Ivan Mihajlov (1971): As I am Bulgarian, am I Macedonian
pavel
(article of the newspaper "Makedonska Tribuna", year 44,
No. 2269, January 28th, 1971 - of the great Macedonian
revolutionary and leader of IMRO Ivan Mihajlov)
p. 1
Recently a young man from the Vardar region asked me
the question: As I am Bulgarian, am I Macedonian.
I want to reply in public.
If somebody asks you what is your nationality, you can
answer - I am Bulgarian.
And if somebody asks you where are you from - you can
answer - I am from Macedonia. In this case you can
answer - "Macedonian Bulgarian", or "Bulgarian from
Macedonia". With that reply you can describe your
nationality and your native land - something very
important before foreigners.
It is not necessary, there is not a reason you not to
mention that you are from Macedonia. That is not in
service of your Bulgarian nationality. On contrary -
it is of help that the foreigners to know that in Macedonia
are living Bulgarians.
The same with our compatriots - Turks, Vlachs, Greeks -
all they claim with satisfaction that they are from Macedonia.
I want to mention my meetings with our compatriots Turks
in my last travellings.
I have crossed the Turkish border together with my wife in
September, 1934. We reached a small village in the
outskirts of the mountain Strandzha. The first villagers
that we met immediately announced that they are
"Makedonyali" - Macedonians, refugees from the Bitola
region. After a few kilometers we met a man on a horse,
travelling towards Lozengrad. He understood, that we
are Bulgarians, and immediately said in a hurry, that he
is from Kumanovo, and he is Makedonyali. The carter
that transported us to the same town with a pride began
to tell us on his own initiative - "Ben Makedonyali im (I am
also Macedonian)- I have escaped from the Serbian
terror. I have been a member of IMRO, maybe you have
listened for that organization. In one affair many of our
village in Macedonia have been beaten to death by the
Serbian police. Now here is my entire family." We stopped
by the District Police Department in Lozengrad. Here
the pristav (Pavel - Police chief) that has met us, when he
heard that we are Bulgarians immediately answered:
"Bendi Makedonyali im (I am also Macedonian)." He was
a cousin of Sali, in which house we have lived in the
village of Osenovo, Gorna Dzhumaya district.
...... (Pavel - the article continues in the same manner -
you can read the original in Makedonska Tribuna)
Regards to all: Pavel
Byzantine
It seems I wasn't off the mark after all, you are the modern version of
a Bulgarian exharchist.
Well be that as it may I would like to take this opportunity to provide
you with some information which you have failed to review.Perhaps the
journey from thread to thread is one which causes you fatigue, however
as gentlemen it is a mark of culture to assit in the expedient
resolution of outstanding issues, correct?
Firstly: I would like to repeat the official positions of the Bulgarian
government and every party having participated in the Bulgarian
parliament from the fall of communism to date.
The Macedonians of antiquity were clearly a Hellenic people who had an
undisputable common heritage with that of the other city states.In
short the Macedonians were Hellenes.
Do you agree with this policy of the Bulgarian government which is
shared from the furthest left to the furtherst right spectrum of
Bulgarian policy?
Secondly: Concerning the existence of a plethora of Greek language
centers within the city of Skopje,you will find in the thread Dear
Pavel, post number 7, by myself a short list of language schools that
offer the Greek language.The first ten have attached address and
telephones while the other ten have only the names of the language
schools.As I suggested in that post this is only a part of the list of
language schools that offer courses in the Greek language and include
only the ones within the city of Skopje.Have you any need for the
addresses and telephones of the other ten mentioned and/or other
schools that offer the Greek language within Skopje or the rest of the
country please feel free to ask,the information is at hand.
Thirdly: In suggesting that Slavs of the Vardar region are Bulgarian we
may first wnt to define what is Bulgarian as the differentiation of
slavic peoples among themsleves is one might say at times,nebulous.
We begin with the fact that the decisive assault of the Bulgar tribe on
Byzantine was actually not uniquely Bulgar.That is to say that after
the death of the great Khan, the tribes residing at the north side of
the Danube were a grand collection of Asia's Mongols and not only
tribes.It is a historical fact that leaderless some of these tribes
united under the Bulgars in their quest for new more temperate lands.As
such the initial Horde (if I may use this classicist term) was actually
a federation of tribes lead by the Bulgars.As such from the offset even
the original raiders where not of a homogeneous nature.
Now, the Bulgar federation including many non Bulgar tribe settle south
of the Danube.We then go on a process where the Bulgar federation of
tribes is assimilated by the Slavs. It is of no historical accuracy
that all the slavs of the region assimilated the Bulgars, some
assimilated the Kumans for example,other slavs assimilated the Avars
and so on and so forth.
Having said that I'm sure you appreciate that the national identity
connected to the term Bulgar thus Bulgarian is not as crisp and clear
as that of the Serb or the Croat. After all a slavic name for a slavic
people is perhaps easier to comprehend than the use of a Tartar name
for a slavic people. Is it then so different for a slavic nation which
has no proven linguistic or litterary links with the Bulgars to call
themselves Bulgarians than another nation of slavs equally with no
proven linguistic or litterary links with the ancient Macedonians
calling themselves Macedonian.
Using the name of a nation with which historical links are weak.
Could we not argue that both use the name of a geographical region to
define itself? Bulgaria - Bulgarians, Macedonians - Macedonia.
