Deconstruction of the term Bulgar/B'lgar/Bugar/Voulgar!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • George S.
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 10116

    The evidence is clear.About 40,500 results

    6:03
    Mongolia History and Origin of Mongol Tribe (Shiwei/Tatar/Mongol) Peoples
    by Yemaek Joseon1 year ago2,870 views
    Shiwei (simplified Chinese: 室韦; traditional Chinese: 室韋; pinyin: Shěwěi; Wade--Giles: Shih4-wei3) were a Mongolic people that ...

    28:34
    Origin of the Bulgarians (Bulgars)
    by Volve Lin2 months ago266 views

    9:34
    Origins of the Bulgarians
    by patkakurmama7 years ago93,241 views
    Some real history.The Bulgarians are of Iranian origin.

    22:40
    History Of The Tatars
    by OttomanHarem4 months ago635 views
    Tatars (Old Turkic tatar; modern Volga Tatar: Татарлар, Tatarlar تاتارلار ), historically Tartars, is an umbrella term for Turkic

    9:42
    Origin of Bulgarians
    by Machtwille6 years ago12,730 views
    Origin of Bulgarians Tags: България Българска история минало истина завет траки Тракия древност култура цивилизация ...

    19:05
    Tatar Nation: The Other Crimea
    by VICE News 5 months ago133,989 views
    Subscribe to VICE News here: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE-News Crimea's Tatars — who amount to 12 percent of the ...
    HDCC

    4:56
    History of Bulgaria Part One(First Bulgarian Empire)
    by TheDarthhades1 year ago2,686 views
    Thanks for Watching...Sorry for my bad English .
    HD

    3:09
    Kazan Tatars - Volga Bulgars / Tugan yak (Native land) - Tatar song
    by Roman Z1 year ago57,730 views
    Kazan TATARS / Volga BULGARS. Kazan Tatar song "Tugan yak" (NATIVE COUNTRY). Republic of Tatarstan of Russian ...

    8:35
    THE GREEK ORIGIN OF THE BULGARIANS
    by GREECEANDBULGARIA3 years ago1,852 views
    THE GREEK ORIGIN OF THE BULGARIANS GREEKS AND BULGARIANS HAVE A COMMON ORIGIN.

    1:30
    Russians have Tatar-Mongolian genes
    by MrRezzi4 years ago27,867 views
    There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by three centuries of slavery. The so-called "Tartars and ...

    14:31
    Bulgaria - History, Cities, Nature, Landmarks and Culture (EN)
    by Христо Стефанов10 months ago6,034 views
    Благодаря ви много за подкрепата и положителните коментари! Трябваше да спомена, че видеото беше направено като ...
    HDCC

    48:13
    From Bulgaria with Love
    by balkharianlion2 years ago18,293 views
    A documentary movie about Bulgaria. The movie shares history, culture and people that have inspired the author. Music by: ...
    HD

    1:03
    Raid of The Mongols - The History Of The Tartar Invasion
    by AlKauthar Institute3 years ago12,248 views

    10:05
    Bulgarian ancestors
    by thracianglad5 years ago1,696 views
    The origin of the modern Bulgarians - Thracians, Bulgars, Slavs.

    12:04
    Tatar national festival Sabantuy-2013. Kazan. Сабантуй-2013
    by FairyMusic8 months ago740 views
    Sabantuy is a Bashkir, Tatar and Idel-Uralian summer festival, that dates back to the Volga Bulgarian epoch. At first Sabantuy was ...
    HD

    9:06
    The Bulgarians - The Secret History Episode 2 Part 1
    by cattleripper7 years ago64,478 views
    The second film of a documentary series about the history of the bulgarians. Part 1.

    10:00
    Korean History, Buyeo(Korean) and proto Bulgar (Bulgarian)
    by Cheon1Son5 years ago13,904 views
    My translation of a Korean professor's essay on the relationship Koreans and Bulgarians.

    4:18
    Balkan war: Bulgarians vs. Ottomans, Battle of Catalca 1912
    by Volve Lin1 year ago26,309 views
    The Bulgarian historical TV series "The tree of life" (in Bulgarian: Дървото на живота), 2013.

