SLAVKO MANGOVSKI ZA MAKEDONSKO SONCE: ZAJDISONCE NA ALBANSKIOT IREDENTIZAM?
falanga
Gledano odnadvor
MAKEDONSKA LEGENDA
Pi{uva: Slavko MANGOVSKI
Minatata nedela imav ~est da prisustvuvam na eden ta`en ~as po
istorija. Temata na istorijata be{e na{ata napatena i mila
Makedonija preku `ivotot na eden patriot, akter vo makedonskiot
teatar, film i televizija. ^ovek {to odbele`al edna epoha, patriot
so koj sekoj Makedonec mo`e i treba da se gordee, umetnik koj ja
poka`uva goleminata na na{ata kultura. Toa e Risto [i{kov. Roden
vo Egejska Makedonija ovoj prekrasen patriot nikoga{ ne zaboravil
deka Makedonija ne zavr{uva kaj Gevgelija. Negova bolka za
raspar~enata zemja go natera javno da go krene glasot na svojot gnev i
za toa zavr{i vo zatvor. U{te polo{o, negovoto delo be{e zabraneto i
skrieno od makedonskata javnost. Minatata nedela grevot, kon ovoj
golem sin na Makedonija be{e delumno popraven. Posvetuvaj}i mu go
ovoj broj od spisanieto i nie se priklu~uvame i se poklonuvame pred
negovata legenda. (Pove}e na str.42)
STRANSKITE SLU@BI
Slu{ame od odgovornite vo Ministerstvoto za vnatre{ni raboti i od
Parlamentarnata komisija za bezbednost deka Makedonija ni e polna
so stranski tajni slu`bi, koi ete, deluvaat nepre~eno. Tie, a posebno
onie od severniot sosed, deluvaat i gi organiziraat raznite
kriminalni i teroristi~ki akti za koi site ~itame, gledame i
slu{ame od mediumite. Pra{aweto, koe avtomatski bi se postavilo vo
slu~ajov e {to toga{ rabotat vo MVR i zo{to ovie slu`bi ne se
spre~uvaat koga ve}e znaeme deka se tuka? Zarem Makedonija e lozje
bez ~uvar?
STAPOT I MORKOVOT
Vo svetot vladee politikata na stapot i na morkovot, ili so drugi
zborovi zakanite i vetuvawata. Toa e politikata, koja za `al, na{ite
na vlast izgleda ne ja razbrale, kako {to ne razbrale serija drugi
raboti. Vakvata politika e rezervirana za vladi, koi gi zastapuvaat i
gi razbiraat svoite nacionalni interesi i znaat kako da gi iskoristat
stapot i morkovot za svoi celi. Ponekoga{ vo nacionalni interesi se
stavaat i raboti koi mo`ebi ne se, no mo`at da poslu`at kako
predmet za pregovori. Vladite vo svetot obi~no ne se popustlivi, ili
se pravat deka ne se, pa zatoa e izmislen principot na stapot i na
morkovot. Lu|eto od na{ata Vlada, za `al, od ovoj kako i od minatiot
re`im ne se poznati kako partneri sposobni da se nosat vo
pregovorite so svetot. Pri~inite delumno le`at vo nepoznavaweto,
ili nepostoeweto na konsenzus za toa, koi se nacionalnite interesi, a
rezultatite se pove}e od o~igledni: sosednite zemji, koi mnogu
pomalku pretrpea od kosovskiot konflikt dobija i prodol`uvaat da
dobivaat, mnogu pove}e i finansiski i politi~ki od nas. Ako sakame
ne{to pove}e od stapot }e morame za toa da se potrudime.
ZAJDISONCE NA ALBANSKIOT IREDENTIZAM?
Izgleda deka NATO i SAD najposle po~naa da se budat i da razbiraat
{to se slu~uva vo Kosovo. Ili poto~no, po~naa da razbiraat deka s#
ona {to im se ka`uva{e od nivnite tajni slu`bi i od subjektite, koi
navistina ja poznavaa situacijata na Balkanot e navistina taka.
Posledicite od ova namerno ili nenamerno nerazbirawe se ogromni.
Balkanot e potencijalno destabiliziran do nedogledno vreme.
Istoriskite okolnosti i glavnite organizatori za ovaa beskrajna
katastrofa se o~igledni: sposobno (i bogato) albansko lobi i naivno
(nesposobno?) amerikansko rakovodstvo. Za `al, vo ovaa nesre}na
situacija sme zame{ani i nie. Iako, albanskoto malcinstvo tuka
otsekoga{ gi u`ivalo site prava i otsekoga{ u~estvuvalo vo vlasta
(sega pove}e od koga bilo) sepak vo svetot postoi percepcija deka
Albancite vo Makedonija se diskriminirani i represirani i spored
toa imaat pravo da mislat na separatizam. Ovoj fakt kolku {to
zboruva za neverojatnata sposobnost na albanskoto lobi da ja
manipulira svetskata javnost u{te pove}e zboruva i za na{ata mnogu
opasna nesposobnost da gi poka`eme vistinskite sostojbi. Vo
Makedonija, malcinstvata u`ivaat pove}e prava od kade bilo vo
svetot, no problemot e deka samo nie Makedoncite go znaeme toa i toa
o~igledno ne e dovolno. Ili }e nau~ime kako toa da mu go prika`eme
na svetot ili }e morame da se nadevame deka svetot }e razbere deka e
manipuliran od bogati lobisti. A, se znae deka Gospod mu pomaga na
onie, koi si pomagaat samite sebesi.
TOTALEN PORAZ NA DOGOVOROT NA PRO^KA
Skoro da nema organizacija, partija ili institucija vo Makedonija koja
ne go izrazi svojot gnev ili negoduvawe po povod zabranata na OMO
"Ilinden" PIRIN, politi~kata partija na Makedoncite vo Bugarija.
Denovive kon protestot se priklu~i i Makedonskata akademija na
naukite i umetnostite (MANU), koja bara{e od dr`avata "re{avaweto
na malcinskoto pra{awe da se krene na nivo na prv prioritet vo
ramkite na Paktot za stabilnost i asocijacija" i ja oceni zabranata
kako napad vrz makedonskiot identitet. Toa pretstavuva i svoevidna
{lakanica na rakovodstvoto na Republika Makedonija, koe go potpi{a
Dogovorot od Pro~ka so koj si go odzemame pravoto da se interesirame
za pravata na Makedoncite vo Bugarija. Edinstvena, koja ima{e polza
od toj dogovor e bugarskata dr`ava, koja mo`e{e da & prika`e na
Evropa deka nema malcinski problemi so sosedite i spored toa se
kvalifikuva za priem vo Unijata. [tetata za nas, od drugata strana, e
neprocenliva. Me|u posledicite sekako najlo{o e deka ovaa Vlada
poka`a deka e podgotvena da pregovara i da se otka`uva od na{ite
malcinstva i toa e znak za na{ite sosedi kako da se odnesuvaat kon
nas. Da ne zboruvame za toa deka spored Ustavot, ovoj dogovor e
ilegalen, bidej}i gi kr{i odredbite koi obvrzuvaat za za{tite na
na{ite malcinstva vo sosednite zemji. Republika Makedonija e i
treba da bide, mati~na zemja na site Makedonci vo svetot. Dogovorot
na Pro~ka go negira toa i krajno vreme e Ustavniot sud da se
pozanimava so ovoj problem.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
June R Harton
falanga wrote
> http://www.makedonskosonce.com/
> Gledano odnadvor
> MAKEDONSKA LEGENDA
> Pi{uva: Slavko MANGOVSKI
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And do you all know who that piece of filth is?
