Originally posted by Gocka
View Post
Does Macedonia belong to the Balkan or Aegean world
Collapse
X
-
In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.
-
-
Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View PostTo demonstrate their origin. Does Misirkov refer to the ancestors of his people being largely descended from tribes that crossed the Danube in the 6th century? Do you know that Misirkov himself believed that the independent study of Macedonian history had only began during his era? What you're doing is cherry-picking some quotes from a guy that clearly went through turbulent times in his life and using that as some sort of ammunition. It's a pathetic and intellectually dishonest tactic that is more reminiscent of some Bulgar idiot than somebody that is supposed to be for Macedonia and the Macedonian Cause.I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Liberator of Makedonija View PostActually he does. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I read the book fairly recently and do recall Misirkov claiming his ancestors arrived in the Balkans in the Middle Ages, he made no references to Ancient Macedonia. I may actually have brought this up in another thread from memory.In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.
Comment
-
-
Yes. Let's cherry pick Misirkov:
According to the theory of I. A. Boduen de Curtene Slavs are named by the Romans. Slavic names often end with –slav: Sveti-slav, Vence-slav, Bori-slav etc. Slavs served as slaves and gladiators in Rome, and since the suffix slav was commonly heard, they started to use that suffix as a designator for a person that works the heaviest jobs, i.e. slave, and since the slaves were mostly taken from the Slavs, they named all the Slavs as “slavi”. Then the Slavs took that name and modified it a bit into Slavjani, i.e. Slavs. So our great-grandfathers were named when they met the more developed roman nations. It was not very important for the Slavs themselves, and they used it only when they needed to make a distinction between themselves and some Roman or Germanic nation. It wasn’t very important for them, and it could have easily been replaced with some other name.So, up to the arrival of the Turks, we were renamed three times: 1. Slavs 2. Bulgarians 3. SerbsGreeks also did not make any distinctions between the Slavic ethnicities, and all Slavs, especially those who caused them the biggest troubles and were during the Turkish time under their protection, they despised and named with the, for them, despised name: “Bulgarians”.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View PostDoes Misirkov refer to the ancestors of his people being largely descended from tribes that crossed the Danube in the 6th century? Do you know that Misirkov himself believed that the independent study of Macedonian history had only began during his era? What you're doing is cherry-picking some quotes from a guy that clearly went through turbulent times in his life and using that as some sort of ammunition. It's a pathetic and intellectually dishonest tactic that is more reminiscent of some Bulgar idiot than somebody that is supposed to be for Macedonia and the Macedonian Cause.
I don't disagree with Misirkov being for independent study of Macedonian history, and expanding on that (and I also don't agree with him 100% having the luxury of analyzing him from 2019 - everything should be analyzed thoroughly). The thing is, he wrote and believed what he did, living in turbulent times as well as being influenced by Pan-Slavism - however, his words can't be changed or explained away. Many of the Macedonian intellectuals and activists at that time held similar views. One such activist would be D. Chupovski who was one of the founders of Macedonian Literary Society, established in Saint Petersburg in 1902.
Memorandum for Independence of Macedonia (March 1, 1913), which the members of the Macedonian Colony in St. Petersburg sent to the participants in the London Conference, and to all the principal newspapers in Russia. This Memorandum, prepared by Dr. Gavril Konstantinovich, Natse Dimov (the younger brother of D. Chupovski), Dimitrija Chupovski and Aleksandar Vezenkov on behalf of the Colony, stated:
“Carrying out its sacred duty to its fatherland and deliberately advocating the slogan “Macedonia to the Macedonians,” The Macedonian Colony in St. Petersburg protests and cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the allied Balkan states (Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece), our brothers in blood and faith, are preparing to partition our fatherland, which stands at the same cultural level as they, and which is larger than Serbia and Greece in terms of its population, at some three and a half million. We cannot be indifferent to this sad funeral procession which wans to bury our poor country of Macedonia, to suppress the political and spiritual life of our entire nation, and the funeral of the fatherland of the holy brothers, Saints Cyril and Methodius. After the partition of brotherly Poland, the division of Macedonia by our Slavic brothers is another inhuman act in the history of peoples, a cruel violation of human rights, a shameful act of the entire Slavic population. The Turkish yoke is now being replaced by a Christian one.”