    3:40
    Crimean Tatar song: "Yağma Yağmur" - Alie [MeydanFM]
    by ✣ Tengri ✣ Spirit of the Steppe • History-Culture Research6 months ago19,955 views
    Алие - Ягъма ягъмур Copyright © by MeydanFM http://meydan.fm/radio#/
    HD
    Results for similar searches

    5:58
    Has history been tampered with? Wild Mongolian Horde was merely the Army of Ancient Russia
    by mithec8 years ago22,874 views
    Has history been tampered with? According to the official version of history, Russia remained under the political and military yoke ...
    CC More results for tartar history
    "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
    GOTSE DELCEV

    Comment

    • George S.
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2009
      • 10116

      Here's what the encyclopedia britanica says:Bulgar, also called Bulgarian , member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages. A branch of this people was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs).

      Many scholars posit the origins of the Bulgars as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements) and suggest that they arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about 370 ce. Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov. Hired by the Byzantines in 480 to fight against the Ostrogoths, the Bulgars subsequently became attracted by the wealth of the Byzantine Empire. In the 6th century the Bulgars continually attacked the Danubian provinces of the Byzantine Empire until, in the 560s, they were themselves threatened by the Avars, who were then advancing from Asia into central Europe. The Avars destroyed one Bulgar tribe, but the rest saved themselves by submitting, for two decades, to another horde of Turkic newcomers, most of whom then retreated back into Asia.

      Unified under a single ruler, Kurt, or Kubrat (reigned c. 605–c. 642), the Bulgars constituted a powerful khanate known to the Byzantines as Great Bulgaria, with the Kuban River as its southern frontier. After Kurt’s death his five sons split the people into five hordes. One of these five, remaining on the coast of the Sea of Azov, was absorbed into the new empire of the Khazars, another migrated to central Europe and was merged with the Avars, and another disappeared into service under the Lombards in Italy. Two of the five hordes, however, had longer futures.

      Kurt’s son Kotrag avoided the Khazars by leading his horde far to the north, where it eventually occupied an ill-defined country around the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers. Subdivided there into three groups (probably through mergers with indigenous peoples or with other immigrants), the horde maintained itself in prosperity for some 600 years. These Volga Bulgars formed not so much a state as a seminomadic confederation, but they had two cities, Bulgar and Suvar, which profited as transshipment points in the trade between the fur-selling Ugrians and Russians of the far north and the southern civilizations—Byzantium, the Muslim caliphate of Baghdad, and Turkistan. The Volga Bulgars were converted to Islam about 922. In 1237 they were made subject to the Mongol Golden Horde, and, though the city of Bulgar flourished for a long time afterward, the people gradually lost their identity and were mingled with the Russians.

      The fifth product of the breakup of Great Bulgaria was the horde that Kurt’s son Asparukh led westward across the Dniester River and then southward across the Danube. There, on the plain between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains, they established the kernel of the so-called first Bulgarian empire—the state from which the modern nation of Bulgaria derives its name. In the 7th century the Danubian region was nominally controlled by the Byzantine Empire, and it was inhabited by Vlachs (ancestors of the modern Romanians) and also very largely by recently arrived Slavs. In 681 the first Bulgarian empire was officially founded and recognized by the Byzantine Empire. Asparukh’s successor, Tervel (701–718), helped to restore Emperor Justinian II to the Byzantine throne in 705 and was rewarded with the title “caesar.” In 717–718 Tervel and a Bulgarian army joined with the Byzantine emperor Leo III to launch a massive offensive against an Arab army invading Constantinople (Istanbul). The Bulgarian army defeated the Arabs and successfully defended the city.

