#4
++
the writer of the book, Αst. Koukoudis
But if we then investigate which Vlach villages and settlements
were liberated and incorporated into Greece at that time, we find that
not only the majority of the Vlach people, but all the ancestral Vlach
villages (apart from the decadent Moschopolis (Voskopojë) and a few
other exceptions, such as Gopeš and Malovište) now became an integral
part of Greece. On the slopes of the Pindos alone, from Grammousta to
Pertouli, there are still eighty or so Vlach villages, despite the
far-reaching impact of the twentieth century. But the demographic
presence of the Vlachs on Greek territory isn't confined to a few remote
highland areas. Varying concentrations of Vlach groups, great and small,
are to be found from Xanthi in Thrace to the island of Corfu and from
the mouth of the Aheloös to the mouth of the Sperhios. In contrast to
the picture of Vlach demographics in the other Balkan countries, in
Greece a host of more recent Vlach communities in the plains and in the
urban economic and administrative centres co-exist with the numerous
mediaeval highland ancestral homes of all the Vlachs.
It's a fact that a number of historians and students of the Vlachs
have ignored the historical background out of which the modern Greek
nation emerged. Since they ignored or overlooked the Roman and Byzantine
periods, it's no wonder that they disregarded the Vlachs too. And it was
only to be expected that a variety of self-appointed saviours and
patrons should seek to claim the Vlachs out of this limbo. But in the
end, despite indifference and often rejection, the Vlachs have emerged
by their own efforts as a valuable component of modern Greek history and
the modern Greek identity. The history of the Vlach populations is an
inseparable part of the modern Greek experience and at the same time an
important chapter in Balkan history. Without a doubt, the Vlachs are one
of the fundamental vehicles of the Balkan dimension of modern Greece, a
dimension which is sometimes disregarded and sometimes extolled. But
when Vlach-related issues come to be regarded as taboo, then the most
serious risk is that the Vlachs will start to feel alienated from their
own space and their own homeland. Yet this sense of alienation conflicts
with their collective memory, which has always identified them with
Romiosyni. The Vlachs' journey from the Ottoman millet-i-rüm to the
re-establishment of the Greek nation was essentially no different from
that of other groups, whether Greek-speaking or not, who in the same
period (19th-20th century) found themselves taking part in the
nation-building ferment and changes which helped to shape the modern
Greek identity. This book makes it clear that, although there have
always been Vlachs in the other Balkan countries, the osmotic processes
that have taken place in the Balkans in the past few centuries mean that
they are now a manifestly (modern) Greek ethno-cultural or
ethno-linguistic entity.
Apart from conclusions about the evolution of the Vlach populations
and their villages and settlements, it's also worth mentioning some
conclusions relating to the phenomenon of Romanian propaganda. First and
foremost, it must be undertsood that the Romanian propaganda is a very
recent, imported development in the history of the Vlachs. Furthermore,
it was never an independent movement of the Vlachs', but was born and
developed in a context of Romanian nationalism. It made its hesitant
dèbut in around 1860 and didn't really start to gain ground until the
first decade of the twentieth century, during the most critical period
for the fate of the Ottoman provinces in the Balkans. Many of the
studies that have dealt with the phenomenon have ignored its social and
economic aspects. Those who supported this Romanian movement were
usually less economically and, often, culturally advanced than most of
the Vlachs who remained loyal to the millet-i-rüm. Like the other
propaganda movements of the rest of the Balkan, and also European,
countries, the Romanian propaganda was based on money and promises, and
it seized its opportunities wherever it could among the less privileged
Vlachs.
