Macedonian Nationalism

[Bratot]

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.

I don't think you are able to understand the point of this debate either.

It's easer to label everyone who does not fit some of yours conceptions.
The "gene purity" was used several times on other threads by Indigen and such have been also encouraged by other members.

I see no problem on answering TM questions instead of accusing him of his supposed 'grkoman' view because I face my own inability to answer. I really don't see what is the problem to be more selfcritical and provide more solid ground for our arguments.

However I see pretty much destructive trend going on here when there our personal opinions does not match some of you always tend to etiquette the opposite opinion as "ramkovist, gligorovist, grkoman, bulgaroman", etc. etc.
Everyone have to understand that such belief polarization is not productive for either of us.

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.

Pelister,

the ethnic identity doesn't require a gene purity to carry his name, that's the point.

If the Greeks can declare themselfs as "direct descendants" of the ancient Hellenes than I don't see a problem why should we be an exception.

The arguments you mentioned clearly justify every our right on our descendancy and I can't really understand how you manage to include some Slavs in this discussion.

For their case "Slavs" I have specially opened a new thread on History based on several studies all of them opposite of the migration theory, but unfortunatelly I haven't seen any of you to replay on that thread.

[Bratot]

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?

I would definatelly add the tradition.


TRADITIONAL MACEDONIAN COSTUMES

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17304812/Traditional-Macedonian-Costumes-vol1

[Vangelovski]

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?

Which view are you referring to? Do you mean the view that Macedonians are indigenous to Macedonia? Why do we need a "requirement" to adhere to this view?

If you accept that all of humanity originated from the same ancestors and settled/populated the earth and you accept the concept of 'indigeneity' as a valid political construct (for example, the Aborigines as indigenous to Australia), then why do we need to justify the notion that Macedonians are indigenous to Macedonia?

[aleksandrov]

...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,

I think it's wrong to look at the indigenous Macedonian ethnicity or culture in terms of specific and exclusively indigenous elements. It should be looked at in terms of the specific combination of cultural, linguistic, geographic and communal elements that make us ethnic Macedonians.

I know of no indigenous ethnic group in the world that has developed into what it is today without evolving with the impact of various interactions with outside influences. It's the native origins of the distinct process of evolution that is characteristic of the Macedonian people and the Macedonian land that makes us indigenous Macedonians by ethnicity.

Here's a way of looking at TM's approach to the (non)existence of an indigenous Macedonian ethnicity and our ancient origins in Macedonia that might be helpful:

Would the theory that human beings originate from apes be disproved by pointing out that our great grandfathers weren't apes or didn't resemble apes as much as some other people might?

Would native Americans have to prove that the earliest apes to which the evolution of human beings can be be traced lived in America in order to be considered native Americans?

I think the Greek occupiers of Macedonia who referred to ethnic Macedonians as 'endopi', meaning native, had a better idea of who the indigenous people of Macedonia are than TM does.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Do you mean the view that Macedonians are indigenous to Macedonia? Why do we need a "requirement" to adhere to this view?

Don't you think it prudent to justify a particular view and provide the reasons which led you to such a conclusion?

If you accept that all of humanity originated from the same ancestors and settled/populated the earth and you accept the concept of 'indigeneity' as a valid political construct (for example, the Aborigines as indigenous to Australia), then why do we need to justify the notion that Macedonians are indigenous to Macedonia?

Vangelovski, the topic isn't about all of humanity, your example above makes everybody indigenous to the earth itself, but not to particular regions. Macedonians, for example, are not indigenous to Australia. Therefore, when one talks of Macedonians being indigenous to Macedonia, others have the right to ask what has led them to this conclusion. I do think this is a reasonable enough question, how about you?

[Bratot]

Can this Greek explanation to be used by us too?

Nations can accomplish different missions at different periods and try
to achieve different ends by different means […] So when we see the same language
and the same […] quality of moral and spiritual force, it is not permissible to doubt the
existence and the action of the same nationality, even if its action has been modified
by time and circumstances (Paparrigopoulos 1860–74, 2.175).

