Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Mikail]

Pushing the actual topic and arguments aside for a moment, I have to say Tom, that post is fantastic, it would have taken ages to put it together, but it is really fantastic, great structure, it flows so well... if ever the construction of a post could be considered an art, then that is a masterpiece.

I'm really sincerely impressed and bookmarking it for future reference.

It's priceless.... truly one of the greats.

Well done Vangelovski. Buktop was going round and round in circles and you cornered him. Bravo

[Pelister]

Outstanding analysis Tom. Just brilliant.

Buktop is full of shite.

[Soldier of Macedon]

An answer would be nice Babazuba

Check post #23 of this link for another one of Babazuba's rants. He seems to be another pretender.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=47581&posted=1#post47581

[Babazuba]

please explain

Check post #23 of this link for another one of Babazuba's rants. He seems to be another pretender.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ed=1#post47581

What did you not understand or refuse to belive?
I only apologise for the luck of spelling perfection.
The world's history is a jig sow puzle.
I am only puting it togather.
What are YOU doing?
What do you mean RANT? I only state facts as I find them.
What you want to say, you rathaR gelive that all is Greek invention,
even Macedonia? When it never existed in antiquity.
Go ahad, find name Greece in ancient scripts.
Please explain your rud remark.

[julie]

Babazuba, it is difficult to follow your points, perhaps if you were to stick to one part of the topic? I am finding it difficult to follow what it is you are trying to say, and it has nothing to do with the spelling or grammar

[Soldier of Macedon]

What did you not understand or refuse to belive?
I only apologise for the luck of spelling perfection.
The world's history is a jig sow puzle.
I am only puting it togather.
What are YOU doing?
What do you mean RANT? I only state facts as I find them.
What you want to say, you rathaR gelive that all is Greek invention,
even Macedonia? When it never existed in antiquity.
Go ahad, find name Greece in ancient scripts.
Please explain your rud remark.

Either you're an imposter playing dumb, or English isn't your first language. In that case, please reply in your next post with Macedonian, so I can confirm what you say about yourself and get a sense of what you're trying to say in your post.

[Orfej]

Since you don't know you can't really comment.
And put aside what Kamburovski said, I'm talking about the translation and it's the same in both cases


Their "camps" as you chosed to call them are arguing only about the correct date, not the text.

Wrong!! Read from the picture that you yourself posted:


This is written on the picture:

Паско Кузман: На овој мермерен блок стои исклесано дека `Македонец` подарил средства за изградба на храмот во Исар-Марвинци`

Now this translation from Pasko Kuzman is different from the one by Paskal Kamburovski:

'На македонските владетели, светилиште на татковината' '

These are things that you should notice from the start, questioning why are there 2 different translations and which is the correct one!! But no, it’s much easier for you to go past the differences and pick the translation that suites you the most!!

Btw Paskal is art historian, who after 20 of years reseaching have wroten a book about the grave of Alexander. But.. why would you care..

Very interesting!! An art historian translating ancient texts! Where’s the mistake? The guy may be a janitor for what you care, but if he says what you want to hear, it’s ok right?

I provided sources and after proving your mistake you still inforce some foolish believes.

Did you checked the "Roman Foederati"?

Roman treaties (in foedus (treaty))

treaty or compact contracted by ancient Rome with one or more allied states (foederati). The treaty contained various conditions establishing permanent friendly relations between the contracting parties. A foedus aequum was a bilateral agreement recognizing both parties as equals obliged to assist each other in defensive wars...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/211879/foederati

And yes, of course there was constant struggle for gaining more power inside the parties and ruling, that's why since the 6th century we can say that Macedonians took over the rule in the Estern Empire.

Instead of bothering you.. you should be proud of it.

But you got so deeply involved in opposing me that there is no use in talking to you anymore, I'm not a psychiatrist to bring you on the "good" side, you are grown up person and it's a matter of your choice how you will interpret the history.

But you cannot change something because you like it more the otherway.

You posted the link, but you obviously don’t know what it is about!!

``Foederati`` is a treaty between Rome and other States(or tribes) for mutual cooperation, not a treaty between Rome and it’s own provinces!! So those are treaties with tribes that were not subdued-Franks, Saxons, Gauls etc. If you had an ``A`` in history, you would have known from high school that the Romans used Barbarian troops( Franks, Visigoths, Germans) to defend their borders. These treaties represent just that. I don’t know how you managed to get so confused and think that ``Foederati`` meant a ``Roman federation``.

