Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Soldier of Macedon]

sure. All I did was agree with you that your language is slavic.

Our language is Macedonian. The term Slavic is only a classification where it concerns historical linguistics. Just like the language which you have written your post in is English, but in terms of linguistics it is classified as Germanic.

Its good to see people are waking up to this fact.

There is nothing to wake up to. The term 'Slavic' is irrelevant to Macedonians and their language unless there is a discussion concerning historical linguistics. Have you woken up to that fact? Or are you here to de-nationalise the Macedonians with your erroneous application of the term 'Slavic'?

[Dejan]

It gets boring fast when uneducated fools try to play the 'slavic race' card.

[Risto the Great]

May I ask why my first post was deleted? Did I say something wrong?

Oh, I did delete it.
Didn't you write something about "listening to the little soldier boy and the language being slavic?"

I just assumed you were a troll and have not changed my opinion yet.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Is that what he wrote? Looks like he is a troll then. A troll that won't be here for much longer should he maintain that sort of childish stupidity.

[Soldier of Macedon]

It gets boring fast when uneducated fools try to play the 'slavic race' card.

I agree, that is exactly the reason why Macedonians need to educate themselves with regard to this term and be able to confidently confront and refute such stupidity. Much better than being in the dark and allowing some clown to get the benefit of doubt from readers.

[Pelister]

SoM,

I think that the same critical eye that is increasingly applied to Western (mis)conceptions of 'Others' can also be applied to your position, because you carry the same presuppositions. This is most notable in your use and abuse of the term 'Slav', as it is applied in error to the Macedonians and other people more generally. The whole "Slav hypothesis" is based on heresay, on a very poor reading of the sources and sources that can be described (at best I think), as patchy. There may only be about a dozen sources, spanning about a thousand years. They are very vague, inconclusive and highly suspect. To much conjecture and speculation has been built up around the "empty" centuries. Over the centuries, people have attempted to fill in the gaps, on the basis of politics - not evidence. There is no such thing as "a Slav" and there never has been. It is an artificial construct, almost always applied retrospectively, in the same way that 'Greeks' can establish the presence of 'Greeks' where in fact they never existed. It is a piece of shorthand, and a bit of mischief; but it is in its application, and connection with the Macedonians that the term has morphed into something more sinister, misleading. It is coined and defined largely on the basis of a political reading of the historical sources, because the sources themselves are sufficiently scant and vague. The trouble is that the use of the term 'Slav' is wholly at odds with the evidence, and common sense. You need to understand how it is applied specifically in the Macedonian context. It is unfortunate that while we strive hard to prove that we are distinctive, unique and original Macedonians, you are looking for highly conjectural 'commonalities'. But it is all of the other connections implied, and come with the term "Slav", particularly as they relate to the Macedonians, that should never be by passed. There is a reason why this term has been vehemently urged upon us, and why they would have us believe that "the sources" say that we are "Slavs". It is an increasingly involuted construction, and as people begin to look more objectively at the original sources (something you need to do), I think you will find that it will be brought down to its proper size, and that we will have discovered that the term has been used (in just about every case) to make a political point, (from Michael III, to Fallmeyer to Cvijic and beyond) because it stands flatly contradicted, by all living memory. My grandparents, don't even know what it is - why, because it is foriegn to them. They think that 'pravoslavni' means 'Orthodox' or Christians.


p.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I think that the same critical eye that is increasingly applied to Western (mis)conceptions of 'Others' can also be applied to your position, because you carry the same presuppositions.

I welcome criticism by those who actually know what they're talking about. When it comes to this topic, I don't consider you one of those people.

This is most notable in your use and abuse of the term 'Slav', as it is applied in error to the Macedonians and other people more generally.

How am I abusing the term when I only apply it in the context of historical linguistics? You have no clue, Pelister, I may as well be having this discussion with a 10 year old.

The whole "Slav hypothesis" is based on heresay, on a very poor reading of the sources and sources that can be described (at best I think), as patchy.

I am not sure what sort of "hypothesis" you're referring to, but I certainly don't subscribe to what many westerners think where it concerns the term 'Slav'.

There may only be about a dozen sources, spanning about a thousand years. They are very vague, inconclusive and highly suspect. To much conjecture and speculation has been built up around the "empty" centuries.

Which are the empty centuries?

It is unfortunate that while we strive hard to prove that we are distinctive, unique and original Macedonians, you are looking for highly conjectural 'commonalities'.

