Macedonian Nationalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • aleksandrov
    Member
    • Feb 2010
    • 558

    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    Aleksandrov, can you point to some examples within this specific combination that includes all of the elements cited above, and how they relate to each other?...
    SoM,

    Are you sure you've thought this question through? Do you really need evidence to be convinced that ethnic Macedonians are a distinct people, originating from or native to Macedonia, who share a distinctly Macedonian culture, history, language, sense of community and political consciousness?

    Your question is a little like my daughter asking me what makes me and my wife her parents, except that in your case I can't just refer you to some legal definition of a parent, an article about how babies are made and perhaps get DNA tests. So, I am afraid you will just have to continue doing your own research on the distinct combination of elements that ethnic Macedonians share that make them ethnic Macedonians. You've done a pretty decent job of it to date.
    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

    https://www.facebook.com/igor.a.aleksandrov?ref=tn_tnmn

    Comment

    • aleksandrov
      Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 558

      Originally posted by TrueMacedonian View Post
      ...Well Macedonian nationalism as we know it today was due to Macedonians like Delchev, Misirkov, Pulevski and etc. Before them the evidence is really slim. There is a reason why these men are so important to Macedonia's history. Misirkov especially who advocated the further cultural and national development of Macedonians.
      With the exception of your reference to Pulevski, isn't this the same position that Ljubco Georgievski took in his recent interview on Vasko Eftov's program?

      What are the 'cultural elements' and understanding of our ancestry on which Pulevski based his assertion of Macedonian nationhood? Where did he draw or inherit them from? Are they the same or substantively similar to those relied upon by Misirkov?
      All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

      https://www.facebook.com/igor.a.aleksandrov?ref=tn_tnmn

      Comment

      • Big Bad Sven
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2009
        • 1528

        The only "indigenous" people in Europe are the Sami in scandanavia and the Basque people in spain and france. I guess that makes every one else in europe a "new arrival" or "migrant"

        I think its safe to say that in today's europe every nation and its people are "indigenous" to their home country.

        Comment

        • aleksandrov
          Member
          • Feb 2010
          • 558

          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
          ...I don't agree with that at all, and I think your sentence would have been worded differently had this 'animosity' between yourself and TM not exist at the time of writing.
          Which part don't you agree with? That the Greeks occupiers were right in referring to ethnic Macedonians in the Aegean part as 'endopi' i.e. natives?
          All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

          https://www.facebook.com/igor.a.aleksandrov?ref=tn_tnmn

          Comment

          • Soldier of Macedon
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 13675

            Originally posted by Vangelovski
            Does anyone question the 'indigeneity' of Aborigines to Australia, knowing full-well that they settled here at some point in the past?
            Does an Australian Aboriginal get defensive when asked by one of his own kind about the history of their people? I doubt it. Why are you receiving my questions in a defensive manner, when it is clear I have no ill-intentions and am only trying to get a better understanding of your point of view?
            Why are certain people considered 'indigenous' to their homeland and others not, when the reality is that we all share the same ancestors, and as a result, we have all migrated to some part of the earth at some point in time?
            Does that mean everybody living in Macedonia today, both Macedonian and non-Macedonian, is indigenous to the region?
            How long does a certain people have to be resident in a particular region before they can claim 'indigeneity', keeping in mind that ALL people have migrated to their current homelands at some stage?
            I don't know what time limit to place on it, but if one were to compare 50,000 years of Aboriginal presence in Australia to 100 years of Macedonian presence in Australia, the answer as to who is indigenous is rather obvious.
            Further, if not Macedonia, which specific region would you identify as the 'homeland' of Macedonians, if any?
            I identify Macedonia as the homeland of Macedonians, because that is where the Macedonians as a nation first took shape.
            Seeing as I've put forward my view that Macedonians can legitimately claim to be the indigenous inhabitants of Macedonia as much as any other people can claim to be the indigenous inhabitants of their own respective homelands, can you can answer some of the above questions?
            Vangelovski, the view you have put forward suggests that everybody is indigenous to the area they currently live in, and I cannot accept such a generalisation as factual.
            In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

