Macedonian Nationalism

[TrueMacedonian]

TM,

I'm also trying to work out what your point is. You haven't really provided anything other than a vague question mark over the ability of Macedonians to claim Macedonia as their homeland.

You are vaguely insinuating (as I understand it) that Macedonians do not originate from Macedonia, however, you have not stated where you think they originate from, why it is you believe this is the case and what you believe the consequences are, if any.

Vangelovski I am not vaguely insinuating that Macedonians today do not originate from Macedonia. That's not what I am saying. What I am asking for is evidence of this so-called 'indigenous Macedonian culture'. What exactly is indigenous and what is not? What is "naturally" Macedonian from antiquity and what is borrowed?

[Soldier of Macedon]

There is an arousin question in your comparison, the term - Bulgarian was not indigenous endonym* on the Balkans, so if the nowadays Bulgarians identify with it they could or could not be the true hereditary people of it's terminology. So what were the 'Bulgarians' before they adopted this exonym** ?

*A name used by a people to refer to themselves or their language, as opposed to a name given to them by other groups. For example, Deutschen is the endonym of a people known in English as German.
**a name given to a group or category of people by a secondary person or persons other than the people it refers to.
Exonyms form a typical (but very useful) example of cultural chauvinism.

The Bulgarian identification with this exonym or precizelly exo-ethnonym is a politically occured geographical paradox which forced the Bulgarian national-chauvinist to seek 'historical' justification of providing some sort of 'superiority' of their nation in more directions, but this national complex produced only numerous historical distorsions and identity crisis.
I don't think we can really compare to their case.

Bratot, your example only applies to those who were never Bulgars to begin with, like Macedonians. Otherwise, we cannot deny today's Bulgars that live where Asparuh's horde settled in Moesia, of their Bulgar heritage. And that is precisely what is considered as their 'core' living area after they arrived in the Balkans.

In my opinion we(some of) have fell deep into the nationalist trap set by Greek propaganda where they are claiming that we could not claim the name Macedonia unless we were descendands from the Ancient Macedonians.

Bratot, you made this comment shortly after your reply to myself. Do you consider me one of these people who has fallen 'deep into the nationalist trap'? I certainly don't. Furthermore, I don't think there should be any shame (or relevant comparison with some of our delusional neighbours) when researching our older history. I am not doing this to validate myself and heritage, I know what I am, but as with many others here, I have an interest in our origins, and that is nothing to shy away from.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Thank you SoM. This is what I've been looking for and a very good point to start at. Now according to Theophilactus the so-called 'Slavs' carried musical instruments with them (citars) into the Balkans. However Paul Barford doesn't think this account should be relied on.

TM, can you cite the quotation from Theophilactus? Does he indicate where these 'Slavs' brought the instruments from? Where they came from? Or that they just 'carried' it with them during their travels, incursions and rebellions?

I tend to agree with Barford, not so much that Theophilactus' assertion isn't reliable, but that the people that 'carried' such instruments were not necessarily bringing something 'new' to the area. I say this because there were Thracian and Illyrian tribes already living on both sides of the Danube, and thus cultural links would already have been in existence well before the turmoil of the 6th century in East Rome. Let's take a look at the below quotes, as an example of what I am making reference to, which explains how I view situation back then, in the context of this discussion and the earlier cited cultural characteristics:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=435&highlight=Getae&page=10

Thracians altogether are the most crowded people after the Celts........(Pausanias, 2nd Century AD)

Homer classes with these the Hippemolgi, the Galactophagi, and the Abii, who are the Scythian Hamaxœci and Sarmatians; for at this day, all these nations, as well as the Bastarnæ, are mixed with the Thracians, more especially with those beyond the Danube, and some even with the Thracians on this side the Danube; also amongst these are the Keltic tribes of the Boii, Scordisci, and Taurisci. Some, indeed, call the Scordisci the Scordistæ, and give to the Taurisci the names of Ligurisci and Tauristæ.........(Strabo, 1st Century AD)

Notice the constant interaction between Thracians from both sides, and the tribes that lived among them, such as Celts? The Getae were another Thracian group, see the below reference:

Aelius Catus has removed from the opposite side of the Danube into Thrace fifty thousand Getae, who speak a language cognate with the Thracian. They still inhabit the very spot, and pass by the name of Moesi……..(Strabo, 1st Century AD)

So, there were Getae living on both sides of the river, and their language was cognate with Thracian, those that were moved south of the Danube, were known as Moesi, another Thracian tribal name that was already in existence. When the turmoil of the 6th century began, this description was used to refer to the 'Slavs' who ravaged some of the cities and countryside of East Rome, as, according to Simocatta, this was the older name for the 'barbarians'. He also states the following:

As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercly ravaging the regions of Thrace………….(Simocatta, 6th Century AD)

With such information a clear pattern reveals itself where pertinent events and circumstances appear to argue in favour of terms such as Thracians, Getae, Slavs, Scythians, etc being varied names for essentially the same linguistic group, that had frequent interactions on both sides of the Danube and thus ensured a cultural commonality throughout the centuries.