What is this "we" and "you" BS you're on about now? I don't have to look for commonalities because they already exist. Just like things which are unique exist. People like you live in a world of delusion, paranoia and fear, and you make us all look bad with your ignorance.

It is an increasingly involuted construction, and as people begin to look more objectively at the original sources (something you need to do)............

I have read nearly all of them that are available. Which original sources have you read which I haven't?

My grandparents, don't even know what it is - why, because it is foriegn to them. They think that 'pravoslavni' means 'Orthodox' or Christians.

No, they aren't aware of it because it has no relevance in everyday Macedonian life. Your earlier ancestors would have been more familiar with the term.

Why haven't you answered my earlier question:

Why don't you explain to me your thoughts on who the 'Sklavinoi' were and where all of the Slavic-sounding Balkan placenames came from after the 6th century.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Why don't you explain to me your thoughts on who the 'Sklavinoi' were and where all of the Slavic-sounding Balkan placenames came from after the 6th century.

Pelister, I have answered all of your questions. Care to have a go at the above question which I have asked a number of times? While you're thinking about it, here is a little trip down memory lane for you. All of the below are your posts in other threads. There are plenty more, this is but a small sample:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=73&page=2

There is an ancient Greek Vase, with of course, Greek letters on it, which is non-sensical in ancient Greek, and makes perfect sense in of course, Slavic.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=5536#post5536

This only corroborates what Orbini was saying. Speaking about his time the Macedonians not only spoke the Slavic language but spoke the same language as the ancient Macedonians.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4979&highlight=slavic#post4979

Where does that leave the all the various ancient scripts found in Macedonia and Bulgaria - which is has no relation I think to the Venetic alphabet. Scripts and words which are clearly a form of proto-slavic but not Venetic ??

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4979&highlight=slavic#post4979

So, Venetic script is no where near balkans, really ? And that doesn't answer the question did the "Slavs" really come from Poland ? And how do you explain Slavic writing in present day Bulgaria and region BC ?

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=297&highlight=slavic&page=5

These kinds of terms whether in the Ottoman administration, or within the Greek clergy of the Ottoman empire - shows us that the organization was not a grass roots movement, or that the Christian clergy in the Ottoman Empire had changed from Slavic to Greek - but had kept some of its Slavic titles.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=3725&highlight=slavic#post3725

There are some references in here worthwhile pursuing. The Agrians - an ancient Macedonian "and" Slavic speaking tribe??

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=960

I believe this idea pushed by the New Greeks that the 5th century constitutes "a clean break" is a cunning way of blind siding people from the fact that there are little or no traces of the ancient Thracians because the are indistinguishable from the current Slavic (Thracian) speakers living their today.

What happened from then till now? I think you've allowed some narrow minded clown(s) to manipulate your way of thinking.

[Pelister]

SoM,

Calling everything 'Slav' isn't going to get you anywhere. You might convince the unsuspecting Macedonian here or there of it, but clearly you have never gone back to the original sources.

I suggest (for the benefit of all of us) you go back to the original sources, and see what they actually say rather than nit picking various references off the internet because it suites your preconceived agenda of establishing a linguistic continuity. (Don’t get me wrong on this point. I believe that the core of the Macedonian language has remained largely where it is today, and in tact for many thousands of years.)

I think you'll find that every time the term 'Slav' has been used its context has been inescapably political.

For your benefit and all of our benefit I'll give you one example, just to illustrate the point to you.

Consider its 20th century context:

Slav = Negation of Macedonian national identity

Here is what the Serbian ethnographer, Cvijic, had to say about the term "Slav" and what it means. It's definition is inescapably political, and yet it is applied ONLY to the Macedonians.

The inhabitants of Macedonia are neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, nor Greek but neither are they Macedonian ... they are just Slavs.

Note what the term 'Slav' means here and how its applied. The inhabitants of Serbia are Serbians, the inhabitants of Bulgaria are Bulgarians, but the inhabitants of Macedonia are not Macedonians, they are 'Slavs'. Note: Cvijic is making a political point. From his political point of view the term 'Slav' equates to formless, nameless, identiless squatters. Not people of Macedonia, rather people entirely disconnected from it. You have your own political point of view and are using the term 'Slav' in the same way - to make a political point. That is not the way we should be doing things around here.

Now if you start nit-picking every time the term 'Slav' is made in reference to people in the region, there is no way you can really understand what they mean by it if you ignore its social, political and historical context.