            Comment

            • Soldier of Macedon
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 13675

              Originally posted by aleksandrov View Post
              SoM,

              Are you sure you've thought this question through? Do you really need evidence to be convinced that ethnic Macedonians are a distinct people, originating from or native to Macedonia, who share a distinctly Macedonian culture, history, language, sense of community and political consciousness?
              Aleksandrov, I don't need to be 'convinced' about our own heritage, and if you honestly believe that then you haven't been paying much attention to what I post. If you aren't prepared to cite some examples to demonstrate why you view things the way you do, then disregard the question I posed earlier.
              Your question is a little like my daughter asking me what makes me and my wife her parents, except that in your case I can't just refer you to some legal definition of a parent, an article about how babies are made and perhaps get DNA tests.
              Haha, ok, well your answer is like the one I would receive from my nieces and nephews who respond with a single "because" everytime they are asked "why", only in this case, I know that you know what you're talking about but for whatever reason you won't go into detail about it.
              So, I am afraid you will just have to continue doing your own research on the distinct combination of elements that ethnic Macedonians share that make them ethnic Macedonians. You've done a pretty decent job of it to date
              Thank you, but you could help out a little by sharing with us your own research, don't you think? Clearly, you have formed some strong perceptions based on what you have looked into, I think it would be beneficial for all if you gave us some further insight, but that decision is yours to make.
              In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

              Comment

              • Soldier of Macedon
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 13675

                Originally posted by aleksandrov View Post
                Which part don't you agree with? That the Greeks occupiers were right in referring to ethnic Macedonians in the Aegean part as 'endopi' i.e. natives?
                I don't agree with your suggestion that the Greek occupiers of Macedonia had a better idea than TM on who the indigenous people of the region were, that is a parallel borne out of animosity and not critical thought.
                In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                Comment

                • Onur
                  Senior Member
                  • Apr 2010
                  • 2389

                  Originally posted by Big Bad Sven View Post
                  The only "indigenous" people in Europe are the Sami in scandanavia and the Basque people in spain and france. I guess that makes every one else in europe a "new arrival" or "migrant"


                  According to genetics, oldest male inhabitants of Europe has "I1 and I2" haplogroups. This includes the Scandinavian people except Finns(cuz they are Eurasian immigrants) and some people in Balkans. I read that in several articles that the Bosniaks has oldest form of "I2" genes.

                  Check this message, you will see that the Bosnian males has over %50 of "I2" genes, which is highest in Europe;

                  YouTube - iGenea DNA test confirms that Macedonians are the successors of the Ancient Macedonians! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2g--2S3Ly4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_191050) It's good when it mentions the following: In the last period the official forum of the Swiss institute is full with questions that





                  I think its safe to say that in today's europe every nation and its people are "indigenous" to their home country.
                  I agree to that. Actually whoever has the power to continue to live in that particular place is "indigenous". Also, whats the criteria to be considered as "indigenous" and who decides for how long you have to live in there? 200, 500, 2000, 3000 years?

                  White Australians living in there for less than 200 years at most. Are they indigenous for that continent? Turks lived in Balkans for more than 500+ years, we were indigenous for there? For example, Turkish minority of Bulgaria living in there for 600+ years, are they indigenous?

                  I think this question of being indigenous has no proper answer.
                  Last edited by Onur; 07-29-2010, 06:40 PM.

                  Comment

                  • Soldier of Macedon
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 13675

                    White Australians aren't indigenous to Australia. The time limit is a difficult question, but when you compare thousands of years to a mere few hundred, then the distinction is much easier to make. The Turks are a difficult case, it can be argued that they are now indigenous, but if we were to get down to specifics it can be argued that they aren't, because they originate as Turks in Central Asia and not Asia Minor and Europe. Another factor would be how close Turkish culture is today to the Turks of Central Asia, as opposed to the people of Asia Minor that were there prior to their arrival. If it can be demonstrated that there are more links to Asia Minor than Central Asia, then it can be argued that the Turks, at the very least, have elements of an indigenous culture from the region they now live in.
                    In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                    Comment

                    • TrueMacedonian
                      Senior Member
                      • Jan 2009
                      • 3820

                      Originally posted by aleksandrov View Post
                      With the exception of your reference to Pulevski, isn't this the same position that Ljubco Georgievski took in his recent interview on Vasko Eftov's program?