      The conquering Bulgars were soon permeated by Vlach and, even more thoroughly, by Slavic elements. At the same time, their conquests were carrying them deeper into the ambit of Byzantine Christianity. Territorial expansion into Serbia and Macedonia under Krum (khan 803–814) and under Pressian (836–852) was followed by the conversion of the Bulgars to Christianity under Boris I. The new church’s liturgy was in the language known as Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic), which was a composite of Bulgar and Slav linguistic elements. It proved to be a powerful agent in creating a common culture among the Bulgars and Slavs. By the time Bulgaria was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire early in the 11th century, the Bulgars and Slavs had melded into a Slavic-speaking, Christianized people essentially identical to today’s Bulgarians.

      Boris I’s son Simeon I, who was acknowledged as tsar, or emperor, of the Bulgars, brought the first empire to its acme as a Balkan power, even though he had to give up the lands north of the Danube to fresh invaders from the Eurasian steppe. As invasions of the Balkan Peninsula from the north continued intermittently over the next four centuries, the Turkic element in the Bulgarians’ ethnic makeup was reinforced by strains derived from the Pechenegs, Kipchaks, and Cumans—all Turkic peoples. In this period Bulgaria became a cultural centre of eastern Europe, especially famous for its literary schools of Preslav (now Veliki Preslav) and Ohrid.

      After Simeon’s death the first Bulgarian empire was undermined by internal divisions and invasions of Magyars, Pechenegs, Rus, and Byzantines. In 1018 Bulgaria was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire. An anti-Byzantine revolt of the Balkan peoples in 1185 produced the second Bulgarian empire, and by 1241 the Bulgarian tsars of the house of Asen (1185–1280) were supreme in most of the lands from the Danube River to the Aegean Sea and from the Adriatic to the Black Sea. But Mongol attacks from the north, Serbian encroachment on the west, and internal rivalry among the successors of the Asens eroded this second empire, and in 1396 it fell to the Ottoman Turks, who were overrunning the Balkans from the south.

      Throughout the long period of direct Ottoman rule (1396–1878), the Bulgarians’ obstinate Christianity prevented their being merged completely with the Muslim Turks, while their retention of a Slavic language kept them from absorption by the Greeks predominant in the Eastern Orthodox Church as recognized by the Ottomans. In 1878 an autonomous Bulgarian principality under Ottoman suzerainty was established. Bulgaria was declared independent, as a tsardom or kingdom, in 1908.
      "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
      GOTSE DELCEV

      Comment

      • Soldier of Macedon
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 13670

        Originally posted by GeorgeS
        here's your view on one of the questions questioning the ethnicity of the bulgarians.Why change yor view suddenly
        Here is what I wrote, according to my response to Razer which you've quoted:
        It is a view held by many Macedonians, but also by many others also. Nevertheless, I suspect that you think the original Bulgars were Iranian types as opposed to being Turkic. I wouldn't discount them being a mix of both, but to deny any Turkic element would be wrong.
        I refer only to the original Bulgars. My view remains the same then as it does now. Your view is that the whole of Bulgaria was inhabited only by Mongols or Tatars (meaning no Thracian or Slavic-speaking peoples existed in that region at some point). It is not only incorrect but also unsupported by any of the sources you've produced. George, you're a good bloke but you have a problem with taking theories to the extreme and making things up as you go along. You need to become more efficient if you want your opinions to be taken more seriously. I don't take any pleasure in highlighting this flaw and I believe it can be rectified if you just made a stronger effort to research information more thoroughly.
        In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

        Comment

        • Nikolaj
          Member
          • Aug 2014
          • 389

          I don't see how someone can believe the whole of Bulgaria was inhabited by Mongols/Tatars when Bulgarians lack their features in the first place. I actually know Bulgarians who do have Mongol features, but the vast amount of Bulgarians don't, this screams assimilation.