And how ignorant and stupid he is?
First let me point out that his heritage is West Bulgarian from
his father and East Bulgarian (Bulgaria) from his mother
and that he insults her with his every breathe; then let me
enlighten any who have thought that Slavko has any semblance
of sanity by showing you the following post where I had to
address his filthy self to prevent others being mislead by
the lies from his insane mouth:
----- Original Message -----
From: June R Harton
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 3:24 AM
Subject: Part 2 - Comrade Slavko's Response/pigs
A wise man once said "Never wrestle with pigs,
they enjoy it and you get dirty")
I don't take to lamely following wise men when
a job needs to be done, but I must say with Slavko,
it can get _very_ dirty.)
O.K., now let us look closely at each of his replies
considering PROPAGANDA and REVISIONISM.
Slavko Mangovski wrote
> June R Harton
> Slavko Mangovski wrote
> >>>Politis (1993:40-42) cites fourteen examples from the Greek
>literature
> >>> of the 1794-1841 period in which the ancient Macedonians are not
> >>>considered to be part of the ancient Greek world.
> >Can you detail all or any of the fourteen so - called examples
> >for all of us to see?
> What's the problem? You don't trust the Journal of Modern Greek
> Studies?
> Wanna know what Capodistrias thought about Macedonia? Wanna
> know who Melas called "Macedonian speaking Macedonians?"
What do we observe here?
Instead of answering the Q., he throws out other random propaganda
in an effort to distract us from clarifying the original items discussed,
where we would have seen his perversion of, or the perversion in, that
material itself .
So, we have his original propaganda effort being masked by a second
propaganda effort.
Also, in a premeditated revisionist manner he uses the communist - type
technique of taking a word in this case 'Macedonian', and changing
it's original meaning (e.g 'Democratic' = 'Totalitarian' in Soviet Russia ),
so that now instead of 'Macedonian' having the definition of an
ancient Macedonian Greek, or it's modern meaning of a general
person from a geographical area called Macedonia, it becomes
the name of a Slav language speaking people!
This makes evident a tampering with 'time' - a leaving out of
TWO THOUSAND and FIFTY years of history at the 'swing of his pen'!
> >>Of course the 'ancient Greek world' was from Thessaly and South.
> >>Are you saying Macedonia wasn't part of the 'ancient Greek world?'
> >What I said was :"Of course the 'ancient Greek world' was from
> >Thessaly and South.
> >>So you exclude Macedonia from the ancient Greek world.
> >You deliberately mislead people! Macedonia
> >and Hellenistic times were in mainstream history later."
> Which mainstream, babe? The Roman one?
O.K. So you see him here continuing in the same vein.
Besides his chauvinistic style, you see here both his propaganda
and revisionism in his three words 'The Roman one?'
He, here, ( let's be a little graphic ), 'spits in the face' of
all the hundreds and thousands of scholars and learned
people of the past, who spent thousands upon thouands
of hours studying the ancient world, who could read the
actual latin and greek works themselves, and who
determined that the time flow of history and culture of
Western Civilization went through the cycle of 'Hellenic',
then 'Hellenistic', and then followed by 'Greco - Roman'.
Again the time omission is evident where we see about
THREE HUNDRED years obliterated from history in his
statement. The original concept being discussed has been
entirely hidden from view, and his earlier revisionism and
propaganda, related to whether Macedonia was part of
the ancient Greek world or not, has been buried from
sight so that his distortions are prevented from being
corrected.
> >>>You deliberately mislead people!
> >>How? By telling what scientific journals say about the "greekness" of
> >>Macedonia?
> >No by implying that what you are writing is scientific fact not just
> >the authors opinion, and by citing only one side of what that author
> >said. When you posted the address for the article it allowed any
> >intelligent person to see how you were misrepresenting it selectively.
> What is selective in the statement saying Greeks didn't consider the
> Macedonians Greek up to the second half of the 19th C?
Here we see Slavko using typical propaganda and ignoring the fact
that he had misrepresented the article as fact not opinion, and
misrepresented what was in the article.
We, of course, also notice that the entire generality of 'didn't consider
the Macedonians Greek' doesn't identify 'which Greeks' he claims
didn't, or at 'what time period' his claim is related to, in order for his
false claim to not be exposed as a lie, in order to give persistance
to his revisionism.
> >>> Macedonia and Hellenistic times were
> >>>in mainstream history later. Stop misleading people.
> >>Roman history, you mean?
> >Go back and reread the Livy quotes I posted.
> No, you go and reread them, again and again until you
> understand them.
At this point we have to actually question the intelligence
of this Slavko. Slavko says ''the Greeks didn't consider
the Macedonians Greek up to the second half of the _19th C''_.
Supposing, Ladies and Gentlemen, that we didn't know
that the Macedonians were Greek, and/or we had never read
Herodotus related to the origins of the Macedonian royal
house and the Macedonian people, or we had only read
Badian's _misinterpretion_ of what is in Herodotos work and
we had not read Hammond to see that Badian's work
was, correctly, found by him to be flawed (more on this later),
and _all_ we knew was that the Aetolians and the Acarnanians
were Greek peoples. What would the Livy quote tell us?
Let us look again at the Livy quote:
The Macedonian delegate said
'The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, are
divided or united by unimportant causes that arise from time
to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks are and
will be for ever at war; for they are enemies not for
reasons which change from day to day, but by nature -
and nature is eternal. But now my speech will end .........'
Exactly! The Macedonians were unquestionably
stating that they were Greek!
Now, if in addition, we look at the fact that the
Macedonians were emphasizing that _they_ were Greek
and that the Romans _weren't_, and there was _no _ statement
denying that the Macedonians were Greek from the
Athenians, the Romans, nor the Aetolians, only the statement
(paraphrasing): "With the _destruction_ you have done you
are more barbaric than anyone else, and we hate you!",
--with that _no denying_ that the Macedonians were Greeks,
what would this mean Ladies and Gentlemen?
Exactly! They were also _regarded_ as Greeks!
As Slavko had said "Greeks didn't consider the
Macedonians Greek up to the second half of the 19th C",
you see why I questioned Slavko's intelligence
here just before. ...... Or perhaps, Ladies and Gentlemen,
he questions _your_intelligence! Maybe he is just
using another communist - type tool -- the one where
you _repeat_ something long enough with the intention
that even though it is a complete absurd lie, that people
will begin to believe it,'There must be some truth in it
if he keeps saying it'. We discussed just this particular
propaganda tool yesterday, when we looked at the
operations of Slavko's son (Nicholov) and that
abomination pseudo - 'makedon', -- we saw how this
was _their_ favorite tool too.
But are we that stupid Ladies and Gentlemen?
Haven't we had enough experience with the communists
not to be taken in by those operating on that trite chauvinistic
assumption that the world is full of unintelligent people to be
manhandled by these reprobates at will?!
