United Macedonia Diaspora

[Bratot]

Tom,

The history of Macedonia, like the rest of the world is complex. From a sociological perspective, we can divide the social realm into three structural forms: cultural, economic and political. From the time of the Ancient Macedonians to the present, these forms have undergone significant alterations; partially as a result of foreign invasions.

Therefore in our view, the identity marker/symbol, Macedonian, has represented different things at different times. This does not mean that Macedonians today cannot claim descent from the Ancient Macedonians; however to claim that this descent is direct or unbroken and linear is difficult to maintain (as a result of transformations, in part caused by foreign invasions etc).

However, this is just our historical perspective and we apply it equally to all other Modern ethnic groups and nations - especially to the Modern Greeks. It is not to deny that other perspectives are possible, especially as so much of Macedonia's history remains unknown and also because existing evidence is open to more than one interpretation.

We would like it noted that indigen in another thread on this forum has posted information indicating that the "Slavonians" did invade and settle Greece.

If indigen can prove our view completely wrong and demonstrate that Macedonians have been continuously identifying as Macedonian from ancient times to the present; and that the usage of that identity marker (Macedonian) has always meant/symbolised the same thing/social structures continuously from ancient times to the present and that there has been no intermingling both physical and cultural between Macedonians and all the invaders, we would be more than happy to surrender our perspective as invalid.

We do not require of our members that they all hold the same historical perspective; we merely ask that they accept our Macedonian identity, language and culture, unequivocally; and that they help the struggle to resist attempts by anyone to change our identity or undermine our human rights in general.

Regards,

AMHRC.

Ohh my.. it's going to be hard for the superior tribunal of Vangelovski&Indigen to absorb such view, I wonder which etiquette they have prepared for you...

Althought in my opinion what you've stated in the underlined part fortunatelly and also unfortunatelly is provable and deniable if we use the selective approach in subjective manner to give direct answer of -Yes or -No.
There are examples of historical continuity and unbroken Macedonian consciousness whether it was less or more significantly asserted in different periods but I agree with you about the general genesis of every modern nation, it would be madness to claim one direct ancient lineage of every Macedonian person today.

Even for Alexander we can't say was 'pure' blooded Macedonian and even less for his son, not mentioning how many wifes Philip has before Olympia, it's a normal circumstance for neighboring people to mix and the ethnic conscience cannot be a precondition before the person itself occur.

[indigen]

Ohh my.. it's going to be hard for the superior tribunal of Vangelovski&Indigen to absorb such view, I wonder which etiquette they have prepared for you...

Go wave your glorious "VENTILATOR" (i sonuvaj za negovoto praistorisko poteklo koga kje go drvish so dve race) somewhere else and be a proud "former YUGOSLAV Republic of Macedonia" ("NOT FYROM") "GRAGJANIN"! :-)

[Bratot]

Go wave your glorious "VENTILATOR" (i sonuvaj za negovoto praistorisko poteklo koga kje go drvish so dve race) somewhere else and be a proud "former YUGOSLAV Republic of Macedonia" ("NOT FYROM") "GRAGJANIN"! :-)

I have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. Enjoy your sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.

[indigen]

Tom,

The history of Macedonia, like the rest of the world is complex. From a sociological perspective, we can divide the social realm into three structural forms: cultural, economic and political. From the time of the Ancient Macedonians to the present, these forms have undergone significant alterations; partially as a result of foreign invasions.

Is Dr. Popov "AMHRC" login? Did Mr. Popov by any chance obtain his doctorate in Bulgaria or Yugoslavia?

Therefore in our view, the identity Macedonian, has represented different things at different times. This does not mean that Macedonians today cannot claim descent from the Ancient Macedonians; however to claim that this descent is direct or unbroken/unmixed and linear is difficult to maintain (as a result of transformations, in part caused by foreign invasions etc).

