Mandella is dead

[Risto the Great]

Ok, you might have a point in relation to the Greek settlers in Macedonia.

However, your idea of indigeneity does not work for Macedonians because there is quite a lot of evidence as to who was in Macedonia prior to the formation of Macedonian identity/culture and historians like Eugene Borza have gone into quite some detail on it. Even SoM has touched on it with his reaseach on linguistics. We can very safely assume which tribes of peoples Macedonians grew out of and in most instances we know where these people migrated from - and these originated in the Middle East. If we take it back far enough (and assume that humanity began/was created in Ethiopia) then we're all indigenous to Ethiopia and only Ethiopia. Even if we don't go that far back, and start from Asia Minor, then Macedonians are really indigenous to the Middle East, making us a settler people in Macedonia. That fact that Macedonian identity/culture developed in Macedonia is irrelevant, according to your definition, because we do know which peoples lived there prior to the creation of that identity/culture and where they came from for the most part.

What culture? 2000 years ago Macedonian men were screwing little boys and worshipping donkeys or whatever. Clearly the people of the region have changed over time. Orthodox Christianity seems to be an indicator of the Macedonian identity, as does language amongst other things. 1000 years ago the British were speaking gibberish. Yet we are inclined to call them the same people as that of today.

As long as the people were from the same place and no documented movements occurred in recent times, they should be construed as indigenous in my opinion. Otherwise, we will have the christian turks demanding indigenous rights as Macedonians. Then THEY WILL have reason to argue against our Macedonian identity. Which is a joke.

[George S.]

well we have to apply the test of time to many indigenous people.Look at the aborigines of Australia.They are really from india.They walkled across when there was a land mass about 80 to 100,000 You can safely say they are indigenous.The same goes with Macedonians they are in existence a long time.Their very existence attests to thei longeivity on the land.

[Vangelovski]

What culture? 2000 years ago Macedonian men were screwing little boys and worshipping donkeys or whatever. Clearly the people of the region have changed over time. Orthodox Christianity seems to be an indicator of the Macedonian identity, as does language amongst other things. 1000 years ago the British were speaking gibberish. Yet we are inclined to call them the same people as that of today.

Similar or not, right or wrong, donkeys or whatever, Macedonian identity and culture was highly developed by 2,500 years ago. All identities and cultures undergo change over time, I'm not disputing that, but to suggest that a Macedonian identity and culture (whether or not it is the same as now) did not exist 2,000 years ago is quite ridiculous. A simple perusal of Borza, Hammond, Badian, Green or even Gandeto is enough to realise that they were doing much more than procreating and grunting at each other.

As long as the people were from the same place and no documented movements occurred in recent times, they should be construed as indigenous in my opinion. Otherwise, we will have the christian turks demanding indigenous rights as Macedonians. Then THEY WILL have reason to argue against our Macedonian identity. Which is a joke.

What do you mean by people being from the same place? Ancient Macedonians formed out of a number of different tribes, all of which essentially originate from the Middle East. But so are a lot of other nations/peoples. Is that the same place? Does it matter that other nations originate from that place as well? And what is it specifically about Macedonia that makes Macedonians indigenous to that territory according to your definition?

In recent times? How long is that? 1 year? 10 years? 50 years? Christian Turks fit much better into that definition than the one I proposed (which again, isn't really mine, its been around for a very long time)! They've been there since the 1920's and there has not been any documented movements in "recent times", therefore, Christian Turks have become Indigenous Macedonians according to your definition.

What about "undocumented" movements? Do they count?

[George S.]

I meant in a previous thread that there was a continuous continuum of existence of Macedonians on the land & an identity to match.Some people say to suit their propaganda that there were gaps .No there weren't there is a continuous existence.It seems ridiculous for words that other recent arivers such as the Albanians can identify as if they are indigenous to the land.THey are not indigenous neither that they are Macedonian of origin.They are claiming that they are Illyrian & at some point claimed a Macedonian territory which in the past was supposedly held by them Today we learn they weren't Illyrian and so it's all an irrendist story.Its all made up to rob us of our heritage.THat's why Macedonia has allways been Macedonian & is indigenous.THis is a unique find in a country that has mingled with different people.