> >These quotes do several things, first, the first quote says to the
> >academic world that in 200 B.C. that they, the Macedonians themselves,
> >say words which mean that they, the Macedonians, are Greek 'by
> >eternal nature', which says they are saying that they have always been
> >Greek
> >and are Greeks. (And, by the way, it was stated as an unquestionable
> >fact and received by those present as an unquestionable fact.)
> It doesn't say Macedonians are Greek. Let me quote you from the
> book "Macedonia:4000 years of Greek history."
O.K. Here we see his first sentence above saying the total opposite
of that which we have seen for ourselves to be true. We have seen
how the Macedonians stated in an unquestionable way that they
were Greek, _and_ that they were also perceived to be just that
by their peers.
So, what does Slavko do? He again throws something else at you
to distract you onto something else! This time onto the geographic
territory of Macedonia! 'Don't look at the quote', he is telling you!
His sleight of hand is a wonder to perceive!
(Be very careful not to peek or you may see Slavko without any
clothes on!)
He goes on to say:
>Various ancient Greek geographers and historians in the classical and
>post-classical periods, such as Ephoros, Pseudo-Skylax, Dionysios son of
>Kalliphon and Dionysios Periegetes, put the northern border of Greece at
>the line from the Ambrakian Gulf to the Peneios, therefore excluding
>Macedonia.
So he gives us this quote! So?, you might ask. Me too. But let's
pretend he means it. Perhaps, he, not being Greek or
a scholar or an adequately educated person, and being nothing
but a propagandist and revisionist, does not know that 'Hellas'
more or less approximated those areas that were prominent
in Mycenaean Greek times.
Where has this Slavko been all his life?!!! DUH ???! Or perhaps
he thinks _you_ don't know, so he is just presenting something
that no - one had any problem with understanding before, as a
problem, just to confuse and mislead you further.
Whatever, as we know, 'Hellas' to Alexander included Macedonia.
And 'Hellas' had a more limited area location than the whole
Mycenaean area at first. So, 'Hellas' has been variously described.
And let us not forget what our dear Doctor Anastassios told
you last month:
"It is indeed true that the Hellas was defined in the
ancient world as the land as far north as Thessaly.
However, this area excluded Ionia and the whole
coast of Asia Minor that was inhabited by Greeks,
southern Italy and Sicily, Cyprus and, of course,
Macedonia and Epirus. Therefore, because Hellas
was defined in these limited terms, it hardly means
that this was the end of the Hellenic world."
So, what did Slavko achieve by implying that this was
a problem with relation to identifying the Macedonians
as Greeks ? He accomplished his sole aim, to
mislead, deceive and push onto you his revisionist
agenda.
> >The second quote shows the Macedonian People again, these
> >so-called (by the Fyrom'ers) 'Hellas-conquering Macedonians',
> >ten leading citizens from each city - from the city of
> >Pelagonia (Heraklea near modern day Bitola) to the Peneus,
> >from Edessa to Amphipolis - are being communicated to by the Romans-
> >and the Romans in order to communicate to this 'crowd of Macedonians'
> >in the Macedonians' own homeland translate their Latin into Greek
> >not some non-existant ficticious 'Macedonian'.
> Macedonian wasn't a written language and all paoples in the
> Mediteranean
> world used Greek as we today use English.
Oh look at this one! A gem!
">Macedonian wasn't a written language"!
Here at one fell swoop Slavko has formed the existance of
a non - existant people who speak a non - existant language
but couldn't write it! So here we have a revisionist concept
being thrust down the unwary's throat in such a manner that
you have to snatch at it before it pierces your reality and
you fall into his _trap_ with,'What!', you say,'They didn't write!
Oh that's why no - one knew anything about this before!'
(Not even Slavko of course, though, as his revisionist
concept is a _complete_ fabrication!).
The non - existant, non - existant entity that one now, by Slavko 's
revisionism, one has to prove is non - existant! Oh a delight!
The abomination, Slavko, just used another total communist - type
trick of stating the existance of a non - existance which was
designed to blank out all your knowledge of the subject and thus
promote his revisionist agenda!
In relation to Slavko's:
>and all paoples in the Mediteranean
>world used Greek as we today use English.
Let us also recall what Anastassios went on to tell you :
(Regarding the claim) " that the Macedonians did
speak Greek throughout this period but they were
"Macedonians" through and through. This is not true.
Actually, from Antigonos Gonatas onwards, the
Macedonian state did change its description vis-a-vis
the Amphictyonic council and the Delphi oracle to
conform with the standard of practice throughout Greece.
So, while it was appropriate before to address the
Macedonian delegates as "those send by Antigonos",
the description changed to the "Makethonikon koinon"
which can be loosely translated as the "Macedonian
Common". Furthermore, Macedonian towns were
organized very much along the southern Greek pattern.
What is evident then, that when Macedonians and southern
Greeks came in extensive contact from the time of Philip II,
the Macedonians, who were isolated and maintained
virtually a Homeric society, rushed headlong to catch up
with the developments in the Greek world.
(Any arguments) that the developments in Macedonia
mirrored developments in the non-Greek Hellenistic
world are pure fantasy. There are excellent records
that indicate that the Asiatic populations were never
converted en mass to hellenism. Greek did not spread
beyond the core cities (in Asia), and indeed in the middle
East well into the 3rd century AD, Aramaic was mainly
spoken and Greek was only understood and spoken in
the "islands" of Antioch and some coastal towns.
On the other hand, Macedonia was Greek speaking
as we know from many sources. You really do not have
to go back. There are many inscriptions in Philippi
from Roman times and many of them funenary ones.
In addition, Macedonia was organized by the Romans
very much as the south of Greece, as a League of Cities,
the only two provinces in the empire to have this kind
of organization. So, when one looks beyond the stupid
plays of words, one discerns an essential similarity
between Macedonia and Southern Greece which is
not and could not have been coincidental.
Regarding the fusion of (both Greek lands), there are
excellent statements as to that in P. Green's book
"From Alexander to Actium".
Let us return to Slavko's propaganda agenda now.
> >Also, the second quote identifies Paeonia from as far south as
> >at least Stobi and the Dardanians beyond Paeonia - this of course
> >covering most of the area of what is the FYROM.
> But it includes it into Macedonia.
What exactly did the quote say about the Paeonians:
"The second district was ....
to include the Paeonians dwelling near the Axius on
the east bank of the river."
(One needs only to refer to Thucydides to see that Paeonians
inhabited up to the lake Prasias area. The Axios turns south
below Stobi and becomes the river Erigon and at the lowest
point one finds Mt Bora.)
"The third district ....
- on the north Mount Bora forms a barrier;
to this division was added the region of Paeonia
which extends along the west bank of the Axius"
"The fourth district was on the other side of Mount Bora,
one part of it bordering on Illyricum, the other on Epirus"
"The fourth region is inhabited by the Eordaei, the
Lyncestae, and the Pelagonians; added to these
are Atintania, Tymphaeis, and Elimiotis."
"The capitals of the districts, where their councils were
to be held, were these: for the first district, Amphipolis;
for the second, Thessalonica; for the third, Pella; for the fourth,
Pelagonia."
