Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[julie]

Vangelovski, your analysis is amazing, I am in awe,

and more confused

[Phoenix]

Could Buktop really be Meto...?

[Vangelovski]

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

????


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.

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.

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.

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...

“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...?

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.

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.


Then a few of these:

Stick to the topic Vangelovski.

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.

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.


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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

State definition...Take...6?

State 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”...

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Not really.

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

Where do I begin?

[Mikail]

An answer would be nice Babazuba

[Soldier of Macedon]

I don't think so SoM. I think Babazuba is in one of our occupied territories by the way he writes. And if it is so, I can understand his viewpoint. Or her if that is the case?

I hope so mate.

[julie]

Babazuba, where are you from?

[Mikail]

I don't think so SoM. I think Babazuba is in one of our occupied territories by the way he writes. And if it is so, I can understand his viewpoint. Or her if that is the case?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Probably the same sphere as Dedanoe.

[Mikail]

Babazuba, where do you write from?

[Babazuba]

somebody took Mr. Nimic shnook

On Al Sat Television, Zoran Vraniskovski says that we should rename ourselves to Slav Macedonian. I cant believe we still have people like this in our country, what a farce.

http://sitel.com.mk/video/makedonija...-i-identitetot

Did EU apoint Vranishkovski to be the mediator?
Thats Mr. Nimic's crupy job.
How come Vranishkovski can ceep Macedonian name, yet he works
for Greece, via Srbiya.??
Please explain
It is time for all Macedonians to chaing their Greek names back to
Macedonian. First step to freedom. In front of EU representatives.
Iron is forged while hot.

[Soldier of Macedon]

By the way, visit Mikail's thread called Some Macedonian Truths http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...7397#post47397 , you know, the one you have been avoiding. Go and see how popular your views are among Macedonians regarding that particular topic, and don't forget to bring your Maknews signature too.

[Soldier of Macedon]

My sentence was perfectly fine and no one had a problem with it until you came in and took it out of context. You are trying to find any reason you can to berate me or attack me.........

No, it wasn't fine, that is why it was highlighted - with a question initially, I might add. You are the one, who, in his paranoia of others looking to find any reason to "berate" or "attack" you, decided to react defensively, hence the current predicament.

manipulating the meaning of a single fragment of the paragraph

Oh please, what do you take the readers here for, morons without the ability to criticise? Is that what you're used to dealing with, Buktop? If so, you're at the wrong place. You're the only person I have come across who says things like Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832 and then follows it up by saying it was not in reference or description of the name Hellas. Get real. Here is your full paragraph:

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...

For Macedonia, Israel, Italy and Germany it can be argued that you referred to the actual states themselves. However, for Greece and Albania you clearly make reference to names, and for Greece in particular you went to the effort of writing "only officially used the name". You are the only person that sees it in your own way, everybody else reading sees it the way it was written.

That is for the benefit of all readers to see that the only manipulation that has taken place is in your confused head.

Be careful SoM, you are letting your distaste for UMD override your ability to reason

Haha, yeah ok, now getting back to reality, parallels between your behaviour on this thread and others related to the UMD can easily be drawned, and you have shown support for them through every act of stupidity, don't be upset that most people here look at you in a particular way, you made your bed, now lay in it and dream of a night dedicated to Macedonian patriotism with Meto Serb dancing in the spirit of 3-name formulas. You have already made it clear that those circumstances don't bother you, so why not bring it all together and make one circus of an episode.

It was a courteous gesture to give you fair notice that I may not be so generous with my patience in future responses to these little slur's.

Begging your pardon, but you may want to clarify exactly what I should be expecting when your patience is no longer so "generous", because I am now beginning to shiver in fright. Are you going to start using profanity towards me like you did in your first response to me here? You are going to be disrespectful in a manner non-factual? Give it a shot, Buktop.

[Buktop]

People can read, the problem is other people like yourself don't know what they're writing, and scramble for justification after their errors have been highlighted to them, rather than admitting that you simply worded your sentence wrong, which gave rise for an interpretation that differs from the one in your own head.

My sentence was perfectly fine and no one had a problem with it until you came in and took it out of context. You are trying to find any reason you can to berate me or attack me, enough is enough. I had no need to scramble for justification, anyone with the ability to understand English would know to read in context, rather than manipulating the meaning of a single fragment of the paragraph. But hey, you aren't the first one to derive misconceived notions by reading out of context...

You're a liar, or you are not very good at putting your notions to print. If it wasn't in reference to the name Hellas, then you shouldn't have written the following:

You can keep quoting that same fragment all you want, manipulation of text seems to be a regular occurrence with you. So I must respectfully disagree with your insinuation that I have lied about anything in this thread.

That's always been your problem Buktop, you would rather dodge, lie and re-interpret like your friend Meto than admit to your own errors. It's a pathetic trait, if you have a shred of principle, take some accountability.

Be careful SoM, you are letting your distaste for UMD override your ability to reason...

Are you going to answer my previous question, what happens after the "one more time", because it has now been two more times? Was that a threat? Or was that another one of your famous statements that only you can understand?

Threat's? Now why would I bother threatening someone over the internet? What do you take me for? A greek?

It was a courteous gesture to give you fair notice that I may not be so generous with my patience in future responses to these little slur's.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Sorry, I assumed that people here would be able to understand English

People can read, the problem is other people like yourself don't know what they're writing, and scramble for justification after their errors have been highlighted to them, rather than admitting that you simply worded your sentence wrong, which gave rise for an interpretation that differs from the one in your own head.

Officially as in an autonomous State, official in relation to the date of the founding of the state, not in reference or description of the name Hellas.

You're a liar, or you are not very good at putting your notions to print. If it wasn't in reference to the name Hellas, then you shouldn't have written the following:

Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832

That's always been your problem Buktop, you would rather dodge, lie and re-interpret like your friend Meto than admit to your own errors. It's a pathetic trait, if you have a shred of principle, take some accountability.

Are you going to answer my previous question, what happens after the "one more time", because it has now been two more times? Was that a threat? Or was that another one of your famous statements that only you can understand?

[Bratot]

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.

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..



And I asked you to tell me what the text represents to you, I am not interested in other interpretations!?


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.