know that this requires Greece and Bulgaria to get their heads of their arses so to speak and show some respect towards the Macedonian people. However it does not help if we lower our historical standards and knowledge to a level parallel to theirs. Why should we degrade ourselves just to make a point to some Greeks? Who gives a f*&k what the Greeks or Bulgarians think?! I'm not going to say things just to compete with the "historical" bullshit which comes out of Athens every year for the sake of it.

Look from now on i'll stick to social issues, clearly an opinion about history which strays from the Aleksandar Donski style - Македонизам is not accepted here.

[Soldier of Macedon]

However it does not help if we lower our historical standards and knowledge to a level parallel to theirs.

How have I done that?

Look from now on i'll stick to social issues, clearly an opinion about history which strays from the Aleksandar Donski style - Македонизам is not accepted here.

What a terribly inaccurate, and stupidly moronic thing to write. You are starting to sound even more 'Greek'.

[Mastika]

ps. everyone keeps questioning me about who has the right to inherit the history of the people who lived in macedonia in the past. The Macedonian people do of course, however what I am saying I do not feel it is correct to label people from the past as belonging to a certain ethnic group when such a notion was not present in their lifetime, this goes for all histories. This is what our neighbours have done and this is why their history is generally bullshit in a textual form.

[Buktop]

Buktop,

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

I said I had read some of the authors works, not that I had read all the references you posted. I asked you to point out the differences in my notions in comparison to those of the authors so I would have a better idea of what to identify when reading. If my notions and there's are the same then why should I waste what little free time I have confirming my own notions?

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.

My understanding of the words and concepts have not changed throughout my posts in this thread, I would ask you to please identify where they have. If my idea's are so ill-reasoned and uninformed, then it should not be difficult to state your opinion or view of how my notions differ from the authors.

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.

Thanks, I will look into it when I get the time. But I still asked for your detailed opinion, and I don't think that is too much to ask, considering that you are qualified in the area of Nations and States.

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.

I said look to google books, which may have made your search for the scholarly works easier, like this book that you recommended. It offers a good general preview, although slightly limited, but allows access to key information contained in the works. I did not say to just google state and post me the first site that pops up. It took me all of 5 minutes to locate all the references you posted. It would be wise to utilize the wonders of modern technology, it might make your life easier.

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=aiz8xT-imf8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Key+Concepts+in+Politics&ei=QpDCS6PfBqOKzASCqMjaCA&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this particular Google Book, the chapter on State is provided, and the definition is as follows,

The state can most simply be defined as a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within a defined territorial borders and exercises *authority through a set of permanent institutions. It is possible to identify five key features of the state. First, the state exercises *sovereignty - it exercises absolute and unrestricted *power in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society; Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), for this reason, portrayed the state as a 'leviathan', a gigantic monster. Second, state institutions are recognisably 'public', in contrast to the 'private' institutions of *civil society - state bodies are responsible for making and enforcing collective decisions in society and are funded at the public's expense. Third, the state is an exercise in legitimation - its decisions are usually (although not necessarily) accepted as binding on its citizens because, it is claimed, it reflects the permanent interests of society. Fourth, the state is an instrument in domination - it possesses the coercive power to ensure that its *laws are obeyed and that transgressors are punished; as Max Weber (1864-1920) put it, the state has a monopoly of the means of 'legitimate violence'. Fifth, the state is a territorial association - it exercises jurisdiction within a geographically defined borders and in international politics is treated (at least in theory) as an autonomous entity.

Now tell me how my notions differ from those of this scholarly work.

[Mastika]

What a terribly inaccurate, and stupidly moronic thing to write. You are starting to sound even more 'Greek'.

Hey I tried to word it diplomatically. From what i can see that is the type of history favoured here, that is fine by me. I have no objections to people holding that view.

[Bratot]

Look I am not Greek and have nothing at all to do with Greece. I can see how some of my comments may have been taken that way, I do apologise if that is how they may have come across. What I do like to see however is history to be shown without bias or strong influence from nationalism and patriotism (I know that this is hard). A non-biased history is the best history, sadly the Balkans is such a petty region that this is not possible. Hopefully this bickering will one day end and maybe the people of the Balkans can work together. And I know that this requires Greece and Bulgaria to get their heads of their arses so to speak and show some respect towards the Macedonian people. However it does not help if we lower our historical standards and knowledge to a level parallel to theirs. Why should we degrade ourselves just to make a point to some Greeks? Who gives a f*&k what the Greeks or Bulgarians think?! I'm not going to say things just to compete with the "historical" bullshit which comes out of Athens every year for the sake of it.

Look from now on i'll stick to social issues, clearly an opinion about history which strays from the Aleksandar Donski style - Македонизам is not accepted here.

And how about giving a full answer what you are since you claim something else?


For those who haven't came accross your multipli forum personalities I'm introducing you the Bulgarian stipendist from Macedonian origin whose real name doesn't really matter, it's enough to explain him as the mental twin of Vasilije Gligorijevic.

[Buktop]

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.

My comparison does not have anything to do with names, it has to do with the establishments of STATES, I compared the founding of a Macedonian state with the Founding of a Greek state, among others, irrespective of whether or not the basis of the founding was historical, but that the State had only been founded in the early 1830's, as most if not all modern states have only come into existence within the past 250 years. So there is no reason to argue that a Macedonian state has existed since antiquity on the basis of idiotic Greek claims that our identity came into existence along with the state.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Buktop, re-read your own post, you clearly stated that "Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832......". I ask you to refer me to the evidence where there was a continued unofficial reference to Hellas or Hellenes prior to the 1800's, and you respond with this:

My comparison does not have anything to do with names..........

I can understand the frustration that Vangelovski and others have with you and your ill-informed statements, and your constant back-flipping.

Hey I tried to word it diplomatically. From what i can see that is the type of history favoured here, that is fine by me. I have no objections to people holding that view.

If that's what you see then you are either blinding yourself or deliberately misinterpreting people, don't apply the name of diplomacy to morony.

[Mastika]

And how about giving a full answer what you are since you claim something else?

I am not claiming something else. I am Macedonian.

[Bratot]

Geographical I suppose.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I am not claiming something else. I am Macedonian.

Your definition of 'Macedonian' is warped, lacking in both history and integrity, and is therefore artificial. Try again.