The Smyrna Clerk from 1859

[TrueMacedonian]

Was this Smyrna clerk a "Servian"? A "Servian born" who called himself a Macedonian and compatriot of Alexander the Great? I am pretty certain he did not mean "Greek", though being a clerk I am positive he needed to learn Romaika and Turkish. He stated in the most point blank manner that he was a Macedonian.
And he was "Servian born". Quite possibly because his family joined the great migration of Macedonians fleeing Macedonia after the Karposh uprising. This is just a guess though. He may have well been born in Belgrade from Macedonian parents who were merchants themselves. What is certain is that we have someone calling themselves a Macedonian, a compatriot of Alexander the Great, in 1859. Let the enemies of Macedonia beat themselves over the head on this one for awhile.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Interesting source TM. Being of Macedonian blood and the clerk's own consciousness means more than where he was born.

[TrueMacedonian]

Interesting source TM. Being of Macedonian blood and the clerk's own consciousness means more than where he was born.

Agreed SoM. He could've called himself a "Servian" but instead refers to himself as a Macedonian.

[George S.]

Where are our "greek friends"to see this there is no reference to macedonians them being bulgarian,or slav macedonian or skopijans.So much for your bs propaganda designed to take away the macedonian identity ie because you decided there was no macedonians.The TM article proves beyond doubt that macedonians existed in 1859.
According to our greek friends Also TITO was around in 1859
with his so he could create this macedonian!!.

[Daskalot]

Not to be a party pooper or the like but the book is written in 1860

[TrueMacedonian]

Not to be a party pooper or the like but the book is written in 1860

This is the first sentence of the preface from the book:

I went to Constantinople in the early autumn of 1859 to see for myself in what state of health the Sick Man was.

[Carlin]

Real history is interesting also when it deconstructs the pap we learned in school or from the media, when it demonstrates how we have been misled. More exciting than learning history is unlearning the disinformational history we have been taught. Real history goes the extra step and challenges existing icons, offering interpretations that have a healthy subverting effect on mainstream ideology.

Attempts at real history are dismissed by conservatives as "revisionism." To use "revisionism" as an epithet is to say that there is no room for historical reinterpretation, that the standard version is objective and factual, and that any departure from it can only be ideological and faddish.

- Michael Parenti

[Epirot]

Nice quote, Carlin

However I've some quibbles here. Not always the attempts to change the long established interpretations are correct. In some cases, that radical change is undertaken by some ''scholars'' who are not entitled in doing professionally that. I rather think some of them endeavor against everything perceived indiscriminately as being 'old'', ''conservative'' or ''traditionalist''. This can be seen especially in Balkans. Almost in every country there is a rise of ''de-constructionists'', mostly not motivated by scholarly goals. I've seen blatant examples of some of them lacking of any historical knowledge. Yet they attempt so hard to have their take on history in spite of fact they offer nothing of substance. Their ''professional'' credentials are best attested by the fact that their books are sponsorized by ''Soros''. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not principally against new interpretations if substantial knowledge has come to light. I prefer to maintain a moderate scepticism in regard with ''old concepts''.

[Carlin]

Nice quote, Carlin

However I've some quibbles here. Not always the attempts to change the long established interpretations are correct. In some cases, that radical change is undertaken by some ''scholars'' who are not entitled in doing professionally that. I rather think some of them endeavor against everything perceived indiscriminately as being 'old'', ''conservative'' or ''traditionalist''. This can be seen especially in Balkans. Almost in every country there is a rise of ''de-constructionists'', mostly not motivated by scholarly goals. I've seen blatant examples of some of them lacking of any historical knowledge. Yet they attempt so hard to have their take on history in spite of fact they offer nothing of substance. Their ''professional'' credentials are best attested by the fact that their books are sponsorized by ''Soros''. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not principally against new interpretations if substantial knowledge has come to light. I prefer to maintain a moderate scepticism in regard with ''old concepts''.

Good points all.

I would describe myself as a sceptic for the following topics: ethnic, national, and religious identities and traditions. I consider ethnic/national/religious identities and beliefs social constructs, period.