Da ne meshame babi i zhabi tuka zatoa shto nikoj ne zbori za kakva i da e chistakrvnost ili drzhavnost vo prodlzhenie od antikata do den deneshen! Makedoncite, vo glavina, se domorodni i imaat krvnno i kulturno nasledstvo od antikata (i predhodnite vreminja) i toa ne pravi DIREKTNI potomci na slavnite Makedonci od vremeto na Filip II i Aleksandar III Makedonski, odnosno, vo kulturna smisla, na nivnite naslednici od ranohristijanskata era.

We would like it noted that indigen in another thread on this forum has posted information indicating that the "Slavonians" did invade and settle Greece (and the whole of the Balkans, according to indigen's source: post number 12, in the "Greece, History, Truth" thread in the Exposing Lies etc. section of MTO).

Yes, I posted an excerpt from a book by Cyril Mango, BYZANTIUM: THE EMPIRE OF NEW ROME. It is an English translation from a supposed 6th century A.D. source and posted as is without comment. http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...?t=1627&page=2

I don't mind that all the so called source evidence is examined and evaluated but it does not mean that I accept whatever is presented as 100% reliable and accurate evidence.

If indigen can prove our view completely wrong and demonstrate that the ancestors of Macedonians today have been continuously identifying as Macedonian from ancient times to the present; and that the usage of that identity marker (Macedonian) has always meant/symbolised the same thing/social structures continuously from ancient times to the present and that there has been no intermingling/mixing both physical and cultural between Macedonians and all the invaders, we would be more than happy to surrender our perspective as invalid.

Why would I have to "prove" your "our view COMPLETELY WRONG"? Would your being essentially wrong in denying Macedonian indigenous genetic and cultural continuity not suffice? :-)

Secondly, I doubt that this is a collective view of right-thinking Macedonians in AMHRC but rather that of one (or two) unrepentant and rebadged old SLAVOMAN IDEOLOGUE/S (most likely CP).

Lastly, this whole presumtion of yours looks like a repeat of the following:

"The Macedonian question - Petar Rachev Slavejkov....

....We have many times heard from the Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians but Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians, and have always waited to hear some proofs of this, but have never heard them. The Macedonists have never shown us the bases of their attitude. They insist on their Macedonian origin, which they cannot prove in any satisfactory way..."

We do not require of our members that they all hold the same historical perspective; we merely ask that they accept our Macedonian identity, language and culture, unequivocally; and that they help the struggle to resist attempts by anyone to change our identity or undermine our human rights in general.

Neither did Ljubcho Georgievski require all his supporters hold the view that our ancestors were Bulgarians before 1945 whilst he reigned as leader of DPMNE and PM of RM but that did not mean we should not seek his removal and banishment from the political life of Macedonians!

--------------

The terms "Slav Macedonian" has not been and never will be accepted by the Macedonian community in Australia and abroad as it is a vilification and denial of Macedonians' cultural, ethnic and national identity.

The term "Slav Macedonian" is an offensive slogan of propaganda used by Greek and other oppressors of the Macedonian people in order to usurp the heritage, suppress the identity and deny the existence of the indigenous Macedonians.

Excerpt from "The National Position of the Macedonian-Australian Community against the Slav-Prefix directive", endorsed by ALL Macedonian Organisations in Australia, March 1994, and issued as a Media Release and Public Statement.

[AMHRC]

"Why would I have to "prove" your "our view COMPLETELY WRONG"? Would your being essentially wrong in denying Macedonian indigenous genetic and cultural continuity not suffice? :-)"

"Secondly, I doubt that this is a collective view of right-thinking Macedonians in AMHRC but rather that of one (or two) unrepentant and rebadged old SLAVOMAN IDEOLOGUE/S (most likely CP)."

Indigen,

We did not deny the descent from ancient Macedonians in the earlier post and therefore it is wrong of you to try to link us with Slavejkov, especially when you have posted information on this forum supporting the “Slav” thesis. On the other hand you seem to be denying that any significant mixing with foreign invaders or neighbours took place or that any significant social structural changes/ruptures took place; but you merely assert it, you do not present any evidence. Therefore it does not suffice, we require evidence – like the evidence you posted on the “Slavonians”.