[Risto the Great]

I wasn't denying ancient Macedonians had a culture. I was stating that it was very different to now.

What do you mean by people being from the same place? Ancient Macedonians formed out of a number of different tribes, all of which essentially originate from the Middle East. But so are a lot of other nations/peoples. Is that the same place? Does it matter that other nations originate from that place as well? And what is it specifically about Macedonia that makes Macedonians indigenous to that territory according to your definition?

You make this sound as though it is fact.
I like belly dancers but I'm not really believing the Middle East thing for a second. What do you rely on for this? It's the first time I have ever heard of it.

If you can think of "newcomers" to a region, then they aren't indigenous.

In recent times? How long is that? 1 year? 10 years? 50 years? Christian Turks fit much better into that definition than the one I proposed (which again, isn't really mine, its been around for a very long time)! They've been there since the 1920's and there has not been any documented movements in "recent times", therefore, Christian Turks have become Indigenous Macedonians according to your definition.

No, according to your definition, they become indigenous Macedonians. They have experienced an ethnogenesis in Macedonia. They are indigenous to Macedonia according to your definition, not mine.

Their movement in the 1920's was heavily documented. I would call that recent times. Yes, I would even call 400 years ago for the Zulus as recent times.

What about "undocumented" movements? Do they count?

Depends I suppose. The Hungarians believe they came from somewhere else and their language has roots somewhere else. But they have been there a bloody long time and I'm willing to afford them an indigenous status. I believe they are indigenous people who speak a different language from their ancestors.

Either way, I'm bored now. Just mindful of who else can be deemed indigenous in your mind. Your thinking allows the christian turkish nationals and (in due course under the right conditions) ethnic Albanians of Macedonia as indigenous people of Macedonia. Which is disturbing if we feel as though indigenous people should be afforded some special rights.

[Vangelovski]

I wasn't denying ancient Macedonians had a culture. I was stating that it was very different to now.

I know its different to now – but that is irrelevant. You seemed to be denying that ancient Macedonians had a culture when you asked, “What culture?”.

You make this sound as though it is fact.
I like belly dancers but I'm not really believing the Middle East thing for a second. What do you rely on for this? It's the first time I have ever heard of it. .

The fact that you've never heard of it means nothing. If anything, it just means that you haven’t read up on ancient Macedonian history. I already noted some historians and archaeologists that have dealt with it in great detail in my previous post. But more generally, humans first migrated to Europe from the Middle East and later from the Steppes of southern Russia (though these groups also came from the Middle East). Read anything on this and it'll become clear. These first humans are ancestors of the Macedonians (who are also humans).

If you can think of "newcomers" to a region, then they aren't indigenous.
No, according to your definition, they become indigenous Macedonians. They have experienced an ethnogenesis in Macedonia. They are indigenous to Macedonia according to your definition, not mine.

You keep going around in circles on this. What are newcomers? How long do they have to be there in order not to be newcomers?

As for the definition I was using, I already conceded that it is no longer useful because of the point you made about the Christian Turks.

Their movement in the 1920's was heavily documented. I would call that recent times. Yes, I would even call 400 years ago for the Zulus as recent times.

What wouldn’t you call “recent times”? Why such an arbitrary date? Surely you must have some reasoning around this.

Depends I suppose. The Hungarians believe they came from somewhere else and their language has roots somewhere else. But they have been there a bloody long time and I'm willing to afford them an indigenous status. I believe they are indigenous people who speak a different language from their ancestors.

Why them and not others. Their migration is actually very well recorded and it happened in stages, but they reached Hungary in around 900AD. Why give them indigenous status and not the Zulu? This is just arbitrary and contradictory.

