NATIONALISM AND THE MIDDLE AGES: The Myth of Creation of Slavic-Bulgarian Nation...

[DraganOfStip]

Kratovo(where one of my grandmothers is born)-Filipovtsi(where one of my grandfathers is born)-Stip(Edeklertsi-the other grandmother is born but her family originated from Kavrac)

An "all-round player" as basketball fans would say .From my father's side my grandfather was from Dolno Trogerci and my grandmother from Lezovo (both villages in the Stip - Sveti Nikole area).They moved in the city in the 1950's so my father was born and raised in Stip.My mother is from Grdovci (which is some mile or two from Kocani,some even consider it as a suburb of Kocani,like Stipsko Novo Selo)

[momce]

The author is telling us that the history of the Balkans with its associated problems is based on nationalistic ideologies and not scientific fact.

What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. All players in the region will fight and push their own agendas.

May the strongest prevail.

You are not the strongest be careful what you wish for. Come on guys we "Slavs" can beat these anemic greeks hahaha.

[Nexus]

Here are the PMs that the member "dekapentaugoustos" send me, he has not the permission to post right now, if an administrator can let him post, it will be nice to have a another point of view of this subject :

Hello Nexus, I compiled this answer pretty much when I saw your post, but then I was busy and then I forgot to register and then the registration process took some time. So here it is; I hope you’re still interested.

-Is Misirkov saying that the Macedonian national consciousness was born because of the rivalry between the Serbs and Bulgars?
Actually he’s giving an answer to the repeated question of the times “Are Macedonians Bulgars or Serbs?” He’s saying that since this population includes various linguistic groups ranging from Bulgarian to Serbian (and all the in-between mixes) they can be considered equally distant from both Bulgars and Serbs, thus a separate nation with its’ own state. Another repeated cliché of the time was that “Macedonians are Bulgar in language but Serb in conscience”. Lastly, there have even been foreign authors who would find no difference between Bulgars and Serbs (!) suggesting they are basically speaking the same Slavic language.

-Had the Slavic-speaking population of Macedonia begun to use the term "Macedonian" to describe themselves just in a geographic way?
They had used the term not only geographically. A new Macedonian consciousness was about to be born and Misirkov may be the official father of it (or at least one of the main fathers).

-Did the Slavic-speaking peoples of Macedonia have felt at the time like belonging to a distinct nation, a Macedonian nation?
Not really, as I said before, this consciousness is just appearing at the time. Bulgarian consciousness and propaganda have preceded (starting in 1850s), already resulting fruits by 1900.

-But even if they didn't felt a national consciousness, they were ethnic Macedonians [about the Slavic-speaking population of Macedonia], right?
Well, this is more or less the practice of any propaganda. “You are Greek/ Bulgarian/ Serb/ Macedonian, you just don’t realize it”

-At the time, a Macedonian from Solun, and one from Kratovo, did they feel like being of the same nation, brothers?
To some extent, Christians would (or should) feel like brothers. Yet, since patriarchists and exarchists were killing each other at the time, I guess they weren’t very brotherly.
Cities were different than villages in the sense that people were less isolated, more educated and politicized. For instance, around 1860s (before the appearance of Bulgarian Exarchate) some Macedonians had turned to the Pope hoping to form a “Uniate” (Orthodox-Catholic) Bulgarian Church.

-Did Misirkov think that the Macedonians were descendants of Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians, Kiril i Metodi, etc.?
At the time, references to Alexander the Great were mostly part of the Greek propaganda. I’ve read that Misirkov has once referred to Alexander but I didn’t manage to find the exact quote.
Cyril and Methodius were not seen as Slavs. They were certainly seen as Saints, fathers of Slavonic literature and Christianisers of the Slavs. I can’t remember them being used in any propaganda by any side.

-Misirkov is saying that Macedonian as nationality may not have existed in the past, but the ethnic Macedonians, even if they didn't have a "nationality" in the past have existed, right?
Nationalities are always formed at a certain historical point. That doesn’t mean the people fell from space. They are either a hybrid or a new form of older nations or tribes.

