Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (AMHRC)

[Phoenix]

I know this is one paragraph viewed without others in context. But I really feel the message coming from the Diaspora needs to be a simple one. The more complex it becomes, the more questions will be asked by Macedonians in Macedonia about why outsiders are interfering in their internal affairs.

I believe this has been largely the reason why the greek campaign has been relatively successful in prolonging the dispute and creating early momentum that favoured the greek side. The greeks have managed to create a fair degree of complexity to an issue that is otherwise a totally ridiculous demand.

Sometimes I feel that we're losing focus by fighting the many spectres that the greek side is creating.

I agree with RtG's assessment that the most effective strategy would entail a far simpler approach and response, even for the more complex issues, whether they're to do with the approach we make to our fellow Macedonians or to an audience comprising of representatives of the wider international community in our fight against the greeks.

[TrueMacedonian]

A joint article by myself and George.

Bulgarian National Myths
By Ivan Hristovski and George Vlahov


The negative attitude the government in Sofia manifests towards its minorities, especially the Macedonians, appears to be symptomatic of a xenophobia permeating Bulgarian society in general: from the average citizen to the highest official state levels. Bulgaria has persistently refused to recognize the existence of Macedonians within its borders. This is in line with a popular view held by all segments of Bulgarian society; namely that there is no such thing as a Macedonian nation, and that those who call themselves Macedonians (in an ethnic sense, including the Macedonians in the Macedonian republic) are nothing other than ‘lost’ members of the Bulgarian nation, inhabiting a territory that was unlawfully taken from Bulgaria in 1878, via the Treaty of Berlin (Engstrom, 2009: 80). In order to begin to develop an understanding of why Bulgaria has a chauvinist policy towards Macedonians and the Macedonian state, it would be useful to examine aspects of the cultural history of what became Bulgaria in 1878, prior to its independence.

Myths, Terminologies and Interpretations

Bulgarians pride themselves on the idea that their national “revival” began not with a gun but with a book. The book that is seen in Bulgarian nationalist mythology as the fountainhead of that process, is a medieval Bulgarian history written in 1762 by Father Paisii (Slavo-Bulgarian History of the Bulgarian Peoples), a monk in the Hilendar monastery in Mount Athos, one of the centres of Eastern Orthodoxy (Dimitrov, 2001: 8). But Father Paisii’s work only began to be disseminated in the mid 19th century and it should also be noted that illiteracy, at this time, was extremely high in the regions of the Ottoman Empire that were eventually to constitute Bulgaria. Thus, to describe Father Paisii as “the father of Bulgarian nationalism” is to engage in myth-making (Karpat, 2002: 467).

It could be argued that this is hardly a malevolent myth; however there are more serious problems connected to the Father Paisii myth as presented by the modern Bulgarian nationalist interpretation of his writing. Bulgarian academics and numerous others seem to accept without question that Paisii wrote an ethno- nationalistic Bulgarian history book to counter the supposed de-nationalising of Bulgaria, via Hellenistic nationalism. But as Detrez explains, it is actually not possible to accept this claim at face value:

“According to Paissi the Greeks are ‘wise and sophisticated’ but also ‘sly and proud’, they ‘take away from the simple people and appropriate unfairly’. Moreover they treat the Bulgarians with contempt considering them ‘simple and stupid’….. Paissi characterizes the Bulgarians as ‘hospitable and charitable’; they are ‘simple diggers, ploughmen, shepherds, and simple artisans’. To substantiate this claim, he refers to God who “loves the simple and harmless ploughman and shepherds more’. The two groups Paissi opposes to each other are not necessarily ethnic communities, but seem to be social classes and even professional groups in the first place: the Greeks were merchants and city-dwellers (both categories were often called ‘Greek’ in Bulgarian popular speech), while the Bulgarians are peasants.” (Detrez, 2008: 41-42)