Either way, I'm bored now. Just mindful of who else can be deemed indigenous in your mind. Your thinking allows the christian turkish nationals and (in due course under the right conditions) ethnic Albanians of Macedonia as indigenous people of Macedonia. Which is disturbing if we feel as though indigenous people should be afforded some special rights.

Stating it now for the third time, I’ve already conceded that the definition I was using isn’t really appropriate. You’ve convinced me that I shouldn’t be using it.

But yours is a mess. Its arbitrary, contradictory and still allows for the Christian Turks to become indigenous. Maybe not now, maybe not in 400 years, but given enough time (like the Hungarians who have been there 1,100 years), the Christian Turks will also be indigenous to Macedonia. Arbitrary rulings that they don’t count is beyond reason and would only make sense to you.

[Vangelovski]

Below are two genetic migration maps. Interesting to note that humans originate in the Middle East (so much for the ‘out of Africa’ theory). Point is, humans migrated to Europe and Macedonia from the Middle East. This would mean that Macedonians are indigenous to the Middle East according to your theory Chris. It is well documented in our DNA.

I conceded my definition was no good. Are you ready to concede yours?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[vicsinad]

Below are two genetic migration maps. Interesting to note that humans originate in the Middle East (so much for the ‘out of Africa’ theory). Point is, humans migrated to Europe and Macedonia from the Middle East. This would mean that Macedonians are indigenous to the Middle East according to your theory Chris. It is well documented in our DNA.

I conceded my definition was no good. Are you ready to concede yours?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

In my eyes, the multiregional theory of homo sapiens evolution seems more plausible than both the 'out of Africa' and 'out of Middle East' theories. Different species of humans made many movements out of Africa starting over 2 million years ago and they interbred. Either way, pointing to one theory doesn't mean anything. Under the multiregional theory, Macedonians originated in Europe (European human populations have up to 6% Neanderthal DNA in them)...therefore, Macedonians didn't come from the Middle East. Substitute whatever theory you wan to subscribe to, and you can get whatever answer you desire.

Still, there is no doubt that the human genus evolved out of Africa. And the 'out of Middle East Theory' is not fact, by any means. Just a theory, and not a very strong theory. It's based on a few discoveries of fossils and some genetic mutations...for which the other two competing theories have more evidence.

I took issue with you trying to undermine the indigeneity of the indiginous peoples of South Africa.

Certainly, you didn't take issue with SoM's undermining of the indigenous nature of the "Afrikaners"...if one were using the "priority in time" definition of indigenous. Because the Afrikaners were a distinct "cultural group" present in South Africa before the Zulu appeared as a distinct culture.

This topic shows that people cannot agree as to what we mean by indigenous people; yet, you accuse me of trying to undermine their indigent nature? In essence, you don't even know what I am undermining! Especially now that you conceded your definition was no good.

So you just went out and stated I was "exaggerating"...not for any intellectual reason other than you think it supports your own beliefs. It's classic Vangelovski: throw some jabs and accusations, call them stupid, intellectually incapable, silly, idiotic...and act like that means something for your argument.


George S:

Yes, monkeys should have rights. They have interests on this planet that need to be protected.

[Risto the Great]

I know its different to now – but that is irrelevant. You seemed to be denying that ancient Macedonians had a culture when you asked, “What culture?”.

I can see that. But I was really asking about distinguishing features about the culture and then proceeded to highlight how different it was. Worshiping donkeys can be part of a culture.

The fact that you've never heard of it means nothing. If anything, it just means that you haven’t read up on ancient Macedonian history. I already noted some historians and archaeologists that have dealt with it in great detail in my previous post. But more generally, humans first migrated to Europe from the Middle East and later from the Steppes of southern Russia (though these groups also came from the Middle East). Read anything on this and it'll become clear. These first humans are ancestors of the Macedonians (who are also humans).

The Croatians are convinced they are from Persia or something. They use this to highlight the distinction between them and the Serbs. I'm not convinced about the middle east origins of mankind. I assume the garden of Eden was in the middle east and this satisfies your christian perspective.