It is ironic in this context for you to post information on the “Slavonians” invading and settling the Balkans and then to defend it by writing: “I don't mind that all the so called source evidence is examined and evaluated but it does not mean that I accept whatever is presented as 100% reliable and accurate evidence.” Because that is exactly the point we made in our post above! The evidence on aspects of the history of Macedonia is debatable, fragmentary and open to various interpretations. You implicitly admit here that you yourself are not sure!

And no it is not the collective view of the AMHRC, as we already explained, it is not required for everyone at the AMHRC to have the same historical perspective; the only requirement is a desire to protect the human rights of Macedonians. In response you wrote "Neither did Ljubcho Georgievski require all his supporters hold the view that our ancestors were Bulgarians before 1945 whilst he reigned as leader of DPMNE and PM of RM but that did not mean we should not seek his removal and banishment from the political life of Macedonians!" This makes absolutely no sense, it is an extremely illogical attempt by you to link us to Georgievski!


We know all about the usage of the Slav prefix and suffix in Australia. The AMHRC together with the Teacher’s association fought a seven year legal battle against the State of Victoria for using a “Slavonic” suffix, which we won when the Victorian government was found guilty of racial discrimination and compelled to stop using it. It was a landmark case and a major victory.

I will now make no apology for the fact that we will not discuss these issues any further with you; we have explained our position and we do not have the time to continue returning to it. Indeed, to discuss these issues fully and properly would require the writing of a book. You are entitled to your perspective and we hold no grudge against you.

AMHRC.

[Risto the Great]

An interesting discussion wasted under the banner of this UMD thread. I have no doubt modern Macedonians can trace their heritage to the ancient Macedonians. I also have no doubt we have been influenced by many races over time.

Most people seem to think the ancient Macedonian era is in fact Philip/Alexander's time. Yet give barely a moments thought to the centuries preceding this era.

[Risto the Great]

I have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. Enjoy your sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.

Bratot, I pretty much equate the Greek flag with Macedonia's new one. They had more to do with it than Macedonians did.

[Grotius]

why stop with the Ancient Macedonians, I'm sure I can prove a direct lineal connection to the monkeys.

In all seriousness, Indigen, I always follow your posts because you generally have interesting things to say, and I mostly support what you say, but I think you are completely wrong in relation to the AMHRC.

It's also interesting that you posted the "position" of the Macedonian - Australian community in relation to the "Slav" prefix directive, because the AMHRC was the one that acted on that 'position'. Did you support them in those legal actions to rid the "Slav" directives?

The Grks claim a pure direct unbroken lineal racial cultural etc... connection to the Ancients in an attempt to portray the Modern Grks as being one and the same as the people who lived in Ancient times, and I always thought that was an absurd position. In any event, I don't think that anybody here is denying that Macedonians can assert Ancient descendants, just like all peoples can, but I can't see how you can ignore the 2000 years or so in between. At the end of the day, we are still Macedonians - or do I have to don animal skins to prove the unbroken line?

[Vangelovski]

AMHRC,

Without going into its historical validity, I just want to make a few comments in relation to the statement used by Chris Popov below. And I do this in the spirit of genuine and open debate, so please don’t misunderstand my comments, as you know I do support many of your activities.

Macedonians' ethnicity and identity is based on the experiences of all peoples who have settled in Macedonia in the last 2500 years ranging from the Ancient Macedonians, Romans, Celts, Tatars, Slavs, Turks and various peoples brought in during the 500 year plus Ottoman reign.

I'll admit that I have (naively) used this line two or three times in the past. However, having done so, I asked myself the following:

Firstly, how does this statement assist our struggle for self-identification?

Secondly, (and here I'm thinking about the impact on the reader), if Macedonians really are a mixture of all these people, then when, why and how was the identity marker/symbol “Macedonian” chosen over other possible markers? What precludes the Macedonians from reassessing their national historiography and choosing an identity marker/symbol from a less distant (culturally and genetically) and less politically contentious historical people?