"When the Dardanians asked for the restoration of Paeonia,
on the ground that it had been theirs and that it adjoined their
boundaries, Paulus announced that freedom was being given
to all those who had been under the rule of King Perseus. But
after refusing them Paeonia he gave them the right to import salt;
he ordered the third district to convey salt to Stobi in Paeonia"
(the geographic macedonia map 1. gif in The Macedonian
Question by Maria Nystazopoulou, at
http://www.abest.com/~angelos/macfaq.html ,
gives a close approximation of the
territory as described by Livy in the 2nd quote, and Stobi's
location is also shown)
"The districts with barbarians on their borders - all the districts,
that is, except the third - were given leave to have armed guards
along their frontiers."
It is clear from these statements that the land to the south of
Dardania was indeed Paeonia and occupied by Paeonians.
It is also clear that the territory of the _actual_ Macedonians,
as relates to borders with FYROM, remained without
question as per the description in Thucydides Histories
2.99.1 - 2.99.6 with the additional area of the capital of the
fourth district, Pelagonia (Heraklea near modern day Bitola).
O.K. Let's look at what Slavko did here. Whereas the FYROM
is claiming the name of Macedonia and per Slavko and company
we are elsewhere treated to the 'soul - wrenching' claim that
the population of the _FYROM_ land are the descendents of the
indigenous ancient Macedonians, this second Livy quote clearly
shows this to be an absurd lie, and a _calculated_ knowing lie
as evidenced by Slavko's flippant response to the news that
the people that occupied what is now the FYROM area were
Dardanians and Paeonians _not_ the Macedonians at all!
Instead of hanging his head in shame at the knowledge of all
the people he and his have harmed by their knowing deceit,
he skirts the whole issue and trys to hang onto the name
concept, even though the territory of the _actual_ Macedonians
was in what is today's Northern Greece area, _south_ of the
ancient Paeonian land!
Why does he do this? Of course the answer is so he can
continue to promote his revisionism. In other words,
so that he can _by association_ still hang onto the 'Macedonian'
_people_ concept! Communist - type propaganda and revisionism
at it's best!
> >And related to other arguments on population #'s in the past, the
> >Chalcidice
> >and from the Peneus is completely identified as part of Macedonia.
> Look at the above quote.
Slavko continues his revisionism to divert your attention
from the obvious, that there is no way the FYROM people can be
identified as Macedonians.
> >Also, this shows that an independent nation, namely the Romans,
> >solidly recognised that the Macedonians were Greeks way back
> >then, so it is not a 'fabrication of 19th century Greece'.
> No, they didn't. Romans clearly distingushed between Macedonians
> and Greeks.
Here we see again the revisionism in action. We have seen the quote
that the Macedonians made and he can not provide a counter
statement from anyone at the meeting saying "No, you are not Greeks."
That fact, that the Macedonians were Greeks, we have seen,
was accepted by the Aetolians, the Athenians AND the Romans
without question.
The thing to remember here Ladies and Gentlemen, is that Slavko
has had access to all the historical infomation that you have.
He knows that one only has to read Herodotus to understand
the nature of the ancient Macedonian Greeks, both their royal
house and their people, and read Thucydides to understand the
nature of the ancient Macedonian Greek territory, and yet he still
says the opposite. One can complain about his lack of integrity
or say he is a man in need of help, but the fact remains that he is an
unrepentant forger of history whom any decent person should think
very carefully about, before having any association with him (pigs).
Let us remember all the hate and upset, which Slavko and company
have created by this propaganda and revisionism, which has
caused so much suffering to many people in and out of the Fyrom,
not to mention some sixteen MILLION Greeks.
Let us continue...
> >Also, the dimensions of Macedonia mentioned clearly show
> >that the land approximates very closely the dimensions of
> >the territory in modern Greece, and provide a definition
> >of the territory of Macedonia at the end of their period,
> >(Thucydides of course providing the dimensions at the beginning)
>Look at this quote:
>Borza: Both Herodotus and Thycidides describe the Macedonians as
>foreigners, a distinct people living outside the
>frontiers of the Greek city-states.
>In a controversial and sometimes
>misunderstood essay on this question, E. Badian concluded that, whatever
>the ethnic origins and identity of the Macedonians, they were generally
>perceived in their own time BY GREEKS AND THEMSELVES not to be Greek.
>Badian shows that, until quite late, the Macedonians as people were
>excluded from
>panhellenic festivals in which only Greeks were permitted to participate,
>that the attempts of their kings to participate met with objections from
>the Greeks, that contemporary Greek literature offers numerous
>examples of Greek contempt for the Macedonians as barbarians,
>and that to the extent that Macedonian kings participated in panhellenic
>or bilateral arrangements with Greeks, they did
>so as individuals.
Here Slavko parades his revisionist formula and propaganda.
He gives you statements with the intention that you are to doubt
what you just saw for yourself! "But isn't he just trying to get his
ideas across like anyone else would?", you ask. NO!
He does not say "Yes, that is correct", to you, "but look at this".
No, he uses the communist - type technique of "Look over here!", Wham!
- so that what you just saw before has been blanked out!
Want proof? Lets look at his quote:
>Borza: Both Herodotus and Thycidides describe the Macedonians as
>foreigners, a distinct people living outside the
>frontiers of the Greek city-states.
We see that this Borza beginning statement would be
in disagreement with both Herodotus and Thucydides as far as
the 'Greekness' of the Macedonians is concerned!
But _Borza's_ intention was _NOT_ to discuss that
aspect in this paragraph that Slavko posted here!
Look at what _Borza_, not Slavko, _actually_ says regarding
the Greekness of the Macedonians --in a version taken from
a website claiming to be non-partisan.
(Since the following statement accompanied
the webpage: "My interest in forming this web page is to find
who the Macedonians were and still are as a people", in my
opinion it is not a non-partisan source but one of Slavko's buddies,
but I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusion on that from
those words. I obviously cannot guarantee the word for word
accuracy of any version obtained in this manner):
This is what was on the website:
""""
Taken From: "IN THE SHADOW OF OLYMPUS
THE EMERGENCE OF MACEDON"
Written By Eugene N. Borza
"The reconstruction that follows is tentative in the extreme,
and the reader is cautioned to be wary. Since the
archaeological record is scanty, this account of early
Macedonian history is based on the most sceptical analysis
of literary traditions. 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.
""""
So, wonder oh wonder, BORZA, contrary to Slavko's
propaganda, still aligns _himself_ , although (per this
website) 'tentative in the extreme', on the side of the
mainstream historians who conclude that the
Macedonians were indeed Greek!
And what about Badian, again from the same
website :
""""
Taken From: "Macedonia and Greece in
Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times"
Written By E. BADIAN
"We have now become accustomed to regarding
Macedonians as "northern Greeks" and, in extreme
cases, to hearing Alexander's conquests described
as in essence Greek conquests. The former certainly
became true, in Greek consciousness, in the course
of the Hellenistic age; the latter may be argued to be
true ex post facto".
"""''
Badian opening sentence :
""""
What is of greater historical interest is the
question of how Greeks and Macedonians
were perceived by each other.
""""
IS COMPLETED with this sentence:
""""
The question of whether the Macedonians, in the forth
century B.C., were regarded as Greeks or as barbarians
- a question which , as I have indicated, is not closely
connected with the real affinities that a modern scholar
might find - is therefore of considerable historical interest.
""""
Wonder oh wonder! Badian is _not_ stating that the
Macedonians were not Greeks, as per Slavko's propaganda,
just looking at whether they were _regarded_ as Greeks
in the 4th century BC! He also states that (whether they were or
not), it "certainly became true, in Greek consciousness in
the course of the Hellenistic age"!
