Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Risto the Great]

THe slav language & macedonian language are similar.

The Macedonian language is in the Slavic language group or family. There is no Slav language.

[makedonche]

[QUOTE=George S.;111895]i think the reason for this slavicisation is that people confuse the contribution the slavs have made merely linguistic & not in an ethnic sense.I think people are confusing the two & meaning in an ethnic sense & assume that the slavs absorbed or destroyed the macedonians.The macedonians assimilated the slavs.I suppose there have beeen different people through the balkans throughout the millenias & the y left their mark eg romans ,celts,huns;goths etcnot just slavs.
As i have said previously it is unfortunate that our enemies have chosen to pick on our idetity & twist it to their advantage.Also certain people within macedonia have focused only on the slavs & not on the bigger picture the outcome is an obscure picture of being slav only.[/QUOTE]

George S
One only needs to look at the motivation for people/groups/countries doing something - the "why" of a particular action or series of actions, it gives you an insight into what they have to gain or retain from their actions, in the case of our southern neighbours it stands out very prominently to me that one of their motivations is holding onto territory that doesn't belong to them, another of their motivations is the saying "possesion is 9/10ths of the law", whereby items such as the Gold casket of the Macedonian monarchy is in their possesion therefore it must be Greek! It is in the Greeks best interests to refer to us as "Slavs", "SlavoMacedonian", "Skopians" - anything but Macedonians, because as soon as they concede that, then it opens a can of worms for them and puts their claims at high risk and challenges their assertions and throws doubt on thier identity/history and usurps their credibility(if they have any). In short - we are Macedonians, not "Slavs", our language is part of a larger group of languages known as "slavonic", anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is delusional, don't forget we are still writing our history, we are still digging it up as we type, there are older archaeological sites near Ohrid than there are in Greece, these will be rvealed in good time - they are still discovering layers of civilisations below other layers around Ohrid (I'll post some photos and info when I get a chance). George don't forget that "the truth shall set you free" it is not to be feared, but revered, hence "The Macedonian Truth Organisation"!

[George S.]

i think the reason for this slavicisation is that people confuse the contribution the slavs have made merely linguistic & not in an ethnic sense.I think people are confusing the two & meaning in an ethnic sense & assume that the slavs absorbed or destroyed the macedonians.The macedonians assimilated the slavs.I suppose there have beeen different people through the balkans throughout the millenias & the y left their mark eg romans ,celts,huns;goths etcnot just slavs.
As i have said previously it is unfortunate that our enemies have chosen to pick on our idetity & twist it to their advantage.Also certain people within macedonia have focused only on the slavs & not on the bigger picture the outcome is an obscure picture of being slav only.

[George S.]

Isn't it really pointless to argue why don't we just call our language Macedonian & call ourselves mMcedonian.Why because look at what all those scholars & linguists have found that all those languages veneti ,eneti,brygian,pghrygian etc point to the preexistence of a slav language from the begining.THe words are virtually the same to the macedonian language so in reality we can stop arguing as to slavs.We speak macedonian & we are macedonian.THe slav language & macedonian language are similar.

[Risto the Great]

There are many problems associated with using the term. The use of the term 'Slav' as any kind of identifier is a distortion.

Is "Slavic" as a language identifier or grouping a distortion in your mind?

This gradual 'Slavicisation' of the Macedonians has to stop.

Can you give any examples of this? When do you think it commenced?

[Risto the Great]

I don't think the term 'Slav' should be used in relation to the Macedonians in any way, with perhaps one exception and that is in terms of how the Macedonians used it and defined it (if at all).

How have Macedonians used it and defined it (excluding Gligorov)?

[Soldier of Macedon]

IIs Macedonian closer to Russian today than it was 1,000 years ago? If it is, how?

Old Macedonian from 1,000 years ago would have been closer to Old Russian than modern Macedonian is to modern Russian. But that is due to the spread of Slavic from the Danube towards the south and east, and because of the influence that Old Macedonian had on Old Russian as a result of religious and literary activities. Prior to the 6th century, the languages in Macedonia and (what became) Russia were more different, because the Balkan languages were not yet influenced by the Danubian languages which came to be known as Slavic. Although Balkan and Danubian langauges were related, that doesn't mean they were exactly the same. They may have stemmed from a common ancestral tongue, but they underwent different influences prior to the 6th century. However, they were similar enough to allow for Slavic to be adopted by large swathes of the Balkan populations.

I don't think the term 'Slav' should be used in relation to the Macedonians in any way, with perhaps one exception and that is in terms of how the Macedonians used it and defined it (if at all).

Cyril and Methodius called their language 'Slovjanski'. Are they Slavs or Macedonians?

[Soldier of Macedon]

A percentage of common words in various languages does not necessarily mean they have a common origin.