-Or is he just saying that the Slavs of Macedonia began to form a nation, because of the [externals] political events at the time. The construction of the Macedonian nation is recent, but that doesn't mean that Macedonians [Slavic-speaking peoples] didn't exist prior that construction, am I right?
Basically, yes, this is what he’s saying. He speaks about the present and doesn’t use History as a tool, like Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs did back then.

-A last question: Did the several occupations that affected the Macedonian region did break the national consciousness of the Macedonians? There was an ancient Macedonian nation, one of the first nations with the Greeks of the history of human civilization, and the several occupations (Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman) destroyed the consciousness of the ancient Macedonians, the population of Macedonia has evolved, and by the end of the last Empire, a "new" Macedonian consciousness was born, is it a coincidence?

I’m not aware of any Macedonian, or Spartan, or Athenian nation or consciousness one or two centuries after the Roman conquest. I don’t understand which coincidence you refer to. The Greeks basically survived through language and education and their newly formed consciousness was Christian and Roman.
Slavs arrived later and they had occasionally formed organized entities/hordes/tribes, but not states or kingdoms. Later, the Bulgarian Empires are important and lengthy entities in the area. One can only imagine the successive dominance of Roman and Bulgarian Empire in Macedonia (back and forth three or four times), how the local population would adapt to it and how ethnicities would be affected.
During Ottoman Empire it seems that Patriarchate (as a Christian unifier and carrier of Greek language) dominates for a while, but since at least 1850s there’s a strong Bulgarian literary and national awakening, starting from religious circles. I assume that Greeks and Bulgarians at the time understand themselves as continuators of Roman and Bulgarian Empire. Much of their dispute (under Ottoman Empire) is expressed as an internal ecclesiastical dispute among Christians. Yet, national and ethnic differences are clear under the surface.

About the Pms :
Nexus,
my messages are not "private" in any sense. Feel free to publish and comment them in the forum. I registered about one month ago, but i'm still not able to post in the forums, I contacted many of the administrators but they never answered or did anything.
As sending "private messages" is one of the few things I can do as a forum member, I just sent you the PMs.

Cheers,
Chris

[momce]

Interesting. I will add this to my study of Macedonia as intermediate. My view is this process of hybridisation, intermediate goes on in Macedonia from paleolithic times. Im trying to concentrate on the notion that Macedonia lost its sovereign character exactly because it lost its sovereign, the Macedonian royal house and empire. Everything since the fall has been confusion. Even if I look at ancient Macedonia there are distinctions there between the Macedonian heartland and Macedonian by incorporation etc. Extracting independance historically, even post-Alexander(bogomilism, Samuel, Macedonian independance war etc) and Macedonian tendancy is paramount. Its important to fight against the claim that Macedonia has never been independant which is obviously historically false.

[Eden]

About the macedonian language, it is well know that it is one of the oldest documented slavic languages (OCS), and of course in the course of time it was influenced by the surrounded languages (Serbian and Bulgarian). And if you ask yourself why the macedonian and bulgarian are closest, like the Serbian and Croatian languages are today, it is because a western macedonian dialect was used in the construction of the standardized bulgarian language.

About the macedonian consciousness, it is obvious that it precedated the 19th century and Misirkov, but the efforts of the surrounding powers lowed it.

At the times of Cyril and Methodius, i don't think the world "slav"/"sklav" has the same meaning as today. If wee look at Cyril and Methodius from the today perspective, we can tell that they were slavs, slavophones whose the mother tongue is slavonian.

About the construction of nations (in the balkans), of course they are recent but that doesn't mean the peoples had no consciousness before. If someone can recall the history of a westerner asking about the ethnicity of a macedonian in an hotel (or i don't know ...) in Albania, it will be good here.

I write this answer fast, hope others members can say they point of view too.

[Eden]

Dekanpentaugoustos, the majority of the members here don't believe in the slavic migration, you can find why by searching in the forum, i just said that because some comments can disturb you maybe

[momce]

Dekanpentaugoustos, the majority of the members here don't believe in the slavic migration, you can find why by searching in the forum, i just said that because some comments can disturb you maybe

Yes but if you conduct a thorough and exhaustive phenomenological reduction of everything you can get the solid Macedonian tendancy.

[George S.]

when our history is mostly written by others what can you expect .Some truths & some halftruths mixed with bs propaganda.