So we see in both of these quotes from _Borza_ and _Badian_
a totally different picture than with the quote which _Slavko_
tried to blast you with.
So much for Slavko's propaganda revisionist quote!
What would make a person lie to you like this you ask?
Whatever the reason you can now make the judgement
as to whether you can believe _any_ communications he
makes in reference to this issue.
And if one was to enquire 'Well, were the Macedonians
a Greek tribe _originally_ or not?, let us look at what Hammond
wrote lucidly about on just this question:
""""
Taken from N. G. L. Hammond's "The Macedonian State:
The Origins, Institution and History," Calrendon Press, Oxford,
1989, pp. 413.pp. 12-14:"
4. The Language of the Macedonians.
What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself
is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means
'highlanders,' and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such
as 'Orestai' amd 'Oreitai,' meaning 'mountain-men.' A reputedly
earlier variant, 'Maketai,' has the same root, which means 'high,'
as in the Greek adjective 'makednos' or the noun mekos.'
The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod
recorded (p. 3 above) has a bearing on the question of Greek
speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes;
as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic
dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to
suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect.
Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins
of Hellen's three sons -- Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus -- who
were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely
Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recored this
relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh
century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people.
The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the
sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples
of their province in Europe, and one of them was the
'yauna takabara,' which meant the 'Greeks wearing the hat.'
[27] There were Greeks in Greek city-states here
and there in the province, but they were of various origins
and not distinguished by a common hat, the 'kausia.'
We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to
be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth
century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and
modified Hesiod's genealogy by bringing Macedon and his
descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking
family.
[28] Hesiod, Persia, Hellanicus had no motive for making
a false statement about the language of the Macedonians,
who were then an obscure and not a powerful people.
Their independent testimonies should be accepted as
conclusive. That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars.
They disregard or fail to assess the evidence which I have cited,
[29] and they turn instead to 'Macedonian' words and names,
or/and to literary references. Philologists have studied words
which have been cited as 'Macedonian' in ancient lexica and
glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for
some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not
Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the
Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples
who spoke Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they
certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors
of lexica and glossaries. The philological studies result in a
verdict, in my opinion, of 'non liquet.' [30]
The toponyms of the Macedonian homeland are
the most significant. Nearly all of them are Greek: Pieria, Lebaea,
Heracleum, Dium, Petra, Leibethra, Aegae, Aegydium, Acesae,
Acesamenae; the rivers Helicon, Aeson, Leucus, Baphyras, Sardon,
Elpe'u's, Mitys; lake Ascuris and the region Lapathus.
The mountain names Olympus and Titarium may be pre-Greek;
Edessa, the earlier name for the place where Aegae was founded,
and its river Ascordus were Phrygian. [31]
The deities worshipped by the Macedones and the names
which they gave to the months were predominantly Greek,
and there is no doubt that these were not borrowings.
To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the
Macedonians were 'barbarians.' The term referred to their way
of life and their institutions, which were those of the 'ethne' and
not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can
see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes
'barbarians.' But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively
that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek
and used names which were Greek. [32]
In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive
terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people.[33]
In passages which refer to the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander
the Great and the early successors there are mentions of
a Macedonian dialect, such as was likely to have been spoken in the
original Macedonian homeland. On one occassion Alexander
'called out to his guardsmen in Macedonian ('Makedonisti'),
as this [viz. the use of 'Macedonian'] was a signal ('symbolon') that
there was a serious riot.' Normally Alexander and his soldiers
spoke standard Greek, the 'koine,' and that was what the Persians
who were to fight alongside the Macedonians were taught. So the
order 'in Macedonian' was unique, in that all other orders were in
the 'koine.' [34] it is satisfactorily explained as an order in broad
dialect, just as in the Highland Regiment a special order for a particular
purpose could be given in broad Scots by a Scottish officer who
usually spoke the King's English.The use of this dialect among
themselves was a characteristic of the Macedonian soldiers
(rather that the officers) of the King's Army. This point is made
clear in the report -- not in itself dependable -- of the trial of
a Macedonian officer before an Assembly of Macedonians, in
which the officer (Philotas) was mocked for not speaking in dialect. [35]
In 321 when a non-Macedonian general, Eumenes, wanted
to make contact with a hostile group of Macedonian infantrymen,
he sent a Macedonian to speak to them in the Macedonian dialect,
in order to win their confidence. Subsequently, when they and the
other Macdonian soldiers were serving with Eumenes, they
expresed their affection for him by hailing him in the Macedonian dialect
('Makedonisti'). [36] He was to be one of themselves. As Curtius
observed, 'not a man among the Macedonians could bear to part
with a jot of his ancestral customs.' The use of this dialect was one
way in which the Macedonians expressed their apartness from the
world of the Greek city-states. [27] See J. M. Balcer in 'Historia' 37
(1988) 7.[28] FGrH 4 F 74 [29] Most recently E. Badian in
Barr-Sharrar 33-51 disregards the evidence as set out
in e.g. HM 2.39-54, when it goes against his view that the
Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other
than Greek. [30] The matter is dicussed at some length
in HM 2. 39-54 with reference especially to O. Hoffmann,
'Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihre Volkstun' (Goettingen, 1906)
and J. Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens I (Athens, 1954);
see also Kalleris II and R. A. Crossland in the CAH 3.1.843ff.
[31] For Edessa see HM 1.165 and for the Phrygians
in Macedonia 407-14. Olympus occurs as a Phrygian personal
name. [32] See Hammond, 'Epirus' 419ff. and 525ff.
[33] As Badian, loc. cit. 42, rightly observes: 'this, of course,
is simple abuse.'[34] Plu. 'Alex.'51.6[35] Curtius 6.8.34-6.
[36] PSI XII 2(1951) no. 1284, Plu. Eun.14.11.
Badian, loc. cit. 41 and 50 n.66, discusses the former
and not the latter, which hardly bears out his theory that
Eumenes 'could not directly communicate with Macedonian
soldiers,' and presumably they with him. Badian says in his
note that he is not concerned with the argument as to whether
Macedonian was a 'dialect' or 'a language.' Such an argument
seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. We have a
similar problem in regard to Epirus, where some had thought
the language of the people was Illyrian. In Plu.'Pyrrh.'1.3
reference was made to 'the local 'phone,'' which to me means
'dialect' of Greek; it is so in this instance because Plutarch
is saying that Achilles was called 'in the local 'phone' Aspestos.'
The word 'Aspestos' elsewhere was peculiar to Greek epic,
but it survived in Epirus in normal speech. It is of course
a Greek and not an Illyrian word. See Hammond, 'Epirus' 525ff.,
for the Greek being the language of central Epirus
in the fifth century B.C. "
""""
That the ancient Macedonians were indeed Greeks is clearly
shown by Hammond's details.
So,back to Slavko's propaganda!
> >>>This is the rest, Mihali {another Poster}. Ancient Macedonians
> >>weren't considered Greek in
> >>>ancient times, the middle ages and all the way to the second half of
> >>the 19th C.
> >>> when the Mageli Idea invented the Greekness of the Macedonians.
> >>Slavko, you warped sob, prove Livy wrong or shut your lying mouth.
> >You should read whole Livy. He clearly distinguishes between
> > Macedonians and Greeks.