If we trace the creation, the rise, and the consolidation of the
Romanian movement in the Balkans, we see that it was especially
fortunate in the case of Avdella. Many of the pioneers of the movement,
such as Averkios the monk and Apostolos Margaritis (Apostol Margarit),
hailed from Avdella, and so the propaganda met with strong support in
that Vlach village as early as 1860. Via family relations, which were a
very important factor in the relations among the nomadic and transhumant
Vlach clans in those days, the propaganda was able to spread to
Avdella's colonies on Vermio, in Klissoura, and also in Eastern
Macedonia, where the movement was able to gain a foothold only in Ano
Poroia, through a group of poor nomadic and transhumant stockbreeders
who hailed originally from Avdella. The propaganda exploited the social
system of the tselingato and tried to win over the more prominent
tselingades and thus to impose itself on the dependent and independent
shepherds. And so it was that the Arvanitovlach clans in Central
Macedonia, and in the Korçë area too, followed the lead of some of the
chief tselingades and found themselves supporting the propaganda -
though the case of Ano Vermio testifies to the resistance of even the
least privileged and least cultured Arvanitovlachs.
In the 'urban' Vlach societies based on commerce and craft-trades,
the Romanian movement found opportunities for support from Vlach
immigrants in Romania and individuals and groups that were in political,
social, or economic conflict with the local leaders and proponents of
Greek views. In some cases, the agents of the Romanian aspirations were
actually described as 'economic or social wrecks', though with
considerable ambition and drive, which was boosted by the Romanian
propaganda. The propaganda very often exploited local disputes, social
or economic strife, and even family quarrels, the most typical case
being its exploitation of the economic, social, and political conflict
between the Vlachs and the Greki of Veria. It supported and was backed
by people who wanted to protect or expand their own interests. They were
frequently people with a talent for politics, whose personal ambitions
found an outlet and hopeful prospects in the propaganda's aims.
Furthermore, personal or collective gain was often a strong motivating
force behind the choices that were made, and this applied not only to
the Vlachs, nor yet only in the period under discussion.
Of course, the choices made at that time were profoundly influenced
by the pressure applied and the tactics employed by the various Greek,
Bulgarian, and Romanising partisan groups, as also by the
divide-and-rule strategy of the Ottoman authorities. Particularly among
the economically and culturally 'weaker' Moglenite Vlachs, the abundant
Romanian cash and the close collaboration between the Romanian
propaganda and the Bulgarian komitadjis were the two factors that
determined the success of the propaganda in Moglena; though it's true
that it met with strong resistance even there. Certainly, the prolonged
confrontations and the bloody strife of this period (1900-10)
intensified the fanaticism of all the factions. In most cases, however,
whether they were wealthy merchants and craftsmen or poor stockbreeders
and farmers, the Vlachs were longing for some way of at least defusing
the situation.
Even after a millet-i-ullah (a Vlach (not 'Romanian')
administrative division), was recognised in 1905, the Vlachs didn't
hasten to make the most of the opportunity the Ottoman authorities had
offered them, as the Bulgarians had exploited similar opportunities in
the past. This was because most of the leaders of the local Vlach
communities traditionally embraced the 'Hellenic idea' and identified
their own progress with that of the still tiny Greece. Romanian
propaganda failed to gain a foothold among the Vlachs of Eastern
Macedonia, for instance, whether settled or nomadic, the reason being
that the local communities all recognised the Vlachs as fundamentally
modern Greeks. The movement failed likewise in the Vlach villages on
Olympos, where neither the notables nor the ordinary folk felt
themselves to be any different from the Greki in terms of their modern
Greek identity. Particularly in the areas of the Pindos (Aspropotamos,
Metsovo, Vlahodzoumerko, Vlahozagoro, Konitsa, Grevena, Grammos),
Olympos, and Askio, the identical modern history of the Greki and the
Vlachs, their joint participation in the armatoliks, the Greek War of
Independence in 1821 and later rebellions (1854, 1878), the Vlachs'
prominent role in the local economy and culture, their shared evolution,
and their shared political sentiments meant that the propaganda fell on
stony ground indeed. There's no clearer illustration of this
identification than the fate of the village of Koutsoufliani after the
Greek-Turkish War of 1897, when the inhabitants elected to burn their
houses down and cross over into Greek territory.