In the light of Detrez’s observations, one must acknowledge that the social phenomena in question had more to do with socio-economic status, rather than the modern ethnic/national realm.
Another aspect of the national mythology propagated in Bulgaria today is the belief that throughout the Ottoman era there was a systematic process of “ethnic Greek” clerics converting “ethnic Bulgarians” into “ethnic Greeks”. However, these attempts made by the Orthodox Greek speaking Patriarchate church to spread Greek literacy to the illiterate masses, were not generally about creating ethnic Greeks – rather, they were about attempting to advance Orthodoxy via a semi-Westernised education (Detrez, 2008: 42).
Moreover, many people make the assumption that the terms “Bulgarian”, “Greek”, “Turk”, “Vlach” etc. possessed the same meaning during the time of the Ottoman Empire as they do today. However, at the time in question, these present day ethno-national labels were socio-economic/cultural categories, that numerous anthropologists and sociologists like Loring Danforth have described as a “cultural division of labour” (Danforth, 1995: 59). Many scholars agree that during much of the Ottoman Era a “Greek” was a merchant, a city-dweller, or someone well to do (Roudometof, 2001: 48). A “Turk” was someone who may have been a government official (Brown, 2003: 59). A “Vlach” might denote someone who is a shepherd (Detrez, 2003: 43) and a “Bulgarian” might be someone who is a peasant or labourer (Mackridge, 2009: 56), or a villager (Detrez, 2003: 43). This is how Paisii perceived people in his time.
Even more revealing is the substantial incidence of “Bulgarian” peasants actually pursuing “Greekness”, because this would signify an advance in their class status and wealth. If a “Bulgarian” managed to rise above his occupational peasant-farmer class status and become a wealthy city dweller, it was not unusual for him to then begin referring to himself as a “Greek” and to send his children to a Greek speaking school for the purpose of giving them the literacy/education he never possessed. What took place was not a change of ethno-national status, but of class (see for example, Amfiteatrov, 1990: 51-52).
Sociologically grounded etymological investigations like these outline a picture of life in the Balkans, very different to the one presented by ultra-nationalistic Balkan historians. For our present purposes, it is worth singling out Bulgarian historians for utilising centuries old traveller’s chronicles with references to inhabitants of various parts of the Balkans, including Macedonia, as “Bulgarians”; in a manner that deliberately ignores the socio-economic contextual meaning of the usage of the term “Bulgarian” and instead, reprehensibly ascribes to it, modern ethno-national connotations. Such misinterpretations serve to provide support in Bulgaria, for the fictional notion that Bulgarians possess an unbroken ethno-national identity continuity, extending back from the present to early Medieval times. Moreover, these distortions are also enlisted in aid of the myth that Macedonians have consistently been an integral part of the Bulgarian ethnos (Balikci, 2008: 178). This helps to illustrate that “historiography in Bulgaria is constituted within the context of a broad national agenda.” (Elenkov & Koleva, 2003-4: 183) Or in our words, Bulgarian historiography has been imbued with a serious dose of fiction in the service of sinister political ambitions and at the expense of genuine scholarship.

The complexity of the terminological issues we have been discussing is increased when we note that the terms under investigation were also to become entangled with rival religious denominations later in the 19th century, with the formation in 1870 of the Bulgarian speaking/literate Orthodox Exarchate church as an opponent within the Ottoman empire, to the long standing Greek speaking/literate Orthodox Patriarchate church. Furthermore religion was often used to identify people in a manner differently from and in some contradiction to the socio-economic/cultural categories we have been outlining. Throughout the Ottoman period a “Turk”, in the context of a discussion with someone possessing a religious outlook on life (and such were very numerous within the Ottoman Empire, for reasons soon to be given), referred to anyone who was a Muslim (Detrez, 2003: 43) and a “Greek” or “Rum” could mean someone who was an Orthodox Christian regardless of their language or class (Danforth, 1995: 59). The historian R.W. Seton-Watson wrote of “the ignorant Bulgar peasant, when questioned as to his nationality, would answer with the misleading confession that he was a "Greek." (Seton-Watson, 1918: 78) Again, the deceptive nature of the “confession” is understood only when it is pointed out that the ethno-national meaning that is today associated with the label “Greek”, did not generally apply for much of the duration of the Ottoman Empire. As we have been arguing, generalised primary identity markers appear to have been mostly underpinned by class and religion. It is not surprising that the “Bulgarian” peasant (Bulgarian in a socio-economic occupational/class sense or perhaps one could describe him as a Bulgarian speaking peasant, but not as an ethnic Bulgarian in the modern sense – it seems clear enough that such a notion was not present in his mind and that is what matters) replied that he was “Greek” - for, by this he meant that he was an Orthodox Christian and it is a perfectly understandable attitude for a resident of an empire that placed Muslims above Christians in numerous practical ways. In addition, the Ottoman authorities usually officially referred to all Christians as “Rum” or “Greeks”. Moreover, it is this attitude which explains the failure of some uninformed 19th century travel writers to detect the presence of “Bulgarians” in regions that later became an integral part of the Bulgarian state. Thus the writings of western tourist authors need to be used with a considerable amount of care – something that Bulgarian and Balkan historians in general, appear to consistently lack (Seton-Watson, 1918: 78). Notably, Seton-Watson also condemns the fact that “In the West there grew up the highly inaccurate habit of referring to all branches of the Orthodox or Eastern Church as "the Greek Church," and more than one distinguished historian and traveller was guilty of the most ludicrous errors.” (Seton-Watson, 1918: 22)

