Another "macedonian" jewel (was: MACEDONIAN MIC NEWS (DEC. 6, 1996))

[John Prodromidis]

I was surfing the net following Boris Docevski's (docevski@welch
link.welch.jhu.edu) instructions of his sign.file (http://www.isc
.rit.edu/~bvs4997/Macedonia) in the message reference <58ape1$e4v
@news.jhu.edu> of December 7th, 1996, 03:48:17 GMT... And I came
upon the little precious piece...

An erudite (historian?) by the name Boris Soposki claims it, and
B.Docevski advertises it in a number of fora (soc.culture.austra-
lian, soc.culture.canada, soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.usa).

Since I intend to provide a criticism to the misinformation it
contains I will reproduce (as required and entitled) this one
article from the whole work and incorporate my comments.

> From 4th Century BC to Present
>
> The rise of the great Macedonian kingdom began in the fourth
> century BC when both Athens and Sparta had passed their zenith
> and had exhausted themselves with 30 years fighting against each
> other.

Macedonia did have a history prior to the 4th century. The term
itself (as the Macedonian names Philip, Alexander, etc.) is quite
Greek. In fact: Homeric. "Makedon" in Greek means Highlander.

Prior to the 4th century BCE, several ancient authors (most of
them visitors to Macedonia)...
- attributed some of the most patriotic Greek sentiments ever
expressed to Macedonian rulers (Herodotos), or
- described memories of the Greekness of the Makedones (Hesiodos,
Hellanikos, Herodotos), or
- mentioned their participations among Greek troops and folk, or
royal membership in the associations of the Greeks (Herodotos,
Thucydides, a 6th century Persian inscription; Aichines belongs
to the 4th century).

Furthermore:
All recovered inscriptions, along with the names of months, those
of aristocrats and commoners, etc., are Greek.
(A.Fear's offered 'exception' of one Thracian name, though
conceivable and even expected as in the rest of Greece, fails
to meet his own criterion).
There is enough inscriptional evidence accumulated today pointing
to Macedonian being a Greek dialect. This is corroborated by an
early ancient source (Strattis) who does make the Macedonian
dialect a Greek one, and a later, well-known ancient author who
even provides information on the Macedonian variants of
pronunciation (Plutarch)...

> The Greeks regarded the Macedonians as "barbarians", i.e.
> people who could not speak proper Greek, and looked down on them
> accordingly.

This evidence comes indeed from the 4th century BCE: from speeches
of individuals whose cities were in dispute or war with Macedonia.
They were clearly biased against Macedonians.

Interestingly, similar and/or identical vocabulary was employed
FOR other Greeks such as Athenians, Spartans, mainlanders,
islanders, Asiatic, Western, in a variety of circumstances (mainly
when the Greeks were -again- in a state of war among themselves.
Such lists of quotes have been provided in the past in both alt.
news.macedonia and soc.culture.greek).

So, the Macedonians were not the only ones to have this dubious
distinction. It is a matter of how selective one wants to be.

The interesting things is that even in the works that the ancient
Macedonians are portrayed as such by ancient Athenians, the
Macedonians may also be juxtaposed to (or separated from) the
actual "barbarians", i.e., the non-Greeks (Isokrates); and in at
least one funny case the fiercest of the anti-macedonian orators
actually provides evidence refuting his standard thesis
(Demosthenes).

The record from the subsequent centuries is pretty much consistent
(Polybios, Pseudo-Kallisthenes, Strabo, Diodoros, Arrian,
Plutrach). And it may be confirmed to some degree by passages from
non-Greek traditions (Livy, Curtius, Justin, the Maccabees, New
Testament). A number of such cases, where the Macedonians are
represented as a distinct or not so distinct Greek people, have
circulated in the alt.news.macedonia and soc.culture.greek before.

Modern historians too are solid here (Badian, Millar, Mommsen).

Unfortunately, these bits of information are curiously omitted by
the author of this history of Macedonia. :-(

Continuing:
>
> Nevertheless, by using a mixture of brilliant diplomacy and
> armed force, Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, brought
> the whole of Greece under the control of Macedon.

The statement in not enirely without nuisances. In Alexander's own
lifetime Sparta went in war with Macedonia. Athens and others
started another war immediately afterwards. The Achaians, the
Aitolians and Epirotans had independence (if not rule over parts
of Macedonia at times).

And, of course, one should not forget that a very important mass
of Greek city-states was simply located beyond the confines of the
Greek peninsula.

> One secret of their success was the adoption by Philip of the
> "phalanx",

Ahaa... Another fine Macedonian word I presume!

One wonders what the term means in other languages. I have
the funny feeling that those versed in any Greek dialect
will not have to rush to dictionaries. :-)

> a squad of heavily-armed soldiers carrying strong pikes of
> different lengths and constituting, in effect, a sort of human
> tank. At the same time, the Macedonians perfected the employment
> of lightly armed troops and cavalry, who could easily
> outmaneuver military formations of the time. Once all Greece had
> been brought under Macedonian control, Alexander, universally
> considered one of greatest military geniuses of all time, then
> set out upon his extraordinary conquest of the known world.
/
HALF: Cyrene, Carthage Italy,
Sicily, Sardinia, Gaul,
and other points west,
Crimea, etc., were also
parts of the "known
world".

> First he took Asia Minor, then the mighty Persian Empire of
> Darius.

Was not Asia Minor part of his Persian Empire?! :-(
Whom did Alexander take Asia Minor from? (I am such an ignorant!)

> Pressing ever eastward, he next subdued Babylon
>

Also part of the Persian Empire...
(If someone changed the book... nobody informed me!)

> and continued to the Punjab in India before his homesick troops
> finally compelled him, much against his will, to turn back.

The events & dedications there (or during the expedition),
concerning the Greek pantheon could had provided an interesting
glimpse into the religion of the ancient Macedonians. And this, in
turn, might had served as another factor in aiding us determine
their ethnicity. So it could have had a place in this or in other
points of Mr.Soposki's "history"... :-(

> He himself died at the age of 33 without ever seeing his native
> country again. The generals whom he had left in charge of
> various provinces

That is not actually true.

> seized control for themselves and began to quarrel with each
> other. After 175 unsettled years,

How were these years more "unsettled" than... the previous 175 ?

Does the author of this piece have any familiarity with Macedonian
history at all? Were the troubles of the earlier invasions of
Illyrians, Thracians, Persians, Athenians, Chalkidikeans, Thebans,
etc... somehow calmer times for Macedonia?

> in 146 BC Macedonia became a Roman province.
>

What was wrong with the date of 168?

The date of the formal transformation is not of much relevance.

I'll say it: Someone is not very much versed in
Macedonian History... Macedonians
would know such things. Should not
they?

In any case...
What the Romans conquered (the Antigonid kingdom of Macedonia) did
not actually extend beyond the modern-day Greek borders (Livy),
give or take an outpost.

The northern peoples that the Romans conquered at the time or
subsequently (Paeonians, Dardanians, Illyrians) were traditional
if not proverbial enemies of the ancient Macedonians. These other,
northern lands are what comprise today's Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia (FYROM).

Therefore, one should disassociate the northern territories from
the Macedonia of Alexander and Philip. The land of classical
Macedonia (the one Mr.Soposki presumably refers to in the
article) is pretty much within modern Greece today: the present-
day province of "Makedonia".

Or is that the one he tries to connect to? And if so, why?

Unless someone comes forward and articulates a feeble argument (to
say the least) of some mass migration of the actual Macedonians
north, or tracks down so many customs and linguistic similarities,
I do not see how the argument of continuation from antiquity to
modern day Slavo-Albanian FYROM can stick and escape from being a
marginal one. (And as for the Albanians: They do draw on an
Illyrian heritage.)

> Centuries later, Byzantium tried to check the Slav's
> infiltration from the north, but was unable to prevent their
> settling there,

Whaooo!
What happened here? Why are we leaping with such speed ahead?
Too many things to say about this very Greek character of the
Roman province perhaps?
Skopje and the rest of Dardania, on the other hand, were culturaly
distinct from Macedonia (the senatorial province in the south).

> and in the tenth century the newcomers formed themselves into an
> independent state under Car Samuel (Tsar Samuel).

Whaooo! Two birds with one stone:
- THE NEWCOMERS FORMED THEMSELVES INTO AN INDEPENDENT STATE.
Therefore:
The NEWCOMERS are NOT the INDIGENOUS Greek-speaking people...
(At least this fellow is not hallucinating as other weirdos in
alt.news.macedonia who claim descend from the Macedonian
queen Cleopatra [and Julius Caesar?], or the assassinated
young kids of Alexander the Great!)
- However, there can be no do question about the nationality of
Samuel and his state (check for example the Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, s.v. "Samuel of Bulgaria", v.3, p.1838).

> After several victories over the Byzantines, he added other Slav
> provinces to his kingdom, whose central portion was what is now
> Bulgaria. But Byzantium, once fully mobilized, was too powerful
> for him.
>
> In a terrible battle in 1014, the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II,
> took 14,000 prisoners blinded them and sent them back to Samuel.
> Stunned by the horror of this monstrous act, Samuel died soon
> after, and for a time Byzantine power was assured.

And for that, the Roman emperor Basileios II of the so-called
Macedonian dynasty (because some 'byzantines' applied this term
on old East Macedonian and Thracian lands) WAS GIVEN THE EPITHET
Bulgar-Slayer: Indicative of the nationality of the enemy the
'byzantines' defeated.

Greeks and Bulgarians have fought over this event or calmly
discussed it a number of times...

And suddenly we have a third party that claims participation!

We all hit the medieval works, check the recovered inscriptions
and the history books... And nobody remembers this third party!

They were not invented yet...

> With the expansion of the Serb state under the brilliant Nemanja
> dynasty, King Dusan occupied Macedonia in the 14th century,

And the Greeks (i.e., the 'byzantines') did fight Dusan and did
maintain control of several districts, and even reclaimed several
from the Serbs.

The fact that the medieval 'byzantines', the Greek-speaking
inhabitants, kept referring to themselves as Macedonians and to
their 'byzantine'-controlled land as Macedonia... these are things
one can easily verify through 'byzantine' literature and the
recovered inscriptions (and such evidence has been posted in
soc.culture.greek and alt.news.macedonia and soc.culture.bulgaria
in the past).

> but this unification of the two Slav countries was not fully
> achieved before the Turks made themselves masters of both,

So, a few decades were enough to almost archive a unification of
the Slavs (What is the evidence really?)

And yet...
wouldn't (by the same standard) the argument hold for the degree
of unification and solidarity among the Greeks, or the "Roman
citizens" in the province, in the course of the 1000+ years?

> staying there for 500 years. It was a period punctuated by
> rebellion and especially the activities of 'hajduk', who formed
> themselves into bands of outlaws of freedom fighters. But for
> most of the population it was a period of hardship and
> hopelessness in which the flame of Macedonian culture was kept
> flickering only in the monastic centers.

Let us put aside the Greeks for a moment.
How was that slav flame/culture distinct from the Bulgarian?

Anyway...
Let's take a new leap forward again :-)

>
> Following the growth of nationalistic sentiment in Serbia early
> in the 19th century, Macedonia began to hope that her long
> subjection was nearly ended, but her case aroused little support
> abroad. Her attempts at a national uprising, such as that of
> Krusevo, organized by the Macedonian revolutionary movement
> known as "VRMO", were mercilessly suppressed. In 1909 there was
> a state of open warfare for three months, but the insurgents,
> poorly armed and led, were beaten.

No Bulgarian ties or intervention mentioned here... but never
mind.

> The first Balkan War (1912) liberated Macedonia from the Turks,
> but the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs immediately embarked upon
> the second Balkan War of 1913. In World War I this unhappy
> backward province was a theater of operations. The Treaty of
> Neuilly in 1919 again divided it, the new Yugoslavia being
> awarded the lion's share, Greece keeping Thessaloniki and its
> environs, and Bulgaria a small strip in the northeast.

It was not just Thessaloniki and its environs... but never mind.

> In 1941 the Germans presented most of Macedonia to Bulgaria, but
> the 1919 frontiers were restored in 1945. While the province was
> probably better-off in the period between the two world wars
> than she had been under the Turks, the kingdom of Yugoslavia was
> particularly active in its efforts to bring the region up to
> date and repair the damage of its long neglect.
>
> However, after World War II, schools were opened for the first
> time. In them instruction is given in the Macedonia language,
> which is in many ways different from Serbo-Croat.

Other comparisons to other languages in the region?

> Macedonia is still in some respect more backward than the
> northern region of Yugoslavia, but industrialization is going
> ahead fast, agriculture has been drastically reorganized, and
> excellent new roads have been built. There remains much to do,
> but it is significant now that the people are at last free of
> foreign rule, and painters, musicians and writers are very
> actively asserting the country's highly individual artistic
> outlook.

...a very artistic and imaginative and creative people if we judge
from this presentations. If only the past could had actually
been... different!

[Ilya V. Talev]

In article <32B066...@essex.ac.uk>, jpr...@essex.ac.uk says...

>
>I was surfing the net following Boris Docevski's (docevski@welch
>link.welch.jhu.edu) instructions of his sign.file (http://www.isc
>.rit.edu/~bvs4997/Macedonia) in the message reference <58ape1$e4v
>@news.jhu.edu> of December 7th, 1996, 03:48:17 GMT... And I came
>upon the little precious piece...
>
>An erudite (historian?) by the name Boris Soposki claims it, and
>B.Docevski advertises it in a number of fora (soc.culture.austra-
>lian, soc.culture.canada, soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.usa).
>
>

Oh my, did they fool you, John. Boris Soposki (pronounced
Shoposki) ain't any kind of historian. He is just a kid, an
undergraduate student from the land of the Lotus Eaters.

I wouldn't bother refuting his contribution to World History.
But would just like to point to one specific place in his marvelous
homework, namely his explanation of the period after the Serbian
occupation of his land. Mind you, in the period between 1913
and 1929 one hundred twenty six thousand (126,000) people from
the Vardar region were forced to emigrate to the USA,Canada,
Australia and Argentina, and about 25,000 to Bulgaria. This
is proportionately MORE than the Irish emigration to America
during the potato famine. And here is how the boy-wonder describes
this glorious time:

>> ....While the province (meaning the South-Serbian banovina) was

>> probably better-off in the period between the two world wars
>> than she had been under the Turks, the kingdom of Yugoslavia was
>> particularly active in its efforts to bring the region up to
>> date and repair the damage of its long neglect.
>

Don't get me wrong. Boris Soposki is a good boy. I really like him.
But you can clearly see who brain-washed Borko Shoposki and his likes.
Boris is a Bulgarian name, that of the first Bulgarian Saint, who
baptized the Bulgarian people (there is another Russian Saint Boris,
who had that name because his mother was a Volga Bulgar). I suppose
that the boy from FYROM was not given his name after the Russian
Saint. As evidence is his family name, Shoposki. It means that his
family comes from the Shopi, a north-Western branch of the Bulgarian
people. So you can see how far north the genes of poor Alexander
and Cleopatra have spread.

[Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD]

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:10:09 -0800, John Prodromidis
<jpr...@essex.ac.uk> wrote:

>Furthermore:
>All recovered inscriptions, along with the names of months, those
>of aristocrats and commoners, etc., are Greek.
> (A.Fear's offered 'exception' of one Thracian name, though
> conceivable and even expected as in the rest of Greece, fails
> to meet his own criterion).

I found Fear's exception very entertaining. With thousands of
Macedonian names well known, he comes up with one possible Thracian,
as we did not know that Thracian mercenaries were present in the
Macedonian army. These are desperate times for some of our friends,
as they fail to make any reasonable argument that can stand up to
logical inquiry.

>There is enough inscriptional evidence accumulated today pointing
>to Macedonian being a Greek dialect. This is corroborated by an
>early ancient source (Strattis) who does make the Macedonian
>dialect a Greek one, and a later, well-known ancient author who
>even provides information on the Macedonian variants of
>pronunciation (Plutarch)...

>> The Greeks regarded the Macedonians as "barbarians", i.e.
>> people who could not speak proper Greek, and looked down on them
>> accordingly.
>
>This evidence comes indeed from the 4th century BCE: from speeches
>of individuals whose cities were in dispute or war with Macedonia.
>They were clearly biased against Macedonians.

>Interestingly, similar and/or identical vocabulary was employed
>FOR other Greeks such as Athenians, Spartans, mainlanders,
>islanders, Asiatic, Western, in a variety of circumstances (mainly
>when the Greeks were -again- in a state of war among themselves.
>Such lists of quotes have been provided in the past in both alt.
>news.macedonia and soc.culture.greek).

Thucidides clearly regards the Aetolians and Akarnanians as
"barbarians" although both of these groups played a very significant
role in Greek history from the 3rd century BC onwards and there is no
doubt as to their ethnicity. It is clear that many Athenians regarded
a lot of other Greeks who had not reached their level of political or
cultural development as "barbarians" and they would use these epithets
in times of war to incide the citizens to take up arms. In war, you
always attempt to dehumanize your opponent which is clearly the effort
that Demosthenes did. It cannot be taken any more seriously than the
description of Germans as "Huns" by the English and French press
during WWI.