> >You continue to mislead the uninformed by statements like that. You
> >and Josif have a problem with talking about "Greeks" and "Macedonians"
> >because you think in terms of black and white where history is
> >concerned.
> >You _think_ Greeks are saying there were no differences between the
> >Southern Classical Greeks and the Macedonian Greeks. Of course there
> >were differences but historians with any sense have always understood
> >the differences AND the similarities.
> No, Macedonians weren't simply regarded as Greek, that's it.
O.K. As per standard, Slavko continues with his propaganda 1,2,3.
We have already addressed this issue, and only need to note here
his attempt to make out that the ancient Macedonians _were_
not Greek by substituting a statement that they weren't _regarded_
as Greek. (Might as well ask what the def. of "Is" is!)
He again denies your intelligence by making a generality, omitting
time and the event which his statement applies to, so avoiding your
scrutiny of his lie.
> >But you consider this now:
> >"... Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians as a
> >non-Greek
> >foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the
> >history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and
> >obstacles
> >which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important then
> >our
> >modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren; this was
> >equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political
> >effect...."
> >More on the author of the above little piece later.
A further word on the above quote. As you see, it really is a comment
by the author having nothing to do with whether the ancient Macedonians
_were_ Greek or not. Just some attempt to set a scene for his pet theory
related to some Greeks at a particular period of time.This author actually
say's _therein_ that the fact that ''Greeks'' and "Macedonians" are
brethren is indeed a modern _conviction_.
This is a far cry from Slavko's attempt to portray it as a _proof_
that the ancient Macedonians weren't Greek! He intends to mislead
the unwary and further his propaganda by substituting non - related
data and gives it the appearance of related data which it is not!
This brings to the forefront another propaganda tool of his, where
he shows a truth but holds it up as an _untruth_, and by just holding
it up, causes the unwary to think that there must be something
in what he is saying, just because it is being said! Revisionism
and propaganda is obviously _all_ that is being said.
> >As I said before, Slavko, prove Livy wrong in the following quotes
> >or, to put it politely, stop being a source of disinformation.
> >You do humanity a disservice:
> And you're just another brainwashed Greek who cannot see the truth.
Here we observe Slavko's propaganda attempt to neutralize the
source opposing his propaganda and revisionism. And as we have also
seen, he and his, also use the tactic of accusing those people
who are protesting _their_ deceit, of being propagandists and revisionists!
The very thing he and his are the guilty of doing, as we have clearly
seen by this review of his statements herein, they try to mask that fact,
by claiming that the _other_ party is doing the activity that _they_
themselves are doing!
This is one of the reasons for this examination -- to see exactly _WHO_
is _actually_ the party guilty of propaganda and revisionism!
l humbly submit to you this proof that it is indeed Slavko and his.
> "...If the hundreds of thousands of refugees had not come to Greece,
> Greek Macedonia would not exist today..."
> Augustinos, Metropolite of Florina.
Another propagandist quote by Slavko taking the statement out of context
to further his revisionist agenda. This does not tell us what Augustinos
was talking about, in which this quote was only a part. It, for instance,
may have been a discussion on Tito trying to grab Northern Greece
and the enhanced population being able to fight off the communist
insurgents!
> "...we have set ourselves apart from the Greeks, should we now become
> subjected to others?"
> Macedonians protesting Bulgarian influence in Macedonia
> ("The Macedonian Question" by P.R. Slavejkov. published in "Macedonia,"
> Istanbul, 1871)
This is a perversion of history, a substitution by Slavko of fantasy
for fact. Another propagandist quote which belies the truth that the
Fyrom people of last century, almost to the man, identified with
being Bulgarians, even if this was, for some, geographical
'Macedonian' Bulgarians.
Ladies and Gentlemen history is history as we have seen,
not a subject that is open to the whim of the likes of Slavko
and company!
You have seen by this review of Slavko's responses just what
a deviant he is, and that when you examine his responses
critically you find nothing but propaganda and revisionism.
When these are removed, you have seen herein that you
cannot find even _ONE_ sentence he says that is relevant
to the issue at hand, nor _ANY_ truth coming from him.
In conclusion Ladies and Gentleman, you have herein
seen Slavko without any clothes on. You might as well
have him in your kill file, (excuse me a moment......... ),
as I was saying, you might as well have him in your
kill file for all the use discussing _anything_ with him is.
An occasional sortie, to expose his flagrant lies, is sufficient
exposure to his type of filth (pigs) for anybody!
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
Vasko Makedonski
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> We have seen
> how the Macedonians stated in an unquestionable way that they
> were Greek,
And we have also seen in modern times how a people, Macedonians,
divided into three zones (Vardar, Pirin, Aegean) have thought
differently about who they are. Those in Aegean feel Greekkk while
those in Pirin feel Bulgarian. Ity all comes down to influence. It is
unquestionable that the ancient Macedonians were exposed to Greekkk
culture and consequently took on most of it.
Vasko Makedonski
LET THE SUN SHINE OVER A FREE AND UNITED MACEDONIA
DEATH TO THE FOUR EMPIRES* OCCUPYING MACEDONIAN SOIL
*BULGARIA, GREECE, SERBIA, ALBANIA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
June R Harton
Vaski Voulgarski wrote
> "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > We have seen how the Macedonians stated in an
> > unquestionable way that they were Greek,
> And we have also seen in modern times how a people, Macedonians,
> divided into three zones (Vardar, Pirin, Aegean) have thought
> differently about who they are. Those in Aegean feel Greek while
> those in Pirin feel Bulgarian. It all comes down to influence. It is
> unquestionable that the ancient Macedonians were exposed to Greek
> culture and consequently took on most of it.
You have such a perversion of understanding above that you may
be a lost cause.
Here, let me try to sort it out for you.
First your last sentence. the ancient Macedonian Greeks
had no one trying to make them Greek. They claimed that
status themselves and ancient historians also claimed that
status for them.
Now, the first parts:
There was no connection between the peoples in Vardar,
Piran, Aegean in modernish times distinguishimg them
seperately as a distinct group from any other area of the
areas where Bulgarians lived in the Balkans.
There was NO Macedonia in Turkish times at all. There
was a distinction between Patriarchists and Exarchists
as the Patriarchists not only wished to be associated
with the GREEK speaking church but also wanted to
be associated with Greece not anywhere else.
Finally there were no such thing as Macedonians in the
turn of the century period besides those that Greece
called Macedonians ... those people who identified as
Greeks, AND concurrently those that the Bulgarian plot
created as "Macedonia for the Macedonians"..... and
this meant any and all different peoples living in the
arbitrarily described "Macedonia". And this plot was for
the later incorporation of this (aimed at) autonomous
"Macedonia", into a united Bulgaria.
And re something you have said elsewhere, the Pirin
people when they noted that they were Macedonians
(and not Bulgarians). This was another scam and
those people were _forced_ to state Macedonians on
a census. Again this was part of another scam to
attack the real Macedonia (Northern Greece).
That's about the totality of it. you and your brethren
have always tried to take the real Macedonia throughout
history but the Greeks will never brook such a thing.
Vasko Makedonski
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Vaski Voulgarski wrote
> > "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > > unquestionable way that they were Greek,
>
> > divided into three zones (Vardar, Pirin, Aegean) have thought
> > differently about who they are. Those in Aegean feel Greek while
> > those in Pirin feel Bulgarian. It all comes down to influence. It is
> > unquestionable that the ancient Macedonians were exposed to Greek
> > culture and consequently took on most of it.