If, on the other hand, we claim that “Macedonian” has been used as an identity marker/symbol continuously (regardless of the cultural structures it may or may not have represented at various times) why introduce the “mongrel” perspective and the implications it has on culture/identity? What value does it add to the overall argument?

[Soldier of Macedon]

“...Macedonians' ethnicity and identity is based on the experiences of all peoples who have settled in Macedonia in the last 2500 years ranging from the Ancient Macedonians, Romans, Celts, Tatars, Slavs, Turks and various peoples brought in during the 500 year plus Ottoman reign....[....]....I do not subscribe to the theory that Macedonians are direct descendants of the Ancient Macedonians...[....]....

The underlined word is the key point here, in my opinion. After all of the events, turmoil, etc that the Balkans have experienced since Roman times, there is no way possible that anybody can claim to be the direct descendant of an ancient people. However, there is only one nation today that can legitimately claim to be the heirs of Macedonia's ancient (and subsequent) heritage, and that is the Macedonians. That's where I stand. The ancient Macedonians are the primary ancestors of today's Macedonians, but there is no doubt that there are also other elements in our heritage. What we should be looking at here, aside from DNA, is the percentage of 'other' elements with regard to culture, language, etc.

Modern Macedonian ethnicity and identity, like the Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian etc, are the result of processes which occurred in the period following the French Revolution, in the age of nationalism...”

I don't believe the Macedonian identity was a completely new 'phenomena'. However, after centuries of belonging to empires that based their identities on religion rather than ethnicity, the Macedonian (and other) people were largely referring to themselves as Christians. Although there is no doubt that the Macedonian identity existed prior to the French Revolution (as indicated in documents relating to Macedonian emigrants that travelled to Russia and Austria, for example), after this point (as Popov says, in the age of nationalism) it began to completely rejuvinate itself among the masses of people and come into more regular use, as Macedonians continued their efforts of liberation.

Indigen, would you agree or disagree with what I have written above?

[AMHRC]

AMHRC,

Without going into its historical validity, I just want to make a few comments in relation to the statement used by Chris Popov below. And I do this in the spirit of genuine and open debate, so please don’t misunderstand my comments, as you know I do support many of your activities.



I'll admit that I have (naively) used this line two or three times in the past. However, I asked myself the following:

Firstly, how does this statement assist our struggle for self-identification?

Secondly, (and here I'm thinking about the impact on the reader), if Macedonians really are a mixture of all these people, then when, why and how was the identity marker/symbol “Macedonian” chosen over other possible markers? What precludes the Macedonians from reassessing their national historiography and choosing an identity marker/symbol from a less distant (culturally and genetically) and less politically contentious historical people?

If, on the other hand, can we claim that “Macedonian” has been used as an identity marker/symbol continuously (regardless of the cultural structures it may or may not have represented at various times) why introduce the “mongrel” perspective and the implications it has on culture/identity? What value does it add to the overall argument?

Vangelovski,

This is the very last time we shall respond on this matter.

First, if we want to avoid being mocked by serious people, we have to concern ourselves with historical validity.

Second, the struggle for the right to self-identification, is a legal and moral cause, it cannot be based on historical interpretations about the origins of nations etc. - especially as these interpretations, are often no more than vague speculation. Moreover, if you take that quotation in isolation from the rest of the letter; you are being unjust. Because the letter explains that exactly the same applies to the modern Greeks and others.

To answer your second question about the history of identity formation, would require the writing of a book and we at present do not have the time to undertake such an enterprise. What is not questionable, is that Macedonians today exist, regardless of how their identity was formed. Moreover, if people decide to freely change their identity, that is their right; however, if others from outside are attempting to force this upon them, then that is something we will resist, because it constitutes abuse. We, as human rights activists, cannot accept this as legitimate.

Thirdly, on the basis of the available evidence, as we already explained, it is difficult to maintain that our direct ancestors have from ancient times to the present, continuously referred to themselves as Macedonians. We do not like to make claims without evidence. This does not harm our human rights cause at all, because neither can any other ethnic or national group in Europe, demonstrate such a thing.