We are now in a position to better understand that it is not really possible to speak of the Hellenization of Bulgarians in an ethnic/national sense. During much of the Ottoman period, the labels in question were mostly underpinned by class and religion. The modern ethno-national project, among other things, has in the Balkans, generally been about taking some of these pre-Modern identity markers and converting them into ethno-national markers – which entails the creation of a state inhabited by an entire population that is unified in a manner that more or less transcends the limits of class and religion; a mass social grouping which feels it possesses a very strong identity, in spite of its very high division of labour. These are disturbing revelations for ultra-nationalistic Bulgarian (see Pilbrow, 2005: 129) and other proponents of myths asserting an ancient to modern essentialised ethno-cultural identity continuity.

Conclusion

At this point, some would no doubt like to assert that all social groups possess, need and maintain foundation myths. There appears to be some truth to this claim and be that as it may, it is not acceptable to maintain narratives with aspects which breed arrogance, hatred and the negation of others – especially minorities. Of the themes specifically mentioned in Bulgarian history textbooks today, the “national unification of the Bulgarian areas” (meaning Macedonia and adjacent land) remains a dominant theme. For example, in the 1992 textbooks it was mentioned seventy times versus only thirty for the 1991 textbooks. Other themes include “Greece's denationalization policy,” mentioned twenty-four times in 1991 and twenty times in 1992 etc. (Roudometof, 2002: 14). All of this is directly linked to the often intentional misinterpretation of the pre-Modern identity marker, “Bulgarian”.
The result is a perpetuation of Bulgarian chauvinism towards Macedonians which manifests itself by constant declarations asserting the Macedonian language to be a “Bulgarian dialect”; by consistent references to Macedonian history as “Bulgarian history” and to Macedonia as chiefly a “Bulgarian land”. Moreover, Bulgaria, an EU member country (and this tells us much about the EU!), does not recognize the existence of its Macedonian minority and inflicts upon it, a variety of other human rights abuses. Members and supporters of OMO "Ilinden" - PIRIN (a Macedonian political party and human rights organization operating in Bulgaria – which the Bulgarian state unlawfully refuses to register) have been harassed, beaten, fined and even imprisoned simply for asserting their Macedonian identity. This has to stop and ultimately, only an educational/cultural ‘sea-change’, facilitated by the Bulgarian state and academics, is going to ensure a relatively prompt end to the ethnic chauvinism and the development of a lasting reconciliation.

　
Bibliography

Amfiteatrov, A. Land of Discord, Makedonska Kniga, Skopje, 1990 (Macedonian translation of the Russian original published in 1903).

Balikci, Asen. The ‘Bulgarian Ethnography’ of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Some Critical Comments, in Vintilă Mihăilescu, Ilia Iliev, Slobodan Naumović(eds.) Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies II, Lit Verlag, 2008.

Brown, Keith. The Past in Question, Princeton University Press, 2003.

Danforth, Loring. The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995.