In the Balkan nation-states, the process of construction of national identities remains largely undiscussed as well as concealed from view.

What TM provided here, with one single source from 1859, shatters the basis of modern Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian nationalist discourse with respect to Macedonian identity and history.

[TrueMacedonian]

Bump. This was pretty interesting and still is.

[Karposh]

Bump. This was pretty interesting and still is.

First I've heard of this Smyrna Clerk TM and it comes as no surprise to me. Of course there were people that identified as Macedonians back then. Your assumption regarding how he might have become a "Servian born" Macedonian is pretty sound I would say. The post Karposh Rebellion migration of Macedonians from the northern regions of Macedonia is a historical fact.

And what shits me in particular is that there are still people, even on this forum, that believe what out enemies spew out that anyone who identified as Macedonian prior to the late 19th Century had to be a "Regional" Macedonian. This is simply not so. Many of those Karposh Rebellion veterans fled to Vojvodina and, from there, into Russia (present day Ukraine). No doubt their offspring formed what was to become the Macedonian Hussar Regiment of the 1750's. I keep harking on about this regiment but, to be honest, I'll keep harking on about it until I'm blue in the face. These guys were Macedonians and proud to be known as such. They registered as Macedonians as seen in this document:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mk/e/e5/Makedonski_polk_vo_Ukraina.jpg

I swear, the next time someone tells me that it's impossible they meant it in an ethnic sense, because apparently modern nationalism is a 19th century concept, I will tell them to blow it out their arse. Nationalism may be a 19th Century invention but one's sense of personal ethnic identity is a different matter altogether as far as I'm concerned and these guys were proud to be Macedonians.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

First I've heard of this Smyrna Clerk TM and it comes as no surprise to me. Of course there were people that identified as Macedonians back then. Your assumption regarding how he might have become a "Servian born" Macedonian is pretty sound I would say. The post Karposh Rebellion migration of Macedonians from the northern regions of Macedonia is a historical fact.

And what shits me in particular is that there are still people, even on this forum, that believe what out enemies spew out that anyone who identified as Macedonian prior to the late 19th Century had to be a "Regional" Macedonian. This is simply not so. Many of those Karposh Rebellion veterans fled to Vojvodina and, from there, into Russia (present day Ukraine). No doubt their offspring formed what was to become the Macedonian Hussar Regiment of the 1750's. I keep harking on about this regiment but, to be honest, I'll keep harking on about it until I'm blue in the face. These guys were Macedonians and proud to be known as such. They registered as Macedonians as seen in this document:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mk/e/e5/Makedonski_polk_vo_Ukraina.jpg

I swear, the next time someone tells me that it's impossible they meant it in an ethnic sense, because apparently modern nationalism is a 19th century concept, I will tell them to blow it out their arse. Nationalism may be a 19th Century invention but one's sense of personal ethnic identity is a different matter altogether as far as I'm concerned and these guys were proud to be Macedonians.

You know this works in reverse as well, Greeks can't claim those who called themselves Greek and Bulgarians can't claim those who called themselves Bulgarians for the very reason such identities had different meanings back then.

[Karposh]

You know this works in reverse as well, Greeks can't claim those who called themselves Greek and Bulgarians can't claim those who called themselves Bulgarians for the very reason such identities had different meanings back then.

With all due to respect LoM, blow it out your arse! You're not a cultural anthropologist so pretending to be one. You cannot possibly know the intended meaning of someone's declared personal identification from 200-300 years ago. I'll be the bigger man with regards to Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek self identification from the past when these societies show consensus with what you're saying. Until then I'll keep putting up the example of the Macedonian Regiment's undisputed declaration of their self identification as Macedonians. So, please stop challenging me on this issue because it's really starting to piss me off. Instead of fighting like for like with our enemies, you are doing exactly what Zaev and Co are doing and capitulating voluntarily. If you think this is the smart approach to be taking, it's not. It's pathetic.