The human rights cause is about norms and laws that are meant to apply to all people - yet as we all know, Macedonians are often excluded from the benefits of these laws. This is discrimination which implies that Macedonians are something less than human and we shall therefore continue to resist this mistreatment. And we do not need to prove that we are not "mongrels" to do it. Such matters are completely irrelevant and we only ever bring them up, when the need arises to expose the lies propagated by the Greek state and its supporters.

Regards,

AMHRC.

Tom,

I will add a PS here as our final comment; in our advocacy work over the last 26 years, we have often found that our honesty on historical matters, whenever we have felt the need to bring them up to expose Greek lies, has often impressed authorities and has been a factor in swaying them to view our cause positively and equally, we have found that various institutions and academics etc. have been repulsed by the ridiculous fairy tales the Greeks use to argue their cause. This has been our experience, we do not claim that it always applies, but in general we have often been rewarded for our honesty. This, we suppose, can be counted as a positive benefit of facing facts honestly.

[Vangelovski]

AMHRC,

I agree with most of what you say. In particular, I agree that the issue is irrelevant. That is why I asked what value does the inclusion of such a statement add?

My only suggestion is that, although it does not necessarily harm the pursuit of human rights, it neither adds any value. I think such statements should be avoided, if for no other reason than to avoid the impression that this particular issue does have some legitimate effect on the pursuit of human rights.

[Grotius]

AMHRC,

I agree with most of what you say. In particular, I agree that the issue is irrelevant. That is why I asked what value does the inclusion of such a statement add?

My only suggestion is that, although it does not necessarily harm the pursuit of human rights, it neither adds any value. However, it could in fact cause confusion to the lay reader. Because of this, it should be avoided, if for no other reason than to avoid the impression that this particular issue does have some legitimate effect on the pursuit of human rights.

I don't quite see how an "irrelevant" issue can have a "legitimate effect on the pursuit of human rights". To play devils advocate based on human rights norms and human rights law, even if I was Grk (or whatever else) yesterday (for whatever reason), don't I have the right to self identify as Macedonian today? Isn't peoples (Government's) interpretations of history simply irrelevant to human rights. Also, if we are talking about having crediblity in making human rights arguments, wouldn't decontextualising the various and complex social changes over many years be completely disingenious? Does the fact that some Macedonians want to draw direct connections to Ancient Macedonia whilst others want to acknowledge the varied inter-social transformations in betweeen make any difference to the pursuit of human rights for Macedonians today?

At the end of the day, the Grks will not affford anybody "human rights" unless they are Grk, regardless of what you want to be described as.

[AMHRC]

AMHRC,

I agree with most of what you say. In particular, I agree that the issue is irrelevant. That is why I asked what value does the inclusion of such a statement add?

My only suggestion is that, although it does not necessarily harm the pursuit of human rights, it neither adds any value. I think such statements should be avoided, if for no other reason than to avoid the impression that this particular issue does have some legitimate effect on the pursuit of human rights.

Tom,

I added a late PS, so here it is again in case you missed it:

I will add a PS here as our final comment; in our advocacy work over the last 26 years, we have often found that our honesty on historical matters, whenever we have felt the need to bring them up to expose Greek lies, has often impressed authorities and has been a factor in swaying them to view our cause positively and equally, we have found that various institutions and academics etc. have been repulsed by the ridiculous fairy tales the Greeks use to argue their cause. This has been our experience, we do not claim that it always applies, but in general we have often been rewarded for our honesty. This, we suppose, can be counted as a positive benefit of facing facts honestly.

[Soldier of Macedon]

To play devils advocate based on human rights norms and human rights law, even if I was Grk (or whatever else) yesterday (for whatever reason), don't I have the right to self identify as Macedonian today?

Grotius, everybody has the right to an identity, but if it is artificial and impedes on another identity, then it becomes a violation of the other identity. There has to be a distinction based on validity, otherwise anybody can claim anything 'under the cover' of human rights.