Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Orfej]

Orfej Orfej... we agreed already that history is selective science right?

So why should someone support your selected truth and not mine?

I’m not forcing anyone to accept my views, it’s a matter of choice. But I think the choice should be based on rational thinking!! Sorry but I don’t see your selective approach as rational and logical. Your posts confirm that.

Maybe you could point out where the provided translation was incorect, which part??

You blew it already with the "Empire" raping on this thread, it's clearly underlined it is about Republics and Federation, but if you really want to go head against the wall, I don't care.

On several point you are proven wrong but it's over too much for you to admit your lack of sufficiency in history knowledge and biased interpetation, isn't?

Obviously there are 2 camps who present us different translations regarding the same text. On one side there is Paskal Kamburovski( I really never heard of the guy) and on the other there is Pasko Kuzman( a well known figure in Macedonian archeology) I never stated which side translates the text correctly. I simply don’t know!!
But you on the other hand had already chosen to believe in the translation of Paskal Kamburovski, not because of some objective observation, but because you believe that this translation suits your agenda- proving the disobedience and fight of the Macedonians against Rome to establish their own state!! But how much a marble inscription would help you in proving that? Not much now would it? Remember we are talking about a period of 11 centuries( between the two Macedonian empires-that of Perseus and of Samoil) Knowing that only in a period of one century there were 3 big uprisings and rebellions against the Ottomans( Razlovci, Kresna and Ilinden- all national uprisings) it would be un-rational to present marble inscriptions as proofs of the 11 century disobedience of the Macedonian people against Rome!!

To make things more ironical you developed another theory which contradicts your first, that Macedonia was a state (or a autonomous region) in the ``Roman Federation``. So on one hand the Macedonians had their own state in the ``Roman Federation``, but on the other they were disobedient and fought against it!! These are the kinds of contradiction that the continuation theories provide!! In your lack of explanation you even made the Roman Empire a Federation.
It’s not your fault, you are not even aware how ridiculous it sounds.

[Buktop]

I think my head's bleeding...

I don't know whether you missed this or if you purposely ignored it, but here it is again

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.

[Buktop]

Well mabe you should keep it to your self. Whats the point in you alone knowing the meaning that was intended.

Sorry, I assumed that people here would be able to understand English, or where I was coming from with that statement in the CONTEXT of my posts, which I can see neither you nor SoM have bothered to read.

"Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832 "

I am with SOM on this one. For something to become official, it would have to be unofficial previously.

Perhaps you should have used the words such as "For the first time" if thats truely what you meant.

Post the entire quote if you would be so kind and you will see the meaning. 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.

Maybe you and SoM should take your time and read more carefully rather than taking words out of context and drawing baseless conclusions.

Now will you allow me to continue my discussion with Vangelovski, the one before SoM derailed the thread...

[Bratot]

Orfej Orfej... we agreed already that history is selective science right?

So why should someone support your selected truth and not mine?

Maybe you could point out where the provided translation was incorect, which part?

You blew it already with the "Empire" raping on this thread, it's clearly underlined it is about Republics and Federation, but if you really want to go head against the wall, I don't care.

On several point you are proven wrong but it's over too much for you to admit your lack of sufficiency in history knowledge and biased interpetation, isn't?

[Mastika]

i will be slightly off topic here mate and i apoligise, but have you ever been to Demirhisar? we can take it to pm if you like

Yes I have, I have no problem answering question on pm.

[julie]

Cheers Mikail, now they are on about primordial approaches.
Bugger Me.
They can be whatever the hell they think they are, bunch of baboons.
I am a Macedonian princess , the daughter of Tsar Samuil, of Alexander the Great , KINGDOMS and STATES they ruled.
and no one can tell me otherwise , they can argue the dushmanite's bullshit all they like, I DONT GIVE A TOSS

JAS SUM MAKEDONKA

[julie]

Orfej, what is your point?