>So, the Macedonians were not the only ones to have this dubious
>distinction. It is a matter of how selective one wants to be.
>
>The interesting things is that even in the works that the ancient
>Macedonians are portrayed as such by ancient Athenians, the
>Macedonians may also be juxtaposed to (or separated from) the
>actual "barbarians", i.e., the non-Greeks (Isokrates); and in at
>least one funny case the fiercest of the anti-macedonian orators
>actually provides evidence refuting his standard thesis
>(Demosthenes).
>
>The record from the subsequent centuries is pretty much consistent
>(Polybios, Pseudo-Kallisthenes, Strabo, Diodoros, Arrian,
>Plutrach). And it may be confirmed to some degree by passages from
>non-Greek traditions (Livy, Curtius, Justin, the Maccabees, New
>Testament). A number of such cases, where the Macedonians are
>represented as a distinct or not so distinct Greek people, have
>circulated in the alt.news.macedonia and soc.culture.greek before.
>
>Modern historians too are solid here (Badian, Millar, Mommsen).

>Continuing:

>>
>> Nevertheless, by using a mixture of brilliant diplomacy and
>> armed force, Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, brought
>> the whole of Greece under the control of Macedon.
>
>The statement in not enirely without nuisances. In Alexander's own
>lifetime Sparta went in war with Macedonia. Athens and others
>started another war immediately afterwards. The Achaians, the
>Aitolians and Epirotans had independence (if not rule over parts
>of Macedonia at times).

Sicily and Italy also remained outside Macedonian rule and the decline
of power of Macedon was precipitous under the Antigonids. When Philip
V tried to revive the power of the Macedonian kingdom, he ran against
the Attalids, the Aetolians and their "friends" the Romans. However,
it is very instructive that when the Romans were canvancing for
support against Philip, they found the southern Greeks unwilling to
participate.

>And, of course, one should not forget that a very important mass
>of Greek city-states was simply located beyond the confines of the
>Greek peninsula.
>
>
>> One secret of their success was the adoption by Philip of the
>> "phalanx",

>Ahaa... Another fine Macedonian word I presume!

The phalanx is not a Macedonian invention. Its arming with the long
spear is, but it interesting that by the time Alexander reached India,
the sarissa had been discarded as Alexander found the phalanx unwieldy
and ineffective in all his major battles. It was the successors who
learned the wrong lessons, who made the phalanx heavier and did not
put the necessary effort in heavy cavarly that resulted in the
lessened effectiveness of the Macedonian army. It was instructive but
failed to register, the fact that in Cynos Cephalai, the Macedonian
cavarly was defeated by the Aetolian one and that the phalanx fell
pray to broken ground and to the Roman gladius.

> One wonders what the term means in other languages. I have
> the funny feeling that those versed in any Greek dialect
> will not have to rush to dictionaries. :-)

>The events & dedications there (or during the expedition),

>concerning the Greek pantheon could had provided an interesting
>glimpse into the religion of the ancient Macedonians. And this, in
>turn, might had served as another factor in aiding us determine
>their ethnicity. So it could have had a place in this or in other
>points of Mr.Soposki's "history"... :-(
>
>
>> He himself died at the age of 33 without ever seeing his native
>> country again. The generals whom he had left in charge of
>> various provinces

>> seized control for themselves and began to quarrel with each
>> other. After 175 unsettled years,
>
>How were these years more "unsettled" than... the previous 175 ?
>
>Does the author of this piece have any familiarity with Macedonian
>history at all? Were the troubles of the earlier invasions of
>Illyrians, Thracians, Persians, Athenians, Chalkidikeans, Thebans,
>etc... somehow calmer times for Macedonia?
>
>
>> in 146 BC Macedonia became a Roman province.
>>
>
>What was wrong with the date of 168?

Actually, 146 BC is correct. Between 168 and 146, Macedonia had a
weird status but it was the long revolt that forced the reduction of
the country to provincial status. The revolt between 168 and 146 is
left usually undiscussed in most histories although the challenge to
Roman rule was more potent than that of Perseus.

>In any case...
>What the Romans conquered (the Antigonid kingdom of Macedonia) did
>not actually extend beyond the modern-day Greek borders (Livy),
>give or take an outpost.

Correct. Most of what is today FYROM and Thrace belonged to a client
Thracian kingdom that remained self-governing until Claudius I. It
was then transformed into the provinces of Moesia.

>The northern peoples that the Romans conquered at the time or
>subsequently (Paeonians, Dardanians, Illyrians) were traditional
>if not proverbial enemies of the ancient Macedonians. These other,
>northern lands are what comprise today's Former Yugoslav Republic
>of Macedonia (FYROM).

>Therefore, one should disassociate the northern territories from
>the Macedonia of Alexander and Philip. The land of classical
>Macedonia (the one Mr.Soposki presumably refers to in the
>article) is pretty much within modern Greece today: the present-
>day province of "Makedonia".

The kingdom of Lynkestis which lies within southern FYROM was
traditionally a client kingdom and the kings of Lynkestis claimed
similar heritage to the kings at Aigai. The king of Lynkestis during
the time of Alexander the Great was also called Alexander and he was
later executed for treason. Philip had effective control of the
Lynkestian kingdom and so did some of the later Antigonids.

But, besides this appanage, all of the typical Macedonian kingdom lies
within Greek borders.

>Or is that the one he tries to connect to? And if so, why?
>
>Unless someone comes forward and articulates a feeble argument (to
>say the least) of some mass migration of the actual Macedonians
>north, or tracks down so many customs and linguistic similarities,
>I do not see how the argument of continuation from antiquity to
>modern day Slavo-Albanian FYROM can stick and escape from being a
>marginal one. (And as for the Albanians: They do draw on an
>Illyrian heritage.)

>> Centuries later, Byzantium tried to check the Slav's
>> infiltration from the north, but was unable to prevent their
>> settling there,
>
>Whaooo!
>What happened here? Why are we leaping with such speed ahead?
>Too many things to say about this very Greek character of the
>Roman province perhaps?
>Skopje and the rest of Dardania, on the other hand, were culturaly
>distinct from Macedonia (the senatorial province in the south).

This is very true. Most FYROM histories fail to mention the fact
between the Roman conquest and the invasion of the Slavic tribes in
550 AD and onwards, more than 7 centuries did lapse. During this
period, the information that we have for Macedonia (see Mommsen's
"Provinces of the Roman Empire") is of a homogenous Greek province.
Paul's letters to Thessalonikians (or Thessalonians) are written in
Greek and his teaching in Macedonia (Chrysopolis, Philippi,
Thessaloniki and Berrhoia -Veria-) are well covered in the Acts of the
Apostles. We know that he spoke Aramaic and Greek but there is no
evidence that he encountered anybody that spoke anything else but
Greek

>> and in the tenth century the newcomers formed themselves into an
>> independent state under Car Samuel (Tsar Samuel).
>
>Whaooo! Two birds with one stone:
>- THE NEWCOMERS FORMED THEMSELVES INTO AN INDEPENDENT STATE.
> Therefore:
> The NEWCOMERS are NOT the INDIGENOUS Greek-speaking people...
> (At least this fellow is not hallucinating as other weirdos in
> alt.news.macedonia who claim descend from the Macedonian
> queen Cleopatra [and Julius Caesar?], or the assassinated
> young kids of Alexander the Great!)
>- However, there can be no do question about the nationality of
> Samuel and his state (check for example the Oxford Dictionary of
> Byzantium, s.v. "Samuel of Bulgaria", v.3, p.1838).

Samuel Bulgarian kingdom bears little similarity to the Bulgarian
kingdom that was destroyed by emperor John Tsimiskes and remained
under Byzantine control even at the zenith of Samuel's power.
Samuel's 2nd Bulgarian kingdom was clearly based in what is today
northwestern Greek Macedonia and most of FYROM including parts of
Eastern Albania and its capital was at Ochrid, a great distance from
Plevna, the capital of the original Bulgarian kingdom and the site of
one of the most bloody confrontations between Greeks and Kievan
Russians. It was the battle of Plevna that brought the Bulgarian
kingdom under Byzantine control for almost 300 years.

Although Samuel's kingdom is known as a Bulgarian one, many byzantine
historians used the term "Slavopouloi" for the Bulgarian lords that
revolted and formed that state. I think that the present inhabitants
of FYROM are probably within the levels of propriety regarding Samuel
as part of their heritage, although this is an argument that one can
sit out.

>> After several victories over the Byzantines, he added other Slav
>> provinces to his kingdom, whose central portion was what is now
>> Bulgaria. But Byzantium, once fully mobilized, was too powerful
>> for him.
>>
>> In a terrible battle in 1014, the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II,
>> took 14,000 prisoners blinded them and sent them back to Samuel.
>> Stunned by the horror of this monstrous act, Samuel died soon
>> after, and for a time Byzantine power was assured.
>
>And for that, the Roman emperor Basileios II of the so-called
>Macedonian dynasty (because some 'byzantines' applied this term
>on old East Macedonian and Thracian lands) WAS GIVEN THE EPITHET
>Bulgar-Slayer: Indicative of the nationality of the enemy the
>'byzantines' defeated.

>Greeks and Bulgarians have fought over this event or calmly
>discussed it a number of times...
>
>And suddenly we have a third party that claims participation!

This claim is not knew and it can be traced back to same group of
intellectuals that "formed" the intellectual underpinnings of the
"Macedonian" ethnicity. Is it valid? This is another question. My
feeling is that the western parts of the kingdom of Bulgaria can
certainly now claim an indepedent existence and "retrieve" some
heritage. Their claim there is a bit stronger than that on ancient
Macedonian history.

>We all hit the medieval works, check the recovered inscriptions
>and the history books... And nobody remembers this third party!
>
>They were not invented yet...

As I said, the term "slavopouloi" has been used in terms of Samuel's
kingdom and earlier Byzantine authors clearly differentiate between
Bulgarians of upper Moesia and the "Slaveni" or "Sclaveni" or "Slavoi"
that participated in the breaching of imperial defences by the Avars
in the late 6th century to the middle of the 7th century -although the
migrations continued up to middle of the 8th century. It should be
remebered that the Slavs of these migrations were an adjunct to the
Avar army -at a certain time the Avars were actually paid by the
Byzantines to turn on them-. Recent achaelogical excavations in sites
of temporary Slavic settlements -such as the Acrocorinth- have
revealed graves mostly of Avar cavarlymen.

>> With the expansion of the Serb state under the brilliant Nemanja
>> dynasty, King Dusan occupied Macedonia in the 14th century,
>
>And the Greeks (i.e., the 'byzantines') did fight Dusan and did
>maintain control of several districts, and even reclaimed several
>from the Serbs.
>
>The fact that the medieval 'byzantines', the Greek-speaking
>inhabitants, kept referring to themselves as Macedonians and to
>their 'byzantine'-controlled land as Macedonia... these are things
>one can easily verify through 'byzantine' literature and the
>recovered inscriptions (and such evidence has been posted in
>soc.culture.greek and alt.news.macedonia and soc.culture.bulgaria
>in the past).

For most of the time between the 6th century and 1014 AD, the theme of
Macedonia under effective imperial control and with Greek populations
was delimited by the line of Adrianople-Serrhai- Berrhoia. The fact
that this area was a "March" -a frontier zone of confrontation-
clearly attests to the fact that little love was lost between the
Greek populations of the imperial-controlled province and the slav
population lurking behind the frontier. Raids from both sides were
murderous events and the life in the province was a very martial one.
The inhabitants of Thessaloniki were among the few civilians in the
Empire that had the right to bear arms and intellectual life in
Thessaloniki remained relatively stunted due to the continuous
warfare. Thessaloniki did come on its own in the 11th century and
later, when Empire had eradicated the Bulgarian kingdom and its Slav
satellites.

>
>> The first Balkan War (1912) liberated Macedonia from the Turks,
>> but the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs immediately embarked upon
>> the second Balkan War of 1913. In World War I this unhappy
>> backward province was a theater of operations. The Treaty of
>> Neuilly in 1919 again divided it, the new Yugoslavia being
>> awarded the lion's share, Greece keeping Thessaloniki and its
>> environs, and Bulgaria a small strip in the northeast.
>
>It was not just Thessaloniki and its environs... but never mind.

Actually, Greece was awarded 55% of the territory of the vilayets of
Thessaloniki and Monastir, about 30% went to Serbia and the remainder
15% to Bulgaria. However, we are talking here about the area of two
administrative sections of the Ottoman Empire which may or may not
have anything to do with Macedonia per se, dependind how one defines
Macedonia. It is clear that Classical, Roman and Byzantine Macedonia
were different -and more restricted- territorial entities than the two
Ottoman vilayets.

[Radeff]

First I apologize for using your newsgroup to make this reply to the
Bulgarian "Aesop", I. Talev. Here it what he spun out of his own needs to
promote his agenda.

<I wouldn't bother refuting his contribution to World History.
But would just like to point to one specific place in his marvelous
homework, namely his explanation of the period after the Serbian
occupation of his land. Mind you, in the period between 1913
and 1929 one hundred twenty six thousand (126,000) people from
the Vardar region were forced to emigrate to the USA,Canada,
Australia and Argentina, and about 25,000 to Bulgaria. This
is proportionately MORE than the Irish emigration to America
during the potato famine. And here is how the boy-wonder describes
this glorious time:>

The period cited above, 1913 to 1929, was the time when most of the men
from my family found their way to those lands - USA, Canada, Argentina.
The reason they left was not due to hardships such as famine or need of
any money. They came from families without financial woes. They left to
find a freedom that had not been theirs or even their ancestors in
Macedonia (ROM) One captive rule would hardly have the dust settled before
another entered the land. It cannot be blamed on any one group entirely as
Mr. Talev would want it to be done. They all had a hand in it. Btw, they
also did not want to serve in a foreign army. HRA

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:10:09 -0800, John Prodromidis <jpr...@essex.ac.uk> wrote

in article <32B066...@essex.ac.uk>:

>This evidence comes indeed from the 4th century BCE: from speeches
>of individuals whose cities were in dispute or war with Macedonia.
>They were clearly biased against Macedonians.

The "thrust" of the evidence for the Fyromian position comes from the speeches
of Demosthenes, who his contemporary Aeschenes plainly accuses him on several
occasions for lying, theft, bribery, murder, and treason among others. He also
bluntly flaunts the idea that Demosthenes' push for war was due to an economic
stake of such an outcome. Not to mention the fact that Aeschenes calls
Demosthenes a barbarian.
A simple search of the Perseus Project on the www will confirm these.

Vasilios Psarras

[Anastassios Retzios]

vas...@pipeline.com (Vasilios Psarras) wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:10:09 -0800, John Prodromidis <jpr...@essex.ac.uk> wrote
>in article <32B066...@essex.ac.uk>:
>

>>This evidence comes indeed from the 4th century BCE: from speeches
>>of individuals whose cities were in dispute or war with Macedonia.
>>They were clearly biased against Macedonians.
>

>The "thrust" of the evidence for the Fyromian position comes from the speeches
>of Demosthenes, who his contemporary Aeschenes plainly accuses him on several
>occasions for lying, theft, bribery, murder, and treason among others. He also
>bluntly flaunts the idea that Demosthenes' push for war was due to an economic
>stake of such an outcome. Not to mention the fact that Aeschenes calls
>Demosthenes a barbarian.
>A simple search of the Perseus Project on the www will confirm these.
>
>
>Vasilios Psarras
>

Vasili

It should not be lost in the present discussion that Demosthenes
argued to convince Athenians to go to war. And that meant that the
same citizens who voted had to man the phalanx that would have faced
the Macedonians pikes. Men will not decide to put themselves in such
mortal danger unless clearly provoked and it took many of these
speeches and many manipulations of the truth for Demosthenes to
convince the relunctant Athenians to take the field.

It should also not be lost that his Philippics were an essential item
of the curiculum in every Greek high school -at least in my days-, a
clear indication that modern Greeks are not embarrashed by his
characterizations but teach him for the same reason that the
Hellenistic monarchies -mostly Macedonian- preserved his works: as a
very good illustration of a powerful argument.

This is what is so laughable about Slavko Mangovski. He thinks that
he informed us what Demosthenes said when countless generations of
Greeks had to endure and analyze and get examined on his "Philippics"
-as I did- for a full year during high school!!!

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 07:16:48 GMT, aret...@deltanet.com (Anastassios Retzios)
wrote in article <32b300a8...@news05.deltanet.com>:

>Vasili

>It should not be lost in the present discussion that Demosthenes
>argued to convince Athenians to go to war. And that meant that the
>same citizens who voted had to man the phalanx that would have faced
>the Macedonians pikes. Men will not decide to put themselves in such
>mortal danger unless clearly provoked and it took many of these
>speeches and many manipulations of the truth for Demosthenes to
>convince the relunctant Athenians to take the field.

