Macedonian Nationalism

[Bratot]

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.

Aleksandrov,
I didn't got a feeling of him "questioning" our autochthonous existance but rather the definition of the "indigenous" criteria which unfortunatelly got some pretty familliar racistic nuance in line with the chauvinistic claims of our neighbours.

The substantive difference is healthy nationalism instead of wacky claims of genetical eligibility to be or not rightfully good Macedonian.

That's how I see it and knowing TM so far it's absurdally to claim that he is trying to undermine our origins.

[TrueMacedonian]

Thank you Bratot. The reason why I asked these questions is not for the benefit of our neighbors. I don't give a damn about them and their opinions on our origins. I don't see a problem with asking questions about ourselves and our people. It is not to undermine but to better understand and maybe to even get better clarity on certain claims that are made.

[aleksandrov]

Aleksandrov,
I didn't got a feeling of him "questioning" our autochthonous existance but rather the definition of the "indigenous" criteria which unfortunatelly got some pretty familliar racistic nuance in line with the chauvinistic claims of our neighbours.

The substantive difference is healthy nationalism instead of wacky claims of genetical eligibility to be or not rightfully good Macedonian.

That's how I see it and knowing TM so far it's absurdally to claim that he is trying to undermine our origins.

Bratot,

I think you should read this thread again, more carefully. Read what SM has actually written here, including how he has responded to other people's posts, rather that what you would expect him to have written based on your preconceptions about him.

Who has made claims of 'genetical eligibility'? Who has defined or referred to a definition of the term 'indigenous' as presupposing genetic purity? With respect, I don't think you've been keeping up with this thread very prudently.

[iskra]

Thank you Bratot. The reason why I asked these questions is not for the benefit of our neighbors. I don't give a damn about them and their opinions on our origins. I don't see a problem with asking questions about ourselves and our people. It is not to undermine but to better understand and maybe to even get better clarity on certain claims that are made.

TM,I see nothing wrong with your asking questions to get a history discussion going. With respect Aleksandrov, TM has made it clear that he has no desire to undermine Macedonian identity. Maybe some of his questions could have been formulated better, but ultimately I don't think it matters that much, they were just a starting point for the development of a discussion. TM is just asking questions and that is what all people interested in history should do. It is not fair for you to connect him to "grkomani" etc.for doing this.

[aleksandrov]

With respect Aleksandrov, TM has made it clear that he has no desire to undermine Macedonian identity.

His stated non-desire clearly conflicts with presumptions and inferences he has made that there is no evidence of the existence of an indigenous Macedonian culture or ethnicity.

Maybe some of his questions could have been formulated better, but ultimately I don't think it matters that much, they were just a starting point for the development of a discussion. TM is just asking questions and that is what all people interested in history should do. It is not fair for you to connect him to "grkomani" etc.for doing this.

What is the substantive difference between a 'Macedonian' claiming or inferring that there is no evidence of the existence of an indigenous Macedonian culture or ethnicity and a "Grkoman", a Ljubco Georgievski or anybody else claiming that there is no evidence of existence of an autochthonous Macedonian ethnicity prior to the 20th century?

Does the same substantive claim or inference have different weight depending on whether it is made by a "Grkoman" or a self-declared "True Macedonian"?

If TM truly wants to develop an objective discussion about the definition and history of the indigenous Macedonian culture and ethnicity, he would provide straight answers to the questions and criticisms regarding his own presumptions and inferences.

[Pelister]

Aleksandrov,
I didn't got a feeling of him "questioning" our autochthonous existance but rather the definition of the "indigenous" criteria which unfortunatelly got some pretty familliar racistic nuance in line with the chauvinistic claims of our neighbours.

The substantive difference is healthy nationalism instead of wacky claims of genetical eligibility to be or not rightfully good Macedonian.

That's how I see it and knowing TM so far it's absurdally to claim that he is trying to undermine our origins.

But that is precisely the problem here.

Illuminating the ethnography of Athens and surrounds from 1830 to reveal that it was entirely made up of Turks and Albanians tells us what we need to know about the identity of the New Greeks, and where in fact they come from, and at the same time it shows how baseless their claims of 'continuity' in fact are.

The case for the Macedonians is entirely different. While we can see the racism in Greek historiagraphy for what it is, using these principles as the basis of an approach to Macedonia history is an entirely erroneous exercise. Clearly however, that is what is happening and has been happening for a while. The presupposition we are not ancient Macedonians, is entirely false, because 1. Our customs clearly date back to the ancient Aegean, 2. So does our langauge, 3. These customs are not 'imported', but rather part of the natural ethnographic landscape, and exclusive to the Macedonians only, 4. The identity of 5th century invaders, is unknown - no comparative approach exists, until they can be positively identified, and 5. The Macedonians down the ages, have always called themselves Macedonians, 6. Their own folklore gives them their geneaology to the ancient Macedonians - again, part of the natural cultural landscape, not 'imported'.

