Tweet
President Kiro Gligorov's son advocates for our identity to be "New Macedonians". LOMA sent him a response. Here Gligorov's article, then our response:
LOMA response:
Greece and Macedonia edge towards solution to name dispute
16 January 2018
If an agreement is reached, the Macedonian government is in a strong position to approve it. From the Greek side it could be more challenging.
By Vladimir Gligorov
An agreement between Greece and Macedonia on the latter’s name is apparently at hand. According to reports, the agreement between the two countries has three key elements:
Issue No. 1: The name of the state. Provisionally, and only in international institutions, the name is currently the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM). Greece cannot accept just Macedonia, while Macedonians cannot accept no mention of Macedonia in the name. The new agreement appears to pave the way for a permanent name: New Macedonia, a solution potentially acceptable to both sides.
Issue No. 2: Citizenship. For Macedonia, citizens of the state will be 'Macedonian', whereas for Greece they will be 'New Macedonian'. Internationally, there may be a split between the multilateral institutions (using the Greek version) and bilateral relations (using either one).
Issue No. 3: National identity. For Macedonians it will be Macedonian (there are also Albanians and a number of minorities). For Greece it will be 'Slavo-Macedonian'. Greece can also call its citizens Macedonian, if they so desire. The latter is probably irrelevant because of the strong preference within the country to use only Greek as a nationality, although it is possible that some will refer to themselves as Greek Macedonian.
Macedonian perspective: positive
The key tenets of the agreement, or a variant thereof, seem reasonable. Politically, the Macedonian government will face little opposition to this agreement. Macedonian identity, when it comes to the name, is not ethnic but regional - somebody living in the region of Macedonia. The nationalists (VMRO party) attempted to connect the identity to Alexander the Great and ancient Macedonians, which is unfounded and unreasonable (this is putting it mildly). In that context, New Macedonian is more accurate. The identity is really based on the political history of the independence movement in that particular region and on that territory and on the Macedonian language. It is not an ethnic thing (or racial, which is what the Slavic characterisation implies).
Greek population may be more resistant
The Greek government will have more of a problem selling the agreement domestically. This is because of the detour that the Conservatives took after the end of the Simitis-Papandreou government. The latter was close to an agreement essentially indistinguishable from the one which is being discussed now. However, for domestic reasons, Greece’s then-Conservative government needed to revive nationalism (as did VMRO), and subsequently stepped back from the agreement.
As a result, Prime Minister Tsipras may face a hostile public reaction. The argument he is making is the same one employed previously by Papandreou: that the agreement provides Greece with a leadership position in the Balkans and thus strengthens its influence in the EU. And the latter, Greece needs badly.
16 January 2018
If an agreement is reached, the Macedonian government is in a strong position to approve it. From the Greek side it could be more challenging.
By Vladimir Gligorov
An agreement between Greece and Macedonia on the latter’s name is apparently at hand. According to reports, the agreement between the two countries has three key elements:
Issue No. 1: The name of the state. Provisionally, and only in international institutions, the name is currently the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM). Greece cannot accept just Macedonia, while Macedonians cannot accept no mention of Macedonia in the name. The new agreement appears to pave the way for a permanent name: New Macedonia, a solution potentially acceptable to both sides.
Issue No. 2: Citizenship. For Macedonia, citizens of the state will be 'Macedonian', whereas for Greece they will be 'New Macedonian'. Internationally, there may be a split between the multilateral institutions (using the Greek version) and bilateral relations (using either one).
Issue No. 3: National identity. For Macedonians it will be Macedonian (there are also Albanians and a number of minorities). For Greece it will be 'Slavo-Macedonian'. Greece can also call its citizens Macedonian, if they so desire. The latter is probably irrelevant because of the strong preference within the country to use only Greek as a nationality, although it is possible that some will refer to themselves as Greek Macedonian.
Macedonian perspective: positive
The key tenets of the agreement, or a variant thereof, seem reasonable. Politically, the Macedonian government will face little opposition to this agreement. Macedonian identity, when it comes to the name, is not ethnic but regional - somebody living in the region of Macedonia. The nationalists (VMRO party) attempted to connect the identity to Alexander the Great and ancient Macedonians, which is unfounded and unreasonable (this is putting it mildly). In that context, New Macedonian is more accurate. The identity is really based on the political history of the independence movement in that particular region and on that territory and on the Macedonian language. It is not an ethnic thing (or racial, which is what the Slavic characterisation implies).