I told you, these are basic stuff that you should firstly understand before starting to debate about them. Confusing an ``Empire`` with a ``Federation``, a ``State`` with a ``Province`` and having the decency to speak about my mistakes and foolish believes?!

[Bratot]

That's not the translation, mlatish prazna slama vo nekolku navrati.

Pasko claims the same, that a Macedonian founded this temple, the text confirms that.

Or maybe you will tell me that exactly those words - Isar Marvinci and podaril sredstva are on the marblestone. lol get to yourself, now!

You have no idea what history of art is and still going into biased conclussions. Pity for a white boy.

[Pelister]

A Macedonian State/Nation did in fact exist during Ottoman times. It does not have to be neatly packaged into the Western definition for what constitutes a State.

Read this. Something a bit more contemporary.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...6&postcount=11

"The head of the Macedonian organisation is nothing other than a senate. Secretly chosen by the people of a forbidden republic. In the middle of Turkey, in the heart of a administration which is decaying, there appears an organisation which is as perfect as that of a free nation which governs itself There is a Macedonian police force, Macedonian court, Macedonian military force, Macedonian schools and newspapers and a Macedonian postal service.., everything, although the Turkish government is making the greatest possible efforts to destroy it “.[3] n3 Howren Smith, A.D. Fighting the Turk in the Balkans, An American’s Adventures with the Macedonian Revolutionists. (New York – London 1908) pp.37-38.

A Macedonian Government, Nation, State operating and functional trying to be destroyed.

[TrueMacedonian]

Nice post Pelister.

What do you all think about the Macedonians in power in Sofia during the so-called 'Macedonian Question'? Would this qualify as a Macedonian State? Ahhhh now this will be interesting to see everyones answer.

[Buktop]

Buktopism

As usual, Buktop started posting on this thread with landing as many buzz words as possible within the one sentence:

Which definition of state are we discussing here? The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity, a specific mode of government, or a body politic, especially one constituting a nation?

What does that mean? Nobody really knows.

Which part do you not understand? I gave you 3 different definitions and asked you which one you were talking about. Use a dictionary if you need one.

The current Macedonian state has only existed continuously since August 2, 1944

You’re point being? I was pointing out that this was not the FIRST Macedonian state and to pretend that it was (i.e., the way UMD does) provides credibility to the Greek claim that Macedonia is a modern invention. The FIRST Macedonian state was established in circa 800 BC.

My point being the discussion of the founding of the modern state. You were alleging that the discussion dealt with the continuous use of the name Macedonia, when in fact it was dealing with it's official use of the current state, the statement you had a problem with was not in relation to the historical name of Macedonia, nor the existence of previous "states" (i will use quotes to signify when I am talking about previous historical political entities) using the name Macedonia, only the current one.

Regardless, Buktop moves on by bringing into play a new concept – the Macedonian “entity”:

If you are talking about a Macedonian entity or identity, then that is different than state and was not mentioned.

What is the Macedonian “entity”, again, nobody really knows.

Maybe you should look up the definition of entity, then maybe you will realize what it refers to.

Next, Buktop showed us some classic UMDism:

They are not discussing the name Macedonia, they are discussing the official name of the state. Please clarify what your issue is with this statement...

Then a backflip

No one is denying the existence of a historic Macedonian state, nowhere has this ever been denied.

These two quotes are unrelated and are not contradictory.

Followed by some more irrelevance:

The origin of the CURRENT form of Macedonian state originated in a 1944 declaration by ASNOM.

The use of "Macedonia" is not being disputed, the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

Some reinterpretation:

UMD's argument stated that the modern Macedonian state was founded in 1944, which is a fact.

UMD stated that Macedonia has officially used the name Macedonia since 1944 – they did not specify the “modern” state.

The term officially is in relation to the state name, which happens to be our modern state, and using the same analysis as SoM, signifies an un-official use of the name and therefor does not exclude or deny historical use.

Some more irrelevance:

Once again, the argument is not when we started using the name Macedonia, but the existence of the modern state.

Really? Thats not the content of my post and I’m that one that brought it up – seems like you’re in the wrong thread!

I joined the discussion when it had advanced beyond the topic of UMD, and into the notion of the founding of the state, I am trying to discuss your notions of the existence and founding of Macedonian "states", not UMD's.

Some more general inaccuracies, but hey...

the current Macedonian state, that was founded in 1944 by ASNOM.