          Comment

          • George S.
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2009
            • 10116

            My sentiments exactly,I rest my case Nikollaj I was told i was a racist for saying this.Many books state that the real bulgars died or dissapeared a long time ago.They say i'm avoiding the thracian and the slavic people's influence.I never said that.Perhaps i avoided mentioning them.The bulgarian people have a legacy they won't even admit to.I for one couldn't care about the bulgarian ethnos knowing full well the attrocities in pirin macedonia still go on.The bulgarian identity is so called into question.They won't give our people their rights of freedom and free speech
            etc.
            "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
            GOTSE DELCEV

            Comment

            • JJAskiz
              Banned
              • May 2015
              • 101

              Originally posted by Daskalot View Post
              Good findings, are there any historical sources, books or dictionaries, supporting the above?
              Proof that Macedonians from Republic Of Macedonia are not Bulgarian Tartars & are not from the Former Tartarstan Republic Of Bulgaria.

              aNotepad.com is your everyday online notepad. You can take notes and share notes online without having to login. You can use a rich text editor and download your note as PDF or Word document. Best of all - aNotepad is a fast, clean, and easy-to-use notepad online.


              Proof Bulgarian Tartar's from the Former Tartarstan Republic Of Bulgaria are Tartar's from Tartarstan.

              aNotepad.com is your everyday online notepad. You can take notes and share notes online without having to login. You can use a rich text editor and download your note as PDF or Word document. Best of all - aNotepad is a fast, clean, and easy-to-use notepad online.

              Comment

              • Karposh
                Member
                • Aug 2015
                • 863

                Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
                National Conscience is a subjective and complicated thing. To a degree it is a personal choice (political, social, ideological, philosophical, existential one) so it has a variety of arguments. On the other hand language is objective. In short, a Bulgarian would tell you that you wear a Macedonian façade.
                ===
                The general grammatical structure of the language that is spoken in and around a very big chunk of the Balkan peninsular from Albania, southern Kosovo (Gora region), southern Serbia (Morava region), Northern Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria is very similar and one could probably argue that it is one and the same with varying dialectal and regional differences from west to east and from north to south. The current naming convention that covers this vast area of speech commonality is as follows:

                1.Macedonian, for the regions of Albania, Gora in southern Kosovo, Macedonia and Northern Greece.

                2.Bulgarian, for Bulgaria, parts of Dobruja and Greek Thrace.

                3.Torlakian for the transitional dialects spoken in the regions where Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria all coincide. Generally, the northern-most regions of the Republic of Macedonia (Kumanovo and Kriva Palanka), the Morava region of southern Serbia and, some will argue, the Gora region of southern Kosovo can be classified as Torlakian.

                The three titles given to the one language is hardly objective. I would argue it is very subjective. Bulgarians will tell you it is all Bulgarian. I, on the other hand, will tell you it is all Macedonian. Old Church Slavonic is the oldest accepted Slavic variant known. The other name for Old Church Slavonic was and still is Old Macedonian. Look it up. Even Wikipedia agrees with this.

                If seniority has anything to do with the naming convention of a language, then Macedonian is the rightful name of this language and Bulgarian would be an eastern Macedonian dialect. Don’t forget Old Macedonian was spoken in and around Salonica long before Khan Asparukh and some of the semi-nomadic Turkish-speaking Bulgar tribes arrived on the Balkan peninsular, in far eastern Thrace. And it’s not like the Bulgar tribes arrived in their hundreds of thousands and assimilated the local inhabitants over time. In fact, the contrary is true. They were assimilated by the indigenous Thracian inhabitants.

                The warrior Bulgar tribes did not arrive in any significant numbers. However, they managed to assert themselves militarily over the peaceful Thracian inhabitants and quickly became the ruling elite. Culturally and linguistically speaking, the Thracians retained their own way of life. Also, the Bulgar incursions into Macedonia proper were limited and insignificant. The fact that the Bulgars eventually adopted the existing spoken language of Thrace speaks for itself. If Bulgarians want to name their language in honour of their founding semi-nomadic and unrelated forefathers, then that is their prerogative. As you said “National Conscience is a subjective and complicated thing.”

                Bulgarians can tell me I have any façade they like but they would need to look at themselves in the mirror first and work out what lurks underneath their own Bulgarian façade. I’ll tell you what lies dormant within this exterior– their long forgotten and abandoned Thracian and/or Macedonian identity.