                      What are the 'cultural elements' and understanding of our ancestry on which Pulevski based his assertion of Macedonian nationhood? Where did he draw or inherit them from? Are they the same or substantively similar to those relied upon by Misirkov?
                      Aleksandrov my words you quote above were made about Nationalism. Are you telling me that Nationalism existed in Macedonia, en masse, the way we know it today, before Pulevski, before Delchev, and before Misirkov? Are you telling me that Nationalism was widespread in the Balkan region before the 19th century? Please explain yourself.

                      Since you bring up my quote on nationalism what books do you recommend on the topic?

                      You mentioned Pribichevich to SoM yet Pribichevich claims in his book that todays Macedonians are not related to the ancient Macedonians and that the ancient Macedonians left no descendents. Are you going to try and dupe people like your friend Indigen tried to using Pribichevich - http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...?t=1706&page=7
                      Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                      Comment

                      • TrueMacedonian
                        Senior Member
                        • Jan 2009
                        • 3820

                        Aleksandrov said;
                        What are the 'cultural elements' and understanding of our ancestry on which Pulevski based his assertion of Macedonian nationhood? Where did he draw or inherit them from? Are they the same or substantively similar to those relied upon by Misirkov?
                        I will answer this more specifically. Pulevski may have resolved this nationalism with himself through folklore, folksongs, and whatever history he knew of the ancient Macedonians, without the aid of any German, Brit, or Frenchman.

                        Misirkov explains in much greater detail the Macedonians of his time and the propaganda that raged in Macedonia. He explains why Macedonians called themselves Christians and why they were called Bulgarians and why they called themselves Bulgarians.
                        Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                        Comment

                        • TrueMacedonian
                          Senior Member
                          • Jan 2009
                          • 3820

                          Aleksandrov said;
                          His stated non-desire clearly conflicts with presumptions and inferences he has made that there is no evidence of the existence of an indigenous Macedonian culture or ethnicity.
                          Aleksandrov I have pointed out a few things already. The Macedonian Lion being one of them. However nothing in conclusive. Nothing ever is when evidence is slim. I even pointed out the fact that Macedonians who migrated from Macedonia to Romania in the 14th century named their village "Macedonia" showing they clearly had awareness of where they came from. Those Macedonian's descendents still live in those areas today.
                          SoM pointed out the oro and the gajda and provided a good amount of evidence to back up what he is saying. However there are still many questions left to ask about this as well as Bratot and his topic on Macedonian Falconry. If we are not able to scrutinize our own claims with the same conviction we scrutinize others then we are no better than Macedonia's neighbors.
                          Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                          Comment

                          • Vangelovski
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 8532

                            SoM,

                            I know that your questions are not ill-intentioned and I apologise if my responses seem defensive. The following is not directed at you, but the wider audience.

                            I think we should call a spade a spade. This discussion is essentially over whether the Macedonians are "genuine" Macedonians from Macedonia or Slav invaders. These are the two key views and regardless of the amount of energy being expended to deny that this is what we are talking about, the elephant in the room speaks for itself.

                            My view is that 'indigeneity' is essentially a political concept developed to assert ownership over a specific territory by either claiming 'first people' status or that the culture/identity of a particular people developed within, and is intrisically tied to, a particular territory.

                            The alternative is the Slav migration myth (a national "myth" can be both true or untrue - its historical reality is irrelevant, what is relevant is its purpose). This too is a political construct, but one that works to undermine the Macedonian identity.

                            In relation to the Slav migration myth, I'd like to note two things:

                            a) there is still no evidence to prove that such a migration took place and it is my view that this was a specific nation-building idea invented to support the creation of a pan-Slav state at a point in time when certain ideologues deemed this possible and desirable; and

                            b) even if a Slav migration did take place, a Slav people would have originated from the same ancestors as everyone else, thereby making the concept of "Slavness" a political/identity construct no more valid or invalid than any other political construct, including 'indigeneity'.