Actually, the current Macedonian state is the Ramkovist State founded in 2001. At different stages Buktop argues that there is no continuation between states, yet when it comes to the ASNOM/Independence/Ramkovist states, they’re all one in the same...

there is no continuity from one statehood to another, they are different states, while retaining Macedonian identity.

There is a continuous existence since 1944 of an autonomous Macedonian state, you may be able to divide it into 3 different states but they were founded off of the remnants of each other, they were not formed independently of each other, that is continuity, many of the institutions that were founded in the ASNOM state continue to exist in the Ramkovist state.

If you are trying to make an argument for a continuity between historic Macedonian "states" and the modern ones, perhaps you should provide me what you believe to constitute it's continuity?

Buktop’s well-reasoned, well-researched and clearly defined state (take one):

According to posted by Bratot, he is suggesting that the empire constituted a state, which depending on the definition of state you are using can be true, but that is the point we are trying to argue when we say that the CURRENT Macedonian state was only founded in 1944. And yes you are correct, the Roman and East Roman empires later absorbed the Macedonian empire(state) and it ceased to exist, the territory and the people didn't go anywhere, just the existence of a sovereign entity known as a state.

????

What don't you understand here?

Take two:

This process of creating a State in the modern sense only came about as a result of the creation of Nationalism in the 19th century. No one is discussing historical existence of kingdoms or territories. We are discussing it from a modern sense, the establishment of a Macedonian state resulted in 1944 due to subjugation and partition, and it was not created by Tito as I have pointed out several times.

.

As state in the “modern sense”... By your own definition, and by the definition you put forward later on from Heywood (as provided by me), a state is a state – time is irrelevant. However, that does not fit into UMD’s vision of Macedonia 1944. Lets go back a few quotes:

No one is denying the existence of a historic Macedonian state, nowhere has this ever been denied.

Yet now, Flip has flopped again and would have us believe that there is a fundamental difference between a “modern” state and what is presumably a “pre-modern” state.

There most definitely is a modern sense of the word that has come to describe a constructed perception of what a state is in current terms, whether or not you choose to understand this is not my concern anymore. The definitions that I posted that you referenced do extend to historic "states" and these quotes of mine confirm it, I just deny the continuity.

Regardless, Buktop has another attempt at creatively reinterpreting the UMD statement:

I don't know how many times I have to re-explain myself. The statement you are referring to is not in relation to the historical existence of a Macedonian empire, territory, people or identity, it is in relation to the founding of a Modern State as defined in a Nationalistic sense of the word stemming from it's 19th century ideology.

Again, if you do not understand how the context and ideology of the word state have evolved it is not my problem, maybe you need to read some more scholarly works?

Some of my favourites...reeks of an amateur:

do you know when the concept of statehood was even created?

the concept of a state only came into existence in the 19th century.

comments made in reference to the ideology I spoke of before

Some dodging and weaving:

I can't seem to understand why you keep bringing UMD up, this argument is about the existence of a Macedonian state, try to stay on topic.

The topic was UMD...

No, you started to mention something about UMD concerning the state, then argued with Volk about notions of the state, my participation in this thread only concerned your notions on the Macedonian state, and you kept trying to introduce irrelevant UMD quotes to try and change the subject.

“Definition” – Take Three:

Statehood - The condition of being a body of people permanently occupying a definite territory and politically organized under a sovereign government.

And where is the time limitation discounting states before the “modern” era...?

Where was the Sovereign Macedonian government before 1944? A few appearances of a couple kingdoms, occupying different geographic boundaries and different institutions, does not constitute a continuous state. The modern states are classified differently due to the advent of nationalism, complex institutions, and governmental authority/form.

An attempt at defining the ‘nation’...I think...:

A federation or tribe/ The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe/A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country/The territory occupied by such a group of people/The government of a sovereign state...USA, EU, USSR, SFRJ are nations

Now it gets scary...

then there are Nation-States
a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

And now just ridiculous...

now, the term nation can be used to define a state as well, as a federation of it's provinces or districts, it all depends on how the country wants to define itself.

If you recall the questions osiris asked me, I provided him these answers in relation to government, and I also provided you with the other definition in relation to people or ideology.

A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language

Which is not that dissimilar to yours.

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 I guess quoting what you want people to see makes the truth not worth re-quoting?

Some rage....

Why don't you explain to me how the fact that our modern state was created in 1944 by ASNOM supports Greek claims? And why do you even entertain such idiotic thoughts? You are only serving to give the arguments credit if you need to change history in order to deal with moronic claims.