A percentage? Mate, open a Russian dictionary. There is no doubt that they stem from a common ancestral tongue.

There were invaders during the 6th century, definitely; but there is not a shred of evidence to even suggest they were 'Slavs'.

That's interesting. You can't define a 'Slav' nor will you even attempt to, yet you are positive that there is not a shred of evidence that the invaders were 'Slavs'.

1) The term 'Sklav' or 'Sclav' was used in foreign sources for the first time in the 6th century.

2) In the 9th century the term 'Sloveni' appears in the literature of those who the foreign sources were still referring to as 'Sklav' or 'Sclav'.

3) For centuries later, the foreigners continued to call these people 'Sklav' or 'Sclav'.

The POV that the 6th century 'Sklavenoi' or 'Sclavenoi' weren't largely speakers of a Slavic (Sloveni) language has absolutely no credibility. You've basically become selective by taking a section of what Florin Curta has written and have ran with it, meanwhile ignoring the abundance of linguistic evidence with respect to placenames, etymologies, grammatical changes, etc. Your argument can't be taken seriously until you start expanding your knowledge on the topic.

[Pelister]

Pelister, surely they use more than just a simple percentage of common words when aruging that languages have a common origin? Peter Hill, a distinguised linguist at the ANU, and a specialist in Macedonian has explained to me that there are a whole range of factors that demonstrate similarity between Macedonian and other East European languages. I didn't quite understand much of it, but it appeared to me that it was much more complex than just word similarities. If it were just a matter of word similarities, then Macedonian could be considered a Germanic language becuase of its thorough bastardisation with English words?

I am sure your right, and I am sure the similarities are many and varied. Is Macedonian closer to Russian today than it was 1,000 years ago? If it is, how? There is no one, single definition of the term 'Slav'. It seems to me that it has meant many different things to different people over the many centuries, which is why its broad application produces historical errors, and distortions. I don't think the term 'Slav' should be used in relation to the Macedonians in any way, with perhaps one exception and that is in terms of how the Macedonians used it and defined it (if at all).

[Soldier of Macedon]

The correct terminology is Latin for the linguistic grouping of these people. It means nothing more than that. How Mexican people who once were akin to American Indians (now speaking Spanish) can be thought of as "Latins" in an ethnic or national sense is beyond me.

And to add to that, all of the South Americans collectively are often referred to and refer to themselves as "Latino". Clearly they don't all consider themselves as one ethnicity or nationality, or even a single cultural group. The only thing that consistently bounds them is their languages. Yet, no Mexican is confused into thinking he is Roman, or Italian, or Spanish, or Peruvian, etc.

It is a sad display of plastic patriotism by those who tremble at the knees every time the ‘S’ word is mentioned or any attempt to study Macedonian history spanning a certain 1,200 year period is made. It is a show of political immaturity and a gross misunderstanding of what ethnic identity actually is as opposed to what they imagine that it is.

I couldn't agree more. I wrote this earlier:

The Balkan, Danubian and Baltic languages all stem from a common ancestor. The Danubian (Slavic) languages absorbed the Balkan languages from the 6th century onwards.

People need to start looking at this from a logical perspective. It could have been a situation where the Danubian (Slavic) languages weren't related to the Balkan languages at all, in which case our language today would have absolutely nothing to do with the language(s) which our ancestors spoke in Macedonia and elsewhere in the Balkans during antiquity.

[Vangelovski]

A percentage of common words in various languages does not necessarily mean they have a common origin. I don't like using it, and I think that if we go back to the primary source material we will find that its use (in nearly every variation), is based on stupid assumptions. I think that we are still trying to get passed the assumptions of classicists and British gentlemen, as well as Russian propoganda of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Pelister, surely they use more than just a simple percentage of common words when aruging that languages have a common origin? Peter Hill, a distinguised linguist at the ANU, and a specialist in Macedonian has explained to me that there are a whole range of factors that demonstrate similarity between Macedonian and other East European languages. I didn't quite understand much of it, but it appeared to me that it was much more complex than just word similarities. If it were just a matter of word similarities, then Macedonian could be considered a Germanic language becuase of its thorough bastardisation with English words?