                            So, why use a Slav migration "myth" which denies our identity over an indigenous "myth" aimed at perserving our identity?
                            If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                            The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                            Comment

                            • Soldier of Macedon
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 13675

                              Originally posted by Vangelovski
                              SoM,

                              I know that your questions are not ill-intentioned and I apologise if my responses seem defensive.
                              No problem Vangelovski, rest assured my intentions are to discuss this matter in a critical but constructive manner, I appreciate the fact that you can see this.
                              a) there is still no evidence to prove that such a migration took place and it is my view that this was a specific nation-building idea invented to support the creation of a pan-Slav state at a point in time when certain ideologues deemed this possible and desirable
                              I agree with you, although rather than a pan-Slav state, I would be more inclined to perceive it as a drive towards a common pan-Slav identity based on linguistic affiliation.
                              So, why use a Slav migration "myth" which denies our identity over an indigenous "myth" aimed at perserving our identity?
                              Quite simply, it shouldn't be used, because the former is, as you put it, nothing but a 'myth' based on deliberate misinterpretations that are largely propagated by people outside of Macedonia and the Balkans.
                              In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                              Comment

                              • aleksandrov
                                Member
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 558

                                Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                                ... I know that you know what you're talking about but for whatever reason you won't go into detail about it. ...
                                SoM,

                                I have already gone into detail on this topic too many times over the past 18 years or so, with a constant reduction in intensity in the last 10 of those years. I have researched and analyzed the social constructs of race, ethnicity and nationhood fairly extensively, not only in a Macedonian context, but also in a universal context, in my university studies, as well as independent research. Obsessive research into the history of the development of the Macedonian ethnic and cultural identity since my mid to late teens only led me to conclusions that I could have reached with only 5% of that effort, had I not fallen into the trap of the "Macedonian question", as framed by our oppressors. I am well over exploring and analyzing those concepts in detail, and I won't do it again unless there is a very concrete and significant objective to be achieved. I don't have the brain capacity to precisely cite the relevant material off the top of my head, I don't have the time to go back to it for the purpose of this discussion, and I always avoid being imprecise when it comes to details.

                                These days I choose to focus more on issues like human rights and freedoms, justice, equity and self-empowerment of the Macedonian and all other oppressed peoples.

                                It is unjust and inequitable for ethnic Macedonians to constantly be placed in a position where their ethnic origin is questioned or disputed in a manner or to a degree that the origin of other ethnic groups is not. The tendency of too many Macedonians to allow themselves to be put in that position is a sign of insecurity, which we must eliminate if we are to reach a reasonable level of self-respect and self-empowerment.

                                I have no doubt about my indigenous Macedonian ethnicity and do not feel a need to engage in academic exercises of justification every time someone decides to question it. I will leave such exercises for academics to indulge in.

                                If ANYBODY, whether it be a Greek or Bulgarian nationalist, or a "Macedonian", wants to engage me in an exercise of having to prove the existence of an indigenous Macedonian ethnicity, they better be prepared to first justify their own sense of ethnic identity by application of the same standards of evidence they demand from indigenous Macedonians. If 'Macedonians' who are uncertain about their roots want answers to these types of questions, I recommend that they first take an academically more rigorous avenue to exploring the concept of ethnicity, including indigenous ethnicity, on a universal level, before they go into specifics in exploring their own ethnic identity and its roots. There is plenty of material out there by very competent people who have dedicated their lives to studying these matters and sharing their findings with others. The only obstacle in relation to 'elements' of the Macedonian ethnicity in particular is that much of the relevant material has not been published in English. A good command of the Macedonian literary language, and perhaps some understanding of Bulgarian and Serbian is critical. I know that being able to read Turkish, Greek, Russian, Polish, Latin, Arabic, German and/or French could take one's research much further, but, unfortunately, I don't have any personal experience in that regard.

                                The level of academic rigor and standard of evidence that TM has applied in this thread is such that your nieces' and nephews' "just because" answer may well be the most appropriate one.

                                P.S. You have misjudged me if you think that my replies to TM are shaped by personal animosity towards him. I bear no more personal animosity towards TM than I do towards you, and I bear no animosity towards you whatsoever, despite our fairly nasty exchanges some time ago, in a debate about the history of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Constantinople Patriarchy, The Ohrid Archdiocese, Basil II, Samuil, Misirkov ...
                                All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

                                https://www.facebook.com/igor.a.aleksandrov?ref=tn_tnmn

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X