Otherwise as you may appreciate the term of "ethnic Bulgarian" has a
rather historically discontinious element to it.
Linguistic ties
It is a fasinating element among southern slavs when the argument of
nationhood is put into practice.This is to say slavs of the Vardar
valley (and nor only) are not a nation nor ever were because:
They were at a time within the geographic territory of the Bulgar
empire.
They're language is actually a Bulgarian (not Bulgar) dialect.
They never had they're own recognised country.
Before they we're living within the Bulgar territory however they were
living in Byzantine territory.After living in Bulgar territory they
again lived in Byzantine territory, and afterwards lived even longer in
Ottoman territory. As such the geographical argument goes by the way
side.
Linguistically the dialect of the slavs of the Vardar valley is more
accurately south Slavic. Any grammatical influence from the Bulgars
that would set it appart from any other south slavic dialect is a void
argument since the Bulgars had no such advance linguistic level at that
relevant time.As such what is it about this south slavic dialect that
gives it a necesity to be labelled as Bulgar / ian? Is this language
not belonging to all the south slavic tribes with differences based on
tribal experiences as opposed to the name of the region they developed
it in? Why is there an aknowledgment that Croats are not Serbs when the
language is identical? The differences between them do not even earn
the remark of sub-dialect.Yet there is no discussion as to whether
there is a Croat nation / and Croat Republic.
As to having your own country recognised in order for you to be a
nation, well there are many such cases (the Kurds being a classic
case,the Jews being another) yet again there is no doubt of their
nationhood.
In returning to the core argument of the author, I am Macedonian
therefore I am Bulgarian:The sentence is only valid if the reader is
inclined to give use of the term Bulgarian more lenience than that of
Macedonian.Otherwise they are equally based on a "borrowed identity".
In the Bulgarian case one might say that the argument is even weaker
because south slavs reside in this region before the arrival of the
Bulgars.Where as slavs decended from lands that are within the
territory of Ancient Macedonia can at least use a term that predates
them and not vice versa.
Having reviewed these three basic points of nationhood it becomes clear
that either we are discussing two communities with demographic and
dialectic differences or we are discussing the inexistence of any south
slavic nation, just the chaotic decent of numerous tribes who through
interaction and assimilation have lost all link with their roots.
And it then becomes clear that before the creation of the nation
states,both countries had an equall identity deficit which needed to be
filled in by the romantics of each nations revolutionaries.
It goes to simple logic that the Vardar slavs have had historically a
sizable demographic,linguistic,and cultural influence from the Serbs.
Does it defy common sense then to argue that they are partly Serb and
partly Bulgarian? If this common sense approach is accepted then at the
same time they become neither, and therefore a third element and not
belonging to either the first or second.And the argument goes on.
The reason we are having this discusion to an extent is nothing more
than a Greek geo-cultural issue. And this perhaps is a minute detail
which goes forgoten in these arguments among slavs.What are the key
elements that separate a North slav from a south slav in modern times?
language,traditions,and religion.All three depended highly on how far
or how close one was to Greek / Byzantine or Latin /Roman culture. In
essence the one's who met the Greeks first get to argue thet they
developed a tradition,written language,and religion first and then
"gave" it to the rest.
So be my guests, now that the true root of the argument has been put
forward let's discuss it.Who was lucky enough to come into contact with
the Greeks first so that they can then claim cultural presedence over
the other South Slavs?
The dialectic borders that will arise generations have passed without
borders only guarantee Greek differentiation as there can be no
dialectic argument,however the south slavs........well, good luck to
you all.
Food for thought Pavel, don't be so eager to disavow others' nationhood
when your's is shaky as well.
Best regards to all,
Byzantine
pavel
As I have very busy the last days I have not the opportunity to see the
newsgroups. I want to reply to you shortly.
On your first question:
> Firstly: I would like to repeat the official positions of the Bulgarian
> government and every party having participated in the Bulgarian
> parliament from the fall of communism to date.
>
> The Macedonians of antiquity were clearly a Hellenic people who had an
> undisputable common heritage with that of the other city states.In
> short the Macedonians were Hellenes.
>
> Do you agree with this policy of the Bulgarian government which is
> shared from the furthest left to the furtherst right spectrum of
> Bulgarian policy?
>
I agree with the policy of the political party VMRO-NP of the former
Prime
Minister of Macedonia Mr Ljubco Georgievski. It is not clear if the
ancient Macedonians would not been originally non-Hellenes.
There are many historical evidences in support of their non-Hellenic
character. Later they have been Hellenized and in the time of Alexander
the Great they have been promoters of the common culture of the
region (that has been Hellenic culture).
> Secondly: Concerning the existence of a plethora of Greek language
> centers within the city of Skopje,you will find in the thread Dear
> Pavel, post number 7, by myself a short list of language schools that
> offer the Greek language.The first ten have attached address and
> telephones while the other ten have only the names of the language
> schools.As I suggested in that post this is only a part of the list of
> language schools that offer courses in the Greek language and include
> only the ones within the city of Skopje.Have you any need for the
> addresses and telephones of the other ten mentioned and/or other
> schools that offer the Greek language within Skopje or the rest of the
> country please feel free to ask,the information is at hand.
>
Well, I have not that information as I am not now in the Republic of
Macedonia. But as far as I know, the English language is the most
common learned language there. The existence of many Greek
language schools cannot prove anything - only that maybe many of
them are created by political reasons with financial support from
overborder donators. It is not clear how many are the pupils there -
maybe in some of them none/...