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Hellenic-Studies-College-Publications/dp/0754664988

[aleksandrov]

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,

You should read Pribichevich in relation to cultural elements and dig out some of Dr Ilija Chashule's contemporary academic work in relation to linguistic elements, if it's specific elements that you are interested in. There is plenty of other material around that's worth looking into if you have the time and commitment for systematic research, analysis, evaluation and joining the dots on this topic. Personally, that is not one of my priorities and I do not think it necessary for me to engage in such an exercise in a public forum in order to justify the assertion that I am an indigenous Macedonian, who shares a distinctly Macedonian language, a distinctly Macedonian culture, a distinctly Macedonian sense of communal belonging, and KNOWS OF no other ancestral homeland but Macedonia and no other ethnic origin but Macedonian.

[Soldier of Macedon]

SoM,

I think it's wrong to look at the indigenous Macedonian ethnicity or culture in terms of specific and exclusively indigenous elements. It should be looked at in terms of the specific combination of cultural, linguistic, geographic and communal elements that make us ethnic Macedonians.

Aleksandrov, can you point to some examples within this specific combination that includes all of the elements cited above, and how they relate to each other?

It's the native origins of the distinct process of evolution that is characteristic of the Macedonian people and the Macedonian land that makes us indigenous Macedonians by ethnicity.

That is very well said, and I agree that the process of evolution did not commence from 'outsiders' that later settled Macedonia. Can you refer to some examples which demonstrate the native origins of Macedonians?

Would native Americans have to prove that the earliest apes to which the evolution of human beings can be be traced lived in America in order to be considered native Americans?

No, they wouldn't, but they can highlight facts which are indicative of their native and indigenous origins, as opposed to the Europeans that later settled the area.

I think the Greek occupiers of Macedonia who referred to ethnic Macedonians as 'endopi', meaning native, had a better idea of who the indigenous people of Macedonia are than TM does.

I don't agree with that at all, and I think your sentence would have been worded differently had this 'animosity' between yourself and TM not exist at the time of writing.

[Vangelovski]

Therefore, when one talks of Macedonians being indigenous to Macedonia, others have the right to ask what has led them to this conclusion. I do think this is a reasonable enough question, how about you?

Why? Does anyone question the 'indigeneity' of Aborigines to Australia, knowing full-well that they settled here at some point in the past?

Why are certain people considered 'indigenous' to their homeland and others not, when the reality is that we all share the same ancestors, and as a result, we have all migrated to some part of the earth at some point in time?

How long does a certain people have to be resident in a particular region before they can claim 'indigeneity', keeping in mind that ALL people have migrated to their current homelands at some stage?

Further, if not Macedonia, which specific region would you identify as the 'homeland' of Macedonians, if any?

Seeing as I've put forward my view that Macedonians can legitimately claim to be the indigenous inhabitants of Macedonia as much as any other people can claim to be the indigenous inhabitants of their own respective homelands, can you can answer some of the above questions?

[Soldier of Macedon]

SoM,

You should read Pribichevich in relation to cultural elements and dig out some of Dr Ilija Chashule's contemporary academic work in relation to linguistic elements, if it's specific elements that you are interested in. There is plenty of other material around that's worth looking into if you have the time and commitment for systematic research, analysis, evaluation and joining the dots on this topic. Personally, that is not one of my priorities and I do not think it necessary for me to engage in such an exercise in a public forum in order to justify the assertion that I am an indigenous Macedonian, who shares a distinctly Macedonian language, a distinctly Macedonian culture, a distinctly Macedonian sense of communal belonging, and KNOWS OF no other ancestral homeland but Macedonia and no other ethnic origin but Macedonian.

Thanks for the reference points, I will try and follow these up.