URL:
As far as I can see Misirkov did write that Macedonians largely descended and branched off from the Slavs:
Of course, Misirkov may not have been right because he did not have modern DNA studies at hand, however, the feeling of solidarity or kinship with other Slavic peoples was there, and he and other Macedonian activists did not have an aversion towards the term "Slav" and included Macedonians as one of the members of larger Slavic population. What Misirkov and others like him went by - was seemingly language. This is how people/intellectuals reasoned well into the 20th century. I have already said numerous times, in this very thread, that DNA studies have largely defeated certain beliefs and notions about the origin of Macedonians. I also said already in my introductory post that Slavs differ greatly culturally and genetically - yet I used the term "ethnolinguistic" simultaneously, which should give an indication as to how "I defined it" which may be wrong.
In the following article, it is explained as follows:
"One of the main authors of the article, Alena Kushniarevich from the Estonian Biocentre, summed up the findings of the study: “We do not see a strong genetic signal in genomes of modern Slavic speakers that would support massive movements of Slavs towards the Balkan peninsula during 700–800 AD. It seems that a major mechanism in the spread of Slavic languages was cultural transmission rather than physical replacement of indigenous people by the Slavs. On the other hand, fishing out genetic traces of historic migrations within Central and East Europe – a rather homogeneous and densely populated region – is not a trivial task”.
Additionally, we tend to assume that people who share the same or similar language also share a common culture; however, some archaeological evidence suggests that the material culture of different Slavic-speaking tribes varied substantially.
Considering the “Slavicization” of Europe, it is evident that we are talking about an extensive linguistic shift and not really a genetic transformation. How much of a deeper cultural shift accompanied the massive change in language and how uniform it was remains largely unclear due to scarce archaeological and historic evidence."
URL:
An extensive genome-scale study confirms that the "Slavicization" of Europe was about linguistic rather than genetic transformation. Continue reading →
Having said all that there is of course a lot of value in what Misirkov and others said and believed. They did not have strong feelings of dislike towards the Slavic question we seem to have today.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Carlin15 View Posthowever, his words can't be changed or explained away.
If you dig deeper at Misirkov's intentions with the 'Slav' terminology, it was to unite those Macedonians under Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda under a common banner in order so Macedonians could defend their national and cultural interests against outsider. This banner, he insisted, should be 'Macedonian' rather than Bulgarian or Serbian.
Comment
-
-
From Carlin's last post,
In the following article, it is explained as follows:
"One of the main authors of the article, Alena Kushniarevich from the Estonian Biocentre, summed up the findings of the study: “We do not see a strong genetic signal in genomes of modern Slavic speakers that would support massive movements of Slavs towards the Balkan peninsula during 700–800 AD. It seems that a major mechanism in the spread of Slavic languages was cultural transmission rather than physical replacement of indigenous people by the Slavs. On the other hand, fishing out genetic traces of historic migrations within Central and East Europe – a rather homogeneous and densely populated region – is not a trivial task”.
Comment
-
-
This was an interesting article provided by Carlin. Notice the Greek "Macedonians" (read Turkish refugees) actually have K1 (African) and a more pronounced K4 (Probably from the Middle East) component then Macedonians.
The link below is to the actual study, not the article about the study.
The Slavic branch of the Balto-Slavic sub-family of Indo-European languages underwent rapid divergence as a result of the spatial expansion of its speakers from Central-East Europe, in early medieval times. This expansion–mainly to East Europe and the northern Balkans–resulted in the incorporation of genetic components from numerous autochthonous populations into the Slavic gene pools. Here, we characterize genetic variation in all extant ethnic groups speaking Balto-Slavic languages by analyzing mitochondrial DNA (n = 6,876), Y-chromosomes (n = 6,079) and genome-wide SNP profiles (n = 296), within the context of other European populations. We also reassess the phylogeny of Slavic languages within the Balto-Slavic branch of Indo-European. We find that genetic distances among Balto-Slavic populations, based on autosomal and Y-chromosomal loci, show a high correlation (0.9) both with each other and with geography, but a slightly lower correlation (0.7) with mitochondrial DNA and linguistic affiliation. The data suggest that genetic diversity of the present-day Slavs was predominantly shaped in situ, and we detect two different substrata: ‘central-east European’ for West and East Slavs, and ‘south-east European’ for South Slavs. A pattern of distribution of segments identical by descent between groups of East-West and South Slavs suggests shared ancestry or a modest gene flow between those two groups, which might derive from the historic spread of Slavic people.
