Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Vangelovski]

Can you tell me what relevance this bares on the subject?

It is obviously a quote from Tito, and I felt it applied to the Macedonian people. Irrespective of it's initial context in Yugoslavia, I felt the quote fit perfectly for Macedonians.

As we can see, you have nothing further to share on the subject of the Macedonian State, so you have resorted to attacking my intentions, you never let me down Vangelovski.

Buktop,

As usual, the discussion cannot go into any real substance because you are too busy spamming the thread with contradictory, confusing and irrelevant definitions. The majority of the posters here have taken nearly 40 pages to explain to you that the 1944 state was NOT the FIRST MACEDONIAN STATE, nor was it the FIRST Macedonian state to use the name MACEDONIA, which is in fact the topic of discussion. Yet, you are unable to even get that far because you are still trying to muddy the waters around the definition of a state. Maybe you could spend the next 40 pages trying to work out what the concept of FIRST means...?

As for the Tito quote, I wouldn't want to take your obsession with Macedonia '44 out of context, hence I included it to provide a more holistic picture.

The quote itself talks about the "brotherhood and unity" (or bratstvo i jedinstvo) of the peopleS - plural. How is that relevant to the Macedonian people - singular? Or are you referring to a unity between Macedonians and some other people? UMD certainly believes that we have a shared culture, history and geography with the Greeks - is that what you have in mind?

[Mastika]

It's obvious Buktop I a many others have been reading this thread from the beginning. So you can stop the sarcasm brat!

The majority does not agree with your stand. So step down from your ivory tower before it crumbles.

This is a bad way of going about this. Just because somebody doesn't agree with what many others say doesn't mean that they should change their veiwpoint. People are entitled to their own opinions whether they align with other peoples or not. I am not saying/implying that you are 'forcing' him not to speak what is on his mind, but urging people to change their viewpoint for the sake of peer preassure is not the way anyone should be going about this.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Isn't it interesting that you are one of the few people that agrees with Buktop? You exhibit the same denials of historical reality at the expense of your own nation, for some elusive (and misguided) 'objectiveness' that only serves to make you look even more ignorant of the true facts.

God forbid, the Macedonians may be right about some of the things they claim, god forbid, we have a national history prior to the 19th century, because there is no way that could be 'objective' to people like you (or any of our enemies). Makes one wonder.

[Mikail]

Yes, and by doing so gives credence to our oppressors. Why stand with them in brotherhood and not with us.......with the Macedonian brotherhood.

[Buktop]

It's obvious Buktop I a many others have been reading this thread from the beginning. So you can stop the sarcasm brat!

The majority does not agree with your stand. So step down from your ivory tower before it crumbles.

All your posts have a common theme and one can only make assumptions by what you write as you wholeheartedly maintain your position. A position which sits in the Greek & Bulgarian camp.

I maintain a position of fact. I don't side with the Greeks or Bulgars, I clearly said that our identity has existed for centuries regardless of whether a State existed. Do not make the mistake that Identity and State are the same thing.

The reason you and others don't seem to agree is because of your fear that Greeks or Bulgars might use this as a reason to deny our existence, but like I said earlier, Macedonians self declared independence and founded a modern state, there is plenty of evidence that confirms that our identity has existed. There is no need to down play such an important piece of history, that really, many of you overlook simply so that idiot Greeks and Bulgars won't talk about it.

I feel that the Independence and the founding of the modern state by ASNOM is one of the most important events in recent Macedonian history. And I hate it when people have to make up bullshit theories just to discredit some psychos next door.

[Buktop]

Buktop,

As usual, the discussion cannot go into any real substance because you are too busy spamming the thread with contradictory, confusing and irrelevant definitions. The majority of the posters here have taken nearly 40 pages to explain to you that the 1944 state was NOT the FIRST MACEDONIAN STATE, nor was it the FIRST Macedonian state to use the name MACEDONIA, which is in fact the topic of discussion. Yet, you are unable to even get that far because you are still trying to muddy the waters around the definition of a state. Maybe you could spend the next 40 pages trying to work out what the concept of FIRST means...?