To say that the New Greeks are not the descendants of the ancient Greeks, and then apply the same reasoning to the modern Macedonians, ignores the natural demographic of the Macedonian landscape and ignores our indigenous customs, rites...etc. Wedged in the middle is the term 'Slav', which more and more Macedonians have been using to prove a point about the New Greeks. Its a recipe for disaster for us to go on about 'Slavs'...

Until you guys can prove to me we are the descendants of 5th century invaders - I will stay with the evidence and our long held belief that we are the descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

Otherwise, Macedonian identity is in fact being undermined.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Pelister, I don't see anybody trying to prove we arrived in the 5th century. Do you?

This thread is quickly being consumed by discussions that don't directly relate to the topic. If some of you are unable to agree with each other due a lack of communication or point of dispute, then let's just leave it at that and move on. I want to see this thread further developed, so if anybody has any specific examples and elaborations that can be corroborated to some degree as I provided before, please put them up so we can get back on track.

[Vangelovski]

TM,

You have been inferring that Macedonians are not indigenous to Macedonia. You have provided a definition of the concept ‘indigenous’, however, you have failed to demonstrate how the Macedonians do not meet your own criteria and you have failed to address the points made in relation to how Macedonians do meet your criteria.

I could agree with you to the extent that all humans are essentially related and stem from our original ancestors and have since settled/populated the earth. From this view, the concepts of being ‘indigenous’ to a particular region or country or being a ‘settler’ of a particular region or country are essentially political constructs. Being political constructs, it is interesting that you adhere to the view that Macedonians are not indigenous to Macedonia – because the only other option is that they are settlers. The ‘settler’ theory, in my view, was essentially a pan-Slavist construct that was instrumental in “uniting” the Yugo-Slavs under one state and denying the Macedonian people their freedom.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Vangelovski, can you cite a specific example of a cultural characteristic that Macedonians have retained since antiquity? Can that characteristic be deemed indigenous, and if so, why?

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, can you cite a specific example of a cultural characteristic that Macedonians have retained since antiquity? Can that characteristic be deemed indigenous, and if so, why?

SoM,

I think you have misunderstood my post.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Vangelovski, I wasn't responding to your post addressed to TM, I was asking you a question in the context of the topic in this thread. Do you know of any examples, similar to those I provided earlier with regard to the 'gajda' and the 'oro', that can be considered indigenous?

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, I wasn't responding to your post addressed to TM, I was asking you a question in the context of the topic in this thread. Do you know of any examples, similar to those I provided earlier with regard to the 'gajda' and the 'oro', that can be considered indigenous?

SoM,

That's not really my area of 'expertise' so I'm not aware of any examples that are specific to Macedonians only.

However, I don't think there needs to be cultural traits that are specific to Macedonians only in order to adhere to the view that Macedonians are 'indigenous' to Macedonia.

[Bill77]

Do you know of any examples, similar to those I provided earlier with regard to the 'gajda' and the 'oro', that can be considered indigenous?

I've read somewhere that The gajda is a bagpipe found in Northern Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia and in some parts of Turkey, Romania and Albania.

Now why is it so that the Gajda is mainly found around the regions where Macedonians live? surley this would give us some clue of where it originated and by whom.

This is food for thought,
If the Slavs came across bringing these instruments and its not considered indigenous to Macedonians, why can't we find the Gajda (as a national Instrument) much past the borders of Macedonia, such as Russia, Ukrain etc.

[Soldier of Macedon]

SoM,

That's not really my area of 'expertise' so I'm not aware of any examples that are specific to Macedonians only.

However, I don't think there needs to be cultural traits that are specific to Macedonians only in order to adhere to the view that Macedonians are 'indigenous' to Macedonia.

That's fair enough. What do you consider as a 'necessary' requirement in order to adhere to this view? By what reason(s) do we justify the claim?

[makedonin]

Vangelovski, I wasn't responding to your post addressed to TM, I was asking you a question in the context of the topic in this thread. Do you know of any examples, similar to those I provided earlier with regard to the 'gajda' and the 'oro', that can be considered indigenous?

I don't have an access to this Istor but this seems to be a interesting article: http://www.jstor.org/pss/841238

Maybe I am wrong, I haven't read it in whole lenght. If someone has access to the Istor, maybe he can provide it so that we can read and examine it.