>It should also not be lost that his Philippics were an essential item
>of the curiculum in every Greek high school -at least in my days-, a
>clear indication that modern Greeks are not embarrashed by his
>characterizations but teach him for the same reason that the
>Hellenistic monarchies -mostly Macedonian- preserved his works: as a
>very good illustration of a powerful argument.

I agree with you 100%, Anastasie. The value of the Philippics is in the power of
Demosthenes oratory. We should be careful before we draw any conlusions about
the Macedonians based on his oratory because he was their sworn enemy.
You know if you exclude the handful of frases from the ancient texts that are
open to interpretation, there is NO OTHER evidence to sustain the position that
the Macedonians were not Greeks. All and I mean ALL)the archaeologic evidence
points to the hellenic roots of Macedonia.

>This is what is so laughable about Slavko Mangovski. He thinks that
>he informed us what Demosthenes said when countless generations of
>Greeks had to endure and analyze and get examined on his "Philippics"
>-as I did- for a full year during high school!!!

Mangovski is so much brainwashed that, he thinks that we get shocked when we see
his "info". On the other hand he (and the others) have never been able to make
the connection between the ancient Macedonians and today's residents of Fyrom.

I wonder why!

Vasilios Psarras

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Anastassios Retzios wrote:

[del]

>
> It should also not be lost that his Philippics were an essential item
> of the curiculum in every Greek high school -at least in my days-, a
> clear indication that modern Greeks are not embarrashed by his
> characterizations but teach him for the same reason that the
> Hellenistic monarchies -mostly Macedonian- preserved his works: as a
> very good illustration of a powerful argument.
>

> This is what is so laughable about Slavko Mangovski. He thinks that
> he informed us what Demosthenes said when countless generations of
> Greeks had to endure and analyze and get examined on his "Philippics"
> -as I did- for a full year during high school!!!
>
>

That is exactly the point, Retzios. They have brainwashed you not to see
the obvious. All the hoopla against Demosthenes (if I was Greek I
would've been proud of him) produced today is just to hide what he said
about Philip and the Macedonians which is no different from what everybody
else in antiquity said: Macedonians were not Greeks.

Here, try to read the text again:

[30] Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Greeks suffered
from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they
suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Greece, and they
might have been regarded as the acts of a
legitimate son, born to great possessions, who should be guilty of some
fault or error in the management of his estate: so
far he would deserve blame and reproach, yet it could not be said that it
was not one of the blood, not the lawful heir who
was acting thus.
[31] But if some slave or superstitious bastard had wasted and squandered
what he had no right to, heavens! how much
more monstrous and exasperating all would have called it! Yet they have no
such qualms about Philip and his present
conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but
not even a barbarian from any place that can be
named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was
never yet possible to buy a decent slave.

[32] Yet what is wanting to crown his insolence? Not content with the
destruction of cities, is he not organizing the
Pythian games, the common festival of the Greeks, and if he cannot be
present in person, sending his menials to act as
stewards? [Is he not master of Thermopylae and the passes into Greece,
holding those places with his garrisons and his
mercenaries? Has he not the right of precedence at the Oracle, ousting us
and the Thessalians and the Dorians and the
rest of the Amphictyons from a privilege which not even all Greek states
can claim?]

Here I'll even translate it for you and won't even use my words but those
of Badian, an authority on ancient Macedonia:

"..a long tirade in the Third Philippic (9.30 f.) , he claims that
suffering
inflicted on Greeks by Greeks is at least easier to bear than that now
inflicted by Philip, "who is not only not a Greek and has nothing to do
with Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a place it would be
honorable to name--a cursed Macedonian, who comes from where it used to be
impossible even to buy a decent slave."

If this was the ONLY evidence in antiquity that the Macedonians were not
Greeks I, and everybody else, would've concurred that the evidence is
shaky. But in view of so much evidence there is only ONE conclusion: the
Macedonians were NOT Greeks.

That's it.

Slavko

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Vasilios Psarras wrote:

[del]

>
> Mangovski is so much brainwashed that, he thinks that we get shocked when we see
> his "info". On the other hand he (and the others) have never been able to make
> the connection between the ancient Macedonians and today's residents of Fyrom.
>
> I wonder why!
>

That's because you ask the question in a wrong way. The only connection
Fyrom has obviosly is to your infantile minds and more directly to the
power of the Greek lobby in the U.S.

Now, if you are looking for a connection between the ancient and the
modern Macedonians here it is:

Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians

Modern Macedonians = Macedonians

Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians.

Do you get it now?

> Vasilios Psarras
>
>
>

[Aias o Telamwvios]

>Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians

>Modern Macedonians = Macedonians

>Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians.

Slavko, you can't even get your bogus syllogisms right.

This is what you did with sumbols:

A= X;
B=X;
THEREFORE [????] X=X;

What you wanted to say, Slavko is:

Therefore 'Ancient Macedonians=Modern Macedonians'

If x = 0 and y = 0 what follows is that x=y, not that 0=0!!!!

>> Vasilios Psarras

I love your syllogisms, Slavko. They are truly comical. You should take your
show on the road.

Try this one for size:

Ancient Cretans = Cretans

Modern Cretans = Cretans

Therefore Cretans = Cretans! [according to your peculiar use of logic]

or [for the rest of us humans]

Ancient Cretans = Modern Cretans.

Oh yes!

How'bout this one:

Dominicans = Hispaniolans

Haitians = Hispaniolans.

Therefore, 'Dominicans = Haitians' !!!!

Or

Swedes = Scandinavians;

Finns = Scandinavians;

Therefore Swedes = Finns!!!????

And, Sasho, who seems to be a pretty intelligent person, has chosen to defend
Slavko in his use of 'Macedonians = Macedonians' nonsense.

Just because one is one's compatriot/co-ethnic/co-national one should not get
'carte blanche', Sasho.

I should hope that Sasho, who apparently is pretty adept at mathematical
formal logic will break it to Slavko that the propositions 'A IS X' is NOT
equivalent to 'A = X'.

By Slavko's logic, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini, who fancied
themselves 'Romans' because the (ancient) Romans lived in the same area as
modern Italians do/did, were RIGHT in claiming that they and their state were
a 're-birth' and a 'continuation' of the Roman Empire . . .

"There is no royal road to scholarship, and only those who do not dread
the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its
luminous summits"

Karl Marx, "Preface to the French Edition of Das Kapital".

Stavros N. Karageorgis
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu

[Dimitrios Zanikos]

Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:

>Now, if you are looking for a connection between the ancient and the
>modern Macedonians here it is:

>Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians

>Modern Macedonians = Macedonians

>Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians.

>Do you get it now?

Ladies and gentlemen this is Mangovskian logic at its finest!

Mangovskian logic::

If X=Y And
Z=Y THEN

Y = Y !

This revelation sheds new light on the issue. Im sorry Slavko, Im
sorry for ever doubting that you are a descendant of the ancient
Macedonians. With this new argument I can only conclude that not
only are you related to the ancient Maks, you are ALexander reincarated!

Anyways:

MaJiK = Mangovski
Hocus_Pocus = Mangovski

Tadaaa!
Mangovski = Mangovski ;-0 (Or something like that!)

Everyone leave Slavko alone! He is under tremendous stress. This is
a war for him. He is fighting us with his keyboard!

Merry Christmas!

[Georgios Savopulos]

Dimitrios Zanikos (zan...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:

: >Now, if you are looking for a connection between the ancient and the
: >modern Macedonians here it is:

: >Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians

: >Modern Macedonians = Macedonians

: >Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians.

: >Do you get it now?

: Ladies and gentlemen this is Mangovskian logic at its finest!

: Mangovskian logic::

: If X=Y And
: Z=Y THEN

: Y = Y !

Actually his "logic" is: X=Y(1)
Z=Y(2)

=> X=Z

His problem, of course, is that Y(1) =/ Y(2) ;->
I think he should go back and study arrays for a change... :)

: This revelation sheds new light on the issue. Im sorry Slavko, Im

: sorry for ever doubting that you are a descendant of the ancient
: Macedonians. With this new argument I can only conclude that not
: only are you related to the ancient Maks, you are ALexander reincarated!

: Anyways:

: MaJiK = Mangovski
: Hocus_Pocus = Mangovski

: Tadaaa!
: Mangovski = Mangovski ;-0 (Or something like that!)

: Everyone leave Slavko alone! He is under tremendous stress. This is
: a war for him. He is fighting us with his keyboard!

: Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas indeed... :-)

--

Georgios Savopulos
Hoosierland.

[MKroki7879]

Mr. Ignorant Slavko (does this mean "Slav??)

Read what the Ministers of EC will announce pretty soon for Macedonia -
the only true Macedonian - that is A DIRECT CONTINUATION FROM ANCIENT
GREECE.

Not that they say anything new but it will put a STOP to the lies of all
those suspiciously ignorant pseudo-historio-anthropolo-ethno-scientific
plagiarazers whose purpose to is steal the history of Greece and create a
future bridge to claim Greek land.

Anyway, to the forces of progress and trouth: "the strugle continues"

Mike K

[MKroki7879]

I can real believe now that the more these idiots speak the more the world
will now the Inteligentsia of the imigrand Fyrominians.

This "Galina-Mangofski-Balalofski" package is so dumm that really
DISERVICES the people of Fyrom.

This Slav guy, really done it, with his Hengelian argument. Please read:

"Slavko Mangofski said"

"Do you want a conection between ancient Macedonians and modern
Macedonians?? Here it is:

Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians |
| ==>
Macedonians = MAcedonians
Modern (sic!) Macedonians = Macedonians|.

Like you need a logical thought to prove a tautology !!

How can these dum people even think that they can be even remotely
connected with the the Spirit of ancient Macedonia??

Mike K.

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <Pine.A32.3.93.961214...@dakota.gate.net> Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:

>On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Anastassios Retzios wrote:

>[del]
>>
>> It should also not be lost that his Philippics were an essential item
>> of the curiculum in every Greek high school -at least in my days-, a
>> clear indication that modern Greeks are not embarrashed by his
>> characterizations but teach him for the same reason that the
>> Hellenistic monarchies -mostly Macedonian- preserved his works: as a
>> very good illustration of a powerful argument.
>>
>> This is what is so laughable about Slavko Mangovski. He thinks that
>> he informed us what Demosthenes said when countless generations of
>> Greeks had to endure and analyze and get examined on his "Philippics"
>> -as I did- for a full year during high school!!!
>>
>>
>That is exactly the point, Retzios. They have brainwashed you not to see
>the obvious. All the hoopla against Demosthenes (if I was Greek I
>would've been proud of him) produced today

So much anti-Demosthenes hoopla being produced today in Greece that . . .
the Philippics are still REQUIRED reading in the Ancient Greek curriculum in
Greek High School (Lykeion) . . .

> is just to hide what he said
>about Philip and the Macedonians which is no different from what everybody
>else in antiquity said: Macedonians were not Greeks.

Oh yes. So much effort 'just to hide what he said about Philip and the
Macedonians' . . . all in the form of having his Philippics mandatorily
assigned to Greek school-children in high school . . .. I can see the
sinister plot to 'hide' what Demosthenes had to say now . . . MAKE
GREEK SCHOOL-CHILDREN have to know by-heart how to translate the Philippics
for their final exams in Ancient Greek in High School. Wow!!!

>Here, try to read the text again:

We've read the texts, in their entirety, in the ORIGINAL, in high-school,
learned friend. We HAD to. Wake up. As the Ancient Athenians used to say, you
are 'bringing an owl to Athens'. You are insisting upon 'informing' us about
things that the Greek government considers soooo dangerous to our 'national
mythology' that it . . . makes them mandatory reading for school-children.

<snip>

>Slavko

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

> >Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians
>
> >Modern Macedonians = Macedonians
>
> >Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians.
>
> >Do you get it now?
>

[del]

>
> >> Vasilios Psarras
>
> I love your syllogisms, Slavko. They are truly comical. You should take your
> show on the road.
>

Thank you. I'm glad you think so since the above was just a joke for
Psaras who's looking for racial continuity. Just ask him: I'm sure he
beleives the ancient and modern Greeks are one and the same.

[del]

>
> By Slavko's logic, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini, who fancied
> themselves 'Romans' because the (ancient) Romans lived in the same area as
> modern Italians do/did, were RIGHT in claiming that they and their state were
> a 're-birth' and a 'continuation' of the Roman Empire . . .
>

My logic? Why go to Italy for an example. It is the modern Greek state
that claims exactly that: continuation from Ancient Greece, Ancient
Macedonia, the Eastern Roman Empire and anything else that is politically
convenient. That is real comedy. It seem that they will even force RM's
govt. to sign a Declaration acknowledgeng the "Greek past" of Macedonia.
What a farce! If I was a Greek I would've been ashamed by such actions.

Slavko

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

[del]

> >That is exactly the point, Retzios. They have brainwashed you not to see
> >the obvious. All the hoopla against Demosthenes (if I was Greek I
> >would've been proud of him) produced today
>
> So much anti-Demosthenes hoopla being produced today in Greece that . . .
> the Philippics are still REQUIRED reading in the Ancient Greek curriculum in
> Greek High School (Lykeion) . . .

Retzios already informed us about that. The point is WHAT do they say his
words mean: just political rhetoric, no basis in history, he was wrong...

>
>
> > is just to hide what he said
> >about Philip and the Macedonians which is no different from what everybody
> >else in antiquity said: Macedonians were not Greeks.
>

[del]

> >Here, try to read the text again:
>
> We've read the texts, in their entirety, in the ORIGINAL, in high-school,
> learned friend. We HAD to. Wake up. As the Ancient Athenians used to say, you
> are 'bringing an owl to Athens'. You are insisting upon 'informing' us about
> things that the Greek government considers soooo dangerous to our 'national

So you Stavros claim that what is taught in Greek schools regarding
ancient history is according to world historical science and not according
to Greek politics. In our case that would be the effort by the Greek
historical science to deliberately ignore and twist facts regarding
Macedonian history or, in other words, they taught you in school that
Demosthenes actually said (I'll repeat Badian's words):

Third Philippic (9.30 f.) , he claims that suffering inflicted on Greeks
by Greeks is at least easier to bear than that now inflicted by Philip,
"who is not only not a Greek and has nothing to do with Greeks, but is not
even a barbarian from a place it would be honorable to name--a cursed
Macedonian, who comes from where it used to be impossible even to buy a
decent slave."

If so, prove it.

Slavko

[Aias o Telamwvios]

>[del]

>If so, prove it.

>Slavko

What's to prove, Slavko.

When we 'learn' the ancient texts in Ancient Greek in high-school, we read the
darn thing in the original and we 'interpret' it in modern Greek. Before we
get to the 'meaning', we first have to understand the actual text. We figure
out the syntax, we do grammatical exercises (up the ying-yang) on the verbs,
nouns and adjectives, and THEN we touch somewhat the CONTENT. Pretty shitty
way of learning, if you ask me, but that's (at least when I was in school) how
it was. In the segment you quote from Badian (whom you shouldn't mis-interpret
as supporting your positions so easily, since it has been pointed out to you
about a thousand times to what conclusion he, the most sceptical of
international scholars, comes with regard to any distinction between
Macedonians and Greece by Roman times), he does nothing but 'translate' the
original text into English. How can I explain this to you more clearly. The
text is RIGHT there, the teachers are knit-pickers for extreme accuracy in
'interpretation' [basically 'translation' in new Greek, as we call it],
therefore we have it FROM THE HORSE'S mouth right away. BTW, have you ever
read any Confederate 'literature' during the American Civil War?

NO serious scholar takes the Philippics for what you take them. Take a good
course in Historiography, basically the 'science' of researching and producing
historical knowledge, and maybe you will finally understand how to interpret
historical texts and documents.

BTW, I'll take your word with respect to your syllogism:

"Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians"

"Modern Macedonians = Macedonians"

"Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians"

being a joke. I surely had a nice laugh with it.

Have a nice day,

[sp...@erols.com]

Georgios Savopulos wrote:
>
> Dimitrios Zanikos (zan...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> : Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:
>
> : >Now, if you are looking for a connection between the ancient and the
> : >modern Macedonians here it is:
>

> : >Ancient Macedonians = Macedonians
>
> : >Modern Macedonians = Macedonians
>
> : >Therefore Macedonians = Macedonians.

>
> : >Do you get it now?
>

No, it's just not false Greek logic. False Greek logic presumes that
someone must have ethnopurist evidence to call himself or herself a
Macedonian. What Slavko and others are saying is that the people WERE
Macedonian, ARE Macedonian and wish to be REFERRED TO as Macedonian.
Now, all these Macedonians you wouold like to deny are from the same
general geographical location , i.e. from Thrace to the limits of
todays's Republic and Macedonia and parts of Albania. AND they are from
the same geographical area that they have been for an incredible length
of time. Does this say something other than they are who they say they
are?