How do you explain SoM's recent example on another thread that clearly shows the Macedonian language being mentioned during both the 15th and 16th centuries?

[Liberator of Makedonija]

With all due to respect LoM, blow it out your arse! You're not a cultural anthropologist so pretending to be one. You cannot possibly know the intended meaning of someone's declared personal identification from 200-300 years ago. I'll be the bigger man with regards to Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek self identification from the past when these societies show consensus with what you're saying. Until then I'll keep putting up the example of the Macedonian Regiment's undisputed declaration of their self identification as Macedonians. So, please stop challenging me on this issue because it's really starting to piss me off. Instead of fighting like for like with our enemies, you are doing exactly what Zaev and Co are doing and capitulating voluntarily. If you think this is the smart approach to be taking, it's not. It's pathetic.

How do you explain SoM's recent example on another thread that clearly shows the Macedonian language being mentioned during both the 15th and 16th centuries?

. You have absolutely 0 idea who I am and what my educational credentials are, I could be a cultural anthropologist

. True, I can't know the intended meaning of someone declaring themselves Macedonian in the 18th century but guess what? Neither can you

. I am not "fighting" you, this is a forum where people often discuss and debate, I can only suggest you try and not take it personally when someone disagrees with you (heads up, insulting them doesn't strengthen your argument)

. Ethnic identity and language are not necessarily linked, especially pre-19th century. Our language has been showing up in historical documents under the name 'Macedonian' for centuries but that doesn't imply a continual ethnic identity that has not changed or wavered. Ancient Macedonian royalty spoke Koine but that didn't make them Hellenes.

[Karposh]

. You have absolutely 0 idea who I am and what my educational credentials are, I could be a cultural anthropologist

Are you?

True, I can't know the intended meaning of someone declaring themselves Macedonian in the 18th century but guess what? Neither can you

I'm only going off their self declared identity as Macedonians, which I've taken at face value and I have no reason to interpret it otherwise. You're the one that feels this would have been impossible in the 16th Century.

I am not "fighting" you, this is a forum where people often discuss and debate, I can only suggest you try and not take it personally when someone disagrees with you (heads up, insulting them doesn't strengthen your argument)

When I mentioned "fighting", I meant you should be fighting "like for like" and not accepting the perceived impossibility of a Macedonian identity prior to the late 19th Century. What do I mean by "like for like"? I mean if the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians are claiming unbroken lineage and ties with their ancestors, then we should be doing the same and not trying to be the bigger man in our fight with them. Their narrative is that no one in the Balkans self identified as Macedonians prior to Tito, and more recently, prior to the late 19th Century. We should be shoving this available and irrefutable evidence down their throats and not bashfully down-playing it. That's what I mean by "fighting like for like".

Ethnic identity and language are not necessarily linked, especially pre-19th century. Our language has been showing up in historical documents under the name 'Macedonian' for centuries but that doesn't imply a continual ethnic identity that has not changed or wavered.

Says who? You?...If the Macedonian language has existed for centuries, as you say, then it follows that it was spoken by the Macedonians, to whom it belongs to. One can be an Albanian, Vlach, Turk or Chinese who has learnt to speak Macedonian but it is still the national language of the Macedonians. Otherwise they would have called it Bulgarian or Serbian. Wouldn't you agree?

Ancient Macedonian royalty spoke Koine but that didn't make them Hellenes.

This is neither here nor there. I speak English but I also speak Macedonian. The Ancient Macedonians spoke Common (Koine) Greek but they also spoke Macedonian too. Plutarch called their language Macedonian because they were Macedonians.

I'll give you just one thing though. This is indeed a forum where topics are open for debate but you always manage to touch a nerve with this topic in particular because I see you just how pig-headed you are being about it and unwilling to concede that, perhaps, just perhaps, Macedonians did in fact exist prior to the 19th Century. I thought that was the whole point of this forum - to prove to the propagandists and the rest of the world that there was a Macedonian identity before Tito or before the Comintern artificially decreed us into existence. If you can't see this fundamental point, then, I'm sorry, why even bother?