Greek population may be more resistant
The Greek government will have more of a problem selling the agreement domestically. This is because of the detour that the Conservatives took after the end of the Simitis-Papandreou government. The latter was close to an agreement essentially indistinguishable from the one which is being discussed now. However, for domestic reasons, Greece’s then-Conservative government needed to revive nationalism (as did VMRO), and subsequently stepped back from the agreement.
As a result, Prime Minister Tsipras may face a hostile public reaction. The argument he is making is the same one employed previously by Papandreou: that the agreement provides Greece with a leadership position in the Balkans and thus strengthens its influence in the EU. And the latter, Greece needs badly.
LOMA response:
January 16, 2018
Dear Mr. Vladimir Gligorov,
The League of Macedonian-Americans (LOMA) is disappointed with your inaccurate portrayal of Greece’s dispute with Macedonia’s name. While your commentary is short, it disseminates many misconceptions about the ethnic Macedonian identity, negates and belittles the Macedonian perspective on identity, and ignores the importance and relevance of internationally accepted principles and values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
First, it was not VMRO-DPMNE nationalists who first began to connect the ethnic Macedonian identity to Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. The following observations are just a few from 19th and 20th century authors (not affiliated with VMRO-DPMNE of the 21st century) who acknowledged that the Macedonians believed that they were related to the ancient Macedonians, regardless of whether you or others actually think this to be the case:
We have many times heard from the Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians but Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians.
-Petko Slaveykov, 1871
Our dear Macedonia, our dear homeland is calling: You, who are my faithful children; you, who like Aristotle and Alexander the Great, are my heirs; you, in whose veins Macedonian blood flows, do not leave me to die, help me. What a sad sight, real Macedonians, it would be if you were to witness my burial.
-Macedonian Provisional Government, March 23, 1881
Our fatherland Macedonia has her own history about her past, where one can see her might, glory, as well as her political subjugation under the rule of the then mighty Turkish Empire…Today, every Macedonian, when he mentions the name Aleksandar Makedonski, says: We once had King Alexander the Great. With those words he reminds oneself of the brightest period and glory of the Macedonian State. Aleksandar Makedonski stands before every Macedonian as national pride.
-Kosta Shahov, circa 1900
Macedonians! Remember the world's winner, the great glory of Macedonia, the great Alexander of Macedon; remember for the brave King Samoil, the Macedonian giant, for the marvelous Marko Kral, the Slavic glory, that Macedonian blood flowed through them; those of heavenly heights watch and bless our initiated work. To show worthy descendants of their descendants: to preserve their glorious names and to amaze the world with our courage, dexterity and self-sacrifice; to cut off from us the shameful yoke that suffocates us for five centuries.
-Anastas Jankov, 1902
In their proclamations the leaders of the Slavo-Macedonian Committee appeal to Alexander the Great as a national hero.
- George F. Abbott, The Tale of a Tour in Macedonia, 1903, Pg. 278
There are still those of today's inhabitants of Macedonia that do not consider themselves as Serbs or Bulgarians, but a separate ethnicity, probably descendants of the ancient Macedonians.
-Slishkovikj Jakov, Albania and Macedonia, 1904, Pg. 160
Poor Georgie! He spoke a Slav dialect, and was possibly a mixture of all the races that have ever ruled the peninsula, and all he had gained was a Mauser ball through his right hand in the name of Alexander the Great… A song was sung during the late Macedonian insurrection in which an eagle, who is soaring over the land, asks what is the cause of so much excitement, and is told that the sons of Alexander are rising.
--Mary Durham, The Burden of the Balkans, 1905, Pg. 6
King Marko is the son and pride of Macedonia and one of the three great conquerors who spread the name of their land far beyond its territories: (1) Alexander of Macedon spread the glory of Macedonia as far as the Central Asian rivers of Amu Darya [Oxus] and Syr Darya [Jaxartes], and also to India and the Indian Ocean; (2) The holy Cyril and Methodius spread the Macedonian word and script among all the Slavic peoples, and (3) King Marko placed under his authority and under that of the Macedonian muse all popular singers and peoples on the Balkan Peninsula, including you, the descendants of his sworn enemies.