Quote for me where I said the FIRST Macedonian state was created in 1944... Current or Modern are the terms I have used, and in the context of the statement you found controversial about Macedonia officially being used since 44, it is a valid statement. Regardless of the existence of a Macedonian "State" in antiquity, there is a period of several centuries in between that, where a Macedonian "State" does not exist.

As for the Tito quote, I wouldn't want to take your obsession with Macedonia '44 out of context, hence I included it to provide a more holistic picture.

The quote itself talks about the "brotherhood and unity" (or bratstvo i jedinstvo) of the peopleS - plural. How is that relevant to the Macedonian people - singular? Or are you referring to a unity between Macedonians and some other people? UMD certainly believes that we have a shared culture, history and geography with the Greeks - is that what you have in mind?

A holistic picture of nothing, especially since I haven't even said anything about Tito nor have I involved him in any aspect of the founding of our State.

Rather than altering the quote, I let it stand as it was. I viewed it as applying to Vardar, Egej and Pirin peoples or a divided Macedonian people.

So given that I have not even mentioned Tito or Yugoslavia anywhere in this thread in the context of our State, and in fact, even went out of my way to highlight that Independence and the founding of the state were completely Macedonian initiatives, why would you bother to bring this quote up? Do you really hate me so much that you would go to any lengths to disprove my argument, or do you just like spitting on one of the most important events in recent Macedonian history?

[Risto the Great]

Buktop, can you think of any other nations in the Balkans which did not exist under your definition in a similar manner? How about worldwide?

[Vangelovski]

Quote for me where I said the FIRST Macedonian state was created in 1944... Regardless of the existence of a Macedonian "State" in antiquity, there is a period of several centuries in between that, where a Macedonian "State" does not exist.

Buktop, I already showed you where you claim a Macedonian state did not exist prior to the 44 state - you still refuse to recognise the existence of the ancient state because you pretend that it was not a state, using your own made up definitions to justify your position.

And as usual, 40 pages on, we're still trying to explain the basics to you, before we can move onto the substance of the original statement in question.

Buktop, can you think of any other nations in the Balkans which did not exist under your definition in a similar manner? How about worldwide?

According to Buktop's definition of a state, most current states around the world aren't really states in the "proper sense" of the word.

[Mastika]

Isn't it interesting that you are one of the few people that agrees with Buktop? You exhibit the same denials of historical reality at the expense of your own nation, for some elusive (and misguided) 'objectiveness' that only serves to make you look even more ignorant of the true facts.

What is Buktop saying? The modern Macedonian state was founded in 1944. What are peoples responses to this? People are going on about villages being States, about having statehood under the First Yugoslavia, about a colony of Macedonians living in Bulgaria/Sofia being a State, about Pirin Macedonia with some rebels and Jane Sandanski living in the mountains being a State. Well, sorry, but none of these are States. The reality is that from c.1395 until 1913 Macedonia the only states which existed upon the territory of Macedonia was the Otttoman Empire, Krusevo Republic (for 10 days), whatever Karposh managed to control in October of 1689 and if you are going to liberation of Bansko in 1878 during the Kresna uprising. The last 3 were so short lived/on a small scale which is why people all say that we under Turkish rule for 500 years.

If anyone has evidence of an entity which existed as a state and surpassed being an insurrection/rebellion/uprising (Krusevo/Kresna/Karposh), please present this information, as everyone seems so sure that such an entity existed.

I agree 100% with Buktop when he says that there is no need to make up theories just to discredit the Greeks or Bulgarians or Serbs or whoever. We do not need to make up theories, the reality is enough to discredit their unhistorical assertions. There is no need to lower our historical understanding and interpretation just to counteract the bullshit which comes out of some Greek politician/priest who has just read "history for dummies".

God forbid, the Macedonians may be right about some of the things they claim, god forbid, we have a national history prior to the 19th century, because there is no way that could be 'objective' to people like you (or any of our enemies). Makes one wonder.