> Thirdly: In suggesting that Slavs of the Vardar region are Bulgarian we
> may first wnt to define what is Bulgarian as the differentiation of
> slavic peoples among themsleves is one might say at times,nebulous.
> ...
Here Dennis, you have to consider the history of the first and second
Bulgarian empire. The proto-Bulgars completely have dissolved into
the Slavic ocean after the accepting of Christianity from Byzantium.
So that after St Czar Boris I (865 a.D) we can consider the first
Bulgarian empire as a homogeneous country with Christian
population that have spoken a southern Slavic language called
Bulgarian. That Christian Bulgaria managed to survive during
the Byzantine occupation (near a century) and after that during
the Ottoman occupation (near four cent. and a half). The Bulgarian
Orthodox Exarchy completely clearly presented the borders of the
predominantly Bulgarian population in 1870. Unfortunately after the
Russo-Turkish war in 1878-79, because of the fear of the Great
Powers from a Russian close ally in the Balkans, those
natural borders have been abandoned and instead of a
quite natural Bulgaria within those borders, it has been
divided into three parts - Principality of Bulgaria (vassal to
the Sultan), Eastern Rumelia (directly ruled by the Sultan via a
Bulgarian General-Governor), and Macedonia - returned to
the Ottomans. I agree that in the southern parts of Macedonia
also Greek population lived, but even in Selanik (then so
has been the name of Solun, or Thessaloniki), the predominant
part of the population has been Jewish, then Bulgarian, non-Greek.
The Balkan wars have been a great disaster for the
Bulgarians. Then Macedonia has been divided so that only
10% - Pirin part has been returned to Bulgaria, 55% have been
given to Greece, and 45% to Serbia.
So that, in short, I know very well what is the meaning of the
contemporary term "Bulgarian".
You have changed the title of the topic - that is not polite.
But it sounds the same nevertheless...
Also you have asked a question somewhere in another topic
about the signed treaty between Greece and the Republic of
Macedonia about seeking a common acceptable solution
of the name issue. But if you read carefully the treaty, you can
find there NOT any term given, when that to be achieved.
That process can be completed in one year, five years,
ten years, fifty years, or maybe two hundred years. Just now
there is not any reason some significant steps in those process to
be done. In the future that will depend on the politics of
the Greeks.
Regards to all: Pavel
akritas
Ο/Η pavel έγραψε:
> I agree that in the southern parts of Macedonia
> also Greek population lived, but even in Selanik (then so
> has been the name of Solun, or Thessaloniki), the predominant
> part of the population has been Jewish, then Bulgarian, non-Greek.
If we talk for the period of 19th-20th century of course and the
majority was the Sefardic Jews , 2nd was the Turkish,3nd the Greek and
last was the Slavic population(Bulgarians and Serbs).As about the
latter is know that until WWI was a very strong community.There are
many examples such us the trade war that make the Greeks to the
Bulgarians during the Macedonian Struggle.Mazower,Dakin,Karakasidou and
many others mention the census of Thessaloniki city and the near
villages.
> The Balkan wars have been a great disaster for the
> Bulgarians. Then Macedonia has been divided so that only
> 10% - Pirin part has been returned to Bulgaria, 55% have been
> given to Greece, and 45% to Serbia.
I will stay in your terms....returned to the Bulgarians given to the
rest.Is sound to nationalistic.As about the 45% I shall remind you
that this region include only 15 % of Macedonia boundaries.The rest is
Kossovo, if we talk for medieval terms.
> So that, in short, I know very well what is the meaning of the
> contemporary term "Bulgarian".
>
> Also you have asked a question somewhere in another topic
> about the signed treaty between Greece and the Republic of
> Macedonia about seeking a common acceptable solution
> of the name issue. But if you read carefully the treaty, you can
> find there NOT any term given, when that to be achieved.
> That process can be completed in one year, five years,
> ten years, fifty years, or maybe two hundred years. Just now
> there is not any reason some significant steps in those process to
> be done. In the future that will depend on the politics of
> the Greeks.
You are wrong.Was a deadline.The artcle 23b was specific
""This Interim Accord shall remain in force until superseded by a
definitive agreement, provided that after seven years either Party may
withdraw from this Interim Accord by a written notice, which shall take
effect 12 months after its delivery to the other Party.""
But in 2001 we had the Civil war between the Albanian and FYROMians,so
no body withdraw from the aggrement.Greece could doing that easyli.But
she didnt.
As the Greek PM quoted yesterday in London conference.."FYROM must
forward as about the name" and "Greece had doinf the step with the name
of FYROMacedonia.
Spirit of Truth
"pavel" <pavelma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164230407....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> I agree with the policy of the political party VMRO-NP of the former
> Prime
> Minister of Macedonia Mr Ljubco Georgievski. It is not clear if the
> ancient Macedonians would not been originally non-Hellenes.
> There are many historical evidences in support of their non-Hellenic
> character. Later they have been Hellenized and in the time of Alexander
> the Great they have been promoters of the common culture of the
> region (that has been Hellenic culture).
Silly.
Let's see what Borza actually said when forced to confront
the actual texts:
Borza says:
Taken From: "IN THE SHADOW OF OLYMPUS
THE EMERGENCE OF MACEDON"
Written By Eugene N. Borza
We have seen that the "Makedones" or "Highlanders"
of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived
from Northwest Greek stock. That is, Northwest Greece
provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek
from which emerged the tribes who were later known by
different names as they established their regional identities
in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians
may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier
time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and
to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes
or Molossians.