>
> You have such a perversion of understanding above that you may
> be a lost cause.
Relax. Take a sedative, a hot cup of tea, brace yourself and try and
comprehend the following.
> Here, let me try to sort it out for you.
>
> First your last sentence. the ancient Macedonian Greeks
> had no one trying to make them Greek. They claimed that
> status themselves and ancient historians also claimed that
> status for them.
I did not state they were forced to become Greekkk in language and
culture. I was referring to influence.
> Now, the first parts:
>
> There was no connection between the peoples in Vardar,
> Piran, Aegean in modernish times distinguishimg them
> seperately as a distinct group from any other area of the
> areas where Bulgarians lived in the Balkans.
After the independence of Bulgaria, the Slavonic speaking peoples of
Macedonia had their seperate identity reinforced. Why do you believe
Macedonia was left out of Bulgaria if they were one people?
> There was NO Macedonia in Turkish times at all.
There was in the hearts and minds of Macedonians.
> There
> was a distinction between Patriarchists and Exarchists
> as the Patriarchists not only wished to be associated
> with the GREEK speaking church but also wanted to
> be associated with Greece not anywhere else.
You have to mix religion with politics dont you?
> Finally there were no such thing as Macedonians in the
> turn of the century period
If there was none there would have been no "Macedonia for the
Macedonians" slogan and eminant Macedonians such as the great Goce
Delcev would not have said that 'if a Macedonian works for the interests
of Bulgaria or Greece they are good Bulgarians or Greekkks but not good
Macedonians'.
> besides those that Greece
> called Macedonians ... those people who identified as
> Greeks, AND concurrently those that the Bulgarian plot
> created as "Macedonia for the Macedonians"..... and
> this meant any and all different peoples living in the
> arbitrarily described "Macedonia".
You just said that there was no such thing as a Macedonia under Turkish
times and yet you identify an arbitrary Macedonia.
>And this plot was for
You have lost the plot June.
> the later incorporation of this (aimed at) autonomous
> "Macedonia", into a united Bulgaria.
This was the aim of the Vrhovists (unionists). The Ilinden revolution
was led by independentists.
> And re something you have said elsewhere, the Pirin
> people when they noted that they were Macedonians
> (and not Bulgarians). This was another scam
Stop trying to rewrite history into the image which you see through your
convoluted prism.
> and
> those people were _forced_ to state Macedonians on
> a census. Again this was part of another scam to
> attack the real Macedonia (Northern Greece).
Heard it all before bre.
> That's about the totality of it. you and your brethren
> have always tried to take the real Macedonia throughout
> history
There is no reason for us to illegally "take" any part of Macedonia when
all parts legally belong to us.
>but the Greeks will never brook such a thing.
What makes you think that because you Greekkks will not to retrocede
Aegean peacefully that we Macedonians will give up our fight and not
take it to another level? Remember this = justice is on our side.
June R Harton
Vaski Voulgarski wrote
> "June R Harton" wrote:
> > Vaski Voulgarski wrote
> > You have such a perversion of understanding above that you may
> > be a lost cause.
> Relax. Take a sedative, a hot cup of tea, brace yourself and try and
> comprehend the following.
> > Here, let me try to sort it out for you.
> > First your last sentence. the ancient Macedonian Greeks
> > had no one trying to make them Greek. They claimed that
> > status themselves and ancient historians also claimed that
> > status for them.
> and culture. I was referring to influence.
Quit talking rubbish, will you?!
> > Now, the first parts:
> > There was no connection between the peoples in Vardar,
> > Piran, Aegean in modernish times distinguishimg them
> > seperately as a distinct group from any other area of the
> > areas where Bulgarians lived in the Balkans.
> After the independence of Bulgaria, the Slavonic speaking
> peoples of Macedonia
B/S! It wasn't Macedonia you clown! And it included
several vilayets or provinces which had nothing to do with
Macedonia Greece or "fyromland"!
As I have mentioned elsewhere, it was what you can call
Western Rumelia or European Turkey!
> had their seperate identity reinforced.
> Why do you believe Macedonia
see above re "Macedonia"
> was left out of Bulgaria if they were one people?
Don't you know any history of the area?!
Because no one would let them to Bulgaria and Russia!
Whereas Russia was in the other land freed from the Turks
(the area later known as Bulgaria) and that couldn't be
prevented!
> > There was NO Macedonia in Turkish times at all.
> There was in the hearts and minds of Macedonians.
Oh quit your B/S! There were pro-Greeks and pro-Bulgars
and a handful (at the instigation of the Bulgars) identifying
as geographic Macedonians to gain autonomy, and then
per the plot, subsequent unification with Bulgaria.
> > There
> > was a distinction between Patriarchists and Exarchists
> > as the Patriarchists not only wished to be associated
> > with the GREEK speaking church but also wanted to
> > be associated with Greece not anywhere else.
> You have to mix religion with politics dont you?
You have to ignore reality, don't you?!
> > Finally there were no such thing as Macedonians in the
> > turn of the century period
> If there was none there would have been no "Macedonia for the
> Macedonians" slogan and eminant Macedonians such as the great
> Goce Delcev would not have said that 'if a Macedonian works for
> the interests of Bulgaria or Greece they are good Bulgarians
> or Greeks but not good Macedonians'
The concept was made up because the Powers stopped
the Russian initiative at San Stephano from creating
the large Russian satellite state of Bulgaria.
> > besides those that Greece
> > called Macedonians ... those people who identified as
> > Greeks, AND concurrently those that the Bulgarian plot
> > created as "Macedonia for the Macedonians"..... and
> > this meant any and all different peoples living in the
> > arbitrarily described "Macedonia".
> You just said that there was no such thing as a Macedonia
> under Turkish times and yet you identify an arbitrary
> Macedonia.
In the later days of the 19th century forces started using the
word geographically to assert their control over a stated
arbitrary area. In Turkey and among the people this word
was an interloper.
> >And this plot was for
> You have lost the plot June.
> > the later incorporation of this (aimed at) autonomous
> > "Macedonia", into a united Bulgaria.
> This was the aim of the Vrhovists (unionists). The Ilinden
> revolution was led by independentists.
Stop being stupid. The Bulgarians created the concept
for the purposes of ultimate incorporation in Bulgaria.
> > And re something you have said elsewhere, the Pirin
> > people when they noted that they were Macedonians
> > (and not Bulgarians). This was another scam
> Stop trying to rewrite history into the image which you see
> through your convoluted prism.
Grow up, will you. You can delude yourself but the whole
world knows the actual history of the area.
> > and those people were _forced_ to state Macedonians on
> > a census. Again this was part of another scam to
> > attack the real Macedonia (Northern Greece).
> Heard it all before bre.
Then let yourself become knowledgeable not continue
delusional.
> > That's about the totality of it. you and your brethren
> > have always tried to take the real Macedonia throughout
> > history
> There is no reason for us to illegally "take" any part of
> Macedonia when all parts legally belong to us.
You have just shown everyone here that you are trully insane.
Rest of your patent stupidity deleted.
Tervel
>Macedonia was left out of Bulgaria if they were one people?
Let me ask you another question.