On the other hand, given the expulsions form Asia Minor even in this
century, can most of you guys prove that continuation of existence in the
same area? Some can but most cannot.

Macedonians WERE, ARE, and WILL BE Macedonians.

[MKroki7879]

I fyou go to any serious historian or scholar who has even a slight idea
about Greek History, he'll tell you that the ancient Macedonians were
Greeks as much as Athenians etc.

You try do DISTORT a history of 2,500 years in order to fit your false
impressions into reality.

Please, stop your stupit comments. You are not even capable to right a
logical phrase !

Your name is Slavic!!
For beginers CHANGEYOUR NAME TO something that sounds Macedonian.
Your name cannot get you anywhere. It is SLAVIC, and as you well know
ALEXANDER THE GREAT did not speak slavic or the Skopianofski language you
claim to be "Macedonian", which is not even remotely related to ancient
Macedonian that, you can go and check out in Archeological sites in
Greece,
are basically Greek!!

If that is not a proof to you then, I suggest to go visit a
psychotherapist!!

God bless us all from your kind !!!

Mike K

[Anastassios D. Retzios, Ph.D.]

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:30:09 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net>
wrote:

>> This is what is so laughable about Slavko Mangovski. He thinks that
>> he informed us what Demosthenes said when countless generations of
>> Greeks had to endure and analyze and get examined on his "Philippics"
>> -as I did- for a full year during high school!!!
>>
>>

>That is exactly the point, Retzios. They have brainwashed you not to see
>the obvious. All the hoopla against Demosthenes (if I was Greek I

>would've been proud of him) produced today is just to hide what he said

>about Philip and the Macedonians which is no different from what everybody
>else in antiquity said: Macedonians were not Greeks.

First of all, dear Slavko, I fail to understand your point. How is it
possible to brainwash someone who you provide with the original
sources? Second, do you know what was discussed in my classroom or in
any other Greek high school? I doubt it. Actually, the Philippics
were taught just an illustration of rhetoric and not as historical
piece and there was very little if any editorializing. If the Greek
state wanted to conceal anything, there would have been no problem
doing so. There is a huge body of work in ancient Greek. Demosthenes
is not the only orator one could study. The reason he is chosen is
because he managed to send thousand of Athenians to their death.

You, of course, you know that it took many orations and debates
against other politicians such as Aeschines who advanced exactly the
opposite view. What Demosthenes did was to "dehumanize" the enemy,
very much in the same way as modern propagandist do today. As the
Germans were presented, during WWI, as uncivilized and murdering
"Huns" to the British public to bolster the recruitment effort, the
Macedonians were presented as "barbarians" by Demosthenes. Of course,
other Athenian politicians did advance the opposite point quite
successfully to the point that Athens did not declare "unrestricted"
warfare against Macedonia until Chaeronia.

Accussations of "barbarism" against other Greeks by Greeks abound and
I believe Prodromidis has posted quite a number of them.

By the way, as a Greek I have never been particularly proud of
Demosthenes as he was obviously a person who failed to understand the
power shift that had occured and the limited power of Athens to
respond to it. He unfortunately led his own state to ruin on at least
two occasions. Not a very good performance.

>Here, try to read the text again:

I know the text and I have studied it in the original.

>"..a long tirade in the Third Philippic (9.30 f.) , he claims that

>suffering
>inflicted on Greeks by Greeks is at least easier to bear than that now
>inflicted by Philip, "who is not only not a Greek and has nothing to do
>with Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a place it would be
>honorable to name--a cursed Macedonian, who comes from where it used to be
>impossible even to buy a decent slave."

>If this was the ONLY evidence in antiquity that the Macedonians were not
>Greeks I, and everybody else, would've concurred that the evidence is
>shaky. But in view of so much evidence there is only ONE conclusion: the
>Macedonians were NOT Greeks.

Slavko, I pity you because if you really believe this against all the
contrary evidence, and this is central to your self-definition, you
must be very wary as you know you have very little to stand on. Even
if we come to agree that the Macedonians were not Greek -which is of
course ludicrous-, the fact remains that they lived their lives and
contributed into the Hellenic and Hellenistic world which absolutely
no connection with you. If you suggest otherwise, you are deluding
yourself.

[John Kyrimis]

sp...@erols.com wrote:

> Macedonians WERE, ARE, and WILL BE Macedonians.

I'm glad you recognise this Galina. :-)

But your country still lacks an identity.

Hmm... How about:

Skopjians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Skopjians.

--
John Kyrimis
E-mail: j...@dove.net.au
WWW: http://dove.net.au/~jsk/

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Anastassios D. Retzios, Ph.D. wrote:

[del]

> >>
> >That is exactly the point, Retzios. They have brainwashed you not to see
> >the obvious. All the hoopla against Demosthenes (if I was Greek I
> >would've been proud of him) produced today is just to hide what he said
> >about Philip and the Macedonians which is no different from what everybody
> >else in antiquity said: Macedonians were not Greeks.
>
> First of all, dear Slavko, I fail to understand your point. How is it
> possible to brainwash someone who you provide with the original
> sources?

THAT is the point, dear Anasstasios. Although you provide somebody with
the original text they FAIL to understand them. Why? The only explanation
is brainwashing. The inability to see the obvious. You have proved that
countless times. I privide you with many quotes that say without any space
of doubt that the Macedonians were not considered to be Greek and you
refuse to accept it.

Second, do you know what was discussed in my classroom or in
> any other Greek high school? I doubt it.

You wrong here, again. Members of my family have attended Greek schools
and I do have a pretty good idea. The main purpose of the Greek school,
and church, is to instill a strong Hellenic frame of mind in the pupils
with truth being the main victim.

Actually, the Philippics
> were taught just an illustration of rhetoric and not as historical
> piece and there was very little if any editorializing.

I'm sure. Have you EVER been taught that there might be evidence that
suggests the macedonians, even as a remote possibility, might have not
been Greeks? I doubt it. You were probably taught that all those who say
so are enemies of the Greek nation.

If the Greek
> state wanted to conceal anything, there would have been no problem
> doing so. There is a huge body of work in ancient Greek. Demosthenes
> is not the only orator one could study. The reason he is chosen is
> because he managed to send thousand of Athenians to their death.
>

I don't think THAT is the reason. He's still one of the best orators ever.
(How strange: a modern Macedonian expresses admiration for an ancient
Greek and a modern Greek has no good words for the same.)

> You, of course, you know that it took many orations and debates
> against other politicians such as Aeschines who advanced exactly the
> opposite view.

I'll get back to you about him some other time. Philip must've thought of
him when he said that there is no Greek fortification that a donkey laden
with gold cannot climb.

What Demosthenes did was to "dehumanize" the enemy,
> very much in the same way as modern propagandist do today. As the
> Germans were presented, during WWI, as uncivilized and murdering
> "Huns" to the British public to bolster the recruitment effort, the
> Macedonians were presented as "barbarians" by Demosthenes.

How unkind from you for a true Greek patriot as Demosthenes was. He warned
Greece against Philip and he was right. Philip subjugated all of Greece
and Greece has used every possible occasion to rebel againts the
Macedonian occupier. This occupation lasted until Rome came to "free
Greece of the Macedonian overlord."

Your parallel with the Brits will not stand, I'm afraid, as many other
contemprary sources agree with Demosthenes. That's why historians as
Badian, Borza and Hammond all say the same thing: Macedonians were not
considered to be Greeks. Even if some quack today could come up with a
undeniable proof that Philip was Hellen's brother (so to speak) that will
not change one iota from what the macedonains and Greeks thought about
themslevs: they considered themselvs as foreigners.

Of course,
> other Athenian politicians did advance the opposite point quite
> successfully to the point that Athens did not declare "unrestricted"
> warfare against Macedonia until Chaeronia.
>

Let's not forget that Athens depended on Macedonia for timber and let's
not forget Philips gold.

> Accussations of "barbarism" against other Greeks by Greeks abound and
> I believe Prodromidis has posted quite a number of them.

With the only differnce that the macedonians were not considered to be
Greeks. Not my words but those of badian. Borza, Hammond, Wilken and all
the contemporary Greek historians.

>
> By the way, as a Greek I have never been particularly proud of
> Demosthenes as he was obviously a person who failed to understand the
> power shift that had occured and the limited power of Athens to
> respond to it. He unfortunately led his own state to ruin on at least
> two occasions. Not a very good performance.

You judge that from today;s point of view. You are proven wrong by the
many rebellions of the Greeks against macedon.

>
> >Here, try to read the text again:
>
> I know the text and I have studied it in the original.
>

[del]

>
> >If this was the ONLY evidence in antiquity that the Macedonians were not
> >Greeks I, and everybody else, would've concurred that the evidence is
> >shaky. But in view of so much evidence there is only ONE conclusion: the
> >Macedonians were NOT Greeks.
>
> Slavko, I pity you because if you really believe this against all the
> contrary evidence,

Pity yourself, Anasstasios, as ALL the evidence supports what I say: the
Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. As a Greek from Macedonia I
realize this comes as a shock to you but not to worry. If you feel to be
macedonian then you are one.

and this is central to your self-definition,

No, it is not. My idenity doesn't come from books. My idenity was given to
me by my land, by my people.

you
> must be very wary as you know you have very little to stand on.

If you consider Macedonia to be very little then it is your affair. After
all youre Greek and Greek you'll remain. Me, I come from Macedonia and
that's a lot for me.

Even
> if we come to agree that the Macedonians were not Greek -which is of
> course ludicrous-,

Maybe it;s not so luducrous! After all, that's what Badian, Borza,
Hammond, Wilken, Demosthens, Thrasymachus and countells others say so it
must be right. Consider it.

the fact remains that they lived their lives and
> contributed into the Hellenic and Hellenistic world

The Jews did more, actually, and so did the Romans (the Hellens of the
West) and many other Hellenistic powers.

which absolutely
> no connection with you.

Don't be ridicilous, Anasstasios. Have you seen a Macedonian church or a
macedonian priest? I'll bet you can't tell the difference from a Greek
church and Greek priest. In our schools we study Homer and Demosthens and
ancient Greek and probably almost everything you study in your Greek
schools. Our music is similar so is our food. Our genetic and ethnic
makeup is quite similar if not identical. The only differnce is the
language, I would say.

If you suggest otherwise, you are deluding
> yourself.
>

Maybe. Maybe it's the other way around. I know I'm right on ancient
Macedonians because everybody says the same thing. But don't despair.
I will not challenge that you are the direct descendant of the ancient
Greeks :-)

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <Pine.A32.3.93.961217...@dakota.gate.net> Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:
<snip>

>Your parallel with the Brits will not stand, I'm afraid, as many other
>contemprary sources agree with Demosthenes. That's why historians as
>Badian, Borza and Hammond all say the same thing: Macedonians were not
>considered to be Greeks.

They do not. You have been shown that a million times already. Other Greek
netters have chosen to believe that you in fact DO know the truth, CAN
understand plain English, but CHOOSE to ignore it. I, on the other hand, have
concluded that you are mentally incapable of such things. I am convinced that
you are a clinical moron. Go sell some tickets, and leave subjects requiring
SOME intelligence to others. When the scholars you like to quote themselves
say that what Demosthenes said had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH, and you
continue to assert that they agreed with Demosthenes, the only conclusion is
that you are a MORON.

> Even if some quack today could come up with a
>undeniable proof that Philip was Hellen's brother (so to speak) that will
>not change one iota from what the macedonains and Greeks thought about
>themslevs: they considered themselvs as foreigners.

Despite the fact that the average Ancient Macedonian has left us no (known)
relics of what he/she thought about the issue, and whether he/she cared about
it?

> Of course,
>> other Athenian politicians did advance the opposite point quite
>> successfully to the point that Athens did not declare "unrestricted"
>> warfare against Macedonia until Chaeronia.
>>

>Let's not forget that Athens depended on Macedonia for timber and let's
>not forget Philips gold.

Let's not forget that you are actually a MORON, a bloody TRAVEL AGENT who has
the gall to criticize people such as Retzios and Prodromidis on matters
historical. It is for fools like you that I have the sig. file I have! READ,
and if your pea-brain allows you to, TRY to comprehend it.

>> Accussations of "barbarism" against other Greeks by Greeks abound and
>> I believe Prodromidis has posted quite a number of them.

>With the only differnce that the macedonians were not considered to be

>Greeks. Not my words but those of badian. Borza, Hammond, Wilken and all
>the contemporary Greek historians.

PURE, UNADULTERATED ****LIES****. AGAIN! For the hundreth time. A person of
normal intelligence and ANY sense of honor would not be able to take SO MUCH
of, SO CONVINCING, so DEVASTATING, so well-referenced, SO IMPECCABLE a
critique, a thrashing of one's 'assertions', as you have received over the
years. Others are entitled to continue believing that you are in fact devious.
I think you simply are a clinical MORON.

<snip>

>> Slavko, I pity you because if you really believe this against all the
>> contrary evidence,

>Pity yourself, Anasstasios, as ALL the evidence supports what I say: the

>Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. As a Greek from Macedonia I
>realize this comes as a shock to you but not to worry. If you feel to be
>macedonian then you are one.

'ALL the evidence supports what YOU say'? Haven't you been given enough
references to ancient texts to refute your silly generalization? How many
freaking times will you have to see ALL those ancient texts, before you can
get it though your thick scull that the MOST charitable interpretation of this
'dispute' is that there is not enough evidence to CONCLUSIVELY prove the
Hellenic character of the Ancient Macedonians?

>and this is central to your self-definition,

>No, it is not. My idenity doesn't come from books. My identity was given to

>me by my land, by my people.

The land gave you your identity? How exactly did it do that?
<snip>

> Even
>> if we come to agree that the Macedonians were not Greek -which is of
>> course ludicrous-,

>Maybe it;s not so luducrous! After all, that's what Badian, Borza,

>Hammond, Wilken, Demosthens, Thrasymachus and countells others say so it
>must be right. Consider it.

They do NOT say so, MORON. Consider THAT!

<snip>

>which absolutely
>> no connection with you.

>Don't be ridicilous, Anasstasios. Have you seen a Macedonian church or a

>macedonian priest? I'll bet you can't tell the difference from a Greek
>church and Greek priest. In our schools we study Homer and Demosthens and
>ancient Greek and probably almost everything you study in your Greek
>schools.

You study 'ancient Greek' in school? So you can read 'ancient Greek'? Do you
study Homer in the original as well?

>Our music is similar so is our food. Our genetic and ethnic
>makeup is quite similar if not identical. The only differnce is the
>language, I would say.

So, other than language, you're Greek, right, and we're Makedonci? Is that
what you're saying?

>If you suggest otherwise, you are deluding
>> yourself.
>>

>Maybe. Maybe it's the other way around. I know I'm right on ancient

>Macedonians because everybody says the same thing.

Tasso, do you still think that Mangovski is just a 'hard-core nationalist' and
NOT a MORON? 'because everybody says the same thing'? Come on!

But don't despair.
>I will not challenge that you are the direct descendant of the ancient
>Greeks :-)

He never said anything about genes, MORON. It is YOU who is making arguments
(used very charitably to refer to your drivel) based on genetic connections.

[MKroki7879]

If you or anybody of your kind the "wannabies" Macedonians want to be
called Macedonias, why don't you apply for a permanent residency to
Greece??

There are about 2,000,000 REAL Macedonians there in the REAL land of
Alexander the Great etc etc etc.

Mike K

PS: No sheep can become wolf wearing its fur !!!

[sp...@erols.com]

Well, dear boy,you are almost getting the point. But you see, Skopje is
but one city in Macedonia. To state the obvious truth city by city, town
by town, village by village would be tedious, for example:

Skopjians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

Solunians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

Bitolians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

Florinians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

See? Listing everything bit by bit can be tedious. It is simpler just
to say:

MACEDONIANS WERE, ARE, AND WILL BE MACEDONIANS
MACEDONIANS WERE, ARE, AND WILL BE MACEDONIANS
MACEDONIANS WERE, ARE, AND WILL BE MACEDONIANS
MACEDONIANS WERE, ARE, AND WILL BE MACEDONIANS
MACEDONIANS WERE, ARE, AND WILL BE MACEDONIANS
etc.

Galina

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

[del]>

> >Your parallel with the Brits will not stand, I'm afraid, as many other
> >contemprary sources agree with Demosthenes. That's why historians as
> >Badian, Borza and Hammond all say the same thing: Macedonians were not
> >considered to be Greeks.
>
> They do not. You have been shown that a million times already.

So Mr. Karageorgis, claims that Badian, Borza, Hammond don't say the same
thing i.e. the Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. Since we
obviously deal with an extreme case of inability to coprehend I'll just
use simple sentences quoting the above mantioned gentleman:

Borza, In the Shadow Of Olympus, p. 96:

"...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..."

Hammond, The Macedonian State,

"...Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not
to be Greeks...