FOR THE DULL WITTED:
NORTHWEST GREEK STOCK
MACEDONIANS
DORIANS
EPIROTES
and:
"It was Philip and Alexander's destiny to propagate Hellenic
unity..."
Eugene Borza, "In the Shadow of Olympus"
:)
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
...The heart of Real Macedonia was always Greek
Byzantine
> Dear Dennis,
> As I have very busy the last days I have not the opportunity to see the
> newsgroups. I want to reply to you shortly.
Dear Pavel,
I assume that these issues are important enough to demand a certain
level of attention.As such if you are busy it would be preferable to
respond at a further date when time does not represent a constraint
which may limit the accuracy of your answers.As such I will assume that
your answers are temporary untill you have sufficient time to answer
them in as much detail as they are posed.
> On your first question:
> I agree with the policy of the political party VMRO-NP of the former
> Prime
> Minister of Macedonia Mr Ljubco Georgievski. It is not clear if the
> ancient Macedonians would not been originally non-Hellenes.
> There are many historical evidences in support of their non-Hellenic
> character. Later they have been Hellenized and in the time of Alexander
> the Great they have been promoters of the common culture of the
> region (that has been Hellenic culture).
Kindly define: originally non-hellenic
promoters of
common culture of the region
Non of the Hellenic tribes are originally Hellenic.They are originally
Indo European. Can you please present a rough time frame within which
they evolve from non-Hellenic to Hellenic?
> > Secondly: Concerning the existence of a plethora of Greek language
> > centers within the city of Skopje,you will find in the thread Dear
> > Pavel, post number 7, by myself a short list of language schools that
> > offer the Greek language.The first ten have attached address and
> > telephones while the other ten have only the names of the language
> > schools.As I suggested in that post this is only a part of the list of
> > language schools that offer courses in the Greek language and include
> > only the ones within the city of Skopje.Have you any need for the
> > addresses and telephones of the other ten mentioned and/or other
> > schools that offer the Greek language within Skopje or the rest of the
> > country please feel free to ask,the information is at hand.
> >
> Well, I have not that information as I am not now in the Republic of
> Macedonia. But as far as I know, the English language is the most
> common learned language there. The existence of many Greek
> language schools cannot prove anything - only that maybe many of
> them are created by political reasons with financial support from
> overborder donators. It is not clear how many are the pupils there -
> maybe in some of them none/...
The information was presented to you.Kindly show the appropriate
respect to the issue and respond likewise.I am not in Skopje either,
that is a mute point. Notwithstanding, am I to understand that it is
beyond your capabilities to find out the existence and true nature of
these language schools?
> > Thirdly: In suggesting that Slavs of the Vardar region are Bulgarian we
> > may first wnt to define what is Bulgarian as the differentiation of
> > slavic peoples among themsleves is one might say at times,nebulous.
> > ...
> Here Dennis, you have to consider the history of the first and second
> Bulgarian empire. The proto-Bulgars completely have dissolved into
> the Slavic ocean after the accepting of Christianity from Byzantium.
I assume that by Bulgars you mean the tribe which travelled to europe
from Khazakstan together with the Hunns.The tribe which had been
travelling for centurues together with the Avars,Lizes,Pechengs and
Cumans.
And by slavic ocean you mean numerous tribes who came to settle in the
same region that left overs of Germanic tribes such as the Ostrogoths
had been already living in.
> So that after St Czar Boris I (865 a.D) we can consider the first
> Bulgarian empire as a homogeneous country with Christian
> population that have spoken a southern Slavic language called
> Bulgarian.
By 865 A.D. the Byzantine empire is already roughly in it's 260th year
as an empire with one official language (Greek) and 565th year with a
single official religion Christianity.
Would you extend Byzantium the same "homogeneity" as the Bulgarian
empire?
That Christian Bulgaria managed to survive during
> the Byzantine occupation (near a century) and after that during
If Bulgarians settles in Byzantine lands why is it "occupation" when
the Byzantines reclaim them?
> the Ottoman occupation (near four cent. and a half). The Bulgarian
> Orthodox Exarchy completely clearly presented the borders of the
> predominantly Bulgarian population in 1870.
Completely clearly to who?
Unfortunately after the
> Russo-Turkish war in 1878-79, because of the fear of the Great
> Powers from a Russian close ally in the Balkans, those
> natural borders have been abandoned and instead of a
> quite natural Bulgaria within those borders, it has been
> divided into three parts - Principality of Bulgaria (vassal to
> the Sultan), Eastern Rumelia (directly ruled by the Sultan via a
> Bulgarian General-Governor),
If Eastern Rumelia was homogeneously Bulgarian why was there an
exchange of populations in modern times including Greeks of the
Bulgarian Black sea region?
and Macedonia - returned to
> the Ottomans.
When you say returned to the Ottomans, well how long was it not under
the Ottomans?
I agree that in the southern parts of Macedonia
> also Greek population lived, but even in Selanik (then so
> has been the name of Solun, or Thessaloniki), the predominant
> part of the population has been Jewish, then Bulgarian, non-Greek.
Based on which census do you base this statement?