[Mikail]

Well said sestroThere are many of our people who need A shame they don't realise all they need to do is look in the mirror and utter "Jas Sum Makedonec / Jas Sum Makedonka

YES!, to put it blantly,
They fight to preserve the "inheritnce" tought them since
early school time. They do not understand the meaning of truth
of historical events, in the right format.
The same goest in todays lectures in ancient history of Macedonians
For example, after ocupation of Athens by Macedonians,
history does not state that Athens was ocupied by Macedonians.
It states that Alexandar of Macedon was Greek King, thus
in further reading one understands that Alexabdar is of Greek
descendant, and Greek. Historians totaly neglect to continue
that historic moment from Macedonian point of vew, but
continue to express the Greeknes of Macedonian history.
Omiting the point that Greece did not remotely exist as is today,
in ancient times. Elleni are not Greeks, per say.
That would be like, Macedonians deriving from Yugoslavs?
Elleni have forgoten who they are, because they have bin saturated
with Macedonian history and heritag to such extent that today
Greeks are like, blind falowers of an ocult.
and so on and so forth I hope I speak with clarity

With total clarity Babazuba! Total clarity!

[Orfej]

It's your choice what approach you'll chose, there are probably your common opinioners in every country I guess, but the reality in practice is pretty cruel and if you propagate naivness you will be another tragically killed humanitarian.

Ofcourse everyone is entitled to an opinion. I’m just astonished to the amount of people in the Balkans who still hold on the the primordial approach who is backwarded and belongs to a different time.

How do you percieve a Roman "rule" in which the Macedonians were able to be the gouvernors, generals and even Emperors in such conglomerate of nations as that Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

It was more a question of FEDERATION and precizely that name was official: Foederate Roman

Look, I don’t have the time to explain basic stuff here!! I suggest to anyone who thinks that Macedonia was a autonomous region or a state in the Roman Empire to educate himself a little more!! The same goes for those who think that the Roman Empire was a Federation. Mixing an Empire with a Federation, and a Province ( an administrative division of an Empire) with a State is not something debatable, it’s something that needs to be learned.

Furthermore the fact that there were Roman generals and even Emperors of Macedonian origin doesn’t change anything. There were also Ottoman generals and Sultans who had Macedonian origin!! Does that mean that the Ottoman Empire didn’t ruled Macedonia for 500 years and that Macedonia was a state within the Ottoman Empire!?!

The Roman Federation took the place of the Roman Republic in which the Representatives are chosen by the province.
The Province is also given equal rights as a state, capable of making its own laws.
Julius Caesar also said a spell given to him by a mysterious oracle and created talking animals, magical creatures and living trees and water. Eventually, the Roman Federation expanded to several continents.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rom...g_Roman_Empire)

If one should follow your logic than the Macedonian Socialistic and Peoples Republic as a federate republic in SFRJ didn't existed for it's own purpose?

Completely wrong!! But i tended to debate about the continuation of states and ethnicities through time( primordial approach) and not giving lessons on Roman history. I simply don't see the point in debating something obvious.

I provide a translation of the text, what does it tells you?

A translation given by who? Paskal Kamburovski?

http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/show.dml/1658834

But Pasko Kuzman and the Macedonian academia translates the text in different way!! Who should we trust now? Paskal or Pasko?

Does it provide a reason to believe as you stated upper that those Macedonians were working for the good of the Roman Empire and not Macedonia?

Well do you honestly think that Justinian or Belisarious worked for the good just of Macedonia(as a administrative unit) or for the good Eastern Roman Empire?

Don't oppose me for the sake of opposing and stop expressing some pathetic liberal open minded views cuz as much as you try as much you look more narrow minded.

I would definitely not oppose you just for the sake of opposing. But I would evaluate if you are capable to understand and accept your mistakes!! If I get the impression that you are not able to do that then I would back of, since it’s pointless to debate with a wall!!

[julie]

Vangelovski, from what I can see here we have some opposing views - from the Bulgar perspective and from the Yugo perspective. Its sad to see Macedonians, if that is what they are arguing for the dushmanite.

Its done my head in too.