Badian, STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ART VOL 10: MACEDONIA AND GREECE IN LATE
CLASSICAL AND EARLY HELLENISTIC TIMES"
by the National Gallery of Art, Washington, Greeks and Macedonians

"...As regards the Macedonian nation as a whole, there was (as far as we
can see) no division. They were regarded as clearly barbarian..."

Where is the problem, Mr. karageorgis? Which part you do not understand?

Other Greek
> netters have chosen to believe that you in fact DO know the truth, CAN
> understand plain English,

Other Greek netters are smart.

but CHOOSE to ignore it.

Which part do I ignore? Is it "considered not to be Greek" ?

I, on the other hand, have
> concluded that you are mentally incapable of such things. I am convinced that
> you are a clinical moron. Go sell some tickets, and leave subjects requiring
> SOME intelligence to others. When the scholars you like to quote themselves
> say that what Demosthenes said had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH, and you
> continue to assert that they agreed with Demosthenes, the only conclusion is
> that you are a MORON.
>

Why is it that hypocrites, villians, cowards and liers start squilling
when cornered and start calling names? Lack of arguments, I suppose. I'm
glad you shed your mask and are showing us what you really are. Besides,
you just qualified as morons historians like Badian. Borza and Hammond
which texts I quote. Good work!

>
> > Even if some quack today could come up with a
> >undeniable proof that Philip was Hellen's brother (so to speak) that will
> >not change one iota from what the macedonains and Greeks thought about
> >themslevs: they considered themselvs as foreigners.
>
> Despite the fact that the average Ancient Macedonian has left us no (known)
> relics of what he/she thought about the issue, and whether he/she cared about
> it?
>

Stop interpreting history according to your fancy and read the above
quotes. They were based on countless Greek documents who also show how
Macedonians felt on the issue.

[del]

>
> >Let's not forget that Athens depended on Macedonia for timber and let's
> >not forget Philips gold.
>
> Let's not forget that you are actually a MORON, a bloody TRAVEL AGENT who has
> the gall to criticize people such as Retzios and Prodromidis on matters
> historical.

To paraphrase an ancient Greek: my profession might shame me but you, you
shame yours :-) It takes a moron to know one :-) The abovementioned
gentlemen might have their PhD in their respective fields yet that doesn't
makes them experts in history. BTW I do hold a BA in English Language and
Literature.

It is for fools like you that I have the sig. file I have! READ,
> and if your pea-brain allows you to, TRY to comprehend it.
>

I thought we were discussiong history. Is this another way to shift and
avoid the subject. Do you feel cornered, Mr.Karageorgis?

> >> Accussations of "barbarism" against other Greeks by Greeks abound and
> >> I believe Prodromidis has posted quite a number of them.
>
> >With the only differnce that the macedonians were not considered to be
> >Greeks. Not my words but those of badian. Borza, Hammond, Wilken and all
> >the contemporary Greek historians.
>
> PURE, UNADULTERATED ****LIES****. AGAIN! For the hundreth time. A person of
> normal intelligence and ANY sense of honor would not be able to take SO MUCH
> of, SO CONVINCING, so DEVASTATING, so well-referenced, SO IMPECCABLE a
> critique, a thrashing of one's 'assertions', as you have received over the
> years.

In the same way as your "critique" in this post: lot's of "maybe, perhaps,
it could be interpreted this way..." lots of crap but no substance. My
sense of honor is evidently mich higher then people who resort to calling
names when they lack argument.

Others are entitled to continue believing that you are in fact devious.
> I think you simply are a clinical MORON.
>

I can see through your tactics, Mr. Karageorgis. They have been tried
before by better then you. They consist of trying to offend the opponent
in order to eliminite her/his presence. Unfortunately for you thay don't
work on me. I will not lower myself on your level and respond with the
same for I have history on my side :-)

[del]

> 'ALL the evidence supports what YOU say'? Haven't you been given enough
> references to ancient texts to refute your silly generalization? How many
> freaking times will you have to see ALL those ancient texts, before you can
> get it though your thick scull that the MOST charitable interpretation of this
> 'dispute' is that there is not enough evidence to CONCLUSIVELY prove the
> Hellenic character of the Ancient Macedonians?
>

I will have to direct you to the beggining of this post where
historians/experts on the matter say conclusively "the Macedonians were
not considered to be Greek." If you wish we can request the assistance of
language experts who will explain to you the meaning of every word of the
simple sentence "the Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks."

[del]

>
> >Maybe it;s not so luducrous! After all, that's what Badian, Borza,
> >Hammond, Wilken, Demosthens, Thrasymachus and countells others say so it
> >must be right. Consider it.
>
> They do NOT say so, MORON. Consider THAT!
>

I'm afraid they do so and you can verify it by looking at the beggining of
this post. If you keep insisting on denying the obvious then perhaps we
have to start thinking that perhaps you feel tired, exhasuetd, overworked,
angry with the world and perhaps you deserve a long break in a nice place
where people are dressed in white and take a good care of you. Besides, it
seems that there is foam coming from your mouth... Calm down, Mr.
Karageorgis, everything will be allright.

[del]

>
> >Our music is similar so is our food. Our genetic and ethnic
> >makeup is quite similar if not identical. The only differnce is the
> >language, I would say.
>
> So, other than language, you're Greek, right, and we're Makedonci? Is that
> what you're saying?
>

No, I'm saying we're Macedonians and you are Greeks, Rhomaios or whatever
you want to be. I'm saying that ethnically and culturally we're quite
similar.

[del]

>
> Tasso, do you still think that Mangovski is just a 'hard-core nationalist'
and
> NOT a MORON? 'because everybody says the same thing'? Come on!
>

Well, almost everybody. We obviosly have to exclude you :-)

[del]

>
> He never said anything about genes, MORON. It is YOU who is making arguments
> (used very charitably to refer to your drivel) based on genetic connections.
>

Judging by the number of times you used "moron" dear Mr. Karageorgis I
must really get on your nerves. But is it really me or historical truth
that makes you so mad?

Yours,

Slavko Atanas Mangovski

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:58:46 -0800, sp...@erols.com wrote in article
<32B885...@erols.com>:

>John Kyrimis wrote:
>>
>> sp...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> > Macedonians WERE, ARE, and WILL BE Macedonians.
>>
>> I'm glad you recognise this Galina. :-)
>>
>> But your country still lacks an identity.
>>
>> Hmm... How about:
>>
>> Skopjians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Skopjians.
>>
>> --
>> John Kyrimis
>> E-mail: j...@dove.net.au
>> WWW: http://dove.net.au/~jsk/

>Well, dear boy,you are almost getting the point. But you see, Skopje is
>but one city in Macedonia. To state the obvious truth city by city, town
>by town, village by village would be tedious, for example:

> Skopjians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

>Solunians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

>Bitolians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

>Florinians WERE, ARE and WILL BE Macedonians

>See? Listing everything bit by bit can be tedious. It is simpler just
>to say:

>Galina

Hmm. I see. The Greeks of Florina and Salonica are Macedonians, in the same
sense that Scopjians and Monasterians are. This is the geographic meaning of
Macedonia. Are you coming around, or were you losing it again when you wrote the
above?

Vasilios Psarras

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:29:24 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in
article <Pine.A32.3.93.961218...@seminole.gate.net>:
>Hammond, The Macedonian State,

>"...Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not
>to be Greeks...

How many times do I have to blast this in your face before you quit refering to
Hammond? By the way Hammond is an honorary member of the Academy of Athens. This
might make you think twicce before you quote him again.

Here is your regular lesson read it again.

"The language spoken by these early Macedonians has become a controversial
issue in modern times. It seems not to have been so in antiquity. As we have
seen, Hesiod made Magnes and Macedon first cousins of the Hellenes, and he
therefore regarded them as speakers of a dialect (or dialects) of the Greek
language. That he was correct in the case of the Magnetes has been proved by
the discovery of early inscriptions in an Aeolic dialect in their area of
eastern Thessaly. Then, late in the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus,
who visited the court of Macedonia, made the father of Macedon not Zeus but
Aeolus, a thing which he COULD NOT have done unless he knew that the Macedonians
were speaking an Aeolic dialcect of GREEK. A remarkable confirmation of their
Greek speechcomes from the Persians, who occupied Macedonia as part of their
conquests in Europe c.510-480:"

"Disagreements over this issue have developed for various reasons. In the second
half of the fifth century Thucydides regarded the semi-nomadic, armed
northerners of Epirus and western Macedonia as "barbarians", and he called them
such in his history of events in 429 and 423. The word was understood by some
scholars to mean "non-Greek-speakers" rather than "savages." They were shown
to be mistaken in 1956, when inscriptions of 370-68, containing lists of Greek
personal names and recording in the Greek language some acts of the Molossians,
were found at Dodona in Epirus. This discovery proved beyond dispute that one of
Thucydides "barbarian" tribes" of Epirus, the Molossians, was speaking Greek
at the time of which he was writing. Demosthenes too called the Macedonians
"barbarians" in the 340s. That this was merely a term of abuse has been
proved recently by the discovery at Aegean (Vergina) of seventy-four Greek
names and one Thracian name on funerary headstones inscribed in Greek letters."

The Miracle that Was Macedonia
N.G.L. Hammond
pages 5-6

Vasilios Psarras

[Dimitrios Zanikos]

In his time in this forum Slavko Mangovski has never been able to
produce 1 reference to a credible unbiased historian that relates
"his" people to the ancient Macedonians. Nevertheless,
Mangovski assumes that if he can show the readers that the
ancient Macedonians were not Greeks his fairy tale fantasy of
direct descent from the ancient Macedonians will be automatically
validated. There is no logical or factual foundation for
the fantasy adhered to by Mangovski and his extreme nationalist
looney-tune compatriots.

IT seems as though Mangovski's comprehension is so poor and his
learning abilities so low that he cant understand more
than a few lines at once. Most recently he made some very
selective quotations.

To begin with Mangovski quotes Borza on Badian's opinion:

sm>"...E. Badian concluded that, whatever the ethnic origins and
sm>identity of the Macedonians , they were generally perceived in
sm>their own time BY GREEKS AND THEMSELVES not to be Greek..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course Mangovski cannot get it through his thick skull that
these authors are refering to a period of time prior to the
roman era. Mangovski still cannot comprehend that the political
conditions and the perceptions that may have existed around
c.500 did not prevail throughout the centuries. Mangovski
wants us to believe that the social and political conditions of
this era, the descriptions of which he constantly quotes out
of context, remained static during the course of the HELLENISTIC
era.

Anyways lets begin with a quote from Mangovski's recommended
source, the same source he has branded as "excellent and
objcetive:

"It was only after the death of Alexander the Great
with the increasing Hellenization of Macedonian
culture and the emergence of Rome as a common enemy
in the west that the Macedonians CAME TO BE REGARDED
AS "NORTHERN GREEKS".(Borza 1990:96;Badian 1982:33-35)
THIS IS PRECISELY THE PERIOD DURING WICH ANCIENT
AUTHORS SUCH AS POLYBIUS AND STRABO DID REFER TO THE
ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AS GREEKS. The most important
point to remember in the entire discussion, however,
is that the identity of the ancient Macedonians (like
that of the modern people who identify themselves as
Macedonians) WAS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT CONSTANTLY SUBJECT
TO NEGOTIATION AND RENEGOTIATION IN AN ONGOING
POLITICAL PROCESS."

(pg 169 _The Macedonian Conflict_ L. Danforth)

Now can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d this? This is his
recommended excellent and objective author telling us that that

-the Macedonians came to be regarded as northern Greeks

-ancient authors refered to the ancient Macedonians
as Greeks with the emergence of Rome as the common
enemy

-the identity of the ancient Macedonians was not
static. Their identity was a social construct
constantly subject to negotiation and renegotation
in an ongoing political process.

How much more elemental than this can we get? Which part is too
hard to understand? Mangovski, this is your excellent and
objective source telling you this!

Anyways, Danforth is quoting Badian. Mangovski and his looney
tune extreme nationalist compatriots keep quoting Badian but
they keep ignoring Badian's description of periods that do
not fit their extreme nationalist ideologies.

How does Badian describe the ancient Macedonians in the context
of the Hellenistic age, especially the latter part:

"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
later may be argued to be true `ex post facto'." But it is
an important question whether these assertions should
properly be made in a fourth century B.C context"

<E.Badian, Macedonia and Greece in Late
Classical and Early Hellenistic Times.
Edited by B.Barr-Sharrar and E.N.Borza.
Studies in History and Art, vol.10.
Washington: National Gallery of Art,
1982. p.33>

Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d the above? Which part is
too hard to understand? Badian, Mangovski's recommended
historian, tells us in plain and simple language that:

-we have now become accustomed to regarding Macedonians
as northern Greeks.

- this became true in Greek consciousness during the
Hellenistic age.

And now we come to the most critical point:

- it is an important question whether these assertions
should be made in a FOURTH CENTURY BC CONTEXT.

The period around the fourth century BC is precisely the
period Mangovski is quoting descriptions about. But Badian
tells us that the Macedonians came to be regarded as
Greeks after this period! Why doesnt Mangovski quote
that part of Badian's work. Why doesnt Mangovski tell the
readers that Badian says that Greeks and Macedonians became
CONSCIOUS of their unity by the roman period?

"...at this time the GAP between Greeks and Macedonians
was by no means bridged. The work... toward bridging
it, and the work of Alexander who was himself the
result of that long PROCESS... was to take perhaps
another century to reach fruition. Perhaps it was
not fully completed until both parties became
CONSCIOUS of THEIR UNITY, as it had by then
developed, in contrast to a conqueror from the
barbarian West." [Rome] <p.43>

Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d this? Badian, in plain and
simple english tells us that:

-THE GREEKS AND MACEDONIANS BECAME CONSCIOUS OF THEIR
UNITY,AS IT HAD *THEN BEEN DEVELOPED*, in contrast to
the Roman conquerors.

-this means that Badian thinks that the Macedonians
had become conscious of their unity with the Greeks.

Of course, the Macedonian royal house always claimed Greek
descent, and no one in here can prove that they did not
BELIEVE what they claimed. Nevertheless, lets not get side
tracked. Badian, perhaps the most skeptical scholar when
it comes to the Hellenic nature of the ancient macedonians
prior to the roman era acknowledges that:

1. The ancient Macedonians became Hellenized

2. The ancient Macedonians became conscious of their
unity with Greeks.

3. The Macedonians came to be regarded as northern
Greeks in the Greek consciousness.

Which part is too hard to understand? Why does Mangovski
constantly lie to the readers? Why does he constantly quote
descriptions that pertain to around the 4th century BC and
ignore the conditions that prevailed during the latter
stages of the hellenistic era?

A nice parallel to Badian's opinions are provided to us
by Brunt. Badian states tha:

"... as Brunt rightly points out, an ethnic
difference between Greeks and Macedonians was in
Arrian's own day so remote as to be practically
beyond understanding."

[E.Badian Footnote #72..SAME SOURCE)

Remember Brunt's opinions, like those of Badian's, represent
the _*skeptical*_ perspective regarding the Hellenic nature
of the ancient Macedonians. I am striving to use Mangovski's
sources and the citations within them to show that Mangovski
is not presenting the whole picture. And like Mr. Retzios
I do not need to cite Greek historians to show that
Mangovski is a liar. I do not even need to present the
opinions of other non-Greek historians to show that
Mangovski is a liar. All I need are Mangovski's
recommended sources.

This is what Brunt, the historian Badian cites, has to say:

"The relics of the Macedonian language, such as
the names of places and persons, both human and
divine,... show that it was basically Greek <--Greek!
with an admixture of (probably) Illlyrian.
However, to Greeks in the FOURTH CENTURY it <-- there were
was evidently unintelligible. Macedonian differences
institutions too, though they resembled those around the
we find in the Homeric poems, were alien to the 4th century
Greeks of Alexander's time, who were accustomed
to city-states with democratic or democratic but
institutions. Hence they did not see that the ............
Macedonians were of the same stock as ........
themselves but at an earlier, indeed Homeric, ....
stage of development... Eventually the whole ..
people was thoroughly Hellenized and the <--eventually
Macedonian kingdoms in the near east which thoroughly
arose out of the ruins of Alexander's empire Hellenized and
were to diffuse Greek culture among their diffused GREEK
Oriental subjects." culture!

Now how much simpler than this can we get. Brunt, refered to
us by Badian, tells us that

-The conditions that existed during and around the
4th century did not remain static since eventually the
Macedonians became fully Hellenized!

Finally, with an intent to sound repetitive, Mangovski's
recommended historians tell us that:

1. The ancient Macedonians became Hellenized

2. The ancient Macedonians became conscious of their
unity with Greeks.

3. The Macedonians came to be regarded as northern
Greeks in the Greek consciousness.

Have a nice day.

ps --> more to come on Hammond, another historian that
Mangovski has managed to misquote.

-more precisely:

- Hammond's opinions on the
ancient Macedonian language.

[ He says it was a dialect
of Greek :-@ ]

- Hammond's opinions on the
origins of the ancient
Macedonians

- Hammond's opinions of the
Macedonians during the
Hellenistic age.