-Krste Misirkov, 1923
Thus, you can read for yourself that the Macedonians’ belief in their connection to ancient Macedonia and the ancient Macedonians is not a modern-day concoction; the modern-day interpretation is an affirmation and expansion of thought rooted in both Macedonian intellectuals and peasants in centuries past.
Second, all ethnic identities are modern constructions – Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serb, German, French, Russian, Macedonian, and etc. The concept of ethnicity did not appear in intellectual literature in any meaningful form until the 19th century, and it did not infiltrate mainstream society until the middle of the 20th century. Further, to insist that Macedonian identity is not an “ethnic thing” because Macedonia is also a region has no logical basis. Which post-modern school of thought invented the idea that a name cannot be used in both a regional and ethnic context? It certainly is possible to have ethnic Macedonians and regional Macedonians – ask the over 2 million people who consider themselves ethnic Macedonians.
Let me put it differently. If Germany today is split into several pieces, after being conquered by its neighbors, and remains divided and occupied for several centuries, does this mean that ethnic Germans cannot exist in a region called Germany that is shared by several different countries? Or, being that Ireland is split between a country called Ireland and the United Kingdom, are the Irish of Ireland not ethnically Irish? Further, because the vast majority of Irishmen speak English, does this mean they cannot identify as Irish? Or, because the vast majority of Americans speak English, does this mean an ethnic American identity does not exist, or cannot develop? We all know that the Americans are a mish-mash of peoples from around the globe and not just from England. Therefore, is it really fair to describe the ethnic Macedonians racially as ‘Slavic’, as you implied, when ‘Slavic’ is not a racial identification but a linguistic characterization?
But I apologize for departing and return to the matter at hand. The term ‘Macedonians’ has been used throughout history to refer to the people of Macedonia no differently than ‘Bulgarians’ has been used to refer to the people of Bulgaria, ‘Serbians’ to the people of Serbia, and ‘Greeks’ to the people of Greece. That Macedonia is now located in three countries certainly gives the people who live in all three portions of Macedonia the opportunity to call themselves Macedonians; but it certainly does not imply that people in Macedonia cannot identify only as Macedonian. The ethnic Macedonian people, like neighboring Balkan ethnic groups, are a product of an amalgamation of different tribes throughout thousands of years of migrations and occupations. That the ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia choose not to affiliate with any other ethnic identity is a product not just of political aspirations, as you imply, but also of history, culture and other common bonds.
Third, putting aside historical insights and exercises in identity formation, let us turn to the mission of upholding democratic principles and values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter states the following as one of the UN’s purposes:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
In your commentary, you completely ignore the relevance of this in its application to modern day democracies. The world, as indicated by the UN Charter, is attempting to promote governing systems that respect equal rights and self-determination. Can you explain to us what is equal about letting all peoples except the Macedonians decide their country’s name and their ethnic identity? Further, can you explain why self-determination does not apply for the Macedonians, in this context, when it has applied to every other UN country?
When it comes to rights and freedoms – cherished democratic principles and values – history and social theories on identity have no place in deciding how, or to whom, to grant those rights and freedoms. The principle of equality is enshrined in the UN Charter and the name negotiations are an affront to the UN’s purpose. Macedonia has no territorial aspirations against Greece; Macedonia is not preventing Greeks from identifying as Macedonians or naming their northern province ‘Macedonia’; and Macedonia has not asked for superior treatment in the UN. Macedonia has asked for that which is automatically granted to all other UN members: the right to self-determine their own name and identity, and the right to be recognized as such by the UN. The UN should not violate one member’s rights and freedoms (Macedonia’s) simply because its name and identity annoys another member. Macedonia is not asking for preferential treatment; it’s asking for equal treatment.