How can one possibly claim that something was 'carried' into the Balkans from an area where a related people were already living? That is why Theophilactus' assertion shouldn't be taken at face value. To him, these instruments may have been 'new', but I don't believe the same can be said about the Macedonian, Illyrian and Thracian citizens of East Rome that retained a certain measure of their native culture which would allow them to identify some of the items brought in as familiar.

[Pelister]

I think we need to stop essentializing our identity with the use of terms such aas 'Slavs'. Our enemies do that enough for us. I think that we have to stop assuming that we know who the 'Sklavenoi' were and what language they spoke...etc. The fact is we don't know a thing about them.

SoM is spot on with his small piece of evidence with the dance 'oro'....etc. The Macedonian 'Sword Dances' are another excellent example of the very ancient roots in the balkans, because it was performed by Thracians, as was the Macedonian Bridal Oro, which was a Thracian custom...etc. SoM, you've started something good here. Clearly this is just the tip of the iceberg, but we have every right to claim a continuious culture to the ancient balkans, because these were customs...etc, practiced by Macedonians until very recently. Even our langauge, as SoM has pointed out, has strong connections to the language of the ancient Thracians, who were the indigenous people of the region. Pribichevich identifies a number of Macedonian traditions practiced by the ancient Thracians.

There is no doubt in my mind that there has always been a distinctive, unique, original and authentic indigenous Macedonian culture. The danger is that UMDist's start convincing Macedonians that their identity - every aspect of it - is a construction and a product of 19th century nationalism. This discussion is specifically about our roots. The archives in Skopje are brimming with lost traditions, lost rites and lost rituals which no one has been able to place, most of which I believe are local and very very ancient. I think that vague analogues, bits of short hand and interpretive mischief not to mention the tendency for our enemies to 'essentialize' is as Other, for example, Slav/Greek is something we should avoid at all costs.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I think we need to stop essentializing our identity with the use of terms such aas 'Slavs'. Our enemies do that enough for us. I think that we have to stop assuming that we know who the 'Sklavenoi' were and what language they spoke...etc. The fact is we don't know a thing about them........

Pelister, can you explain to me what you mean by 'essentializing' and how that relates to what I had written previously? You can't just dismiss all of the citations and references to the 'Slavs' as insignificant because we don't know who they were exactly, and claiming that we know not a thing about them is simply untrue. I will not cease to use the term where I find it necessary, logical and appropriate. Disregarding it altogether will do little to contribute to progress. Hiding from it because of ignorant confrontation from our enemies serves no purpose. We must address the issue, and in doing so the context needs to be determined, to ensure there are no misconceptions.

How do you reconcile your view with regard to Cyril and Methodius? Do you find it appropriate and definitive enough to read an article about them and not see the word 'Slav' mentioned once, even though this is what they called their langauge, as a result of the prevailing circumstances of the time? I am not ashamed of this, not one bit, because I know that there are logical reasons behind actions, events, statements, etc that can be explained in most cases. I will still call them Macedonians and their language Macedonian, because in essence, this is what they are, I see no contradiction in this.

[iskra]

I agree SoM that there is no need to fear the "S" word or any other words like Thracian or Illyrian or Roman etc. These words are common in Balkan history and in order to work out their meaning, you need to use them. Greece has plenty of "Slavs" in its history, so any examination of the so called "Slav" thesis, does not help them one bit. There is no question of essentialising here, it is merely an effort to discover the meaning of words used at various points in the past. That is a very important part of what history is about.

TM, you started an interesting discussion here and its good to see that most people have reacted maturely. The discussion has opened up numerous interesting and mostly unanswered questions, so it might now be time to just go back to pursuing all the issues that have emerged from this topic, under individual headings in the history section of MTO.

[aleksandrov]

That's fine Aleksandrov. So far everyone else has been answering this topic.

Yes, some posters have indeed answered your questions by posting facts and theories that have been presented and discussed on this and various other internet forums in the past. Unfortunately, your predisposition seems such that you are unlikely to digest that material any better this time around than you have upon previous opportunities. You seem to be crippled by a stubborn committment to a vague anti-theory for which you have hardly provided anything that can be considered direct evidence, and in relation to which you have persistently evaded basic questions and logical criticisms.

[Bratot]

Bratot, you made this comment shortly after your reply to myself. Do you consider me one of these people who has fallen 'deep into the nationalist trap'? I certainly don't.
Furthermore, I don't think there should be any shame (or relevant comparison with some of our delusional neighbours) when researching our older history. I am not doing this to validate myself and heritage, I know what I am, but as with many others here, I have an interest in our origins, and that is nothing to shy away from.

I wasn't pointing to you SoM, but I'm not the only one witnessing such trend where some of us have lost the sanity and propagate some "Aryian" racial theories and blood/gene purity.

I think it produce more negative effect than possitive, I wouldn't like to see some 'supremacism' claims from my people.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Bratot, I would also be against any such views that support 'extremist' theories regarding racial purity. Even if we calculate it over 2,500 years (on a generous average of 25 years per person before the next is born) it is still a 100 generations. The possibility of being 'pure blooded' in the sense that there are only Macedonian ancestors in one's history is slim, different however, is the probability of many Macedonians having mostly (instead of only) Macedonian ancestors. It is a discussion that would be extremely interesting if we can get past the 'perceptions' and move on to constructive progress on the matter.