                The reality is that the “Bulgarian” of the middle ages has nothing to do with the Bulgarian of modern day Bulgaria. The name should have disappeared together with the names of other fleeting tribes that entered and exited the Balkan peninsular over the centuries. The National Awakening of Bulgaria, an attempt by some, and most notably, by Paisius of Hilendar to stop the incessant Hellenization of the “Slavic” people of the Balkans invented a way of instilling some pride into the people with stories of “glorious Bulgarian kingdoms of the past” and other national myths. He managed to do this through his work "History of the Slav-Bulgarians", which appeared in 1762 and was the first work of Bulgarian historiography. Just like the Greeks of 1827, most Bulgarians before Paisius would have considered themselves simply as Christians.

                Comment

                • Philosopher
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 1003

                  Originally posted by Karposh View Post
                  The general grammatical structure of the language that is spoken in and around a very big chunk of the Balkan peninsular from Albania, southern Kosovo (Gora region), southern Serbia (Morava region), Northern Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria is very similar and one could probably argue that it is one and the same with varying dialectal and regional differences from west to east and from north to south. The current naming convention that covers this vast area of speech commonality is as follows:

                  1.Macedonian, for the regions of Albania, Gora in southern Kosovo, Macedonia and Northern Greece.

                  2.Bulgarian, for Bulgaria, parts of Dobruja and Greek Thrace.

                  3.Torlakian for the transitional dialects spoken in the regions where Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria all coincide. Generally, the northern-most regions of the Republic of Macedonia (Kumanovo and Kriva Palanka), the Morava region of southern Serbia and, some will argue, the Gora region of southern Kosovo can be classified as Torlakian.

                  The three titles given to the one language is hardly objective. I would argue it is very subjective. Bulgarians will tell you it is all Bulgarian. I, on the other hand, will tell you it is all Macedonian. Old Church Slavonic is the oldest accepted Slavic variant known. The other name for Old Church Slavonic was and still is Old Macedonian. Look it up. Even Wikipedia agrees with this.

                  If seniority has anything to do with the naming convention of a language, then Macedonian is the rightful name of this language and Bulgarian would be an eastern Macedonian dialect. Don’t forget Old Macedonian was spoken in and around Salonica long before Khan Asparukh and some of the semi-nomadic Turkish-speaking Bulgar tribes arrived on the Balkan peninsular, in far eastern Thrace. And it’s not like the Bulgar tribes arrived in their hundreds of thousands and assimilated the local inhabitants over time. In fact, the contrary is true. They were assimilated by the indigenous Thracian inhabitants.

                  The warrior Bulgar tribes did not arrive in any significant numbers. However, they managed to assert themselves militarily over the peaceful Thracian inhabitants and quickly became the ruling elite. Culturally and linguistically speaking, the Thracians retained their own way of life. Also, the Bulgar incursions into Macedonia proper were limited and insignificant. The fact that the Bulgars eventually adopted the existing spoken language of Thrace speaks for itself. If Bulgarians want to name their language in honour of their founding semi-nomadic and unrelated forefathers, then that is their prerogative. As you said “National Conscience is a subjective and complicated thing.”

                  Bulgarians can tell me I have any façade they like but they would need to look at themselves in the mirror first and work out what lurks underneath their own Bulgarian façade. I’ll tell you what lies dormant within this exterior– their long forgotten and abandoned Thracian and/or Macedonian identity.

                  The reality is that the “Bulgarian” of the middle ages has nothing to do with the Bulgarian of modern day Bulgaria. The name should have disappeared together with the names of other fleeting tribes that entered and exited the Balkan peninsular over the centuries. The National Awakening of Bulgaria, an attempt by some, and most notably, by Paisius of Hilendar to stop the incessant Hellenization of the “Slavic” people of the Balkans invented a way of instilling some pride into the people with stories of “glorious Bulgarian kingdoms of the past” and other national myths. He managed to do this through his work "History of the Slav-Bulgarians", which appeared in 1762 and was the first work of Bulgarian historiography. Just like the Greeks of 1827, most Bulgarians before Paisius would have considered themselves simply as Christians.
                  Very well put. I have tried in vain to reason with Amphipolis before on this issue, but he never addresses it and instead keeps repeating this absurd Greek and Bulgarian narrative. The fact is that the Bulgars adopted Slavic from Macedonians and Bulgarian is a variant of south east Slavic. Even if he rejects the argument that Macedonians identified as "Macedonian" in the 6th and 7th centuries, it still does not change the obvious fact that the Turkic speaking Bulgars adopted a south eastern Slavic dialect, which would mean Bulgarian is borrowed and based on Macedonian. No other explanation is possible.