> The Balkan wars have been a great disaster for the
> Bulgarians. Then Macedonia has been divided so that only
> 10% - Pirin part has been returned to Bulgaria, 55% have been
> given to Greece, and 45% to Serbia.
The Balkan wars were disasterous for all Balkan peoples.
> So that, in short, I know very well what is the meaning of the
> contemporary term "Bulgarian".
It does not seem so from the very generalised information you give in
this post.
> You have changed the title of the topic - that is not polite.
> But it sounds the same nevertheless...
It was not intended to be impolite.It simply reflected the content of
my post more accurately.
> Also you have asked a question somewhere in another topic
> about the signed treaty between Greece and the Republic of
> Macedonia about seeking a common acceptable solution
> of the name issue. But if you read carefully the treaty, you can
> find there NOT any term given, when that to be achieved.
Akritas responds to this issue in this thread.If it is not satisfactory
I can have the relevant quote from the original agreement.
> That process can be completed in one year, five years,
> ten years, fifty years, or maybe two hundred years.
Again, Akritas deals with the time framework of the agreement.However I
would like to comment on the fact that had the country been named
Slavic-Macedonia which was one of the Greek proposals, the position of
the predominantly slavic cultural identity would have been
preserved.Any new name will have to include the Albanian cultural
heritage of the country (since after the Ohrid agreement Albanians are
a co-founding nation) within the "multicultural" directive it has from
the international community. The country has gone from one founding
nation to two in just 10 years.
Just now
> there is not any reason some significant steps in those process to
> be done.
In saying that you admit a rather symplistic view of how a country and
it's institutions evolve.
In the future that will depend on the politics of
> the Greeks.
In the future increasingly things will depend on the politics /
policies of Greece.
> Regards to all: Pavel
Take care,
Byzantine
pavel
Byzantine wrote:
> I assume that these issues are important enough to demand a certain
> level of attention.As such if you are busy it would be preferable to
> respond at a further date when time does not represent a constraint
> which may limit the accuracy of your answers.As such I will assume that
> your answers are temporary untill you have sufficient time to answer
> them in as much detail as they are posed.
>
Indeed I have a very short time for Internet activities. But maybe I
can
answer shortly to the raised problems, that can be discussed in detail
in the future.
> > On your first question:
> > I agree with the policy of the political party VMRO-NP of the former
> > Prime
> > Minister of Macedonia Mr Ljubco Georgievski. It is not clear if the
> > ancient Macedonians would not been originally non-Hellenes.
> > There are many historical evidences in support of their non-Hellenic
> > character. Later they have been Hellenized and in the time of Alexander
> > the Great they have been promoters of the common culture of the
> > region (that has been Hellenic culture).
>
> Kindly define: originally non-hellenic
> promoters of
> common culture of the region
>
> Non of the Hellenic tribes are originally Hellenic.They are originally
> Indo European. Can you please present a rough time frame within which
> they evolve from non-Hellenic to Hellenic?
>
II.
There are many evidences, that previously they have been regarded
as barbarians and non-Hellenes from the other Hellenes.
It is quite possible they to have been originally from a Hellene
stock.
But that is not proved, and different speculations can be made.
del ...
>
> > > Thirdly: In suggesting that Slavs of the Vardar region are Bulgarian we
> > > may first wnt to define what is Bulgarian as the differentiation of
> > > slavic peoples among themsleves is one might say at times,nebulous.
> > > ...
> > Here Dennis, you have to consider the history of the first and second
> > Bulgarian empire. The proto-Bulgars completely have dissolved into
> > the Slavic ocean after the accepting of Christianity from Byzantium.
>
> I assume that by Bulgars you mean the tribe which travelled to europe
> from Khazakstan together with the Hunns.The tribe which had been
> travelling for centurues together with the Avars,Lizes,Pechengs and
> Cumans.
>
Well, Dennis, you are wrong to put the Bulgars together with the Hunns,
Avars, and Pechenegs. They have disappeared without trace. And those
Bulgars - they had a developed culture. Just visit their former
capitals
Pliska and Preslav of the first Bulgarian Empire in the Northern East
Bulgaria. Or Fanagoria - on the Black sea coast in Kerch peninsula
before their
arrival in the Balkans. Their stone buildings have been amazing.
There are many discriptions from Byzantine and others travellers
for them. Also - there have been many treaties with them BEFORE
they to reach the Balkans - with Byzantium... The pretender for
the Byzantine throne Vitalian in 514-515 a.D. took help from them
against Anastasios I. (Evagrius, Migne, Patrolog. gr., t. 86, col.
2696)
When the Bulgars conquered the town of Bospor (in nowadays Kerch)
- the same that has been called Pantikapea - their khan Grod accepted
Christianity PERSONALLY in the presence of the Byzantine
Emperor Justinian I in Constantinople in 528 a.D. Justinian I has been
his
godfather (Marquart, Streifzuege, S. 301-302). Let not speak about
the
treaties of emperor Herakleos with the Bulgars against the Avars in VII
c.
All that gives evidence that the Bulgars have been an outstanding
people with possibilities of creating state and culture. It is
impossible
to compare them with the Hunns and Pechenegs...
> And by slavic ocean you mean numerous tribes who came to settle in the
> same region that left overs of Germanic tribes such as the Ostrogoths
> had been already living in.
>
> > So that after St Czar Boris I (865 a.D) we can consider the first
> > Bulgarian empire as a homogeneous country with Christian
> > population that have spoken a southern Slavic language called
> > Bulgarian.