I could show you many examples such as this in Western historiography, over the last century. I think I will. I really thought that you would understand what I am saying. I guess I assumed that you have had proper training in this kind of thing.

p.

[Vangelovski]

I think there is a disjunct of about 1,000 years between the historical period Pelister is talking about and the historical period SoM is talking about.

But for clarity's sake, how about we (not me) post the original sources with relevant quotes that you are referring to?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Calling everything 'Slav' isn't going to get you anywhere. You might convince the unsuspecting Macedonian here or there of it......

I am sure all readers, unsuspecting or otherwise, aren't blind to your lies such as this recent gem about me calling everything 'Slav'. You really are running out of decent arguments if you need to resort to such childish insinuations.

........rather than nit picking various references off the internet because it suites your preconceived agenda of establishing a linguistic continuity.

There is no agenda. You just don't have a clue about languages. I have answered every question you have posed and I have backed them up with the relevant sources and explanations. All you have done is try to raise doubt with flimsy arguments that would be laughed at by anybody that has opened a book on historical linguistics. Don't blame me for your own ignorance and lack of research.

Cvijic is making a political point. From his political point of view the term 'Slav' equates to formless, nameless, identiless squatters. Not people of Macedonia, rather people entirely disconnected from it. You have your own political point of view and are using the term 'Slav' in the same way - to make a political point.

Pelister, I am finding your false allegations increasingly insulting. You have just suggested that I share Cvijic's view regarding the Macedonians. That is the most idiotic thing you have written to date. And no suprise, you didn't address the quotes from yourself that I provided earlier. What did you mean by Slavic when you wrote the following:

Macedonians not only spoke the Slavic language........

Do you even possess a shred of integrity to answer this question?

What did you mean by Slavic when you wrote the following:

......ancient scripts found in Macedonia.....which are clearly a form of proto-slavic

Do you even possess a shred of integrity to answer this question?

I have lost count how many times I have asked you the below:

Why don't you explain to me your thoughts on who the 'Sklavinoi' were and where all of the Slavic-sounding Balkan placenames came from after the 6th century.

Do you even possess a shred of integrity to answer this question?

I think there is a disjunct of about 1,000 years between the historical period Pelister is talking about and the historical period SoM is talking about.

That is because Pelister likes to dance around the topic and avoid giving direct answers for any specific period. He cherry-picks a few comments made by our detractors and uses that as his basis, all the while ignoring the fact that this term was used by our own ancestors and those of others who spoke similar languages. If he were in a formal debate concerning this topic they would mop the floor with him and his ignorance. And the only thing that would achieve is make us Macedonians look like clueless deludes who would rather some crackpot theories about rocks from 100,000 years ago.

But for clarity's sake, how about we (not me) post the original sources with relevant quotes that you are referring to?

Pelister keeps talking about "original" sources and I am still trying to figure out what he is on about because he won't answer my questions. The english translation of the sources are on the front page of this thread. Which sources are missing? The actual Latin and Greek texts? The Old Macedonian and later Church Slavonic texts? What will they reveal that isn't already known?

[Pelister]

SoM,

As I have said, you need to go back to the primary source material if you want to be taken seriously.

The term 'Slav', like 'Slavophone' is part of the language of conquest. It is a tem contructed in the West. It is a foriegn designation, in the same way that the 'Orient' and the 'Oriental' and the 'Hellene' is. It's application to Macedonia and the Macedonians is the same as 'Hellenikotita' - the supposed 'Greekness of Macedonia' and the supposed 'Slavness of Macedonia' are two sides of the same coin and both of them have nothing to do with the Macedonians, rather how supplanting regimes and foriegners want them to be understood. The context is political. The use of the term has been used to make a political point about the history of the region, and a political point more specifically about the 'non-existence' of a distinctive Macedonian ethnic, cultural, lingiustic and national identity.

I think you will find that people from Michael III to Fallmeyer to Gligorovo were either making a political point, or expressing someone elses political point.

Here is another example, of what I mean.

Slavophone/Slavspeaker = The negation of a distinctive Macedonian identity (ethnic, cultural, linguistic, political)

The term 'Slavophone' is used by foriegners and by leading academics (including Karakasidou) to identify and describe the Macedonians. The term 'Slavophone/Slav-speaker' is used as a marker of identity in a negative way, as:

1. People who lack a distinctive ethnic, cultural, linguistic identity
2. As squatters (people who the descendents of 5th and 6th century invaders)

Here is a specific example of what the supplanting regime, and its historians, mean by the term 'Slavophones'.