In summary, your commentary has been a complete disservice to WIIW members and readers. Instead of providing a well-reasoned analysis on likely outcomes of the name negotiations and potential benefits and consequences, you strayed into repeating lousy but dangerous arguments emanating from chauvinists in Greece and Bulgaria. Identity is not a matter to be trifled with; your simplified denial of the ethnic Macedonian identity is a promotion of barbarous ideologies that brought Europe to its knees on several occasions in the 20th century. Let’s stray away from ideologies of denial and instead embrace an ideology of acceptance. It’s the only way to preserve peace in Europe.
Sincerely,
Victor Sinadinoski, Co-founder
League of Macedonian-Americans
Dear Mr. Vladimir Gligorov,
The League of Macedonian-Americans (LOMA) is disappointed with your inaccurate portrayal of Greece’s dispute with Macedonia’s name. While your commentary is short, it disseminates many misconceptions about the ethnic Macedonian identity, negates and belittles the Macedonian perspective on identity, and ignores the importance and relevance of internationally accepted principles and values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
First, it was not VMRO-DPMNE nationalists who first began to connect the ethnic Macedonian identity to Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. The following observations are just a few from 19th and 20th century authors (not affiliated with VMRO-DPMNE of the 21st century) who acknowledged that the Macedonians believed that they were related to the ancient Macedonians, regardless of whether you or others actually think this to be the case:
We have many times heard from the Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians but Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians.
-Petko Slaveykov, 1871
Our dear Macedonia, our dear homeland is calling: You, who are my faithful children; you, who like Aristotle and Alexander the Great, are my heirs; you, in whose veins Macedonian blood flows, do not leave me to die, help me. What a sad sight, real Macedonians, it would be if you were to witness my burial.
-Macedonian Provisional Government, March 23, 1881
Our fatherland Macedonia has her own history about her past, where one can see her might, glory, as well as her political subjugation under the rule of the then mighty Turkish Empire…Today, every Macedonian, when he mentions the name Aleksandar Makedonski, says: We once had King Alexander the Great. With those words he reminds oneself of the brightest period and glory of the Macedonian State. Aleksandar Makedonski stands before every Macedonian as national pride.
-Kosta Shahov, circa 1900
Macedonians! Remember the world's winner, the great glory of Macedonia, the great Alexander of Macedon; remember for the brave King Samoil, the Macedonian giant, for the marvelous Marko Kral, the Slavic glory, that Macedonian blood flowed through them; those of heavenly heights watch and bless our initiated work. To show worthy descendants of their descendants: to preserve their glorious names and to amaze the world with our courage, dexterity and self-sacrifice; to cut off from us the shameful yoke that suffocates us for five centuries.
-Anastas Jankov, 1902
In their proclamations the leaders of the Slavo-Macedonian Committee appeal to Alexander the Great as a national hero.
- George F. Abbott, The Tale of a Tour in Macedonia, 1903, Pg. 278
There are still those of today's inhabitants of Macedonia that do not consider themselves as Serbs or Bulgarians, but a separate ethnicity, probably descendants of the ancient Macedonians.
-Slishkovikj Jakov, Albania and Macedonia, 1904, Pg. 160
Poor Georgie! He spoke a Slav dialect, and was possibly a mixture of all the races that have ever ruled the peninsula, and all he had gained was a Mauser ball through his right hand in the name of Alexander the Great… A song was sung during the late Macedonian insurrection in which an eagle, who is soaring over the land, asks what is the cause of so much excitement, and is told that the sons of Alexander are rising.
--Mary Durham, The Burden of the Balkans, 1905, Pg. 6
King Marko is the son and pride of Macedonia and one of the three great conquerors who spread the name of their land far beyond its territories: (1) Alexander of Macedon spread the glory of Macedonia as far as the Central Asian rivers of Amu Darya [Oxus] and Syr Darya [Jaxartes], and also to India and the Indian Ocean; (2) The holy Cyril and Methodius spread the Macedonian word and script among all the Slavic peoples, and (3) King Marko placed under his authority and under that of the Macedonian muse all popular singers and peoples on the Balkan Peninsula, including you, the descendants of his sworn enemies.
-Krste Misirkov, 1923
Thus, you can read for yourself that the Macedonians’ belief in their connection to ancient Macedonia and the ancient Macedonians is not a modern-day concoction; the modern-day interpretation is an affirmation and expansion of thought rooted in both Macedonian intellectuals and peasants in centuries past.