Suggesting that our FIRST state was created in 1944 – not our “current” one – gives credibility to Greek claims – that has been the point all along.

never said first, I said modern or current, so your issue is irrelevant.

Then a few of these:

Stick to the topic Vangelovski.

Well you refused to comment on anything relevant...

A more serious attempt at providing a definition of the ‘nation’:

Oh you mean this definition? A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality.

This belongs with your above quotes about nation, I already commented on it.

Even Buktop get confused sometimes:

The current Macedonian state has only existed continuously since August 2, 1944 established under the name Democratic Macedonia.

No, that was Meto’s suggestion for a name change.

not according to Dr. Cvetan Cvetkovski, Skopje University, Faculty of Law, "Constitutional history of the Republic of Macedonia", section "1. Creation of the contemporary Macedonian state during the Second World War (1941-1945)", Centre for European Constitutional Law.

Some more ramblings...:

This is not disputed, but the fact remains, this was the name of the STATE that was founded in 1944. Sovereign/independent state in relation to a continued participation in a federated Yugoslavia, in effect, asking whether Macedonians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. The state still continued it's existence.

Continued existence from the 1944 state through to the independent 1991 state and then the 2001 Ramkovist state? Hang on, didn’t you say that:

there is no continuity from one statehood to another, they are different states.

This wasn’t that important, just an example of Buktopism...

This statement was on the lack of continuity of historical Macedonian "states", not the current one and not on states in general.

More on definitions:

During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

Buktop must of meant something else, because he did state the following:

the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

These two statements are unrelated and bare no significance on each other. They did not view themselves as a Macedonian Nation under the Byzantines, individuals identified as Macedonians, but associated with christians. My comment on this was in relation to a post on the subject, not in reference to our topic.

Definition of the state...take 4 or 5?:

The point here being the use of the proper definition of State, and not an altered one. The founding of a Macedonian state in it's proper sense, only took place in 1944, any extension of the term state to encompass historical contexts is merely wishful thinking. Kingdom, territory, empire, realms, monarchy, dynasty, or provinces are usually the typical identifiers for previous existing sovereign entities, and are not considered states in the proper sense.

Because these terms are more suited to classifying the historical entities, historical "states", under a loose definition, I already commented on this.

Wrong again, but it goes on with the invention of a new concept – “proper sovereign identifiers” that mysteriously divide “modern” states from “pre-modern” states:

I listed a number of proper sovereign identifiers to describe historical entities not types of government. State in the modern sense should not be applied to historical concepts.

Fine I'll rephrase, proper terms of classification. Satisfied?

Buktop’s self-proclamation of his own “competence”, which in itself shows a lack thereof:

I am more than competent enough to know the concepts and foundations of the creation of 19th century ideology and it's application to the modern concept of a State, just because you can't grasp what I am explaining to you does not mean there is a problem with my understanding, perhaps it's on your end that the problem exists?

You still don't seem to understand, so once again the problem is your lack of will to understand, I am sure you are an educated person, but your hubris prevents you from being reasonable.

Confusion of concepts...apparently a state can be both sovereign AND semi-autonomous!:

Under Yugoslavia Macedonia was a sovereign, semi-autonomous state participating in a federation, or union of autonomous states.

Under Ottoman, Eastern Roman and Roman rule, all we maintained was Identity, this does not constitute the existence of a state, even if we were to apply the definition to historical contexts.

Semi-autonomous in the sense of our participation in the federation. These two quotes do not relate to each other.

We did maintain our identity or we didn’t...flip

During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

And flop:

the existence of the state and the "officially codified" state name are what was discussed, not the existence of a historical people or territory.

the non-existence of a nation does not mean an absence of identity, you are really clutching at straws now... I was replying to a post relating to the subject of Macedonia under the Byzantine empire, the second quote here refers to your issues with the statement of the official use of Macedonia since 1944. Two unrelated quotes.

Just what is this debate about?

It is not so much semantics as fact. A person in this thread made a contention about the existence of a historic Macedonian 'state', and became upset at the notion that our state was established in 44. This is the debate, not the existence of a historic Macedonian people or kingdom.

the founding of our state in 44 and it's official use of the name Macedonia. It also has a lot to do with your inability to use rational reasoning.

State definition...Take...6?

tate refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. The word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems. Local level does not constitute a state. Especially when it is not a sovereign entity, the state did not exist.

Notice Buktop’s OWN addition of “The word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems”...