Why there is Northen Irland ?
We had two Germanis not long ago.
How about Korea?
Are the Irish in northen Irland not Irish enough fot you ?
Bulgaria was divided by three parts by the same people who divided Ireland.
Can you guess who they are?
>There is no reason for us to illegally "take" any part of Macedonia when
>all parts legally belong to us.
Since when ???
June R Harton
Rads wrote
> Tervel wrote:
> Bulgaria was divided? What planet are you from?
> Name the three parts.
Ah, Rads what to do with you?!!!!
Lets call the areas, to answer your question West Bulgaria,
Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria.
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
..........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
Kaiser Soze
ter...@aol.com (Tervel) wrote:
> >After the independence of Bulgaria, the Slavonic speaking peoples of
> >Macedonia had their seperate identity reinforced. Why do you believe
> >Macedonia was left out of Bulgaria if they were one people?
>
> Let me ask you another question.
> Why there is Northen Irland ?
> We had two Germanis not long ago.
> How about Korea?
> Are the Irish in northen Irland not Irish enough fot you ?
> Bulgaria was divided by three parts by the same people who divided
Ireland.
> Can you guess who they are?
Forget it, Tervel! It's China Town!...
Vasko is a basket case. His brain is amputated beyond recognition. His
signature and tag at the end of his postings should say:
<>SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH, OR I'LL KILL YOU!<>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-BULGARIA-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-GREECE-
DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-
DEATH.......
VELIKI-VELIKI-VELIKI-VELIKI-VELIKI-VELIKI-VOODOO-VOODOO-VOODOO-SPELL-
SPELL-PUT-THE-SPELL-DEMON-DEMON-DEATH-DEATH-DEATH-BULGARIA-DEATH
Kaiser
(~<><>~)
>
> >There is no reason for us to illegally "take" any part of Macedonia
when
> >all parts legally belong to us.
>
> Since when ???
>
--
Radeff
>>Macedonia had their seperate identity reinforced. Why do you believe
>>Macedonia was left out of Bulgaria if they were one people?
>>>
Tervel wrote:
>Let me ask you another question.
>Why there is Northen Irland ?
>We had two Germanis not long ago.
>How about Korea?
>Are the Irish in northen Irland not Irish enough fot you ?
>Bulgaria was divided by three parts by the same people who divided Ireland.
>Can you guess who they are?
>>>
There is no comparison to be made with Ireland, Korea, and Germany.
Since you bespeak of Ireland, the division is religion. Northern Ireland is
Church of England. Southern Ireland is Catholic.
Bulgaria was divided? What planet are you from?
Name the three parts.
>>There is no reason for us to illegally "take" any part of Macedonia when
>>all parts legally belong to us.
>
>Since when ???>>
I think he means about the same time you blame England for not giving you your
bone.
HRA
Vasko Makedonski
Ne tropaj kako zelen, stoka.
Vasko Makedonski
LET THE SUN SHINE OVER A FREE AND UNITED MACEDONIA
DEATH TO THE FOUR EMPIRES* OCCUPYING MACEDONIAN SOIL
*BULGARIA, GREECE, SERBIA, ALBANIA
Radeff
>> Tervel wrote:
>> Bulgaria was divided? What planet are you from?
>> Name the three parts.
>
>
>Lets call the areas, to answer your question West Bulgaria,
>Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria.
>
>
>
>
>from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
> (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
>
>..........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
More propagandized messages to make Macedonians in their mold.
Thats what it was all about.
HRA
Kaiser Soze
Vasko, it's time to change your tag, man. It looks like not very fresh
underwear already, you know...
Tell you the truth, this whole scenario smells like this guy who used to
whack off in his pants.(How's that for nasty?...)
Whacks off in his pants and wears the same pair of undershorts untill
they'll just about stand up by themselves. Sound familiar?.......Yep!
That's you! Smells like it, anyways!
Kaiser
VOODOO-VOODOO-DEATH-BULGARIA-FOUR-EMPIRES-DEATH-ELVIS-LIVES-FOREVER-WHO-
KILLED-KENNEDDY-DEATH-DEATH-SPELL-BELL-DEATH-WOWIE!
--
(~<><>~)
June R Harton
Rads wrote
> More propagandized messages to make Macedonians
_Macedonians_ as applied to the Fyromians mean to the world,
>and to Bulgarians, Macedonian Bulgarians.
That is what it is all about. _You_ need to get it.
> in their mold.
> Thats what it was all about.
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
Vasko Makedonski
I agree. I have been meaning to ammend it but never got around to it.
Well, because of your proding I managed to come with a much needed
refreshed version. Hope you like it.
Vasko Makedonski
LET THE SUN SHINE OVER A FREE AND UNITED MACEDONIA
DEATH TO THE FOUR EMPIRES* OCCUPYING MACEDONIAN SOIL
*BULGARIA (PIRIN), GREECE (AEGEAN), SERBIA (PROHOR, GORA) , ALBANIA
(LITTLE PRESPA)
Tervel
>>> Bulgaria was divided? What planet are you from?
>>> Name the three parts.
Knjazestvo Bulgarija ,Iztochna Rumelija i Makedonija.
Tervel
>
>*BULGARIA (PIRIN), GREECE (AEGEAN), SERBIA (PROHOR, GORA) , ALBANIA
>(LITTLE PRESPA)
I have a smal problem with that.
In Pirin nobody feels Macedonian.
In Malka Prespa people feel as Bulgarian
even the Albanian gouverment reconizes them as Bulgarian minority.
As for Egeja Idon't know how many Bulgarians left there.Most of them went to
Bulgaria.I wonder why they didn't choose Macedonia?Oh yes there was no
Macedonia I think it was called South Serbia.
Vasko Makedonski
ter...@aol.com (Tervel) wrote:
> >DEATH TO THE FOUR EMPIRES* OCCUPYING MACEDONIAN SOIL
> >
> >*BULGARIA (PIRIN), GREECE (AEGEAN), SERBIA (PROHOR, GORA) , ALBANIA
> >(LITTLE PRESPA)
>
> I have a smal problem with that.
What is you problem with it?
> In Pirin nobody feels Macedonian.
I would not go as far as saying "nobody".
> In Malka Prespa people feel as Bulgarian
The majority in Mala Prespa view themselves as Macedonians.
> even the Albanian gouverment reconizes them as Bulgarian minority.
I dont care what foreign governments recognise my people as. We
Macedonians do not rate ourselves with foreign standards.
> As for Egeja Idon't know how many Bulgarians left there.
There were no Bulgarians to begin except those who migrated from
Bulgaria in the first place.
> Most of them went to Bulgaria.I wonder why they didn't choose
Macedonia? Oh yes there was no
> Macedonia I think it was called South Serbia.
Stop talking to yourself, drvo.
Vasko Makedonski
LET THE SUN SHINE OVER A FREE AND UNITED MACEDONIA
DEATH TO THE FOUR EMPIRES OCCUPYING MACEDONIAN SOIL*
*BULGARIA (PIRIN), GREECE (AEGEAN), SERBIA (PROHOR, GORA) , ALBANIA
(LITTLE PRESPA)
Radeff
Now you are being coy.
HRA
June R Harton
Vaski Voulgarski wrote
> I dont care what foreign governments recognise my people as. We
> Macedonians
You are an insult to your ancestors. You drvo!