Sure, we do have a history before the 19th century, I am not denying this. However how long has the ethnic Macedonian identity lasted? 500 years? 1000 years? 2000 years? 5000 years? There is no answer to this question, what we can say is that it predates both 1944 and 1903. No ethnic identity has existed since time immemorial, this is simple fact, i dont care whether this is applied to macedonians, albanians, turks etc etc. It seems to me that the only reason people so desperately cling on to this notion is to associate themselves with the glory Alexander the Great and his father. I have always wondered whether everyone would still claim direct descent from Ancient Macedon had Philip II and Alexander the Great never existed and had Ancient Macedon never conquered half of the known world.

[Mikail]

I maintain a position of fact. I don't side with the Greeks or Bulgars, I clearly said that our identity has existed for centuries regardless of whether a State existed. Do not make the mistake that Identity and State are the same thing.

The reason you and others don't seem to agree is because of your fear that Greeks or Bulgars might use this as a reason to deny our existence, but like I said earlier, Macedonians self declared independence and founded a modern state, there is plenty of evidence that confirms that our identity has existed. There is no need to down play such an important piece of history, that really, many of you overlook simply so that idiot Greeks and Bulgars won't talk about it.

I feel that the Independence and the founding of the modern state by ASNOM is one of the most important events in recent Macedonian history. And I hate it when people have to make up bullshit theories just to discredit some psychos next door.

Well here we go, another "shift" in opinion. This is why I for one disagree with you. In your first posts you stood your ground in stating the very first Macedonian state was founded in 1944.

It has now taken 40+ pages of discussion for you to acknowledge Macedonia existed as a state prior to 1944.

This has been my bone of contention and I know others would agree this point has been the man point of discussion.

Well Buktop, you have put a lot of time and energy only to come round a full circle. Well done

[Buktop]

Buktop, can you think of any other nations in the Balkans which did not exist under your definition in a similar manner? How about worldwide?

Are you talking about a Nation under the definition that Vangelovski and I have provided? What time period are you asking for? Or are you talking about a State, which is completely different than Nation?

[Risto the Great]

Pick one, then run with it mate.

[Vangelovski]

Are you talking about a Nation under the definition that Vangelovski and I have provided? What time period are you asking for? Or are you talking about a State, which is completely different than Nation?

Buktop, you should specify which definition of nation you mean - you had quite a few which would not be accepted by anyone.

[Buktop]

Buktop, I already showed you where you claim a Macedonian state did not exist prior to the 44 state - you still refuse to recognise the existence of the ancient state because you pretend that it was not a state, using your own made up definitions to justify your position.

You showed me nothing, I showed you how the modern concept in the minds of general scholars does not apply to historical context, that is further explained in Krasner's work, which is why I recommended it to you, but it is obvious that you did not bother to even look at it. I already explained to you that under a loose definition, you can say that an ancient "State" existed, and how I have never claimed that the 1944 founding was the first instance, but you have repeatedly ignored this. Since I have indulged you and read several of the sources you referred me, why do you not indulge me and read the book I referred you?

And as usual, 40 pages on, we're still trying to explain the basics to you, before we can move onto the substance of the original statement in question.

40 pages on and you are trying to convince everyone that I am arguing in favor of the Tito creation theory, and fueling the Greek and Bulgarian arguments. If you even bothered to try and comprehend what I am saying this matter would have been over by now.

According to Buktop's definition of a state, most current states around the world aren't really states in the "proper sense" of the word.

I used the definition that you provided me, the one that validated the very definition that I was using from the beginning. I even referenced you a scholarly work that would explain exactly what I am trying to say and you refuse to read it and continue to comment on what I say with little or no understanding, whether intentional or not.

[Buktop]

Well here we go, another "shift" in opinion. This is why I for one disagree with you. In your first posts you stood your ground in stating the very first Macedonian state was founded in 1944.

It has now taken 40+ pages of discussion for you to acknowledge Macedonia existed as a state prior to 1944.

This has been my bone of contention and I know others would agree this point has been the man point of discussion.

Well Buktop, you have put a lot of time and energy only to come round a full circle. Well done

Please show me where I stated that the first instance of the Macedonian State was founded in 1944... Please find this quote because I can't seem to.

It is obvious, whether you claim to have followed this argument from the beginning or not, that you don't really understand what is being argued.