- the opinions Mangovski
will not quote!

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <59au1e$8...@camel1.mindspring.com> vas...@pipeline.com (Vasilios Psarras) writes:

>On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:29:24 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in
>article <Pine.A32.3.93.961218...@seminole.gate.net>:
>>Hammond, The Macedonian State,

>>"...Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not
>>to be Greeks...

>How many times do I have to blast this in your face before you quit refering to
>Hammond? By the way Hammond is an honorary member of the Academy of Athens. This
>might make you think twicce before you quote him again.

>Here is your regular lesson read it again.

And, yet, Mr. Mangovski will surface again, probably next month, and assert
AGAIN that ALL authorities and ALL ancient texts CLEARLY demonstrate that the
Ancient Macedonians were NOT and were not considered to be Hellenic.

How many tens of times, and how many oodles and oodles of documents have been
posted in this forum about the Hellenic character of the Ancient
Macedonians we know about, who have left us traces of their sentiments, and
about whom ancient writers and politicians opined and argued? Does Mr.
Mangovski think that ALL THOSE TEXTS and all those detailed references are
going to go away, somehow? Hasn't he got the message by now that ALL the
documents, and ALL the arguments against his revisionist positions that have
been provided in the past are NOT lost to the current Greek participants on
anm?

>"The language spoken by these early Macedonians has become a controversial
>issue in modern times. It seems not to have been so in antiquity. As we have
>seen, Hesiod made Magnes and Macedon first cousins of the Hellenes, and he
>therefore regarded them as speakers of a dialect (or dialects) of the Greek
>language. That he was correct in the case of the Magnetes has been proved by
>the discovery of early inscriptions in an Aeolic dialect in their area of
>eastern Thessaly. Then, late in the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus,
>who visited the court of Macedonia, made the father of Macedon not Zeus but
>Aeolus, a thing which he COULD NOT have done unless he knew that the Macedonians

>were speaking an Aeolic dialect of GREEK. A remarkable confirmation of their
>Greek speech comes from the Persians, who occupied Macedonia as part of their
>conquests in Europe c.510-480:"

>"Disagreements over this issue have developed for various reasons. In the second
>half of the fifth century Thucydides regarded the semi-nomadic, armed
>northerners of Epirus and western Macedonia as "barbarians", and he called them
>such in his history of events in 429 and 423. The word was understood by some
>scholars to mean "non-Greek-speakers" rather than "savages." They were shown
>to be mistaken in 1956, when inscriptions of 370-68, containing lists of Greek
>personal names and recording in the Greek language some acts of the Molossians,
>were found at Dodona in Epirus. This discovery proved beyond dispute that one of
>Thucydides' "barbarian" tribes" of Epirus, the Molossians, was speaking Greek
>at the time of which he was writing. Demosthenes too called the Macedonians
>"barbarians" in the 340s. That this was merely a term of abuse has been
>proved recently by the discovery at Aegean (Vergina) of seventy-four Greek
>names and one Thracian name on funerary headstones inscribed in Greek letters."

>The Miracle that Was Macedonia
>N.G.L. Hammond
>pages 5-6

I was just at the Perseus project site, 'housed' at Tufts University. I had
occassion to read ALL of the oratories of Demosthenes provided there, as well
as those of Aeschines. (yes, I spent more than two-hours there)That
Demosthenes' polemics against Philip and the Macedonians in general were
politically (in both an 'instrumentalist' sense, and in a 'form of polity'
sense) motivated and in substance is OBVIOUS. I invite every participant
reader of anm to go to the perseus project cite and read the texts without any
pre-conceived notions and to judge for themselves. You, the participant, does
not need either mine or anybody else's 'interpretation' this day and age, and
with all the incredible resources available to all of us on the web. Go and
read the texts for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

>Vasilios Psarras

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <59b4f3$8...@morgoth.sfu.ca> zan...@sfu.ca (Dimitrios Zanikos) writes:

>In his time in this forum Slavko Mangovski has never been able to
>produce 1 reference to a credible unbiased historian that relates
>"his" people to the ancient Macedonians. Nevertheless,
>Mangovski assumes that if he can show the readers that the
>ancient Macedonians were not Greeks his fairy tale fantasy of
>direct descent from the ancient Macedonians will be automatically
>validated. There is no logical or factual foundation for
>the fantasy adhered to by Mangovski and his extreme nationalist
>looney-tune compatriots.

>It seems as though Mangovski's comprehension is so poor and his
>learning abilities so low that he can't understand more

>than a few lines at once. Most recently he made some very
>selective quotations.

>To begin with Mangovski quotes Borza on Badian's opinion:

>sm>"...E. Badian concluded that, whatever the ethnic origins and
>sm>identity of the Macedonians , they were generally perceived in
>sm>their own time BY GREEKS AND THEMSELVES not to be Greek..."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Of course, Mangovski cannot get it through his thick skull that

>these authors are refering to a period of time prior to the

>Roman era. Mangovski still cannot comprehend that the political

>conditions and the perceptions that may have existed around

>c.500 B.C. did not prevail throughout the centuries. Mangovski

>wants us to believe that the social and political conditions of
>this era, the descriptions of which he constantly quotes out
>of context, remained static during the course of the HELLENISTIC
>era.

>Anyways, let's begin with a quote from Mangovski's recommended

>source, the same source he has branded as "excellent and

>objective":

> "It was only after the death of Alexander the Great
> with the increasing Hellenization of Macedonian
> culture and the emergence of Rome as a common enemy
> in the west that the Macedonians CAME TO BE REGARDED

> AS 'NORTHERN GREEKS'.(Borza 1990:96;Badian 1982:33-35).
> THIS IS PRECISELY THE PERIOD DURING WhICH ANCIENT

> AUTHORS SUCH AS POLYBIUS AND STRABO DID REFER TO THE
> ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AS GREEKS. The most important
> point to remember in the entire discussion, however,
> is that the identity of the ancient Macedonians (like
> that of the modern people who identify themselves as
> Macedonians) WAS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT CONSTANTLY SUBJECT
> TO NEGOTIATION AND RENEGOTIATION IN AN ONGOING
> POLITICAL PROCESS."

> (pg 169 _The Macedonian Conflict_ L. Danforth)

>Now can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d this? This is HIS

>recommended 'excellent and objective' author telling us that

> -the Macedonians came to be regarded as northern Greeks

> -ancient authors refered to the ancient Macedonians
> as Greeks with the emergence of Rome as the common
> enemy

> -the identity of the ancient Macedonians was not
> static. Their identity was a social construct
> constantly subject to negotiation and renegotation
> in an ongoing political process.

>How much more elemental than this can we get? Which part is too

>hard to understand? Mangovski, this is YOUR excellent and

> should be made in a FOURTH CENTURY B.C. CONTEXT.

>The period around the fourth century B.C. is precisely the

>period Mangovski is quoting descriptions about. But Badian
>tells us that the Macedonians came to be regarded as

>Greeks after this period! Why doesn't Mangovski quote
>THAT part of Badian's work? Why doesn't Mangovski tell the

>readers that Badian says that Greeks and Macedonians became

>CONSCIOUS of their unity by the Roman period?

> "...at this time the GAP between Greeks and Macedonians
> was by no means bridged. The work... toward bridging

> it, and the work of Alexander, who was himself the
> result of that long PROCESS... was to take PERHAPS
> another century to reach fruition. PERHAPS it was
> not FULLY completed until both parties became

> CONSCIOUS of THEIR UNITY, as it had by then
> developed, in contrast to a conqueror from the
> barbarian West." [Rome] <p.43>

>Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d this? Badian, in plain and
>simple english tells us that:

> -THE GREEKS AND MACEDONIANS BECAME CONSCIOUS OF THEIR

> UNITY, AS IT HAD *THEN BEEN DEVELOPED*, in contrast to
> the Roman conquerors.

> -this means that Badian thinks that the Macedonians
> had become conscious of their unity with the Greeks.

>Of course, the Macedonian royal house always claimed Greek
>descent, and no one in here can prove that they did not

>BELIEVE what they claimed. Nevertheless, let's not get side

>tracked. Badian, perhaps the most skeptical scholar when

>it comes to the Hellenic nature of the Ancient Macedonians
>prior to the Roman era acknowledges that:

> 1. The ancient Macedonians became Hellenized

> 2. The ancient Macedonians became conscious of their
> unity with Greeks.

> 3. The Macedonians came to be regarded as northern
> Greeks in the Greek consciousness.

>Which part is too hard to understand? Why does Mangovski
>constantly lie to the readers? Why does he constantly quote

>descriptions that pertain to around the 4th century B.C. and

>ignore the conditions that prevailed during the latter
>stages of the hellenistic era?

>A nice parallel to Badian's opinions are provided to us

>by Brunt. Badian states that:

> "... as Brunt RIGHTLY points out, an ETHNIC

> difference between Greeks and Macedonians was in

> Arrian's own day SO REMOTE as to be practically
> beyond understanding."

> [E.Badian Footnote #72..SAME SOURCE)

>Remember, Brunt's opinions, like those of Badian's, represent

>the _*skeptical*_ perspective regarding the Hellenic nature
>of the ancient Macedonians. I am striving to use Mangovski's
>sources and the citations within them to show that Mangovski

>is NOT presenting the whole picture. And like Mr. Retzios

>I do not need to cite Greek historians to show that
>Mangovski is a liar. I do not even need to present the
>opinions of other non-Greek historians to show that
>Mangovski is a liar. All I need are Mangovski's
>recommended sources.

>This is what Brunt, the historian Badian cites, has to say:

>"The relics of the Macedonian language, such as
>the names of places and persons, both human and

>divine ,... show that it was basically Greek |<--Greek!

>with an admixture of (probably) Illlyrian.
>However, to Greeks in the FOURTH CENTURY it | <-- there were
>was evidently unintelligible. Macedonian | differences
>institutions too, though they resembled those | around the
>we find in the Homeric poems, were alien to the | 4th century
>Greeks of Alexander's time, who were accustomed |

>to city-states with democracy or democratic | but

>institutions. Hence they did not see that the | ..........

>Macedonians were of the same stock as | ........
>themselves but at an earlier, indeed Homeric, |....

>stage of development... Eventually the whole |<- eventually.
>people was thoroughly Hellenized and the |thoroughly
>Macedonian kingdoms in the Near East which | Hellenized
>arose out of the ruins of Alexander's empire | and diffused
>were to diffuse Greek culture among their Oriental | GREEK culture
>subjects."

>Now how much simpler than this can we get? Brunt, refered to

>Have a nice day.

> -more precisely:

I, of course, FULLY support the above post. It is because I KNEW that all this
incontrovertible evidence exists, that it has been posted, in this and other
forms, at least 20 times in the past, that I came to the conlusions I came
about Mr. Mangovski.

News-flash Mr. Mangovski: If THIS is what you call 'cornering' consider
YOURSELF 'cornered'.

You said something about 'honor' in response to my 'venting' earlier? What was
it again? Was it that you have NONE?

You said (and I believe you) that you have a B.A. in English Language and
Literature. USE IT! Reading comprehension of English texts (although you
claimed that you are taught Ancient Greek in high-school in RM as well, so
maybe you should be able to comprehend written Ancient Greek) SHOULD be, at
the very least, part of your intellectual arsenal.

And you claim that ***I*** am unwilling to be convinced . . . that ***I*** am
brain-washed by Hellenic propaganda . . . if only you knew how HETERODOX my
own assessment of modern Greek history and politics is in Greek circles . . .

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, anyway . ..

[Dimitrios Zanikos]

Mangovski has lost all credibility.

Mangovski quotes Badian opinion's on Greek/Macedonian
relations prior to the development of the Hellenistic era
yet he ignores Badian's opinions on the relationship the
two developed during the course of the Hellenistic era.
More specifically Badian says that the ancient macedonians
came to be regarded as Greek by other Greeks and the became

conscious of their unity with Greeks.

Badian is not the only historian that Mangovski has attempted
to misrepresent. It seems as though Mangovski has a fixed
template of quotations that he regurgitates without giving
any thought into what is actually being said.

For instance....

On the date of June 20th 1995 Slavko Mangovski decided to
once again distort the words of M. Cary for the purpose
of justifying his fairy tale fantasy.

sm> M. Cary, A History of the Greek World from 323-146
sm> B.C. p. XV

sm> ...yet captive Greece cought her Macedonian conqueror
sm> more effectively then she ever ensnared Rome; and the
sm> partnership of Macedonians and Greeks brought about
sm> the most astounding of ancient feats of war, the
sm> Anabasis of Alexander...

Message-ID: <3s7l81$1a...@hopi.gate.net>

I dont know exactly what Mangovski was trying to show by
posting the above quote. Mangovski seems to think that
the political and social differences that existed between
Greeks and Macedonians during earlier periods prevailed
throughout the centuries.

What Mangovski did not mention from the same author:

"The future relations between the two peoples had been
irrevocably fixed by Alexander's Anabasis, which
destined them to work together in close co-operation as
joint rulers of the East, and EVENTUALLY TO BE BLENDED
INTO ONE NATION." -pg 10

Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d the above? This is
Mangovski' recommended author telling us that:

- Greeks and Macedonians were eventually blended
into ONE NATION!

- this assertion is parallel to Badian's assertion
that Greeks and Macedonians became conscious of
their unity.

- this assertion is parallel to Badian's assertion
that macedonians came to be regarded as Greeks
during the course of the Hellenistic era.

- this assertion is parallel to Badian's assertion
that Macedonians came to be regarded as northern
Greeks in Greek consciousness.

- these assertions are those of MANGOVSKI'S
RECOMMENDED HISTORIANS

Anywhow, here is another quote from the same author:

In 197 he re-entered Thessaly and forced a battle on the
field of Cynoscephalae. In this encounter the Macedonian
heavy infantry proved that in a solid front-to-front
charge not even the Roman legions could hold, but that,
once thrown out of order or taken in flank, it became
helpless. While one Macedonian Phalanx charged right
home, another broke itself up by its own impetus and
became an easy prey to the enemy; and the victorious
division, without cavalry support on the flanks, was
enfiladed and cut to pieces by the succcessful Roman
wing wheeling upon it. This was the first decisive
victory of ROMANS OVER GREEKS in a set battle on a large
scale; but it sufficed definitely to establish Roman
ascendancy in GREECE. -pg 191

Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d the above? Can Mangovski
understand that his recommended author describes the
Macedonians as Greeks in their battle with the romans?

Have a nice day.

[Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD]

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:24:35 GMT, vas...@pipeline.com (Vasilios
Psarras) wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:29:24 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in
>article <Pine.A32.3.93.961218...@seminole.gate.net>:

>>Hammond, The Macedonian State,
>
>>"...Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not
>>to be Greeks...
>

>How many times do I have to blast this in your face before you quit refering to
>Hammond? By the way Hammond is an honorary member of the Academy of Athens. This
>might make you think twicce before you quote him again.
>
>Here is your regular lesson read it again.
>

>"The language spoken by these early Macedonians has become a controversial
>issue in modern times. It seems not to have been so in antiquity. As we have
>seen, Hesiod made Magnes and Macedon first cousins of the Hellenes, and he
>therefore regarded them as speakers of a dialect (or dialects) of the Greek
>language. That he was correct in the case of the Magnetes has been proved by
>the discovery of early inscriptions in an Aeolic dialect in their area of
>eastern Thessaly. Then, late in the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus,
>who visited the court of Macedonia, made the father of Macedon not Zeus but
>Aeolus, a thing which he COULD NOT have done unless he knew that the Macedonians

>were speaking an Aeolic dialcect of GREEK. A remarkable confirmation of their
>Greek speechcomes from the Persians, who occupied Macedonia as part of their

>conquests in Europe c.510-480:"
>
>"Disagreements over this issue have developed for various reasons. In the second
>half of the fifth century Thucydides regarded the semi-nomadic, armed
>northerners of Epirus and western Macedonia as "barbarians", and he called them
>such in his history of events in 429 and 423. The word was understood by some
>scholars to mean "non-Greek-speakers" rather than "savages." They were shown
>to be mistaken in 1956, when inscriptions of 370-68, containing lists of Greek
>personal names and recording in the Greek language some acts of the Molossians,
>were found at Dodona in Epirus. This discovery proved beyond dispute that one of
>Thucydides "barbarian" tribes" of Epirus, the Molossians, was speaking Greek
>at the time of which he was writing. Demosthenes too called the Macedonians
>"barbarians" in the 340s. That this was merely a term of abuse has been
>proved recently by the discovery at Aegean (Vergina) of seventy-four Greek
>names and one Thracian name on funerary headstones inscribed in Greek letters."
>
>The Miracle that Was Macedonia
>N.G.L. Hammond
>pages 5-6
>
>

>Vasilios Psarras
>
Vasili

Do you think that Slavko has learned his lesson this time? I doubt
it. He is getting an F all the time in my classroom.