It is written by one of the New Greeks, the historian Basil Gounaris, in Modern and Contemporary Macedonia, Vol.1, Macedonia under Ottoman Rule, p.502

The Slavophones (Slavspeakers) were a special case. Many labelled by the Bulgarians as Grkomani, were ferventaly loyal to the Ecumenical Patriachate and Greece. Other Slavophones had sided with the Exarchate and Bulgaria from the outset. Yet in between these two sides there were many, who lacked a clear ethnic character of their own. This mulitlingual mass ... without clear national orientations inhabited a region lacking clear geographical definition or administration.

He concludes:

Macedonia constituted neither a geographic nor national - not even an administrative entity. The limits of the contested land were those defined by the respective positions of the two basic contenders, the Greeks and the Bulgarians.

You should examine the use and abuse of the term 'Slavophones' more closely. Notice how it is being used here. That is in Macedonia there are Bulgarian nationals and there are Greek nationals, but no Macedonians. The term "Slavophone" is used to denote a person with no distinctive national, cultural, linguistic identity of his own.

I think I should respond to this, below:

Pelister, I am finding your false allegations increasingly insulting. You have just suggested that I share Cvijic's view regarding the Macedonians.

What allegation have I made against you so far, and why is it false? I would be interested to hear it. Does it have anything to do with you calling everything "Slavic sounding" (Why not "Greek sounding" I wonder, because it means the same thing - NOTHING), because the use of such language in the context of the conquest of Macedonian territory, and the extermination/negation of our culture and people, is doing our enemies a favour. It is exactly the same language our enemies use against us.

Look, don't get me wrong. I know why you want to use it, because you have a theory about the continuity of the the ancient Thracian langauge in the region, and the Modern Macedonian language; but using a term that denotes a lack of a distinctive ethnic, cultural and national character of the Macedonians makes your use of it, a bit reckless I think. I know you want to prove a point about continuity, the term 'Slav' gives you the very broad, vague and ubiquitous general coverage you need to make that point, in the same way Fallmayer was using it to make his point. But your assumption that our language is derived from 6th century invaders is ludicrous, I must say, because there is no direct evidence I have yet seen, for it.

[Risto the Great]

Slavophone/Slavspeaker = The negation of a distinctive Macedonian identity (ethnic, cultural, linguistic, political)

Would "Romance Speaker" apply to Italians/French/Spanish/Portugese/Romanians etc?
Does "Romance Speaker" negate the identity of Italians/French/Spanish/Portugese/Romanians in the same way?
Why or why not?

These questions should be really simple to answer. And I think Macedonians don't need to get worked up into a frenzy over such linguistic classifications.

[Soldier of Macedon]

As I have said, you need to go back to the primary source material if you want to be taken seriously.

Pelister, for the 100th time, which original sources are you referring to?

I think you will find that people from Michael III to Fallmeyer to Gligorovo were either making a political point, or expressing someone elses political point.

Michael III was quoted by the Macedonian Saint Clement of Ohrid. The latter uses the same term a number of times in his 'Life of Methodius'. Again, this is something I have reminded you of several times on this thread. Turn off your blinkers.

I think I should respond to this, below

Wow, you decided to respond to 1 thing. A noble gesture from somebody that has avoided responding to almost everything else I have put forth. Your selective memory is astounding given that you yourself have used the 'Slav' term extensively. Take a bow mate, you're becoming a legend at deluding yourself.

What allegation have I made against you so far, and why is it false?

You suggested that I share Cvijic's view regarding the Macedonians. A completely stupid and false assertion.

Does it have anything to do with you calling everything "Slavic sounding"......

Again, how am I calling everything Slavic sounding, you deceptive liar?

I know why you want to use it..........

No, you don't, and with each subsequent post you make it even clearer that you don't have a clue because you have completely manipulated what I have said due to your own ignorance. You're really becoming a piece of work, Pelister, a piece of work who himself has used terms like "the Slavic language", "Slavic writing", "Slavic-speaking tribes", etc in relation to Macedonians. Have you suffered from a bout of amnesia recently? And once again, I will ask the question which you continue to avoid in every single post:

Why don't you explain to me your thoughts on who the 'Sklavinoi' were and where all of the Slavic-sounding Balkan placenames came from after the 6th century.

[Daskalot]

This was an interesting topic three years ago, still is today, bump!