Detrez, Raymond. Relations between Greeks and Bulgarians in the Pre-Nationalist Era: The Gudilas in Plovdiv, in Dimitris Tziovas (ed.) Greece and the Balkans, Ashgate, 2003.

- Between the Ottoman Legacy and the Temptation of the West: Bulgarians coming to terms with the Greeks. In Raymond Detrez, Barbara Segaert (eds.)
Europe and the historical legacies in the Balkans, P.I.E. Peter Lang, Brussels, 2008.

Dimitrov, Vesselin. Bulgaria: the uneven transition, Routledge, 2001.

Elenkov, Ivan & Koleva, Daniela. Historiography in Bulgaria After the Fall of Communism: Did “The Change” Happen?, Historein Volume 4, 2003-4.
http://www.nnet.gr/historein/histore...n4-elenkov.pdf,

Engstrom, Jenny. Democratisation and the Prevention of Violent Conflict, Ashgate, 2009.

Karpat, Kemal. Studies on Ottoman social and political history: selected articles and essays, Brill, Netherlands, 2002.

Livanios, Dimitris. The Quest For Hellenism, The Historical Review, Vol.3, 2006.

Mackridge, Peter. Language and national identity in Greece, 1766-1976, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Pilbrow, Tim. “Europe” in Bulgarian Conceptions of Nationhood, in Hanna Schissler, Yasemin Nuhoğlu Soysal (eds.) The Nation, Europe, and the World: textbooks and curricula in transition, Berghahn Books, 2005.

Roudometof, Victor. Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy, Greenwood press, 2001.


- Collective memory, national identity, and ethnic conflict, Praeger Publishing, 2002.

Seton-Watson, R.W. The rise of nationality in the Balkans, E.P. Dutton, New York, 1918.
　
　

[Currency Trader]

Thanks Risto,

Here are two more pieces with which we hope to entice people to read the rest of this issue:

POLITE YET DECEPTIVE, GREEK YET “MACEDONIAN”: IMPRESSIONS OF EVANGELOS KOFOS IN SKOPJE

On 20th October 2010 I had an encounter with the notorious “consultant” and “expert” on the Greek perspective on the “Macedonian question”, Evangelos Kofos. He had been invited to speak at a conference in Skopje, the capital city of the Macedonian republic.

My initial reaction upon hearing that he would be in Skopje was one of sheer disbelief. Why, I asked myself, had he been invited? What was there to be gained? Do the organisers of the conference not know who he is and what he represents? I was furious! However as a keen follower of Macedonian affairs, I must admit that I was very curious about the latest thoughts of Greece’s chief ‘academic’ propagandist of the last few decades. Thus, together with a few fellow enthusiasts, I attended the session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Rose-Roth Seminar where Kofos and others spoke.

During one of the coffee breaks we were presented with an opportunity to meet the “esteemed professor” from Greece. We contemplated whether we should approach him and argued amongst ourselves: “Is there any point to engaging with him?” “Well, he is an academic after all, isn’t he?” “No he isn’t, not really” “Maybe he’ll listen to reason?” etc. In the end we came to a resolution: “Ajde, da vidime shto kje kazhe!” And so we approached him during one of the breaks, just as he was sipping on his coffee. Although the coffee was not the “Elliniko” that I imagine he is accustomed to, nevertheless, he seemed to be enjoying it. “Well, our conversation with him will soon fix that”, someone in our group quipped. After the customary introductions we got down to business and asked him some of the questions that he and indeed the Greek state have consistently refused to answer.