One line of evidence that Slavko has absolutely disregarded -and we
have failed to press- is numismatics. Coins were the main propaganda
items in the ancient world and the ones clearly aimed at the populace
as a whole. Not a single Macedonian coin bears a non-Greek
inscription and thousands of them are available today in many museums.
Certainly, a plethora of them are available from the time of Philip
and Alexander. All bear inscriptions in Greek. It would be
laughable if Philip and Alexander were issuing coins that could not be
read by the rank and file of the troops or by the ordinary citizen of
Macedonia.

[Aias o Telamwvios]

Anastassie, this may not be as strong a point as you suppose. For example, do
we know how much of 'material want-satisfaction' of 'average' Ancient
Macedonians was commodified and monetized? What were those coins used as at
the time? Were they mainly being used as means of payment of 'tribute'? Were
they mainly used for inter-'tribal' trade and exchange? 'Archaic' money, to
put it with Karl Polanyi and the substantivist economic anthropologists is
really quite different from modern 'all-purpose money', used in
market-integrated economies.

I, personally, lean towards an agnostic view vis-a-vis the 'ethnie'
affiliation and identity of NON-'noble' Ancient Macedonians before the
Hellenistic period. At best, average Ancient Macedonians were regarded by most
Southern Hellenes as 'country-bumpkin, uncouth, distant cousins' before
Alexander. BUT, by Hellenistic times and most certainly by Roman times, as
Brunt puts it, they had ALL become thoroughly Hellenic, a process which was a
TWO-WAY 'exchange'. The meaning of the Hellenic identity had been
transformed not only to incorporate those who had formerly been regarded as
above, but to imbue 'co-Hellene'-ity with a new, 'stronger', more 'robust',
dare I say 'sui generis' signification.

As an aside, how many times have readers of anm observed two ethno-national
Macedonians (Slavonic Macedonians in your terminology) engaging in a
discussion/debate of the kind and tenor that you and I have engaged in at
least 4 times now? And, irony of ironies, it is ***WE*** are being accused of
'circling the wagons', of being each other's 'water carriers', etc.

BTW, Anastassie, you will LOVE the Perseus project site on the Web!

All the best for the holidays and the New Year!

[Dimitrios Zanikos]

Mangovski has lost all credibility.

A few months ago Slavko Mangovski made the following statement:

sm> OK, here are the answeres. Macedonia was a cultural, ethnic
sm> and economic unit and was partitioned in 1913. At that moment
sm> yes, it was aoccupied by Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Today
sm> there are different political realities and 80 years are a
sm> long time so I don't claim that today it's occupied. Happy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sm> Ties: I would be a racist to claim direct links and all
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sm> that crap that the Greeks are claiming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

alt.news.macedonia #1221
From: ma...@gate.net (Slavko Mangovski)
Newsgroups: alt.news.macedonia,soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: to Mangovski

Thus, Mangovski claimed that Greece is not occupying any territory
and he would be a racist to claim direct links to the ancient
Macedonians!

The readers should be reminded of a couple of excerpts taken from
a booklet produced by Mangovski's organization:

The ancient Macedonians were a distinct European people,
conscious and proud of their nationality, their customs,
their language, and their name.THE SAME APPLIES TO THEIR
**DESCENDANTS** TODAY.

In 1913, Greece and her Balkan allies partitioned
Macedonia, and if today a portion of Macedonia belongs to
Greece, it is by virtue of an ILLEGAL PARTITION of the
whole and OCCUPATION OF A PART OF MACEDONIA.

-MACEDONIAN WORLD CONGRESS, Macedonia Through the Ages,
Ormond Beach, Florida.

When questioned whether he believes he and his compatriots are
the descendants of the ancient Macedonians Mangovski responded:

sm> Sure. Since we cannot prove the opposite,
Message-ID: <3pr83h$o...@news.gate.net>

This is another example of Mangovski's double think that Mario
Ionnidis has described. He states he would be a racist to claim
direct links to the ancient Macedonians and at the same time his
organization writes propaganda booklets claiming *direct*
descendancy from the ancient Macedonians. He claims that Greece
is not occupying any territory yet his organization claims the
territory is occupied.

Mangovski: no credibility.
Mangovski: extreme nationalist.

have a nice day.

[Slavko Mangovski]

On 19 Dec 1996, Dimitrios Zanikos wrote:

Whew! Here is humble me battling Karageorgis, Psaras, Retzios,
Prodromaidis, many others that I simply ignore and now we have Zanikos
back into the battle. My weapon is the historical truth, theirs is smoke
and mirrors :-). Simple statements are returned with long tirades. But
perhaps things are about to change as we shall see below :-)

[cut on the verbal abuse. You should know by now Dimitri that it doesn't
work on me:-)]

But let's go further and hopefully resolve this Gordian knot in the same
way my famous countryman did it many years ago :-)

***********************************************************************

> To begin with Mangovski quotes Borza on Badian's opinion:
>
> sm>"...E. Badian concluded that, whatever the ethnic origins and
> sm>identity of the Macedonians , they were generally perceived in
> sm>their own time BY GREEKS AND THEMSELVES not to be Greek..."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

************************************************************************

Seriosuly now: I have highlighted the above statement by Borza that claims
that the MACEDONIANS WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE GREEKS. As we already saw
other historians like Badian, Hammond and Wilken have all said the same
thing i.e. THE MACEDONIANS WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE GREEKS.

Mr, Zanikos, as we can see directly below, makes the following remark:

***********************************************************************

> Of course Mangovski cannot get it through his thick skull that
> these authors are refering to a period of time prior to the
> roman era. Mangovski still cannot comprehend that the political
> conditions and the perceptions that may have existed around
> c.500 did not prevail throughout the centuries. Mangovski
> wants us to believe that the social and political conditions of
> this era, the descriptions of which he constantly quotes out
> of context, remained static during the course of the HELLENISTIC
> era.

********************************************************************

So Mr. Zanikos correctly notes and in the same time solves the Gordian
knot by his above statement which I'll try to reiterate:

UP TO THE TIME OF THE ROMAN CONQUEST THE MACEDONIANS WERE CONSIDERED, BY
THEMSELVES AND BY THE GREEKS, NOT TO BE GREEKS.

In order not to complicate the matter and because of the sensitivity of
the subject I'll have to request Mr. Zanikos confirmiation that the above
is indeed what he said. In the same time I invite the other
Greek partecipants in this discussion to voice their opinions. Only then
we can continue our discussion about the Roman period when the
Macedonians started to be considerd Greeks and later.

I hope this is acceptable.

Respectfully,

Slavko Atanas Mangovski

[MKroki7879]

No need to waste any time with Galina !!

The ancient Greeks were saying: From a croul's mouth: "kra"

How do you anticipate logic from a barbaric person all they know is to
bark like wild dogs and make sence only to themselves!!

Anyway, the lines infront of the Greek embasy in Skopie is Loooooong !!!

Bar-Bar to Galina!!

Mike K

[Dimitrios Zanikos]

Mangovski said:

>So Mr. Zanikos correctly notes and in the same time solves the Gordian
>knot by his above statement which I'll try to reiterate:

>UP TO THE TIME OF THE ROMAN CONQUEST THE MACEDONIANS WERE CONSIDERED, BY
>THEMSELVES AND BY THE GREEKS, NOT TO BE GREEKS.

Mangovski, Im starting to think that you are not doing this on purpose
but that you are confined by some sort of natural disability.

TO begin with I was summarizing what YOUR recommended authors are
asserting with the objective of showing that not even they support your
position. IT IS YOUR RECOMMENDED AUTHORS that tell us that Greeks
came to think of Macedonians as northern Greeks during the course of the
Hellenistic era. IT IS YOUR RECOMMENDED AUTHORS that tell us that
Greeks and Macedonians became conscious of their unity during the
course of the Hellenistic era. IT IS YOUR RECOMMENDED AUTHORS that
tell us that Greeks and Macedonians EVENTUALLY blended into one
nation. IT IS YOUR RECOMMENDE AUTHOURS that tell us that Macedonians
were fully Hellenized during the course of the Hellenistic era.

Your above statement, in essence a straw-man, suggests that only after a
discrete event, in this case the onset of the Roman conquests, were the
Macedonians regarded to be Greek by other Greeks and by themselves.
If you actually bothered to read what your recommended historians say
you would know that YOUR RECOMMENDED historians describe this as a
PROCESS that unfolded during the course of the HELLENISTIC age. This
says nothing of the claims put forth by the royal house regarding their
hellenic origins long before the completion of this process. And no
one, including you, can prove that these people did not believe
what they claimed.

I hope that you address the following assertions rather than erasing
them as you did last time.

THESE ARE THE ASSERTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE HISTORIANS MANGOVSKI RECOMMENDS
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

1) Macedonians came to be regarded as Greeks in Greek consciousness
DURING THE COURSE of the Hellenistic age.

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
later may be argued to be true `ex post facto'." But it is
an important question whether these assertions should
properly be made in a fourth century B.C context"

2) Macedonians became conscious of their unity with Greeks as the
result of a PROCESS that reached fruition during the course of the
Hellenistic age.

Badian:

"...at this time the GAP between Greeks and Macedonians
was by no means bridged. The work... toward bridging
it, and the work of Alexander who was himself the
result of that long PROCESS... was to take perhaps
another century to reach fruition. Perhaps it was
not fully completed until both parties became
CONSCIOUS of THEIR UNITY, as it had by then
developed, in contrast to a conqueror from the
barbarian West." [Rome] <p.43>

3) Macedonians and Greeks eventually blended into one nation as the
result of a process which unfolded during the course of the
Hellenistic age.

M.Cary

"The future relations between the two peoples had been
irrevocably fixed by Alexander's Anabasis, which
destined them to work together in close co-operation as
joint rulers of the East, and EVENTUALLY TO BE BLENDED
INTO ONE NATION." -pg 10

4) Macedonians ended up being FULLY HELLENIZED during the course of the
Hellenistic age. This outcome is something Mangovski wants to ignore:

Brunt, historian cited by Badian:

"The relics of the Macedonian language, such as
the names of places and persons, both human and
divine,... show that it was basically Greek

with an admixture of (probably) Illlyrian.
However, to Greeks in the FOURTH CENTURY it

was evidently unintelligible. Macedonian

institutions too, though they resembled those

we find in the Homeric poems, were alien to the

Greeks of Alexander's time, who were accustomed
to city-states with democratic or democratic

institutions. Hence they did not see that the

Macedonians were of the same stock as

themselves but at an earlier, indeed Homeric,

stage of development... Eventually the whole

people was thoroughly Hellenized and the

Macedonian kingdoms in the near east which

arose out of the ruins of Alexander's empire

were to diffuse Greek culture among their

Oriental subjects."

5) The conditions that existed during a period around the 4th century
BC must be understood in their propper context if we are to understand
the struggles of Philip and Alexander. Knowing the full history
within its rightful context, and knowing that eventually the
Macedonians and Greeks blended into one nation we can only conclude
that THE MACEDONIANS WERE A GREEK RACE.

Wilcken:

"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.

AND YET WHEN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE POLITICAL CONDITIONS,
religion and morals of the Macedonians, OUR CONVICTION IS
STRENGTHENED THAT THEY WERE A *GREEK* RACE AKIN TO THE
DORIANS"

Note the statement: "this was equally unknown to both"!

- when was this equally unknown to both? And did these
sentiments remain static? (OBviously not as Badian
tells us!)

- why does wilken state that our conviction is
STRENGTHENED that they were a Greek race when we take
into account the political conditions?
why? why? why? why?

- does Mangovski know something that Wilken doesnt?

Hence in summary:

1) Mangovski's recommended authors do not support his position
which suggests that Macedonians were never
thought of as Greeks.

2) Mangovski's recommended authors suggest to us that as the
result of a process which unfolded during the course of the
hellenistic era Macedonians blended with Greeks into one
nation/culture becoming conscious of their unity.

3) Mangovski's recommended historian, wilken, tells us that in
light of all the political conditions that existed and in
light of the culture the Macedonians affiliated with, OUR
CONVICTION IS STRENGTHENED THAT THE MACEDONIANS WERE A GREEK
RACE AKIN TO THE DORIANS.

4) We cannot look at the conditions that existed during a
period around the 4th century and conclude that the relation
between the two remained static for the remaining centuries!

This is what we can extrapolate from Mangovski's recommended books.
I am awaiting for Mangovski to prove that his own recommended
sources are wrong.

Merry Christmas.

PS --> Mangovski still has not been able to produce 1 reference to
a credible unbiased historian that relates "his" people with the
ancient Macedonians.

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:03:26 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in
article <Pine.A32.3.93.961219...@navajo.gate.net>:

>On 19 Dec 1996, Dimitrios Zanikos wrote:

>Whew! Here is humble me battling Karageorgis, Psaras, Retzios,
>Prodromaidis, many others that I simply ignore and now we have Zanikos
>back into the battle. My weapon is the historical truth, theirs is smoke
>and mirrors :-). Simple statements are returned with long tirades. But
>perhaps things are about to change as we shall see below :-)

It seems to me that you are getting desperate. You are drowninig and you try to
pull yourself up by grabbing your hair.

Vasilios Psarras

[MKroki7879]

Contemporary Macedonia with its inhabitants macedonians is a Greek
province. Macedonians live and prosper in Northern Greece.
The ancient Macedonians were SPEAKING GREEK, HAD THE SAME GODS AS THE
OTHER GREEKS, AND WERE WHOLEHEARTETLY DESIRING TO PERTICIPATE IN EVERYU
GREEIK FUNCTION (i.e athletic games like the Olympia etc.), ALEXANDER'S
PLAN WAS TO UNIFY ALL COUNTRY STATES UNDER PHILIP !

Alexander the Great had a GREEK education by the MOST INDEGRATED MIND OF
ANCIENT GREECE: ARISTOTELIS.
The currency of ancient Macedonia was written in GREEK -the language of
ancient Macadonia (you can find Macedonian coins in museums around the
world)!

Alexanders famous deed was finally to UNITE all the greek city-states,
exept the Lakedemonians, and to proceed to CIVILIZE the rest of the known
world at that time, with the only think that he admired, the gift he
received from Aristotelis "the GREEK WAY OF THINKING"!

Alexander was previously civilized by Aristotelis, that is why Alexander
said "my father gave me life and my teacher gave me the EU (galina, mangov
look in the dictionary - means good-) life"

The Truth Finally: Macedonia is Greek, and since ALL Macedonians were,
are, and will be Greek, all objections become null !

Greedings to all SLAVS tha have been civilized !! As for the small
minority of the "wannaby" Macedonians I say "Your grandchildren will still
be SLAVS"

Mike K.

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:11:13 GMT, aret...@deltanet.com (Anastassios D.Retzios,
PhD) wrote in article <32baa158...@news.deltanet.com>:

>Vasili

>Do you think that Slavko has learned his lesson this time? I doubt
>it. He is getting an F all the time in my classroom.

I doubt too. Even if the truth hit him on the head he would not recognize it. As
you have already written before it is people like him that ultimately resort to
extremism to promote their beliefs. Their dogmatism, obstinence, intransigence,
and above all a deeply rooted sense of a wide conspiracy against them pushes
them to unbelievable extremes.

Happy Holidays
Vasilios Psarras

[Vasilios Psarras]

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:35:32, kara...@ucla.edu (Aias o Telamwvios) wrote in
article <karageor.20...@ucla.edu>:

>In article <32baa158...@news.deltanet.com> aret...@deltanet.com (Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD) writes:

>>One line of evidence that Slavko has absolutely disregarded -and we
>>have failed to press- is numismatics. Coins were the main propaganda
>>items in the ancient world and the ones clearly aimed at the populace
>>as a whole. Not a single Macedonian coin bears a non-Greek
>>inscription and thousands of them are available today in many museums.
>>Certainly, a plethora of them are available from the time of Philip
>>and Alexander. All bear inscriptions in Greek. It would be
>>laughable if Philip and Alexander were issuing coins that could not be
>>read by the rank and file of the troops or by the ordinary citizen of
>>Macedonia.

>Anastassie, this may not be as strong a point as you suppose. For example, do
>we know how much of 'material want-satisfaction' of 'average' Ancient
>Macedonians was commodified and monetized? What were those coins used as at
>the time? Were they mainly being used as means of payment of 'tribute'? Were
>they mainly used for inter-'tribal' trade and exchange? 'Archaic' money, to
>put it with Karl Polanyi and the substantivist economic anthropologists is
>really quite different from modern 'all-purpose money', used in
>market-integrated economies.

Stavro,
I think that before you invoke need-ssatisfaction theory you have to account
for the fact that among the Macedonians there were artisans, craftsmen,
merchants, etc. who would really have usage for money, eg raw material,
supplies. Also the use of currency is an excellent tool for the king to collect
taxes, and kings were known to want to collect taxes. So the fact that there was
a coinage in Macedonia is testament that there was use for it, no matter weather
the masses were educated enough to know what was written on the coins. Now the
fact that the coins had Greek inscriptions means that there were a lot more
people than the king that could read what was on them.
In the end to satisfy even the most basic of needs (food) you need money to buy
it if you are not directly producing it.