The Vlachs and the Greki may be two separate linguistic groups, but
the rest of their cultural differences, at least in the areas where
they've been in constant contact for centuries, have probably never been
of great significance, indeed have been a negligible factor in their
cohabitation and their shared history. When all's said and done, the
Vlachs' assimilation in the Greek areas has been more linguistic than
collectively cultural. The existence of the Arvanitovlachs seems to
confirm a similar but lesser degree of diffusion between the Vlachs and
the Arvanites. By contrast, in areas where Vlach population groups have
found themselves among Slavs, they seem to have resisted assimilation
more strongly - though certain aspects of the cultural identity of the
Moglenite Vlachs seem to indicate an earlier process of osmosis between
this small and distinctive Vlach-speaking group and its
Slavonic-speaking neighbours.
Certainly, for groups like the Vlachs, linguistic assimilation may
herald their extinction. Yet the Vlachs themselves have played a part in
the loss of their language, wherever they were. Modernism has been a
much greater enemy of linguistic survival than the attitude and policies
of the authorities. The language and a stronger sense of Vlach identity
have continued to survive in groups, societies, and communities with a
lower economic and social status, such as among the pastoral nomads and
their descendants, than among the Vlachs living in more urbanised and
prosperous villages and groups. The amazing thing about the language is
that it still survives today in areas and villages with a stable and
collective 'Grecoman' outlook, contrary, perhaps, to what one might
expect. Wherever Vlach descent hasn't been frowned upon but has come to
carry a certain kudos among Vlachs and non-Vlachs alike, the language
too hasn't been frowned upon and has been able to survive much better.
This probably confirms the view that the confrontations were one of the
basic reasons why the language died out in areas and villages where the
Vlachs were divided into warring factions. By the same token, the
language failed to survive better, nor was the Vlach identity greatly
advanced, in groups, societies, and communities where the Romanian
movement cultivated supporters until the end of the Second World War.
After 1912-13, the fixing of the borders between the various Balkan
countries weakened the Vlachs' mercantile spirit and hindered the
seasonal movements of some transhumant groups. The abolition of the
çiftlik system foreshadowed the fate of the tselingato. Stockbreeding
ceased to be the main source of wealth for a large proportion of the
Vlach population. Political developments after 1912-13 seem to have
exacerbated the economic problems and caused a certain initial
confusion, among the 'Grecoman' Vlachs at least, because the official
state's recognition of a 'Koutsovlach minority' seemed to vindicate the
Romanian propaganda. The diplomats and politicians who drew up the
Treaty of Bucharest were more or less indifferent to the Vlachs' history
and the stated inclination of the vast majority of them, preferring to
sacrifice them in order to safeguard crucial national interests and
territorial and economic exchanges. So it's not over-melodramatic to say
that, in 1913, the Vlachs found themselves playing the tragic role of
Iphigenia. But it wasn't long before tragedy was joined by antiphrasis
and oxymoron, as the Vlachs were collectively stigmatised for choices
and actions not entirely their own. The essentially Romanian, not Vlach,
communities continued to operate in Greece until the end of the Axis
Occupation and the Second World War. They weren't so active in Albania
and Bulgaria; and in Yugoslavia, despite the agreements, they ceased to
exist after 1918. The exodus of Vlachs from Greece to Romania in the
interwar period gathered pace only among the transhumant communities of
Central and, to an extent, Eastern Macedonia, as also among the
poverty-stricken Vlachs of Moglena. This wave of emigration was more a
consequence of the restructuring of the economy after the arrival of the
refugees from the Asia Minor Disaster, and was a localised phenomenon,
counterbalanced by a mass influx into Greece of Vlach refugees from
Albania, Serbia, and Bulgaria from 1912 onwards. Furthermore, those who
left for Romania between the wars didn't necessarily support the
propaganda. Most were desperate people ruined by problems that had been
going on for decades. The exodus to Romania was localised and limited,
because we know that the transhumant Vlachs of other areas, such as the
Pindos, Olympos, and Askio, didn't follow it, for their economy doesn't
seem to have been so badly affected. Furthermore, they had the foresight
to carefully examine the proposals for emigration to the then
inhospitable steppes of Dobrudja. The Vlachs from the more commercial
and industrial villages and settlements were even more indifferent to
these mass exoduses. The truly mass departure of the Grammoustian Vlachs
from Bulgaria to Romania in this period seems to have resulted from the
two countries' disagreement over the territory of Southern Dobrudja.