                  Comment

                  • Amphipolis
                    Banned
                    • Aug 2014
                    • 1328

                    I’ll move the discussion here from another thread.

                    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
                    The current naming convention that covers this vast area of speech commonality is as follows:
                    1.Macedonian, for the regions of Albania, Gora in southern Kosovo, Macedonia and Northern Greece.
                    2.Bulgarian, for Bulgaria, parts of Dobruja and Greek Thrace.
                    3.Torlakian for the transitional dialects spoken in the regions where Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria all coincide. Generally, the northern-most regions of the Republic of Macedonia (Kumanovo and Kriva Palanka), the Morava region of southern Serbia and, some will argue, the Gora region of southern Kosovo can be classified as Torlakian.

                    The three titles given to the one language is hardly objective. I would argue it is very subjective. Bulgarians will tell you it is all Bulgarian. I, on the other hand, will tell you it is all Macedonian. Old Church Slavonic is the oldest accepted Slavic variant known. The other name for Old Church Slavonic was and still is Old Macedonian. Look it up. Even Wikipedia agrees with this.
                    First, you say this is the current convention (which is not, probably your wishful thinking of a convention). Then you accept the classification is debated, it’s not (scientifically) objective, and it’s political. I agree the correct name is Old Church Slavonic (for the related literature). Old Macedonian was not an alternative name for it and Wikipedia doesn’t agree with you. If you check the references you’ll find that the term is modern and probably geographical. Yet, I would agree that the term Old Bulgarian (for Old Church Slavonic) is also fishy and unacceptable.

                    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
                    If seniority has anything to do with the naming convention of a language, then Macedonian is the rightful name of this language and Bulgarian would be an eastern Macedonian dialect. Don’t forget Old Macedonian was spoken in and around Salonica long before Khan Asparukh and some of the semi-nomadic Turkish-speaking Bulgar tribes arrived on the Balkan peninsular, in far eastern Thrace. And it’s not like the Bulgar tribes arrived in their hundreds of thousands and assimilated the local inhabitants over time. In fact, the contrary is true. They were assimilated by the indigenous Thracian inhabitants.

                    The warrior Bulgar tribes did not arrive in any significant numbers. However, they managed to assert themselves militarily over the peaceful Thracian inhabitants and quickly became the ruling elite. Culturally and linguistically speaking, the Thracians retained their own way of life. Also, the Bulgar incursions into Macedonia proper were limited and insignificant. The fact that the Bulgars eventually adopted the existing spoken language of Thrace speaks for itself. If Bulgarians want to name their language in honour of their founding semi-nomadic and unrelated forefathers, then that is their prerogative. As you said “National Conscience is a subjective and complicated thing.”
                    I don’t think anyone (including me or Bulgaria) denies their language is Slavic. The last time I checked the official Bulgarian narrative for their nation building they saw Thracians, Slavs and Bulgar warriors as the three pillars or elements of their nation.

                    The problem that you have is that Bulgaria (as an Empire, a nation and a language with its’ literature) are established, existing (not imaginary) entities with a long History (according to our historiography).

                    This is often denied in the forum, you’re trying to find the ethnic-Macedonian element or perspective or interpretation of Bulgarian History or parts of it. I have also seen doubts on the name (Bulgaria) though it appears in our History books, battles, victories or defeats and an effort to rename it to Macedonian, or sometimes imply they didn’t have a name!

                    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
                    Bulgarians can tell me I have any façade they like but they would need to look at themselves in the mirror first and work out what lurks underneath their own Bulgarian façade. I’ll tell you what lies dormant within this exterior– their long forgotten and abandoned Thracian and/or Macedonian identity.
                    I just said that language alone does not dictate national conscience. So, maybe you finally agreed with me.