Aleksandrov, I don't see this as an exercise to 'prove' anything to ourselves, instead I see it more as an exercise to reveal more about ourselves. Speaking for myself, I am keenly interested in the topic, I would like to see more constructive input and explore the details further. Everybody has made their views clear here, if no progress in the topic will be made by further correspondence between yourself and TM, let's just leave it at that mate, da ne se karame badiala.

[aleksandrov]

I don't think you are able to understand the point of this debate either.

It's easer to label everyone who does not fit some of yours conceptions.

Please cite where I have LABELLED EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT FIT SOME OF MY CONCEPTIONS? What have I LABELLED them all as?

The "gene purity" was used several times on other threads by Indigen and such have been also encouraged by other members.

What thread do you think you are on? Go back through this thread and cite where TM's questioning of the existence of an indigenous Macedonian culture or ethnicity and my responses are based on a definition of 'indigenous' that presupposes gene purity?

I see no problem on answering TM questions instead of accusing him of his supposed 'grkoman' view because I face my own inability to answer.

Where did I accuse him of having a "grkoman" view? Have I suggested anywhere that he thinks true Macedonians are Greeks?

Saying that I find his questioning of the indigenous Macedonian ethnicity to be substantively similar to the questioning of the autochthonous Macedonian ethnicity by grkomani, bugaromani and srbomani is not the same as saying that he is a 'grkoman'. I don't know what he considers the ethnic ancestry of the modern Macedonians to be, which is why I've asked him to tell us. You have taken way too much liberty in interpreting what I've said.

If you have a problem with what I've said, address it directly. Tell us why TM should get any more sympathy when he baselessly disputes the existence of an indigenous Macedonian ethnicity than a grkoman, bugaroman or srboman who does the same thing. You might find the question painful for personal reasons, but it's a clear and direct question and deserves a clear and direct answer.

i have answered TM's questions with questions of my own and with logical criticisms because they are based on flawed premises and flawed logic. What problem do you see with him answering the questions that have been put to him in reply?

[Bratot]

Just ignore my previous posts Aleksandrov, in my nature is to unite rather than divide.

If you say so than so be it, even thought it doesn't really look that way to the people reading you.

[aleksandrov]

Thanks for the reference points, I will try and follow these up.

Aleksandrov, I don't see this as an exercise to 'prove' anything to ourselves, instead I see it more as an exercise to reveal more about ourselves. Speaking for myself, I am keenly interested in the topic, I would like to see more constructive input and explore the details further. Everybody has made their views clear here, if no progress in the topic will be made by further correspondence between yourself and TM, let's just leave it at that mate, da ne se karame badiala.

SoM,

I am not questioning the intentions behind your own posts in this thread, but they are clearly not the same as those of the thread-starter. If you read this thread carefully from the beginning, you will find it painfully obvious that TM is disputing the existence of an indigenous Macedonian culture and ethnicity and subtly ridiculing those who assert that they belong to it. If he is going to do that, he should not be guarded against questions and criticism regarding what definition of indigenous he is relying on, why he claims that ethnic Macedonians do not fit that definition in relation to Macedonia, what his definition of being "Macedonian" is, what he considers as the earliest known origin of the "Macedonians", and what evidence he relies on for his own position. Answering such questions and criticisms will be no less helpful in revealing more about him and 'ourselves' than answering his questions is.

[aleksandrov]

Just ignore my previous posts Aleksandrov, in my nature is to unite rather than divide.

What are we to unite around, exactly?

If you say so than so be it, even thought it doesn't really look that way to the people reading you.

Which people are you referring to, exactly? How many?

Focusing on what any given thing "is", as opposed to what it "looks like", will guard you against deceptions, distortions and illusions.

[Bratot]

Focusing on what any given thing "is", as opposed to what it "looks like", will guard you against deceptions, distortions and illusions.

That's something you should implement by yourself when enjoying this discussion and the result of your "is" wouldn't have to "look like" this way either.

The "unfriendly" note is surelly not uniting us on any subject.