Another serious factor was that the Greek-Bulgarian border ran between
their highland hut settlements and their traditional winter grazing grounds.
At this point, I should like to make some more general points.
Ordinary Vlachs today regard their Vlach identity as a matter of
ancestry, not national or ethnic vindication. Among the older ones,
you'll rarely meet anyone who doesn't regret the loss of the language
among the younger generation, and its apparently doomed path to
extinction. The vast majority of the Vlachs are proud of their ancestry,
whatever it may be, or whatever they believe it to be. But this pride
doesn't spring from a sense of national or ethnic difference; it's a
result of the position they held in past times, when the Vlachs, their
villages, and their communities enjoyed a high social and economic
status in the Balkans. Furthermore, their collective memory has retained
the traumatic feeling that their contribution to Greek history hasn't
been fully appreciated, and this has strengthened their traditional
pride even more. Any 'militant views' are expressed monopolistically by
'irredentist' circles abroad who lost touch with the Vlachs' real
position in Greek society decades ago. However much they may 'love' and
'care about' the Vlachs, they surely cannot know better than the Vlachs
themselves the position they hold in, and the contribution they've made
to, Greece's evolutionary processes. Even so, the most unfair and
unrealistic attitude towards, and treatment of, the Vlachs comes not
from these weak and declining circles abroad, but from the wariness, the
frequently negative attitude, and the often tragic ignorance of Greek
policy-makers, whether of Vlach or non-Vlach origin. As long as the
international community regards the 'irredentists' abroad as the only
source of information about Vlach-related issues, any problems that
exist will be perpetuated. The state is no less responsible for the
current role of these 'irredentist circles', and ignorance doesn't
justify its attitude, especially in the eyes of the simple, ordinary
Vlachs. For simple people, simple things might be enough.
The Europeans who take an interest in the Vlachs, like those who
did so in the past, are no less responsible for some of their problems.
Their attitude at the beginning of the twentieth century, together with
the complexities of the various axes they had to grind, exacerbated the
difficulties which the Vlachs, like the rest of the Balkan peoples, were
struggling with. The Europeans weren't innocent of the destruction that
was visited upon a large number of Vlach villages and settlements during
the First World War. In quite a number of the villages, the Bulgarian
forces actually took the opportunity to launch systematic and
indiscriminate pogroms against both the Vlach and the Grek inhabitants.
During the three Bulgarian occupations of Eastern Macedonia (1912-13,
1915-18, 1940-4), the Grek and Vlach populations underwent the same
tragic experiences; and the fate of the Vlachs of Pelagonia during the
First World War was no less dire.1 One of the most significant
indications of the fundamental belief that the Vlachs were Greeks was
the destruction of more than fifty flourishing Vlach villages during the
Axis Occupation. In late 1943 in particular, but also throughout 1944,
the German occupation forces partially or totally ruined Vlach villages
from Mount Païko to Pogoni, Zagori, Aspropotamos, and Mount Olympos.
Very few escaped unscathed. The Vlachs who lost their lives in these
mopping-up operations and other events were certainly far more numerous
than the Vlach collaborators and traitors. In the final analysis, the
German, Bulgarian, and Italian occupation forces treated the Vlachs no
differently from the rest of the Greeks, since they obviously regarded
them as all Greeks together. The Germans in particular, who had made
racial discrimination the cornerstone of their policy, couldn't have
failed to know who the inhabitants of the villages they destroyed were.2
So the superficial concern with the activities of the notorious 'Legion'
would seem to be dubiously motivated, especially if one bears in mind
that the Vlachs were at the same time taking part in the various
National Resistance groups, often in prominent positions.