                    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
                    The reality is that the “Bulgarian” of the middle ages has nothing to do with the Bulgarian of modern day Bulgaria. The name should have disappeared together with the names of other fleeting tribes that entered and exited the Balkan peninsular over the centuries. The National Awakening of Bulgaria, an attempt by some, and most notably, by Paisius of Hilendar to stop the incessant Hellenization of the “Slavic” people of the Balkans invented a way of instilling some pride into the people with stories of “glorious Bulgarian kingdoms of the past” and other national myths. He managed to do this through his work "History of the Slav-Bulgarians", which appeared in 1762 and was the first work of Bulgarian historiography. Just like the Greeks of 1827, most Bulgarians before Paisius would have considered themselves simply as Christians.
                    I wouldn’t agree with that. If Bulgarians existed for 12 centuries, why shouldn’t they reawaken? Their empires are not imaginary. They appear in detail in the Greek and Latin historiography of the time.

                    Comment

                    • Karposh
                      Member
                      • Aug 2015
                      • 863

                      I can see us going in circles over this one and never really reaching common ground. I will say this much, however, had the Kresna rebellion of 1878 or the Ilinden rebellion of 1903 succeeded in Macedonia attaining independence from Ottoman Turkey, we would not be having this debate.

                      The original name of, what is now known as the 1878 Kresna/Razlog rebellion on English and Bulgarian Wikipedia, was The Macedonian Rebellion. The seal of the Macedonian Rebellion clearly reveals where the allegiances lay with the rebels. There is no mention of Bulgaria or Bulgarians.


                      The translation for this seals reads as follows:

                      “Seal of the Main Headquarters of the Macedonian Rebellion”

                      You will not find this seal, the symbol (or trademark) of the rebellion, on Bulgarian or English Wikipedia. It is only Macedonian Wikipedia that uses the correct name for this rebellion and proudly displays this seal. Just stop and ask yourself for one second why the correct usage of the rebellion is not used on Bulgarian and English Wikipedia. You can get an idea of how much this rebellion means to Bulgarians by the amount of information they have dedicated on their Wikipedia page. In fact, English Wikipedia has written more stuff about it and even gone a step further by explaining the controversy surrounding this event and how it was really a Bulgarian rebellion and not ethnic Macedonian in nature.

                      Even the Ilinden Uprising has been corrupted as the Ilinden/Preobrazhenie Upprising, suggesting a common struggle for union with Bulgaria.

                      As they say, history is often written by the victors and not by the vanquished. You owe your Greek independence of the 1820’s to the British, Russians and French. The Bulgarians owe their independence to the Russians. Macedonians took on the might of the Ottoman Empire alone. If fate played a different part in Macedonia, I would be debating the existence of a Greek or Bulgarian nation with you today.

                      Comment

                      • Karposh
                        Member
                        • Aug 2015
                        • 863

                        Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
                        I wouldn’t agree with that. If Bulgarians existed for 12 centuries, why shouldn’t they reawaken? Their empires are not imaginary. They appear in detail in the Greek and Latin historiography of the time.
                        By the same token, Macedonians have existed for at least 27 centuries, so why should Greeks and Bulgarians not respect our reawakening? Our empire was not imaginary either. You might have heard of it, the Macedonian Empire. It appears in detail in the Greek and Latin historiography of the time.

                        Our 19th century Macedonian Reawakening narrative saw no difference between the ancient Macedonians and the modern Macedonians.

                        Comment

                        • Karposh
                          Member
                          • Aug 2015
                          • 863

                          Vasil Kanchov & the Macedonians

                          I want to bring something to the attention of Macedonians that they might not be aware of. And, as I am a fairly new member on this forum, I apologise if this topic has been covered before. Many will have heard of the 19th century Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician, Vasil Kanchov. Two of his more famous works include:

                          • Macedonia — Ethnography and Statistics (1900)
                          • Orohydrography of Macedonia (1911)

                          However, I wonder how many people are aware of his unexpected and frank admission in his second work “Orohydrography of Macedonia (1911)” about the Macedonians’ own self identification of the time.