This is a concept of Stephen D. Krasner's, he wrote a piece on Sovereignty and touched on the definitions of State. have a look for yourself

http://books.google.com/books?id=TkrfTZlyUogC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Stephen+d+krasner+sovereignty&ei=HG3HS_uvN4T6zASUiMmnCA&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

You are the damn revisionist! I don't even know why I am arguing with someone who doesn't even know how to look up the definition of the word state...

The “official” definition...who knew!

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

Another definition?

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?

Same definition, you double quoted this, dealt with above.

Flip...

My point is that the existence of a State is irrelevant when concerning an Identity or a History.

Flop...

now, the term nation can be used to define a state as well, as a federation of it's provinces or districts, it all depends on how the country wants to define itself.

unrelated quotes that do not contradict each other. Addressed these quotes above.

Flip....

The Macedonian State was founded in 1944, the Identity and the territory has existed continuously, not the State.

Flop...

During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

related quotes that confirm my statements, both addressed above.

That definition again...

A State, as has been pointed out several times in this thread is an Autonomous, Self governed, Political entity.

And how does this definition discount the ancient Macedonian state?

the ancient "state" has not been discounted in the common sense, the continuity and the extension of the modern sense of what a state is have. That is why the statement that we have officially used the name Macedonia (in relation to our modern state) since 1944 is a valid statement.

I think this could be a piece of the puzzle...one sense of the word...two..more?

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...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.

That is the modern sense, that in it's strict definition only applies to modern states, read the work by Krasner.

Flip...

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?

Flop...

The founding of a Macedonian state in it's proper sense, only took place in 1944, any extension of the term state to encompass historical contexts is merely wishful thinking. Kingdom, territory, empire, realms, monarchy, dynasty, or provinces are usually the typical identifiers for previous existing sovereign entities, and are not considered states in the proper sense.

Addressed above. First quote in reference to a broad sense of the word, second in reference to a strict sense of the word.

Definition of State...Take...?

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.

If you didn't understand this paragraph the first time, I don't even know why I am responding to this whole post.

How many contradictions is this now?

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.

Is this enough?

You have yet to show me any contradictions...

you obviously don't understand anything I have commented on in this thread.

Not really.

Well maybe it is time to go read some new scholarly works, maybe it will make more sense if it wasn't coming from someone who supports UMD...

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

Where do I begin?

Start by answering questions when I ask them from you, and citing actual references from the text, if this is too hard, find a hole and crawl into it.

[Buktop]

A Macedonian State/Nation did in fact exist during Ottoman times. It does not have to be neatly packaged into the Western definition for what constitutes a State.

Read this. Something a bit more contemporary.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...6&postcount=11

A Macedonian Government, Nation, State operating and functional trying to be destroyed.

It can be classified as a movement for a state, pre-established institutions in preparation for founding a state, it was still under direct authority of the Turks though. Interesting to note that 1908 was when the young Turk nationalist movement in the Ottoman empire took place otherwise known as the CUP party. Under this government relative freedoms were granted to Ottoman controlled provinces while their focus was concentrated on establishing a Turkish state, at the expense of the local pashas. Had it not been for the interference of Britain and France in 1913, the Turks would have left Macedonia and our state would have been realized.

[Bratot]

Such biased interpretation I would expect only from a Grk, not only not supported but zealously advocated negation.

[Vangelovski]

Buktop,

Thanks for contributing to your list of incoherent posts. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to read many more.

[makedonche]

Buktop
I found that last post an entire waste of time, however so as to extract something useful I would ask that you stop your continued personal attacks on Vangelovski - I'm not here to defend him, he can obviously do that on his own. This is the Macedonian Truth Forum and what people expect here is the truth about Macedonia and Macedonians in accordance with the "Macedonian Cause" as detailed in the specific thread dedicated to the cause. Whilst healthy debate and expression of opinions is encouraged, the attempts at discrediting members here I find abhorrent, unless it is done in line with the cause, not on a personal basis or in an attempt to uphold the ideaology of another organisation. You may find this biased, but let me tell you that after all the websites I have visited and all the forums I have read and all the bullshit coming from Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians and all the other so called:- experts/specialists/historians/archaeologists/linguistic/social/economic gurus who have been very willing to determine who we are, what we are and where we came from, I find this website the least biased, most relevant and most tolerant of all sites I have visited. This is our site, the site of Macedonians seeking the truth, so any unwarranted attacks or unsubstantiated claims against it or it's members deserves to be treated with the same contempt that is dished out from racist sites.