Having said this, genetics do not determine ethnicity. The genetic variation across humans is tiny (0.6% of all base pairs) because, quite frankly, we're all human beings. What geneticists look at to try and distinguish human populations and migrations is a microscopic proportion of the human genome. Further, there is usually more variation within a group than there is between groups, which doesn't help. Genetic mapping can help trace migrations when it is used in conjunction with other information - linguistic, archaeological etc., but even then, its a best guess.
Ethnicity is socially constructed, not genetic. What does this mean? It means that looking at genetics to determine whether Macedonians are "Slavic" or whether there was a "Slavic" migration is even less helpful than trying to determine whether they have "Asian" or "African" markers (they do - everyone does).
Ethnicity is a combination of culture, language, ancestry, the belief in the groups existence, religion and absolutely none of these all at the same time. Its pervasive and elusive. You can find examples of individuals that fit all the criteria (and agree they do not belong) and of individuals who fit none of the criteria (and agree that they do belong). Its as much objective as it is subjective and at the same time its neither. Asking whether Macedonians (or anyone else for that matter) are "Slavic" is about as meaningful and relevant as asking what blue tastes like.
This isn't to say that Macedonian ethnicity (or any other ethnicity) was "constructed" through a conscious effort of social engineering. Ethnicity is built unconsciously over time. But just because its substance changes does not mean that its not the same ethnicity. All ethnicities have direct ancestral lineage from somewhere. Non were invented or constructed over night or even within a generation or two.
Bottom line: forget the Slavic rubbish. It was a 19th century cultural fad that had no bearing on reality then, let alone now.Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-10-2019, 08:55 PM.If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View PostPerhaps it's been too long since I have read his works because I don't recall him writing that. Post it here.I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Liberator of Makedonija View PostActually he does. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I read the book fairly recently and do recall Misirkov claiming his ancestors arrived in the Balkans in the Middle Ages, he made no references to Ancient Macedonia. I may actually have brought this up in another thread from memory.
Is this from his book "On Macedonian Matters)?Verata vo Mislite, VMRO vo dushata, Makedonia vo Srceto.
Vnatreshna Makedonska Revolucionerna Organizacija.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by VMRO View PostI don't recall Misirkov wirting anything of the sort.
Is this from his book "On Macedonian Matters)?I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Liberator of Makedonija View PostYes, the copy I read was printed in the 1970s and it was an English translation so I had always wondered if the Yugoslav government had tampered with the content though.Verata vo Mislite, VMRO vo dushata, Makedonia vo Srceto.
Vnatreshna Makedonska Revolucionerna Organizacija.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Carlin15This is both funny and insulting at the same time. I present the opinions of Misirkov -- a person who is generally accepted as being one of the biggest Macedonists of all time, and the response is that this is pathetic and intellectually dishonest, reminiscent of some Bulgar idiots (a sort of ad hominem). I won't go down this path.
The thing is, he wrote and believed what he did, living in turbulent times as well as being influenced by Pan-Slavism - however, his words can't be changed or explained away.
As far as I can see Misirkov did write that Macedonians largely descended and branched off from the Slavs
Having said all that there is of course a lot of value in what Misirkov and others said and believed. They did not have strong feelings of dislike towards the Slavic question we seem to have today.In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by VMRO View PostI don't think it's in there. I've read through both and it cannot recall Misirkov ever declaring his ancestors arrived in the middle ages.I know of two tragic histories in the world- that of Ireland, and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented.
Comment
-
Comment