>
> By 865 A.D. the Byzantine empire is already roughly in it's 260th year
> as an empire with one official language (Greek) and 565th year with a
> single official religion Christianity.
> Would you extend Byzantium the same "homogeneity" as the Bulgarian
> empire?
>
> That Christian Bulgaria managed to survive during
> > the Byzantine occupation (near a century) and after that during
>
> If Bulgarians settles in Byzantine lands why is it "occupation" when
> the Byzantines reclaim them?
>
> > the Ottoman occupation (near four cent. and a half). The Bulgarian
> > Orthodox Exarchy completely clearly presented the borders of the
> > predominantly Bulgarian population in 1870.
>
> Completely clearly to who?
>
To all people that are with a common sense. The will of the
predominant part of the population has to be considered.
> Unfortunately after the
> > Russo-Turkish war in 1878-79, because of the fear of the Great
> > Powers from a Russian close ally in the Balkans, those
> > natural borders have been abandoned and instead of a
> > quite natural Bulgaria within those borders, it has been
> > divided into three parts - Principality of Bulgaria (vassal to
> > the Sultan), Eastern Rumelia (directly ruled by the Sultan via a
> > Bulgarian General-Governor),
>
> If Eastern Rumelia was homogeneously Bulgarian why was there an
> exchange of populations in modern times including Greeks of the
> Bulgarian Black sea region?
>
Eastern Rumelia was predominantly Bulgarian by population.
The exchanges of populations came from the parts not only
on the Black Sea coast of Eastern Rumelia, but also from
the Principality of Bulgaria. Do you know where is Anchialo???
> and Macedonia - returned to
> > the Ottomans.
>
> When you say returned to the Ottomans, well how long was it not under
> the Ottomans?
>
By the time of the occupation of the Russian troops in the
Russo-Turkish
war 1878-79.
> I agree that in the southern parts of Macedonia
> > also Greek population lived, but even in Selanik (then so
> > has been the name of Solun, or Thessaloniki), the predominant
> > part of the population has been Jewish, then Bulgarian, non-Greek.
>
> Based on which census do you base this statement?
>
Here is an information from my previous posting.
Indeed the Greeks are third in numbers in the whole kaaza:
Selanik (Solun, Thessaloniki) Kaaza - 1900
(Translated from the book of Vassil Kanchoff "Macedonia.
Etnography and Statistics",
issued in Sofia in 1900 by the Bulgarian Scientific Society
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://knigite.abv.bg/vk/index.html
The names of the towns and villages are given as in 1900. The numbers
are
compared with the Ottoman Nofuz books, and the Ottoman Salname in 1312
year by the Turkish calendar (1895 by the Christian one). Selanik Kaaza
is
divided into four Nahi - Selanik Nahi, Vardari Nahi, Urumluk Nahi and
Gelimer Nahi.
Selanik Nahi
1. Selanik (Solun, Thessaloniki) - 10,000 Bulgarians, 26,000 Turks,
16,000 Greeks,
55,000 Jews, 2,500 Gypsies, 8,500 others
2. Kirech Kyoy (Pejzanovo) - 4,200 Bulgarians
3. Ayvatovo - 1,580 Bulgarians
4. Layna (Lyginovo) - 700 Greeks
5. Arman Kyoy - 260 Bulgarians
6. Daut Bal - 250 Bulgarians
7. Ak Bunar - 70 Bulgarians
8. Lembet - 42 Bulgarians
9. Kara Usein - 71 Bulgarians
10. Novo Selo (Eni Kyoy) - 772 Bulgarians
11. Gradobor - 800 Bulgarians
12. Narysh - 200 Bulgarians
13. Saramurovo - 120 Bulgarians
14. Bugariovo - 590 Bulgarians
15. Koriten (Gyordzhe) - 370 Bulgarians
16. Pyrnar - 150 Turks
17. Rahmanli - 500 Turks
18. Doganzhievo - 28 Bulgarians, 200 Turks, 84 Gypsies
19 Verlanica (Varlandzha) - 35 Bulgarians, 560 Turks, 35 Gypsies
20. Kara Oglu (Karaglovo) - 150 Turks, 60 Gypsies
21. Ehlovo (Elhovo) - 112 Turks, 48 Gypsies
22. Kush Bali - 505 Turks, 35 Gypsies
Vardari Nahi
23. Vatilyk (Kadi Kyoy) - 600 Bulgarians
24. Dyrmica - 248 Bulgarians, 14 Gypsies
25. Topchiovo - 266 Bulgarians
26. Ingiliz - 95 Bulgarians
27. Gorno Kavakliovo - 115 Bulgarians
28. Dolno Kavakliovo - 85 Bulgarians
29. Kyjali - 348 Turks
30. Sarydzhe (Sarakovo) - 175 Turks
31. Tekelievo (Tekeli) - 240 Bulgarians, 100 Turks, 85 Gypsies
32. Dautovo (Dautche) - 250 Turks
33. Menteshli - 150 Turks
34. Yaydzhalik - 497 Turks
35. Cholheler - 187 Turks
36. Gorno Kufalovo + Sredno Kufalovo - 1325 Bulgarians, 30 Gypsies
37. Dolno Kufalovo - 480 Bulgarians, 25 Turks, 6 Gypsies