We presented him with a copy of the 1920 Greek census results in which the Macedonian language (not “Slav-Macedonian”, not “Slavic” language, not “Slavic” idiom) is listed as a language spoken by some of the population in Greece. Parts of the official census results were published and therefore officially recognised by the Greek state. Kofos was clearly unsettled. He put on his reading glasses and said with a slight accent, “Let me have a look”. After a very quick scan he paused and claimed, “I am unaware of this”. We all smiled and chuckled ironically, knowing that he is indeed very aware of the existence of this ‘explosive’ document (in fact, in all likelihood he was one of first to have examined the document in the Greek archives decades ago). “OK”, we said, “Well, here it is, you are now aware of it. Does this not render invalid all of your arguments about Tito “inventing” the language in 1944 and the so-called “non-existence” of the Macedonian language in Greece?” He quickly dismissed the contents of the document saying, much to our astonishment, “Well, you must understand, that at that time, any reference to Macedonian was geographic in nature.” I smiled and responded, “Geographic? I beg your pardon. Mr Kofos we are talking about languages. That is the question on the census. Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian are listed as separate languages along side Macedonian on this document.” Kofos stood there in silence, a tacit admission on his part, one might say. After a little more debate he did what Ms Gay McDougall, the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues, suggested Greece should do in relation to the debate over whether a Macedonian minority exists in Greece; he withdrew and simply walked away, for he had been defeated and his lies had been exposed.

Following our encounter, Kofos entered the conference hall and delivered his presentation and attempted to in his words, “define the various elements of the [Macedonian] problem”. He started out by saying that he was a “native of Macedonia” referring to the fact that he originates from the town of Voden (Edessa in Greek) and that he indeed indentifies as a “Macedonian” as do others in the various parts of Macedonia in Greece. He claimed that this is “the key to enter the labyrinth of our “name issue”.” While he was straight to the point, articulate and very clear in his exposition, I doubt that Kofos convinced the audience (made up of Macedonians and an assortment of foreigners) to accept his position that because there are ethnic Greeks who add the word “Macedonian” as a “regional-cultural” qualifier to their primary ethno-national identity marker (“Greek”), somehow legitimises the attempts of the Greek state to take away the human right of Macedonians to self-identify. Indeed, following his speech a series of questions followed from the audience and at one point Kofos clearly forgot himself. In response to a question on the number of the “Macedonian speakers in Greece”, Kofos stated that “there is no statistical data available” (how could there be such data in a country so racist that it refuses even to acknowledge the existence of any ethnic minorities!?) – none-the-less, this was an implicit admission that such a language does in fact exist in Greece and is of course quite contrary to his usual, and Greece’s official, stance!

And so after a few more very pertinent and well put questions which he evaded answering in a satisfactory manner, a tired looking Kofos concluded his presentation. A feeling of ambivalence came over me after listening to Kofos and part of me began to think that his visit may have been of some use after all. He basically confirmed what many of us knew all along; Greece’s “problem” with the name of the Macedonian state is only the tip of the iceberg. Just below the surface of the “official” name of the state “negotiations”, there is an intention to also interfere with the ethno-cultural identity of Macedonians. Notably, Kofos only mentioned the issue of the name of the state per se, very briefly. Put simply, Kofos and the Greek state, also want to redefine the Macedonian people and the Macedonian language. This has not gone unnoticed in Macedonia; it has created some anger and there is now little doubt in my mind, that Kofos’ last two visits to Macedonia, have actually contributed to an ever growing rejection by Macedonians of the “name negotiations” with Greece (recent polls implicitly indicate that a clear majority of Macedonians now want an end to them) - which explains my ambivalence about the usefulness of Kofos’ visits.

For those in Macedonia and abroad who claim that the ethno-cultural identity issue has been “invented” and that the sole issue at hand is the name of the state have been emphatically proven wrong. This may seem like an obvious point to many Macedonians in the Diaspora, however a significant number of Macedonians here in Macedonia still doubt that the ultimate aim of the Greek state is to wipe out the identity of Macedonians in every sphere and Kofos’ visits have contributed to dispelling this doubt.

By David Vitkov – International Coordinator for the AMHRC.

George,
You don't happen to have a Cyrilic version of this text?

