Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Pelister]

Far out Buktop. You're going off on a bit of a tangent here.

We all are aware the current Macedonian state came into existence in 1944. We are all aware that in order for this to occur, the demise of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Slovenes & Coats came about. Therefore the current states of Serbia, Croatia & Slovenia also were born as at 1944. Lots of fucking things happened and changed in 1944. Doesn't mean nothing ever existed prior this date.

Macedonia didn't suddenly appear in 1944 as Greeks like to suggest, and Macedonians aren't a people born of the circumstances surrounding events in 1944.

1944 is really insignificant when you take everything into perspective. It bears no relevance on how old the Macedonian state and/or nation truly is.

Thats precisely the point.

UMD and the Greeks have a knack of taking a "FACT" out of its historical context.

UMD saying the Macedonian Nation first came into existence in 1944 is a highly ambiguous suggestion, and bears literally no distinction to the official Greek line that Macedonia (politically, ethnically, linguistically, culturally), was "invented" for the first time in 1944.

[Mikail]

tell me about it Pellister. These guys keep loading the Greeks with more ammo!

[osiris]

its very important to distinguish between a republic within a federation like the ussr and sfry and an independent sovereign state like the current republic.

[Mastika]

Far out Buktop. You're going off on a bit of a tangent here.

We all are aware the current Macedonian state came into existence in 1944. We are all aware that in order for this to occur, the demise of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Slovenes & Coats came about. Therefore the current states of Serbia, Croatia & Slovenia also were born as at 1944. Lots of fucking things happened and changed in 1944. Doesn't mean nothing ever existed prior this date.

Macedonia didn't suddenly appear in 1944 as Greeks like to suggest, and Macedonians aren't a people born of the circumstances surrounding events in 1944.

1944 is really insignificant when you take everything into perspective. It bears no relevance on how old the Macedonian state and/or nation truly is.

How can you say 1944 is insignificant? Just because "lots of fucking things happened and changed in 1944" does not mean that what happened in Macedonia is less relevant. Everyone state has a date which it was founded, in our case it is 1944. For Albania it is 1913, for Greece it is 1830 (1822), for Bulgaria it is either 1878 or 1908. Does this mean that all these people were suddenly "created" in the year that their nation state was founded? No. All were existence before the country was created.

1944 is very important because this signals the foundation of the first long-lasting state for the modern ethnic Macedonian people.

[Buktop]

Buktop,

UMD's ill-thought out statements about Macedonia using the name Macedonia 'officially' since 1944 reinforce the Greek argument that the Macedonian people have usurped the name Macedonia.

Greece claims that the name Macedonia is Greek and has been since ancient times and that Tito "created" the Macedonian people in 1944. UMD makes a statement that Macedonia has only used the name "officially" since 1944 and does not go into any further detail.

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, just like Albania has only used that name since 1913, just like Israel has only existed since 1948, just like Italy has only existed since 1861, just like Germany has only existed since 1871 ect...

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.

I know the Greek argument, and I am going to explain this as simply as I can, it holds no weight, you trying to alter history to discredit some moronic, half-baked, radical arguments and that is not helping anything. 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.

[Buktop]

How can you say 1944 is insignificant? Just because "lots of fucking things happened and changed in 1944" does not mean that what happened in Macedonia is less relevant. Everyone state has a date which it was founded, in our case it is 1944. For Albania it is 1913, for Greece it is 1830 (1822), for Bulgaria it is either 1878 or 1908. Does this mean that all these people were suddenly "created" in the year that their nation state was founded? No. All were existence before the country was created.

1944 is very important because this signals the foundation of the first long-lasting state for the modern ethnic Macedonian people.

Wow beat me to it...

[Mikail]

Don't go getting your knickers in a knot boys. The message was we all know the significance of the date. No need to harp on it so much. They way the pro-Meto speak was rolling out I got the impression nothing else was of any relevance.

We can thank the Tato for one thing and one thing only. He deserves no other special mentions.

So do we understand one another now?

[osiris]

buktop do you believe having a state as part of a federal system is the same as an independent nation state. i dont think that macedonia after world war 2 and bulgaria in 1878 or albania and greece whenever is a valid comparison.

[Buktop]

I will add only this, if we follow your logic than after the WW II all of the countries which fell under German and Italian occupation stoped existing as states.