[Pelister]

George S.
You and I are Macedonian (and most people on this forum), we have Macedonian blood, we have Macedonian customs, we have Macedonian traditions & culture - we are Macedonian- full stop!
We speak Macedonian, to my knowledge it is one of the oldest languages around and it is categorised as being a part of the "Slavic" language group - that doesn't make us Slavs, we are still Macedonian!
There are other nationalities, ethnic groups and country's who speak similar but still different languages - for example Ukranian, these people speak Ukranian, are Ukranian and have Ukrainian customs/traditions, the Ukranian language is also part of the "Slavic" language group, but they are not Slavs either(to the best of my knowledge).
The so called "Slav" theory, is just that - a theory! IMHO
The Greeks saw that Macedonia was becomming a republic and decided they were not prepared to hand over the large chunk of Macedonia they stole so they went about trying to convince the world that it was always Greek and Macedonia was always Greek that way they wouldn't have to give it back and pay reparations for the atrocities committed.
Our genius first president - Gligorov - for whatever deluded reason, decided to announce we are "Slavs" and declared it openly trying to distinguish us from the so called "Macedonians that were always Greek" - this was a fatal error - the Greeks seized on this and use it to convince the world we are "Slavs/Slav Macedonians" because our president says so, and are different from the Macedonians who have always been Greek and therefore must have arrived in the area during the so called "Slav Migration" of the 6th century, this bullshit along with similar bullshit about "Tito" creating the Rebublic of Macedonia in 1942 is just Greek propoganda to avoid having to give our country back!
What I will tell you is that our history is still being written and as we type here on the forum there are many archaeologists at work in Macedonia making many important discoveries, some of these discoveries will show the Macedonian people, language, traditions and customs are a lot older than most academics know - it's just a matter of time before this data/information is presented to the world and the Greeks are put in their rightfull place - that is a false nation of Albanian wannabees created by the English/Germans/French around 1820 - before that the Ancient Greeks were finished off at the battle of Chaeronia!

The problem is that there was no 'Slav invasions' at least on the basis of the original sources.

It may be difficult to understand my point. There were invaders during the 6th century, definitely; but there is not a shred of evidence to even suggest they were 'Slavs'.

The moment one starts to call people, places, events 'Slav', it automatically suggests that the author knows what a 'Slav' is! How could someone know that the identity of a 6th century invader was 'Slav'; even more significant than that is what do they mean by 'Slav'? This goes to the heart of the problem. The entire exercise is perilous. It is fraught with minefields, with mischief, with pressuppositions based on a poor reading of the primary sources and the evidence. The identity of 6th century invaders is a mystery, and the idea that they entirely wiped out millions of indigenous people so that no trace of them can be found, is simply not sustainable any more professional opinion.

[Pelister]

Thats a good point Julie. The connotation of the adjective "slav" in an ethnic sense started with Karl Marx`s theories of united slavic speaking people under the domination of Russia to create Russian satellites in Europe. Before that, there was no such a thing. This idea is totally collapsed with Yugoslavia and with the end of communism in Russia.

But as you said, Greeks are purposely still using this long-gone connotation to undermine your identity and your nation.


Also, some of you trying prove something by using the terms Slovene, Slovak. I don't think you can reach a proper point with that because both the terms of Slovene and Slovak created quite recently if we compare with the word Slav.

There are many problems associated with using the term. The use of the term 'Slav' as any kind of identifier is a distortion. More importantly it plays directly into the hands of our enemies, who make it a point of distinguishing our ethnic identity, national identity and linguistic identity as 'Slav'. In addition to that our enemies are counting on the associations people in the West make between the term 'Slav' and certain historical events. The assumption that Westerners got it right when they defined 'Slavic' as a common language is about as accurate, as their garbage take on the Albanian language. A percentage of common words in various languages does not necessarily mean they have a common origin. I don't like using it, and I think that if we go back to the primary source material we will find that its use (in nearly every variation), is based on stupid assumptions. I think that we are still trying to get passed the assumptions of classicists and British gentlemen, as well as Russian propoganda of the 18th and 19th centuries. This gradual 'Slavicisation' of the Macedonians has to stop.

[Vangelovski]

I've been following this thread for about a week now, making only minor comments. I'm not a historian or a linguist, so its hard for me to follow some of the arguments. But I have made some observations:

1. NO ONE here has even remotely suggested that the Macedonians are slavs. To the contrary, they have argued against the MYTH that Macedonians are slavs.

2. What some have suggested, such as SoM, is that we need to study our own history in order to refute the claims made by those who promote the slav myth.

3. Some on here seem to think that the slav myth can be destroyed by simply ignoring it, and in doing so, they refuse to discuss Macedonian history spanning anywhere from approximately 300 AD to 1500 AD. This is ridiculous! What exactly are they afraid of? Simply studying Macedonian history for that period does not equate support for the slav myth. Attempting to make an intellectual rebuttle of the slav myth does not equate support for the slav myth. Stating the fact that the Macedonian language is related to other languages (just like every language that has ever existed) does not equate support for the slav myth.

It is a sad display of plastic patriotism by those who tremble at the knees every time the ‘S’ word is mentioned or any attempt to study Macedonian history spanning a certain 1,200 year period is made. It is a show of political immaturity and a gross misunderstanding of what ethnic identity actually is as opposed to what they imagine that it is.

[Dejan]

Nobody is slavic by blood. There is no such thing. Slav is a linguistic group. Our ethnicity has always been, and always will be Macedonian.