And if I can get my 2 cents in, for what its worth Macedonia has been an empire and a state for thousands of years, la di da di da . period.
Alexander the Great and Tsar Samuil, our MACEDONIAN kings just to name a couple
dobro vecer

And this bullshit that is going on for the sake of arguing for the dushmanite has to stop. Seriously, work out what the hell you are, as I stated in an earlier post. Then odite vo pitchku materin Bugarska i Serbska UMD i grchka. and goo riddance to those that support anti-Macedonian bullshit

[Vangelovski]

I think my head's bleeding...

[Bill77]

Poteknuvam od DemirHisarskiot kraj. Ne sum nitu Grk, nitu Bugarin, Makedonec sum.

i will be slightly off topic here mate and i apoligise, but have you ever been to Demirhisar? we can take it to pm if you like

[Mastika]

Mastika, you sound so NOT Macedonian more like a Greek or Bulgarian posing to be a Macedonian. Od koj mesto si?

Poteknuvam od DemirHisarskiot kraj. Ne sum nitu Grk, nitu Bugarin, Makedonec sum.

Would it then be fair to say that THEIR great, great Grandparents were also ethnic Macedonains?

I'll go one further and ask if it would it then be fair to say that even their great, great grandparents were ethnic Macedonians?

If so, who taught them to be ethnic Macedonians? What made them ethnic Macedonians? Where did their ethnic Macedonian identity come from?

Did the French teach it to them? Or was it their parents/grandparents and so on?

Your great-grandparents, if they are still alive, would be about 97. Perhaps born between 1910 - 1915?

So their great grandparents would have been born roughly around the 1840's to 1850's and
THEIR great-grandparents would have been born, roughly speaking, in the 1780's.

Would you agree, or do you find it plausible that in the 1780's, your ancestors (that's 9 generations ago) would have been and could have been ethnic Macedonians? If not, then when did your ancestors, in which generation, change their entire identity and start calling themselves Macedonians (without basis)?

If they were ethnic Macedonians, then I'd like to ask you what happened between 1593 and 1780.

As I am sure you are aware, Macedonia was occupied by the Ottomans during this entire period, yet there are historical sources citing a Stamp of the Kingdom of Macedonia which was being used to imprint letters as early (or late) as 1593.

I do find it plausible that the generation born 1850s saw themselves as ethnic Macedonians.
I also find it plausible that the generation born 1780s had some sort of ethnic Macedonian identity, albeit not as strong as their great-grandchildren.

I cannot answer the question when my ancestors first started to see themselves as ethnically Macedonian, this question has no defnite answer.

The modern forces of nationalism, desire for a nation state, solid notions of ethnicity etc. etc. arose mainly due to the developments which were happening in Europe at the time. These too were reciprocated people in the Ottoman Empire as people began to see themselves as not only "Christians" but also an "ethnic Serb", "ethnic Albanian" etc. Once one generation of people began to see the need to be ethnic this or ethnic that, they instilled this feeling into their children who naturally found belonging amongst their own people. What I am not going to do is claim that the ethnic Macedonian identity (or any ethnic identity for that matter) has existed since time immemorial, given that what we see as being ethnicity was not a notion present before say the Englightenment or at least the late Renaissance.

I am interested in seeing this stamp if you could post it somewhere on the forum. Also who had the authority to issue it?

[Bratot]

I explained it earlier!! Every nation had a primordial approach regarding it’s people. But these approaches were established and belonged to the 18 and 19 century. Today they are obsolete. But we still try to cling on to such approaches which are causing us more harm then good.

It's your choice what approach you'll chose, there are probably your common opinioners in every country I guess, but the reality in practice is pretty cruel and if you propagate naivness you will be another tragically killed humanitarian.

Now in the lack of explanation, you are trying to tell us that there wasn’t any Roman rule in Macedonia!! The Macedonians had their own autonomous territory( Macedonia) which they ruled, had their own Macedonian army, own laws, administration, own Macedonian king etc. They were just in a peaceful ancient federation lead by Rome.