I still hear nothing but Ethiopia in relation to humankind's origins. After my recent equatorial excursions, I am starting to look more Ethiopian myself.

You keep going around in circles on this. What are newcomers? How long do they have to be there in order not to be newcomers?

As for the definition I was using, I already conceded that it is no longer useful because of the point you made about the Christian Turks.

What wouldn’t you call “recent times”? Why such an arbitrary date? Surely you must have some reasoning around this.

Why them and not others. Their migration is actually very well recorded and it happened in stages, but they reached Hungary in around 900AD. Why give them indigenous status and not the Zulu? This is just arbitrary and contradictory.

Stating it now for the third time, I’ve already conceded that the definition I was using isn’t really appropriate. You’ve convinced me that I shouldn’t be using it.

But yours is a mess. Its arbitrary, contradictory and still allows for the Christian Turks to become indigenous. Maybe not now, maybe not in 400 years, but given enough time (like the Hungarians who have been there 1,100 years), the Christian Turks will also be indigenous to Macedonia. Arbitrary rulings that they don’t count is beyond reason and would only make sense to you.

The Christian Turks could never be construed as indigenous in mine. Their migration is documented and recent. And they are yet to merge with the local population in great numbers. Macedonians still shun intermarriage with them and it is not common. Of course, 1000 years later along with mixing of populations, they could be construed as indigenous to the region. Like the Hungarians.

The zulu migrated 400 odd years ago and are still black. Perhaps the mulatto or "coloured' people are in fact the indigenous people of South Africa.

The Macedonians are pure and perfect and indigenous. After the Ottoman village overseer banged our mothers and probably got them pregnant, we remain perfectly untarnished.

Sounds like we'll never have a perfect definition because we are talking about a moving target. But I would rate the Afrikaners as more indigenous to South Africa than the Zulu because we cannot see them anywhere else.

[Vangelovski]

Sounds like we'll never have a perfect definition because we are talking about a moving target.

We don't need perfect, but we do need something that suits our needs and we don't even have that. Seeing as we use the concept in our definition of the cause, I think we should come up with some sort of working definition. I'll look into it some more and throw ideas around on here.

[Gocka]

I think you would be better off not using the word indigenous and try to find a different term to try and describe what it is you want indigenous to mean, it may be much easier and more accurate. In my opinion the word indigenous has this stigma about it that is hard to overcome.

Something like this would work for us:

To be the first to form a unique ethnic identity on a given land that still survives today an that has no connection to or is recognizable with any other current ethnic identity anywhere else.

The Macedonian identity was created in Macedonia, it does not originate from anywhere else (even though the tribes that inhabited it may have). It is the oldest and only surviving identity to be created on the territory of Macedonia. It has no connection with an other land or people anywhere else in the world. Thus as Macedonians we and only we can be indigenous to Macedonia.

The Albanian identity was not created on the Macedonian territory, and even if a group of these Albanians that live in Macedonia today form a separate culture/identity it does not predate the Macedonian identity and it has connections (strong) with another country and ethnic group. Lets face it they will always be Albanians and refer to themselves as Albanians which clearly originate from somewhere else. Thus they do not qualify as being indigenous to Macedonia.

The Christian Turks who inhabit Aegean Macedonia, do not identify with another territory but are not the first to form an identity on that territory, because Aegean Macedonia is still Macedonia and because the Macedonian identity predates their identity (population exchange well documented) and Macedonians still live on that territory and identify as Macedonians. Its like in the USA, as long as Native Americans exist, live in North America, maintain their identity and consider themselves to be Native Americans then they and only they can be considered indigenous to North America. Even though Anglo settlers are now the majority and have formed there own identity on that land their identity does not predate that of the Native Americans.

I think we need to merge the more common idea of what indigenous means (who got there first) with the one that Tom proposed (having formed an ethnic identity and culture on a given land and having no connection or knowledge of a link to anywhere else).

I think merging the two would have us covered on all fronts. What we have on our side is length, continuity and consciousness. All three can be easily proven by us. So the definition of indigenous for the purpose of our cause should revolve around those three points. I dont think anyone else but us can claim to have all three.