[indigen]

Originally Posted by AMHRC
To sum up, it is not enough to just focus on the internal politics of Macedonian identity and sovereignty (the disgraceful Interim Accord etc.) and attribute all failings to a lack of care or understanding of these matters. The “lets quickly eliminate the traitors and all will be fine” attitude is not in the long term, going to resolve the problems facing the Macedonian state and the challenges to the survival of Macedonian identity. A society that has little trust in its social realm will always produce a flawed leadership. By all means, effective pressure against those who would permit further deterioration, needs to be maintained (which is precisely one of the reasons why we launched the name campaign) – however, if one takes a ‘bird’s eye view’, it becomes apparent that the problem of loyalty to ‘Macedonianess’ in Macedonia is connected to the whole of society and the functioning of all of its major social structures: the reproduction of its existence. If one focuses on the politics of the identity issue alone (and I am not for a moment suggesting that this issue be in any way neglected), then one is ignoring serious problems inextricably linked to it. Moreover one would be grossly underestimating the breadth/depth of Macedonia’s problems and also overestimating the rapidity with which they could be properly dealt wit

This is an interesting paragraph. It makes sense

I would strongly disagree with any suggestions that patriotic Macedonians should place as an aim the building of trust in any ramkovist state structures. Their aim should be to restore Macedonia as a national state of Macedonians by any means necessary!

NB: RAMKOVIST MACEDONIA IS NOT A MACEDONIAN STATE!

but it also places a burden on the Diaspora that I am not sure it is willing to embrace. The Diaspora is largely concerned with matters pertaining to identity. It is mostly embarrassingly unaware of other issues in Macedonia. In fact, in many instances it does not care.

Having said that, we can't get swept up into a belief that it is a very complex issue. Identity is really quite a simple matter and simple messages are always the best. We need to be very careful about aspiring to mobilise the entire Macedonian community if the message sounds too difficult. The campaign was/is simple and there is no need to make it any more difficult than that. Not that I am suggesting you have plans to change your strategy.

I know this is one paragraph viewed without others in context. But I really feel the message coming from the Diaspora needs to be a simple one. The more complex it becomes, the more questions will be asked by Macedonians in Macedonia about why outsiders are interfering in their internal affairs.

I agree - keep the message simple and to the point! We need to defend Macedonian national interests and condemn ALL ANTI-MACEDONIAN AGENDAS. Co-operating with the RAMKOVIST STATE and its agencies and instruments, IMHO, would make one a RAMKOVIST COLLABORATOR.

[AMHRC]

CT,

The article was written in English and unfortunately that is the only language it is available in at the moment. If we do manage to organise a Macedonian translation, we shall make it available to you.

Regards,

AMHRC.

[TrueMacedonian]

CT long time no see my friend. How is everything in Sweden these days and the Macedonian community there?

[Currency Trader]

CT,

The article was written in English and unfortunately that is the only language it is available in at the moment. If we do manage to organise a Macedonian translation, we shall make it available to you.

Regards,

AMHRC.

It would be a great service, especially for those who are not fluent in english (Macedonians abroad and domestically). I'd like to forward this article to an older generation of seniors who are not english educated.

Regards

[Currency Trader]

CT long time no see my friend. How is everything in Sweden these days and the Macedonian community there?

Hello TM,
Yes, it's been awhile since I talked to you. Family expansion and career advancement during second half of last year has limited the time for chatting on the net.

Intersting that you ask me that question. Today the wife of a friend told me that she would change her Macedonian identity name for the sake of her childrens future if she still lived in Macedonia. Her basic message was, if diaspora Macedonians are so proud of their identiy as Macedonians, then they should move to Macedonia and try to live off 200-300 Euros/month with family.

So, that's my limited interaction with Macedonians here, although, severely limited and probably not representative for the broad community. However, her husband, my friend, claimed that Gruevski and VMRO party people were only enriching themselves without fighting corruption within VMRO. Saying that Gruevski had accumulated 4-5 apartments for himself, and using his own mother as front-owner to one of these apartments in Prag of all places. He was supposedly confronted by Macedonian media on this. Any truth to this?

Moreover, my friend also claimed that people who wished to get a job within public sector, would have to be a member of VMRO party. Whether this is official, or unwritten rule, I don't know. What do you think about this?



.

[Rogi]

CT, leveraging your equity is still generally unheard of, in Macedonia.

As for having to be a member of the party in power in order to get a job, or having to 'donate' to the party in power or see your business closed - this type of corruption, racketeering and nepotism, is unfortunately still very common in Macedonia.