38. Arapli - 155 Bulgarians
39. Dodulari - 180 Bulgarians
40. Trikala - 215 Bulgarians
41. Konyari - 1,220 Bulgarians
42. Yuyachii - 890 Bulgarians
43. Kulikiya - 1,720 Greeks
44. Kolopantsi - 175 Bulgarians
45. Mahmudovo - 105 Bulgarians
46. Lapra - 106 Bulgarians
47. Chalykovo - 200 Bulgarians
48. Kynglich - 240 Bulgarians, 60 Gypsies
49. Kyrdzhalievo (Kyrdzhilar) - 250 Bulgarians, 35 Gypsies
Urumluk Nahi
50. Klidi - 600 Greeks, 80 Gypsies
51. Gida (Gidohor) - 410 Greeks, 60 Gypsies
52. Zorbatovo - 225 Bulgarians, 60 Gypsies
53. Plati - 210 Greeks, 48 Gypsies
54. Kalyani - 107 Greeks, 48 Gypsies
55. Chinar Furnus - 300 Greeks, 35 Gypsies
56. Lampor - 175 Greeks, 30 Gypsies
57. Neohoridi (Chatal) - 60 Greeks
58. Karba - 100 Greeks
59. Kyuchuk Furnus - 48 Greeks
60. Shkinat - 220 Greeks
61. Palihor - 370 Greeks
62. Nihor - 250 Greeks
63. Neohori - 350 Greeks
Gelimer Nahi
64. Kapudzhilar - 1,200 Greeks
65. Aksakly - 205 Turks
66. Koran Mahale +
67. Kaya Chali Mahale +
68. Sygyrli Mahale = 106 Turks
69. Sedes - 200 Bulgarians
70. Madzharlyk - 80 Greeks
71. Turhanli - 85 Turks
72. Gidikli - 80 Turks
73. Asanli - 330 Turks
74. Burnazli - 128 Turks
75. Pishona - 84 Greeks
76. Vasilika - 2,000 Greeks
77. Syurvekli Mahale - 35 Turks
78. Eni Kyoy - 121 Bulgarians
79. kasapli - 90 Turks
80. Uch Evler - 80 Turks
81. Karaba - 100 Greeks
82. Mesimer - 120 Greeks
83. Apanami - 2,300 Greks
84. Buyuk Kara Burun - 150 Greeks
85. Kyuchuk Kara Burun - 200 Greeks
86. Bahcheli - 40 Turks
87. Chayar (Chair) - 30 Greeks
88. Uzun Ali - 240 Greeks
89. Hadzhi Bali - 20 Greeks
90. Zambat - 1,000 Greeks
91. Kara Chovali - 200 turks
92. Behshishli - 180 Turks
93. Zagyrdzha - 40 Turks
94. Pyrnar - 40 Bulgarians
95. Bashsys Metoh - 17 Greeks
96. Adali - 470 Turks
97. Ortach - 1,600 Greeks
98. non - settled Gypsies - Katunars - 200 Gypsies
Altogether for Selanik Kaaza - by people:
Bulgarians - 27,164 (18%),
Turks - 31,978 (20%),
Greeks - 30,761 (20 %),
Jews - 55,000 (35%),
Gypsies - 3,553 (2%),
others - 8,500
or altogether for Selanik Kaaza - 156,950.
del...
>
> Again, Akritas deals with the time framework of the agreement.However I
> would like to comment on the fact that had the country been named
> Slavic-Macedonia which was one of the Greek proposals, the position of
> the predominantly slavic cultural identity would have been
> preserved.Any new name will have to include the Albanian cultural
> heritage of the country (since after the Ohrid agreement Albanians are
> a co-founding nation) within the "multicultural" directive it has from
> the international community. The country has gone from one founding
> nation to two in just 10 years.
>
Maybe you are right. Maybe it would be better if Slavic Macedonia, or
Slavo-Macedonia would be reached in the past. But in that
time it was impossible,
because of the political influence of the former Titoists - fathers of
the
Aleksandar-Makedonski-ancestor tale. Even nowadays, the president
Branko Crvenkovski is from that political party... And today such an
agreement is indeed impossible, because of Ohrid agreement...
But there is not need to be in a hurry in deciding the name issue.
Especially when the Greeks have such a hostile attitude. One
example - on the first voyage of the new Greek Foreign Affairs
Minister Ms Dora Bakoyani in the Southers Western Balkans -
she visited Albania, Kossovo, Serbia and Romania. She was
kindly invited to visit Skopje, but she refused... Maybe because
she is a daughter of the ill-famoused in the Republic of
Macedonia Mr Mitsotakis - the same that discussed with
Milosevic a possible future division of the Republic of
Macedonia - a fact announced by the former Macedonian
Prime Minister Mr Ljubco Georgievski.
Regards to all: Pavel
akritas
Ο/Η pavel έγραψε:
> Especially when the Greeks have such a hostile attitude. One
> example - on the first voyage of the new Greek Foreign Affairs
> Minister Ms Dora Bakoyani in the Southers Western Balkans -
> she visited Albania, Kossovo, Serbia and Romania. She was
> kindly invited to visit Skopje, but she refused... Maybe because
> she is a daughter of the ill-famoused in the Republic of
> Macedonia Mr Mitsotakis - the same that discussed with
> Milosevic a possible future division of the Republic of
> Macedonia - a fact announced by the former Macedonian
> Prime Minister Mr Ljubco Georgievski.