[Bratot]

I'm glad we are on same frequency.

It is logically to expect most of our genetical matherial to be the native, but lets not get into debate of % fit a requirement as a condition if someone may or may not be admitted to identify himself as "indigenous" Macedonian equally enough because of some absurdal gene proportions that need to be fulfilled for that purpose.

Don't get absorbed in the Greek chauvinistic idiocity and from potential 'proving' who is the more rightful 'genetical' descedant of the Macedonians, if SoM is only half eligible or TM is 2/3 and I'M 10% eligible Macedonian in order to identify ourself as all equally Macedonians.

[TrueMacedonian]

Yes, some posters have indeed answered your questions by posting facts and theories that have been presented and discussed on this and various other internet forums in the past. Unfortunately, your predisposition seems such that you are unlikely to digest that material any better this time around than you have upon previous opportunities. You seem to be crippled by a stubborn committment to a vague anti-theory for which you have hardly provided anything that can be considered direct evidence, and in relation to which you have persistently evaded basic questions and logical criticisms.

You still posting here?

[TrueMacedonian]

SoM said;

TM, can you cite the quotation from Theophilactus? Does he indicate where these 'Slavs' brought the instruments from? Where they came from? Or that they just 'carried' it with them during their travels, incursions and rebellions?

Here it is SoM;

the Sklavini who were brought before the Roman Emperor.

they were not equipped with any weapons or military equipment, their only burdens were citars and they had nothing else with them....they said that they were from the tribe of the Sklavini , and they had their homes on the shores of the western Ocean, and the Avar khan had sent embassies to them with rich gifts for their leaders in order to attract armed men to his army.

Barford doesn't believe anything from this account is true.

SoM here's something I found, what are your thoughts on this;

The Slavonians, we have said, are an aboriginal European branch of the great Scythian race. Their specific name among the Greeks was 'Everoi, of which the Latin translation was Venetce; their western neighbours, the Germans, called them Wcndtn ; by the northern Scandinavians they were called the Vanar; the name by which they called themselves was Serbi or Sirbi. The name Slavonians, which has superseded all these, is of comparatively recent origin, and is derived either from the native word slava, meaning "glory," or from the native word slovo, meaning " speech." The original territories of these Venetae, Wenden, Serbi, or Slavonians, were very extensive ; Ptolemy (a.d. 140) speaks of them as an cdvoj /xEyitfrov, and Procopius (a.d. 550) calls them a natio papulosa dwelling per immensa spatia. The ancient Thracians, it is now concluded, were a Slavonic people, probably with Pelasgic intermixture ; the Dacians, the Mcesians, and other populations living north of the Thracians, and ultimately included with them in the Roman empire, were still more certainly of the Slavonic stock ; and the Veneti of the Adriatic, an aboriginal Italian nation finally conquered by Cresar, were, as the name implies, an extreme western outpost of the same great race. The chief seat of the Slavonians, however, was to the north of the Black Sea and the Carpathian mountains, and between the Baltic and the Volga. It is even likely that then, as now, their northern offshoots reached to the Icy Seas. Spreading over so vast an extent of territory, they must then, as now, have been by far the most numerous of the European races. At present the Germans of Europe are estimated at thirty-five millions, and the Slavonians at eighty millions ; and it is considered probable that their original proportions were nearly the same.......As among the Hindoos, it was the custom of their widows to burn themselves on the same pile with their deceased husbands; and altogether their women held an inferior position to that assigned to women among the Germans. They were fond of music ; and their national instrument was the gusla, a kind of cithara or guitar with only one string, played with a bow, and accompanying the voice, still the popular instrument in all Slavonic countries.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA2...acians&f=false page 285

This account was written in 1849.

Ovid makes mention of a "Thracian Lyre" which is supposedly introduced by Orpheus.

Now the question is how far spread was music and musical instruments during antiquity? Could it be that the Sklavini tribe may have been playing these Illyro/Thracian music prior to their so-called 'migration'? And how long has this sort of music existed in Macedonia? Is there anyway for us to determine what exactly was carried from antiquity to today regarding this sub-topic?

[aleksandrov]

You still posting here?

Your evasive comebacks keep getting better.

[TrueMacedonian]

Your evasive comebacks keep getting better.

I didn't know I was evading you or trying to make a 'comeback'. Chill out Aleksandrov. I'm not trying to mess with you. Let's just leave it as is.

[aleksandrov]

I didn't know I was evading you or trying to make a 'comeback'. Chill out Aleksandrov. I'm not trying to mess with you. Let's just leave it as is.

For me, your questioning of the existence of an indigenous Macedonian ethnicity is just as serious as any Greek/Grkoman, Bulgarian/Bulgaroman, Serb/Serboman or "Slav" questioning the existence of an autochthonous Macedonian ethnicity prior to WWII. I see no substantive difference. And you have provided no better basis for your position than they do.