How do you percieve a Roman "rule" in which the Macedonians were able to be the gouvernors, generals and even Emperors in such conglomerate of nations as that Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

It was more a question of FEDERATION and precizely that name was official: Foederate Roman

To get back in reality. Macedonia as a territory was ruled by Rome. It’s sovereignty was destroyed, it’s kings and thousands of the people were send to slavery and Macedonia become just one of the provinces in the Roman empire. They didn’t even possessed Roman citizenship at the time, it was limited only to people of the original Roman provinces( not to the occupied provinces). They were given their Roman citizenship in the 3-th century. And as you wrote, many people used it to become Roman soldiers, generals and even Emperors. As you can easily understand they were working for the good of the Roman Empire, not for the good of the Macedonian Empire- the latter didn’t existed, it was destroyed in 168 BC.

The Roman Federation took the place of the Roman Republic in which the Representatives are chosen by the province.
The Province is also given equal rights as a state, capable of making its own laws.
Julius Caesar also said a spell given to him by a mysterious oracle and created talking animals, magical creatures and living trees and water. Eventually, the Roman Federation expanded to several continents.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rom...g_Roman_Empire)

If one should follow your logic than the Macedonian Socialistic and Peoples Republic as a federate republic in SFRJ didn't existed for it's own purpose?

The text in the lower left part of the picture states:
Now how will you connect this text with the disobedience of the Macedonians towards the Roman state is beyond me!!

I provide a translation of the text, what does it tells you?

Does it provide a reason to believe as you stated upper that those Macedonians were working for the good of the Roman Empire and not Macedonia?

I don't think so homie.


A sanctuary, a temple, where generations of Macedonians were giving honour to their Kings, is that enough understanable?

Don't oppose me for the sake of opposing and stop expressing some pathetic liberal open minded views cuz as much as you try as much you look more narrow minded.

[Orfej]

If you pay attention to most of European states there is a same continuity, if you want take the German tribal states, Polabians, Gauls, Romans, I'm not advocating special status of some national-state of ours but why would we be the exception?

I have the right to flourish my selective approach, if you want to follow Greek approach it is your choice.

I explained it earlier!! Every nation had a primordial approach regarding it’s people. But these approaches were established and belonged to the 18 and 19 century. Today they are obsolete. But we still try to cling on to such approaches which are causing us more harm then good.

There were Macedonians involved in the administration and Macedonia was divided into 4 republics with the duty of paying tax and millitary support.

You have dozens of generals and later even Emperors originated from Macedonian soil.

The term Romans as citizens was only a political term, but if you start reading some of the sources there is clear ethnic differentiation.

Now in the lack of explanation, you are trying to tell us that there wasn’t any Roman rule in Macedonia!! The Macedonians had their own autonomous territory( Macedonia) which they ruled, had their own Macedonian army, own laws, administration, own Macedonian king etc. They were just in a peaceful ancient federation lead by Rome.

To get back in reality. Macedonia as a territory was ruled by Rome. It’s sovereignty was destroyed, it’s kings and thousands of the people were send to slavery and Macedonia become just one of the provinces in the Roman empire. They didn’t even possessed Roman citizenship at the time, it was limited only to people of the original Roman provinces( not to the occupied provinces). They were given their Roman citizenship in the 3-th century. And as you wrote, many people used it to become Roman soldiers, generals and even Emperors. As you can easily understand they were working for the good of the Roman Empire, not for the good of the Macedonian Empire- the latter didn’t existed, it was destroyed in 168 BC.

I provided only a start point for you but I got the feeling that you haven't read the whole text properly.

However you may go now with the marble from Isar Marvinci which stands in front of the Government:



"MAKEDONIARHΩNTON NAONTHPATRIDI
PANTITΩKOΣMO TO ΘKT ETEI".

meaning:

"To Macedonian kings, a shrine of the Fatherland
from the whole nation"

That was a marblestone from the shrine/temple in 329 year or first half of the 4 century A.D.(officially) or according to Kamburovski year 56-65 A.D.; dedicated to the great Macedonian kings and represents a symbol of pride and disobeying.

The text in the lower left part of the picture states:

Pasko Kuzman: the inscription says that a ``Macedonian`` had given money for building the temple in Isak-Marvinci.

Now how will you connect this text with the disobedience of the Macedonians towards the Roman state is beyond me!!