[Risto the Great]

Intersting that you ask me that question. Today the wife of a friend told me that she would change her Macedonian identity name for the sake of her childrens future if she still lived in Macedonia. Her basic message was, if diaspora Macedonians are so proud of their identiy as Macedonians, then they should move to Macedonia and try to live off 200-300 Euros/month with family.

Interesting (and stupid) way of looking at things.
Some had to leave parts of Macedonia because they were Macedonian.

[Vangelovski]

Today the wife of a friend told me that she would change her Macedonian identity name for the sake of her childrens future if she still lived in Macedonia. Her basic message was, if diaspora Macedonians are so proud of their identiy as Macedonians, then they should move to Macedonia and try to live off 200-300 Euros/month with family.

Has she ever thought about how changing her identity would improve her financial circumstances? If financial wellbeing is, in her view, the purpose of life, and human dignity means little, then she may as well encourage her children to become prostitutes - they are much more likely to earn far more money that way.

[Phoenix]

Has she ever thought about how changing her identity would improve her financial circumstances? If financial wellbeing is, in her view, the purpose of life, and human dignity means little, then she may as well encourage her children to become prostitutes - they are much more likely to earn far more money that way.

Another side of the debate which is seldom discussed by many of these people is their understanding of their new found 'rights' once in the EU...having prostituted their identity to gain entry into the 'glorious' union it may come to some surprise to such sell outs that the 'yellow brick road' will be closed for many years to the good folk of the country formerly known as 'Macedonia'...so what price for this sacrifice in the short, medium and long term?

[Makedonska_Kafana]

Macedonia has everything the EU can offer now for free. EU are loan sharks and are in it to make money nothing else - about money and control

[Pelister]

Another side of the debate which is seldom discussed by many of these people is their understanding of their new found 'rights' once in the EU...having prostituted their identity to gain entry into the 'glorious' union it may come to some surprise to such sell outs that the 'yellow brick road' will be closed for many years to the good folk of the country formerly known as 'Macedonia'...so what price for this sacrifice in the short, medium and long term?

Every day that passes is just another day of compromises. What I don't understand is why Gruevski refuses to have our name admitted to the United Nations? There is no 'veto' power there. There is no legal 'blocking' operation standing in its way. And in the short film 'A Name is a Name' Gruevski had said that the decision of the European Council to force Macedonia to change its name (back in 1994), had been reversed. I plan to find out. I don't think it was reversed, and I think Gruevski is lying.

[AMHRC]

AMHRC Review - Summer 2010/11

AMHRC Review

Issue No.6 Published in March 2011 in Review of Summer 2010/11

Click the link for a download option: http://www.macedonianhr.org.au/wip/i...d=34&Itemid=50

Inside:

*Editorial Introduction – George Vlahov
*Macedonian Cinema: An Interview – Tonia Miovska and Vladimir Angelov
*Why is the EU Demanding Macedonia Change its Name? – Bill Nicholov
*Macedonians in Albania Demand End to Discrimination – AMHRC/MHRMI
*To the UWA Vice Chancellor – Chris Angelkov
*To Kaiser Baas – Goran Babusku
*To the Australian Foreign Minister – David Vitkov
*Silyan the Stork – Dr. Michael Seraphinoff
*Demands for the Resignation of Racist Politician – MHRMI
*Дијаспората сака пратеник што нема да го даде името – Нова Македонија
*Попис во Австралија – Дневник
*AMHRC Census Form Advice in Macedonian and English
*The Beginning of the End – George Papadakis
*AMHRC and MHRMI Demand a Government that will Defend Macedonia’s Interests
*Racist Letter by Bulgarian “Intellectuals” to UNESCO
*Greek Evidence on a Distinct Macedonian Language and Identity – Ivan Hristovski
*Census Advice from OMO “Ilinden” Pirin
*The Census in Bulgaria – Stojko Stojkov
*Greek State Policy in Southern Albania – David Vitkov
*Twenty-Eight Thousand Children – Lita Grakini
*The Melbourne Screening of Next Year in Lerin
*Patriarchy and the Australian Macedonian Community – Velika Thomev