Pavel the Greeks are not hostile.Greece is number one investor NOW in
FYROM.Will be hostile if FYROM continue hers negative attitude.As about
Greek Minister FA avoid hers trip for that reason.Can you imagine to
have a collocutor to call Macedonian in front of her? This is political
suicide!!!
As about the Mitsotakis-Milosevic its true, is not new, had written in
many boooks at the past..Mitsotakis refused Milsovevic proposition and
after one month Serbs recoqnized this country as Macedonia!!!
Was a slap to the Greeks from the Serbs.Greeks never forgived this
Serbian political action.
akritas
Ο/Η pavel έγραψε:
> Altogether for Selanik Kaaza - by people:
> Bulgarians - 27,164 (18%),
> Turks - 31,978 (20%),
> Greeks - 30,761 (20 %),
> Jews - 55,000 (35%),
> Gypsies - 3,553 (2%),
> others - 8,500
>
>
> or altogether for Selanik Kaaza - 156,950.
Pavel if I accept the above census this these figures is contrariety
of your previous opinion
> I agree that in the southern parts of Macedonia
> also Greek population lived, but even in Selanik (then so
> has been the name of Solun, or Thessaloniki), the predominant
> part of the population has been Jewish, then Bulgarian, non-Greek.
So according YOUR SOURCE , Greeks are in the 3nd place as I said.
pavel
akritas wrote:
> Ï/Ç pavel Ýãñáøå:
Well. I agree - you have been right and I have been wrong.
That is because I have not time to check the sources.
The Ottoman Selanik was a flowerishing multi-cultural
and multi-ethnic city. Where are all those nationalities
in nowadays Thessaloniki???
pavel
akritas wrote:
> Ï/Ç pavel Ýãñáøå:
Akritas,
It was possible Ms Bakoyani to visit the Republic of Macedonia
without engaging herself in discussions about the name issue -
just to show the good will of Greece. But maybe that good will is
absent...
What about the Mitsotakis-Milosevic case, the version of the
former Prime Minister of Macedonia Mr Ljubco Georgievski is
other - different from that Greek version... According to him,
Milosevic and Mitsotakis have been close to an agreement,
but then they decided to involve in the bargain also the
Bulgarians and to offer to them a slice. That was completely
stupid, as the Bulgarian President then Dr Zhelyu Zhelev
immediately informed the government of the Republic of
Macedonia and the international community for the ongoing
negotiations. As a result some more important countries
have been very upset... and only then the Greeks decided
to withdraw from the negotiations for the dividing of the
Republic of Macedonia.
I think that the Greek version is representing only a half
of the truth about those negotiations. They indeed withdraw
from the negotiations for dividing of the Republic of
Macedonia, but because the circumstances forced them
to do so... If the political background were favourable
for that division, nobody can claim what would happen.
If the Greeks have been sincere and benevolent
then WHY in the first
place Mr Mitsotakis has began those negotiations???
Messevrinos
akritas wrote:
> د/ا pavel فمٌلّه:
=========================================
Pavel,
You started showing good will in your above message, but by your last
sentence you kicked the bucket.
Stop playing it smart!
Turks left for Turkey, as Greeks came from Turkey, according to mutual
agreement, after 1922.
Bulgarians left for Bulgaria during the exchange of populations between
Greece and Bulgaria (c.1925). My folks came from Messimvria/Nesebar,
Bulgaria.
As for the Jews, when you visit St. Peter (hope after you reach/pass 100
y.o.), ask him what Hitler did to them!
Regards to all people of good will.
Messevrinos
pavel
Messevrinos wrote:
> Pavel,
> You started showing good will in your above message, but by your last
> sentence you kicked the bucket.
> Stop playing it smart!
> Turks left for Turkey, as Greeks came from Turkey, according to mutual
> agreement, after 1922.
> Bulgarians left for Bulgaria during the exchange of populations between
> Greece and Bulgaria (c.1925). My folks came from Messimvria/Nesebar,
> Bulgaria.
> As for the Jews, when you visit St. Peter (hope after you reach/pass 100
> y.o.), ask him what Hitler did to them!
>
> Regards to all people of good will.
> Messevrinos
Dear Messevrinos,
It is well known for everybody what happened with the ethnic
minorities in
Thessaloniki. The Turks and Bulgarians have been expelled by the
will of the Greeks. In spite of that some remained, because they
have been very much fond of their native land. For the fate of the
Jews are responsible the German occupators.
I just wanted to express my opinion, the the Ottoman Selanik has
been better place than the nowadays Thessaloniki, because of
the richness of the cultural traditions of its multi-ethnic
inhabitants. Unfortunately all that has been gone. At least the
remnants of those ethnic minorities have to reach liberty for
their cultural needs.
For the beautiful Selanik in the times of the Ottomans,
please read "Pictures from the Balkans"
Fraser, John Foster (Popular ed.,
London, New York: Cassell and company, 1912)
First published 1906
at:
http://knigite.abv.bg/en/jf/index.html
Regards to all: Pavel
Messevrinos
Pavel,
It is unwise to express such views for a place you only have heard of. I
live there. I know more than what you know by reading your fond propaganda.
Could I call it Slav jealousy?
BTW, Thessaloniki is a beautiful city, multicultural and keeps getting
better. All of us know that memories of the old days are more vivid,
idealistic and some prefer to have the world remain as it was 50-100 years
ago. But everything changes ("ta panta rhei").
Messevrinos