My entire research has shown that various manifestations of
nationalism and propaganda have left bitter echoes in the collective
memory of the Vlachs. Given that the truth about the Vlachs and
Vlach-related issues has been more or less systematically distorted by
all those involved, it's easy to understand why the Vlachs' traditional
reticence has increased, as also why most of them are suspicious of
anyone claiming to be interested in them. In conclusion, it must be
stressed that the Vlach Greeks, like their relations beyond the Greek
borders, desire peace, prosperity, and progress more than anything else,
and are entitled at the very least to our interest, understanding, and
affection.
Asterios I. Koukoudis
Thessaloniki, December 1997
[1] The Vlach villages and settlements destroyed during the fighting
along the Macedonian Front were: Moschopolis (Voskopojë), Gorna Belica,
Dolna Belica, Istok, Resen, Gopeš, Malovište, Magarevo, Trnovo,
Nižepole, Bitola (partially), Kalyvia Papadias, Notia, Arhangelos,
Periklia, Lagadia, Megala Livadia, Mikra Livadia, Koupa, Skra, Houma,
Ano Poroia, Fillyria, Ramna, Iraklia, and Serres.
[2] Some of the Vlach villages destroyed during the Occupation were:
Megala Livadia, Mikra Livadia, Skra, Ano Vermio, Xirolivado,
Vlaholivado, Kokkinoplos, Fteri, Klissoura, Vlasti, Samarina, Smixi,
Avdella, Perivoli, Krania (Grevena prefecture), Fourka, Palioseli,
Pades, Armata, Distrato, Vryssohori, Iliohori, Laïsta, Vovoussa,
Elatohori, Greveniti, Milia near Metsovo, Kefalovrysso in Pogoni,
Platanistos, Panayia, Kastania in Aspropotamos, Amarando, Doliana,
Krania in Aspropotamos, Paliohori, Polythea, Haliki, Anthoussa,
Katafyto, Kalliroi, Gardiki, Athamania, Ayios Nikolaos, Dessi,
Neraïdohori, Drossohori, Pyrra, Pertouli, Klinos, Hryssomilia, and Aïdona.
June R Harton
"++" <sp...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3DFA4BCA...@erols.com...
Here, Gail
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yannis the Macedonian" <mak...@vip.gr>
Newsgroups:
alt.culture.fyrom,alt.culture.macedonia-is-greek,alt.languages.macedonian,al
t.news.fyrom,alt.news.macedonia,
alt.religion.christian.greek-orthodox
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:49 PM
From the same web-site:
" The Vlachs always had clear names for the other inhabitants of the
Balkans.
In accordance with the same political perception based on experience, they
referred to all the Balkan Moslems as 'Turks'; though they did distinguish
certain non-Turkish-speaking groups among the Moslems, such as the
Albanian-speaking Tourkalvani or Arnauts, the Slavonic-speaking Pomaks and
Karagovalis, the Greek-speaking Valaades, and the Moslem Vlach-speaking
inhabitants of Notia in Moglena. Regarding their Slavonic-speaking Orthodox
Christian neighbours, they recognised the existence of Bulgarians and Serbs,
but also that of the Slavonic-speaking 'Grecomans'. The Vlach inhabitants of
Krusevo in Fyrom still use the term Virgari (Bulgarians) of their fellow
townsfolk who are descended from Slavonic-speaking families. The Vlachs call
the Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians Arbinesi, and it was under this
name
that the ancestors of the modern Albanians first appeared in the Middle
Ages.
"
And
" I shall never forget what I heard from the simple people who gave the
wisest, clearest answers to my questions, drawn from their own profound
experience. Barba-Kostas Ziogas in Perithori near Kato Nevrokopi was one,
and
he told me: 'Look, lad, the Greki aren't more Greek than we are. We may be
Vlachs, they may be Greki, but all together we make up the Greeks.' "
Thanks Stergio Koukoudis !!
Yannis
Macedonia, Greece
:)
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!