This is not by my logic. Facts prove that there was no Macedonian state as it was annexed, issued foreign governors, and assimilated into the territory of various empires, it did not retain it's historical territory as it was assimilated into the various empires and it's borders were redefined. The WW2 example you gave does not hold water because they were not assimilated and stripped of their established institutions, they were only issued new governing officials.

And a normal average person, not familiar with the international law will think all of those countries were newly created after WW II.

too bad international law is a relatively new construct and holds no weight in a historical context.

Since the occupation doesn't mean a cease of the previous statehood if the occupied side didn't subjugated willingly which fortunately never was a case with Macedonia and it's ppl during all those centuries of occupation.

Not true at all, where did you come up with this theory? and why are we applying a 19th century constructions to historical arguments?

You mentioned Roman Empire where Macedonia was occupied and by force annected into the Empire, but you fail to present to will of the people to such annection, which in the international law can be legal or illegal.

Do I have to explain to you what is the difference between the two?

irrelevant

but you do not have capacity to understand the forms of a statehood and the continuity of the struggle to preserve it.

do you know when the concept of statehood was even created? Would you care to give me which definition of State you are referring to so I can put this argument to bed already?

The current Macedonian state was << liberated >> in WW II and not newly created.

All insurgents, all ups and down in the continuity of the statehood are historical proof for Macedonia as a territorial unit preserving it's historical boundaries.

The current Macedonian state was founded in 1944, in it's current capacity, the Republic of Macedonia has no existence before 1944. Where are egej and pirin? Are you suggesting that the current borders of RoM are the historical territorial boundaries?

Please let me know what you feel the definitions of state/statehood/nation state are, and feel free to let me know when these concepts were created...

[Buktop]

buktop do you believe having a state as part of a federal system is the same as an independent nation state. i dont think that macedonia after world war 2 and bulgaria in 1878 or albania and greece whenever is a valid comparison.

Why not, our state existed since 1944 in it's own capacity, with it's own institutions, it's own citizens, and it's own laws. A federation is a collective of several states that form one cooperative state, but retain relative autonomy.

[Vangelovski]

Buktop,

Your defence of UMD’s ill-thought out statements is quite nauseating – though, I shouldn’t complain, you only help me showing UMD for what it really is. Please provide us with one of your typical defences of UMD’s statement on our “shared” history, culture and geography, which I included in my first post on this thread.

[osiris]

buktop why dont you define nationhood and statehood for us, are the texans a nation is new jersy a nation.

[Buktop]

Buktop,

Your defence of UMD’s ill-thought out statements is quite nauseating – though, I shouldn’t complain, you only help me showing UMD for what it really is. Please provide us with one of your typical defences of UMD’s statement on our “shared” history, culture and geography, which I included in my first post on this thread.

My posts on this thread have nothing to do with UMD, unlike yours which mention UMD at every chance, they are all about exposing the ignorant fantasy ideology of some on here that there has been a continuous Macedonian state throughout history, even though there hasn't, and even though the concept of a state only came into existence in the 19th century.

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.

[Vangelovski]

My posts on this thread have nothing to do with UMD, unlike yours which mention UMD at every chance, they are all about exposing the ignorant fantasy ideology of some on here that there has been a continuous Macedonian state throughout history, even though there hasn't, and even though the concept of a state only came into existence in the 19th century.

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.

Buktop,

If indeed you are an economist, you shouldn't give up your day job.

Do you really believe that the concept of a state only came into existence in the 19th century?

Will you comment on UMD's theory of "shared" history, culture and geography, or is that one in the too hard basket? I raised this issue at the same time as UMD's statement supporting the Greek claim that we usurped the name Macedonia in 1944. This comment of "shared" history, culture and geography seems to indicate that UMD believes we were originally Greeks and in 1944 created a new state and used the name Macedonia for the first time in history.

[Buktop]

buktop why dont you define nationhood and statehood for us, are the texans a nation is new jersy a nation.

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

Think of the USA as a federation of states, just like the EU, the USSR, the SFRJ...

Nation has a much broader meaning

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

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

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.

All of this is a result of the creation of the concept of nationalism, and looking at history through 19th century concepts is really asking for trouble.