                          “The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians. Turks and Albanians from Macedonia do not call themselves Macedonians, but when asked where they are from, they respond: from Macedonia. Albanians, who also call their country Anautluk, and Greeks who live in the southern area of Macedonia, do not call themselves Macedonians, hence the borders in these areas according to the peoples’ perception are not clearly defined.”

                          What is important to note, in this eyewitness account, is how Macedonians self identified and that is simply as Macedonians. Kanchov is clearly a Bulgarian nationalist who dedicated his life to serving the Bulgarian cause. In his attempt to boost Bulgaria’s claims to Macedonia, he undertook a detailed ethnographic study of Macedonia, where he counts Macedonians as Bulgarians for the purpose of statistical propaganda. However, even he felt compelled to concede and declare that Macedonians considered themselves exactly that, Macedonians. There are no hyphenated self identifiers such as Slav-Macedonians, Bulgarian-Macedonians, Serb-Macedonians or Greek-Macedonians. These are modern identifiers, imposed on the Macedonian nation by unwanted Godfathers.

                          What is even more revealing is that there was no such beast as a Greek-Macedonian. As Kanchov notes, Greeks did not call themselves Macedonians.

                          To summarise, Macedonians of the 19th century knew exactly who they were. They called themselves Macedonians. And, as far as Macedonians today are concerned, it’s important to understand and realise this. Sometimes foreign propaganda can discourage even the most hardened Macedonian and make him question his beliefs. We must never forget that the Bulgarian label was imposed on Macedonians by outsiders. And we know who they are, people that want to see Macedonia and Macedonians disappear once and for all so that they can legitimise the injustice that was done to the Macedonian nation.

                          Comment

                          • Philosopher
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 1003

                            Originally posted by Amphipolis
                            I don’t think anyone (including me or Bulgaria) denies their language is Slavic. The last time I checked the official Bulgarian narrative for their nation building they saw Thracians, Slavs and Bulgar warriors as the three pillars or elements of their nation.
                            Okay. This is a start. What language did the Bulgars speak? What language did the Thracians speak?

                            From whom did the Bulgars adopt Slavic from?

                            Originally posted by Amphipolis
                            The problem that you have is that Bulgaria (as an Empire, a nation and a language with its’ literature) are established, existing (not imaginary) entities with a long History (according to our historiography).
                            How does your historiography explain from whom did the Bulgars adopt Slavic from? If you answer "Slavs", can you please be more specific, as so-called "Slavs" speak different "Slavic" dialects?

                            Please, if you have the answer, relate it on this forum. Please disabuse me of my error (if I am in fact in error).

                            My understanding is that modern day Bulgarians speak a south eastern Slavic dialect, which only one other nation speaks (Macedonia, as opposed to Serbo-Croatian in the Balkans), and that it only logically follows that the Bulgars of ancient times adopted this dialect from Macedonians, which would mean Bulgarian is established from Macedonian.

                            Do you dispute the above? If so, in what sense? Is your argument that the migrant "Slavs" who spoke south eastern Slavic did not identify as Macedonian, or are you just disagreeing with all of the above premises and facts as presented?

                            Comment

                            • Karposh
                              Member
                              • Aug 2015
                              • 863

                              Philosopher, ovaj ili ovaa (neznam dali e mash ili zhena) nema da ti priznaj tebe ili mene absolutno nishto. Pobrgu bi si kasnal/kasnala od sopstvenoto lajno odkolku da ni priznae neshto makedonsko.

                              Comment

                              • Amphipolis
                                Banned
                                • Aug 2014
                                • 1328

                                Originally posted by Karposh View Post
                                Philosopher, ovaj ili ovaa (neznam dali e mash ili zhena) nema da ti priznaj tebe ili mene absolutno nishto. Pobrgu bi si kasnal/kasnala od sopstvenoto lajno odkolku da ni priznae neshto makedonsko.
                                I'm afraid I'm very busy right now. I will try to interact with your posts in less than a week. This is a man's word.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X