Second, all ethnic identities are modern constructions – Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serb, German, French, Russian, Macedonian, and etc. The concept of ethnicity did not appear in intellectual literature in any meaningful form until the 19th century, and it did not infiltrate mainstream society until the middle of the 20th century. Further, to insist that Macedonian identity is not an “ethnic thing” because Macedonia is also a region has no logical basis. Which post-modern school of thought invented the idea that a name cannot be used in both a regional and ethnic context? It certainly is possible to have ethnic Macedonians and regional Macedonians – ask the over 2 million people who consider themselves ethnic Macedonians.
Let me put it differently. If Germany today is split into several pieces, after being conquered by its neighbors, and remains divided and occupied for several centuries, does this mean that ethnic Germans cannot exist in a region called Germany that is shared by several different countries? Or, being that Ireland is split between a country called Ireland and the United Kingdom, are the Irish of Ireland not ethnically Irish? Further, because the vast majority of Irishmen speak English, does this mean they cannot identify as Irish? Or, because the vast majority of Americans speak English, does this mean an ethnic American identity does not exist, or cannot develop? We all know that the Americans are a mish-mash of peoples from around the globe and not just from England. Therefore, is it really fair to describe the ethnic Macedonians racially as ‘Slavic’, as you implied, when ‘Slavic’ is not a racial identification but a linguistic characterization?
But I apologize for departing and return to the matter at hand. The term ‘Macedonians’ has been used throughout history to refer to the people of Macedonia no differently than ‘Bulgarians’ has been used to refer to the people of Bulgaria, ‘Serbians’ to the people of Serbia, and ‘Greeks’ to the people of Greece. That Macedonia is now located in three countries certainly gives the people who live in all three portions of Macedonia the opportunity to call themselves Macedonians; but it certainly does not imply that people in Macedonia cannot identify only as Macedonian. The ethnic Macedonian people, like neighboring Balkan ethnic groups, are a product of an amalgamation of different tribes throughout thousands of years of migrations and occupations. That the ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia choose not to affiliate with any other ethnic identity is a product not just of political aspirations, as you imply, but also of history, culture and other common bonds.
Third, putting aside historical insights and exercises in identity formation, let us turn to the mission of upholding democratic principles and values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter states the following as one of the UN’s purposes:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
In your commentary, you completely ignore the relevance of this in its application to modern day democracies. The world, as indicated by the UN Charter, is attempting to promote governing systems that respect equal rights and self-determination. Can you explain to us what is equal about letting all peoples except the Macedonians decide their country’s name and their ethnic identity? Further, can you explain why self-determination does not apply for the Macedonians, in this context, when it has applied to every other UN country?
When it comes to rights and freedoms – cherished democratic principles and values – history and social theories on identity have no place in deciding how, or to whom, to grant those rights and freedoms. The principle of equality is enshrined in the UN Charter and the name negotiations are an affront to the UN’s purpose. Macedonia has no territorial aspirations against Greece; Macedonia is not preventing Greeks from identifying as Macedonians or naming their northern province ‘Macedonia’; and Macedonia has not asked for superior treatment in the UN. Macedonia has asked for that which is automatically granted to all other UN members: the right to self-determine their own name and identity, and the right to be recognized as such by the UN. The UN should not violate one member’s rights and freedoms (Macedonia’s) simply because its name and identity annoys another member. Macedonia is not asking for preferential treatment; it’s asking for equal treatment.
In summary, your commentary has been a complete disservice to WIIW members and readers. Instead of providing a well-reasoned analysis on likely outcomes of the name negotiations and potential benefits and consequences, you strayed into repeating lousy but dangerous arguments emanating from chauvinists in Greece and Bulgaria. Identity is not a matter to be trifled with; your simplified denial of the ethnic Macedonian identity is a promotion of barbarous ideologies that brought Europe to its knees on several occasions in the 20th century. Let’s stray away from ideologies of denial and instead embrace an ideology of acceptance. It’s the only way to preserve peace in Europe.
Sincerely,
Victor Sinadinoski, Co-founder
League of Macedonian-Americans
Comment