[dekapentaugoustos]

Here are the PMs that the member "dekapentaugoustos" send me, he has not the permission to post right now, if an administrator can let him post, it will be nice to have a another point of view of this subject :

Yes, it works now, thanks!

[Soldier of Macedon]

He’s saying that since this population includes various linguistic groups ranging from Bulgarian to Serbian (and all the in-between mixes) they can be considered equally distant from both Bulgars and Serbs, thus a separate nation with its’ own state.

He said Macedonian natives have one language and the logical choice for a literary language was to base it on the central dialects, which are equally distant from both Serbian and Bulgarian.

Another repeated cliché of the time was that “Macedonians are Bulgar in language but Serb in conscience”.

Who said that and who repeated it?

Lastly, there have even been foreign authors who would find no difference between Bulgars and Serbs (!) suggesting they are basically speaking the same Slavic language.

There are many foreigners like yourself who don't understand anything about the similarities and differences between the various Slavic languages in the Balkans.

They had used the term not only geographically. A new Macedonian consciousness was about to be born and Misirkov may be the official father of it (or at least one of the main fathers).

The Macedonian identity existed long before Misirkov.

Well, this is more or less the practice of any propaganda. “You are Greek/ Bulgarian/ Serb/ Macedonian, you just don’t realize it”

Unlike the neighbouring wolves, Macedonians didn't have the resources that a state or foreign sponsor could provide to support a propaganda campaign. The promotion of a Macedonian national consciousness was always a native initiative based on an already existing Macedonian identity. It was the logical outcome and its adherents were ethnically, linguistically and culturally homogeneous for the most part. All other identities were superficial, and if foreign propagandist animals would have left the Macedonians alone, the people would have remained Macedonians and nothing else.

I’ve read that Misirkov has once referred to Alexander but I didn’t manage to find the exact quote. Cyril and Methodius were not seen as Slavs. They were certainly seen as Saints, fathers of Slavonic literature and Christianisers of the Slavs. I can’t remember them being used in any propaganda by any side.

He refers to Alexander spreading the glory of Macedonia and to Cyril and Methodius spreading the Macedonian word and script among all the Slavic peoples.

-Or is he just saying that the Slavs of Macedonia began to form a nation, because of the [externals] political events at the time. The construction of the Macedonian nation is recent, but that doesn't mean that Macedonians [Slavic-speaking peoples] didn't exist prior that construction, am I right?
Basically, yes, this is what he’s saying. He speaks about the present and doesn’t use History as a tool, like Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs did back then.

He makes reference to how the pretensions of Serbs and Bulgars assured the Macedonians that they are neither one or the other. Confirmation of the obvious and what most already felt despite competing propagandas. And he does make reference to Macedonian history in other articles as indicated above.

The Greeks basically survived through language and education and their newly formed consciousness was Christian and Roman.

The only reason Greek survived as a language was because of trade and education. The survival of the language doesn't equate to the survival of a nation.

[TrueMacedonian]

The only reason Greek survived as a language was because of trade and education. The survival of the language doesn't equate to the survival of a nation.

That is one of the best ways I've seen it put SoM.

The Greeks basically survived through language and education and their newly formed consciousness was Christian and Roman.

What greeks were these? The 2 or 3 Albanians who claimed the Periclean bloodline? Thalia Dragos says differently - http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/11749/1/

Thalia Dragonas, secretary general of the Greek Ministry of Education and university professor from Athens, nowadays faces an avalanche of attacks for stating Greek identity was created in the 19th century.
The charges came in Greek Parliament by the leader of the nationalist party LAOS George Karadzhaferis who pointed at Dragos for writing in her book "What is our country," positively on the Ottoman Empire and Greek claims that identity is created (manufactured by Germany and UK) `in the 19th century.

LAOS claimed Dragos is not a patriot, and has Anti-Greek views for ... stating the obvious.

[dekapentaugoustos]

What greeks were these? The 2 or 3 Albanians who claimed the Periclean bloodline?

I don't get it. Which 2-3 Albanians do you mean?

[TrueMacedonian]

I don't get it. Which 2-3 Albanians do you mean?

I don't know why don't you tell us since you're making up more fairy tales for our amusement.