We don't need perfect, but we do need something that suits our needs and we don't even have that. Seeing as we use the concept in our definition of the cause, I think we should come up with some sort of working definition. I'll look into it some more and throw ideas around on here.

[Risto the Great]

The notion of "first" is most likely what actually sits well with us Macedonians. And is probably the crux of our argument. Well observed Gocka.

[Soldier of Macedon]

First, what the white South Africans are enduring now is comparable to what happened to blacks during apartheid.......

Are there restrictions for whites as it relates to political representation and voting? Have their citizenships been revoked? Are they forbidden to use the same public facilities and services as black people? Are there signs which write "black only" anywhere? Despite the social injustices that exist today which may draw some parallels with earlier times, the white collective have not been disenfranchised on the same large scale as the non-whites during the brutal and senseless Apartheid era. Granted, South Africa may not be winning any prizes for being the best democracy in the world, and some of what has been happening for the past 20 years may be perceived as 'reverse racism', but the tone for this sort of behaviour was set long ago by the racist slave-trader and colonial ancestors of those who are claimed to be victims today, who oppressed black people in one way or another for centuries. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it comparable either. At least not yet, anyway.

Most blacks in South Africa are not indigenous.

Perhaps my usage of the term 'indigenous' was broad, but the reason why I used it was because black peoples are the indigenous populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. Further, Bantu-speaking peoples were already in South Africa for a 1000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Actually, most whites in South Africa have been there before most blacks.

Is there any information or source you can provide to corroborate that?

How could the Zulu people (named after Shaka Zulu, born in the late 1700s) be more indigenous than the Dutch, who arrived in the 1650s..............the Dutch are more indigenous to South Africa than the Zulu, because the Dutch were there well before the Zulu appeared, even though the Zulu may have had ancestors in that part of South Africa.

First, the name 'Zulu' predates Shaka. Second, you need to stop being selective with terminology just to suit your point of view, because right now, you're comparing apples with oranges. When you talk about the Dutch, you should be comparing them with the Bantu. When you talk about the Zulu, you should be comparing them with the Afrikaners. The Bantu-speaking peoples (the ancestors of the Zulus) were in the region for centuries prior to both the establishment of the Zulu kingdom and the arrival of the Dutch. Further, the Dutch are indigenous to the Netherlands, not South Africa, and their descendants only began to form an Afrikaner 'identity' in the late 19th century, long after the rise of a distinct Zulu identity.

Mandela's means, especially through the beginning, did not justify the ends.......

How about the means of Macedonian revolutionaries during the 19th and 20th centuries, such as bombing campaigns, the assassination of high-profile officials and the liquidation of traitors. Was that justified?

There's a very dark and sinister side to Mandela that many of the wests career politicians don't like to talk about. In another time and place the same people would be considered terrorists and war criminals...it depends on how the characters fit the carefully crafted narrative.

What about the actions of Macedonian revolutionaries I mentioned above. Were they freedom fighters, according to a 'carefully crafted narrative', or should they be considered terrorists? Where does one draw the line?

Mandela refused to recognize the Republic of Macedonia. I find that odd, from a man lauded by many as a human rights icon, I think that's hypocrisy of the highest order.

That is hypocrisy. I guess being a foreign nation with little to no significance for them, Macedonia was probably as far removed from their concerns as South Africa was / is for most Macedonians.

The Ghegs have enough difference from Tosks to consider them distinguishable. They are mostly from Kosovo and Macedonia.

The main distinction is in the different dialects they speak. And the people in the northern half of Albania are Ghegs.

Seeing as we use the concept in our definition of the cause, I think we should come up with some sort of working definition. I'll look into it some more and throw ideas around on here.

I think the discussion between yourself and Risto has been fruitful in that it brings to the surface how loaded the term 'indigenous' can be, when different types of interpretations are applied due to a lack of specific definition. There is also merit in the suggestions that Gocka has made.