Happy Holidays
Vasilios Psarras

[Anastassios D. Retzios, Ph.D.]

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 21:40:05 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net>
wrote:

>
>

>On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Anastassios D. Retzios, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>[del]
>> >>
>> >That is exactly the point, Retzios. They have brainwashed you not to see
>> >the obvious. All the hoopla against Demosthenes (if I was Greek I
>> >would've been proud of him) produced today is just to hide what he said
>> >about Philip and the Macedonians which is no different from what everybody
>> >else in antiquity said: Macedonians were not Greeks.
>>
>> First of all, dear Slavko, I fail to understand your point. How is it
>> possible to brainwash someone who you provide with the original
>> sources?
>
>THAT is the point, dear Anasstasios. Although you provide somebody with
>the original text they FAIL to understand them. Why? The only explanation
>is brainwashing. The inability to see the obvious. You have proved that
>countless times. I privide you with many quotes that say without any space
>of doubt that the Macedonians were not considered to be Greek and you
>refuse to accept it.

Brainwashing? Come on, Slavko!!! Come up with some better hypothesis
because this is patently ridiculous. Actually, I think that you are
brainwashed as I will explain below. As to the quotes you provide:
they may work for some of your fellow "believers" but they are
absolutely ineffective on us because we have read the books
themselves. So if you want to discuss the ancient historians or
Hammond, Green, Wilcken, Tarn, Eddington, Peters, Badian etc, etc...
you do not have to worry about providing us with quotes as most of the
Greek members of this forum have read all these sources or summary
historical accounts.

And, Slavko, you are clever by half: I can really read what you are
writing. You say "the Macedonians were not considered to be Greek",
but you never state that the "Macedonians were not Greek". And we all
know why: both Badian and Ulirch Wilcken that you love to quote
actually state that the Macedonians were Dorian Greeks but "were not
regarded as Greeks". Of course, both authors -and Badian did write
the introduction for the translation of Wilcken's biography of
"Alexander the Great", clearly state that this perception did exist in
the 4th century and was eradicated during the Hellenistic age.

So, if you believe these authors -and they are your favorite- and you
believe that you are descendant of the ancient Macedonians, you are,
therefore, a Greek. Why would the opinion of some Athenian
faddy-daddies affect you?

As far as these authors go, I disagree with their assessment as I
will discuss later, but I am in full agreement with their assessment
of the ethnicity of Macedonians and their eventual homogenization
within the Hellenic world after the close of the 4th century BC. And
if you agree with the above authors -as you have indicated, then you
must agree with their final assessment. This is the inescapable
solution. I find it hard to believe that you have read these books
and you have believe that by the 1st century BC there were any
discernible differences between Macedonians and southern Greeks.

Therefore, Greeks feel very secure reading the Philippics.
Independent of any Athenian opinion of the Hellenism of Macedonians in
the 4th century, history cannot be viewed as frozen in the 4th century
BC. The Greek world evolved and continues to evolve, and to base an
argument such as your own inheritance on the opinion of some Athenian
politicians in the 4th century BC is extreme folly.

>>Second, do you know what was discussed in my classroom or in
>> any other Greek high school? I doubt it.
>
>You wrong here, again. Members of my family have attended Greek schools
>and I do have a pretty good idea. The main purpose of the Greek school,
>and church, is to instill a strong Hellenic frame of mind in the pupils
>with truth being the main victim.

When was that, Slavko? You obviously had no idea that the Philippics
were part of the syllabus. So, I think that you have a very dim idea
as to what is taught in Greek schools. Of course, I am not going to
even suggest that Greek schools do not attempt to bolster
"patriotism", but do you know any state where the schools do not
attempt the same? Even the most enlightened western European state
teaches a very ethnocentric view of history in primary and secondary
schools. The finer points are left for university education.

> Actually, the Philippics
>> were taught just an illustration of rhetoric and not as historical
>> piece and there was very little if any editorializing.
>
>I'm sure. Have you EVER been taught that there might be evidence that
>suggests the macedonians, even as a remote possibility, might have not
>been Greeks? I doubt it. You were probably taught that all those who say
>so are enemies of the Greek nation.

Not at all. Even if we accept the proposition that the ancient
Macedonians were not Greek for the sake of this discussion, their
ethnic make-up has absolutely no bearing of them being Greek, as by
the beginning of the Roman era there is no difference between southern
Greeks and Macedonians. All modern western European states are
aggregations of national groups who were progressively molded to the
nation-states of today by a central authority or by a dominant group.
Fixing the debate about the ancient Macedonians in the 4th century AD
is about as sensible as discussing the French nationality today as it
existed in the 13th century when Provencals, Bretons, Navarrans,
Savoyards would have never described themselves as French. Does this
make the inhabitants of this region any less French today? Of course
not.

Therefore, again the inescapable solution is that if you regard
yourself as connected to ancient Macedonians you must either think
that your family emigrated to the north in 4th century AD and escaped
homogenization with the Greeks, or it stayed there and you became,
therefore, a Greek.

> If the Greek
>> state wanted to conceal anything, there would have been no problem
>> doing so. There is a huge body of work in ancient Greek. Demosthenes
>> is not the only orator one could study. The reason he is chosen is
>> because he managed to send thousand of Athenians to their death.
>>
>
>I don't think THAT is the reason. He's still one of the best orators ever.
>(How strange: a modern Macedonian expresses admiration for an ancient
>Greek and a modern Greek has no good words for the same.)

Again you make the childish mistake of assigning "Greek nationalism"
to Demosthenes who had no problems attacking southern Greek allies of
the Macedonians such as the Megariots, the Argives and the
Corinthians. To think in such terms of national awareness as the
overriding political force in ancient Greece is just ridiculous.
Demosthenes was an Athenian jingoist who could not see beyond his nose
and led Athens to two disastrous wars from which it never recovered.

>> You, of course, you know that it took many orations and debates
>> against other politicians such as Aeschines who advanced exactly the
>> opposite view.
>
>I'll get back to you about him some other time. Philip must've thought of
>him when he said that there is no Greek fortification that a donkey laden
>with gold cannot climb.

What? Are you going to hit the books and read about Aeschines? By
Jove, this is progress. Aeschines may have received Macedonian money
but it is well documented that Demosthenes was funded by the Persians.
Again, I suggest you read the account of the Lamian war in P. Green's
book "Alexander to Actium: the evolution of the Hellenistic Age". I
posted it here before. The fact remains that a significant portion of
the Athenian public, mainly the well-to-do, wished no conflict with
Macedon.

> What Demosthenes did was to "dehumanize" the enemy,
>> very much in the same way as modern propagandist do today. As the
>> Germans were presented, during WWI, as uncivilized and murdering
>> "Huns" to the British public to bolster the recruitment effort, the
>> Macedonians were presented as "barbarians" by Demosthenes.
>
>How unkind from you for a true Greek patriot as Demosthenes was. He warned
>Greece against Philip and he was right. Philip subjugated all of Greece
>and Greece has used every possible occasion to rebel againts the
>Macedonian occupier. This occupation lasted until Rome came to "free
>Greece of the Macedonian overlord."

Again you have no clue or you do not know any history at all.
Demosthenes was no Greek patriot and had he had his way, Greece would
have fell pray to a third Athenian empire. Athens fought against
Spartan and Theban dominance, so why would you believe that they would
have felt any better regarding a Macedonian dominion? And how do you
explain the continuous pro-Macedonian stance of the Argives, the
Corinthians, the Megalopolitans, the Messenians and the Akarnanians?
Go back to the books, Slavko.

>Your parallel with the Brits will not stand, I'm afraid, as many other
>contemprary sources agree with Demosthenes. That's why historians as
>Badian, Borza and Hammond all say the same thing: Macedonians were not
>considered to be Greeks. Even if some quack today could come up with a
>undeniable proof that Philip was Hellen's brother (so to speak) that will
>not change one iota from what the macedonains and Greeks thought about
>themslevs: they considered themselvs as foreigners.

First of all, Hammond or even Borza do not say this at all and
relevant passages have been posted here by Stavros and others.
Second, all the historians agree that independent of the Athenian
perceptions in the 4th century, any differences have disappeared by
the beginning of the Roman era. You know it, I know it, so posting
this makes no sense and you know it. And you know that you have very
little to stand on because you continuously refer to "considerations"
not to realities, as you well know that most of the authors that you
have quoted regard the Macedonians as Dorian Greeks, a fact clearly
independent of the opinion of some Athenian politicians. Stop lying
to yourself.

> Of course,
>> other Athenian politicians did advance the opposite point quite
>> successfully to the point that Athens did not declare "unrestricted"
>> warfare against Macedonia until Chaeronia.

>Let's not forget that Athens depended on Macedonia for timber and let's
>not forget Philips gold.

Let us not.

>> Accussations of "barbarism" against other Greeks by Greeks abound and
>> I believe Prodromidis has posted quite a number of them.
>
>With the only differnce that the macedonians were not considered to be
>Greeks. Not my words but those of badian. Borza, Hammond, Wilken and all
>the contemporary Greek historians.

You lie shamelessly. As to the opinions of contemporary historians, I
have covered it before. As to the opinions of ancient historians, I
refer you to the countless posts here.

>> By the way, as a Greek I have never been particularly proud of
>> Demosthenes as he was obviously a person who failed to understand the
>> power shift that had occured and the limited power of Athens to
>> respond to it. He unfortunately led his own state to ruin on at least
>> two occasions. Not a very good performance.
>
>You judge that from today;s point of view. You are proven wrong by the
>many rebellions of the Greeks against macedon.

And the many rebellions of Greek cities against Athens, Sparta,
Corinth, Thebes etc, etc, etc. Do you really believe what you are
writing about?

>> Slavko, I pity you because if you really believe this against all the
>> contrary evidence,
>
>Pity yourself, Anasstasios, as ALL the evidence supports what I say: the
>Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. As a Greek from Macedonia I
>realize this comes as a shock to you but not to worry. If you feel to be
>macedonian then you are one.

Ha!! Thanks...You are repeating the same statement ad nauseum. I
answer it already. Please, study it. Next time, I will grade you for
comprehension.

>and this is central to your self-definition,
>
>No, it is not. My idenity doesn't come from books. My idenity was given to
>me by my land, by my people.

So, why are these darn Macedonians of the 4th century so important to
you?

> you
>> must be very wary as you know you have very little to stand on.
>
>If you consider Macedonia to be very little then it is your affair. After
>all youre Greek and Greek you'll remain. Me, I come from Macedonia and
>that's a lot for me.

I do indeed hope that I remain what I am. A Greek and a Macedonian.
You do not know what you are.

> Even
>> if we come to agree that the Macedonians were not Greek -which is of
>> course ludicrous-,
>
>Maybe it;s not so luducrous! After all, that's what Badian, Borza,
>Hammond, Wilken, Demosthens, Thrasymachus and countells others say so it
>must be right. Consider it.
>
> the fact remains that they lived their lives and
>> contributed into the Hellenic and Hellenistic world
>
>The Jews did more, actually, and so did the Romans (the Hellens of the
>West) and many other Hellenistic powers.

What bull!! I will not bother discussing this. You must be running
short on arguments

>which absolutely
>> no connection with you.
>
>Don't be ridicilous, Anasstasios. Have you seen a Macedonian church or a
>macedonian priest? I'll bet you can't tell the difference from a Greek
>church and Greek priest. In our schools we study Homer and Demosthens and
>ancient Greek and probably almost everything you study in your Greek
>schools. Our music is similar so is our food. Our genetic and ethnic
>makeup is quite similar if not identical. The only differnce is the
>language, I would say.

What are you suggesting here, Slavko? If anything, the Orthodox
church as it stands today in the Balkans and in Russia was spread by
imperial missionary efforts from the 9th century AD onwards. It was
never a native Slavonic development and it was imposed by central
authorities on heathen populations for political reasons.

As to our genetic makeup, I have no idea, nor do you. Even if we
assume that the genetic makeup of modern FYROM and that of the Greek
Macedonians is similar, the fact remains that ethnicity is not a
matter of genes my friend and never was. The point is so obvious, I
will not spent time debating it.

It is remarkable to me that so much of your "ethnic definition"
depends on the view of Macedonians by Athenians in the 4th century,
specially when you must be well aware that any differences have
disappeared 200 years after the death of Alexander. This seems to be
a very precarious and ultimately indefensible position, when one
considers that these Macedonians spoke Greek and espoused all element
of Greek culture and religion in terms of our awareness of them. What
can they possibly have in common with you, a christian orthodox,
slavic speaker living in the periphery of their world?

[MKroki7879]

My dear friend Dimitri,

Mangofski is Deaf !!

He only knows one song ! FYROM IMPERIALLES!!

Greek saying:

"On the deaf's door, knock as much as you want"

Good night!

Mike K

Post Scriptum: But as far as I'm concern I learn from it a lot. Thanks!

[George Alex Stathis]

Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
> I was just at the Perseus project site, 'housed' at Tufts University. I had
> occassion to read ALL of the oratories of Demosthenes provided there, as well
> as those of Aeschines. (yes, I spent more than two-hours there)That
> Demosthenes' polemics against Philip and the Macedonians in general were
> politically (in both an 'instrumentalist' sense, and in a 'form of polity'
> sense) motivated and in substance is OBVIOUS. I invite every participant
> reader of anm to go to the perseus project cite and read the texts without any
> pre-conceived notions and to judge for themselves.

Indeed, some days ago, I've also browsed this remarkable site:

PERSEUS: <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu>.

ALL the Greek texts of any importance can be found there, and also with
English translations.

> And, yet, Mr. Mangovski will surface again, probably next month, and assert
> AGAIN that ALL authorities and ALL ancient texts CLEARLY demonstrate that the
> Ancient Macedonians were NOT and were not considered to be Hellenic.

And again and again, will do things that do not contribute even one 'iota'(!)
to the improvement of his country's relations with Greece...
` (on which his own country's prosperity largely depends).

> How many tens of times, and how many oodles and oodles of documents have been
> posted in this forum about the Hellenic character of the Ancient
> Macedonians we know about, who have left us traces of their sentiments, and
> about whom ancient writers and politicians opined and argued? Does Mr.
> Mangovski think that ALL THOSE TEXTS and all those detailed references are
> going to go away, somehow? Hasn't he got the message by now that ALL the
> documents, and ALL the arguments against his revisionist positions that have
> been provided in the past are NOT lost to the current Greek participants on
> anm?

What is particularly ominous, is the tendency of revisionists to rely on
'information overload', hoping that people will _not_ check out the falsified
(or hidden) information...

Some of us, however, are extremely stubborn when checking-out such information,
and in the future analyses (e.g. of 'Dejanews' archives), people doing this are
likely to do it in a much more systematic way, than Mr. Mangovski thinks.

Hence, today's 'Internet Mythology' (of Revisionism) may be prove to be
tomorrow's PROOF (or DOCUMENTATION) of revisionist FORGERY...
e.g.
I've already started defining 'axioms' in an A.I. program to simulate this
peculiar kind of intellectual irrationalism... and I'm not the only one.
(-posting "Artificially Intelligent Bigot", sent a few hours ago).

Meanwhile,
the Perseus Site is _objective_ information, for everyone... (Greek or Slav).

Best Regards and Merry Christmas
George

[George Alex Stathis]

Dimitrios Zanikos wrote:
> What Mangovski did not mention from the same author: (M. Cary)

>
> "The future relations between the two peoples had been
> irrevocably fixed by Alexander's Anabasis, which
> destined them to work together in close co-operation as
> joint rulers of the East, and EVENTUALLY TO BE BLENDED
> INTO ONE NATION." -pg 10
>

> Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d the above? This is
> Mangovski' recommended author telling us that:
> - Greeks and Macedonians were eventually blended

> into ONE NATION![...]

> - these assertions are those of MANGOVSKI'S
> RECOMMENDED HISTORIANS

Dimitri, you have (I think) hit the nail on the head. Personally,
I wouldn't care if my great-great-great(N-times)-grandmother has
been... unfaithful to her... Greek husband and had a non-Greek
lover. The beauty of genes is that they get better when mixed.

It is NOT we, but Slavko (and his flock) who advocate Racism
and Ethnopurism (together with science fiction, most probably)...
:-)

Because, even if we suppose the Macedonians were a non-Greek
people, it _became_ Greek, for so many centuries (before the
Slavic arrivals) that... insisting on 'Macedonci' being the
'true descendants' of Slavs is like insisting every blonde
woman one meets in Salonika today has a... grandmother from
Germany!!!! :-)

It is NOT Greeks, but 'Macedonci' who cling to their (non-existent)
genes, and with a _bigotted_ motive: To conquer the land of
Greek Macedonia some day, claiming it was their own.

As I said before, such monstrously forgerous attitudes can do
no other than HARM to the Slavic-speaking people in Skopje, or
(even) in Florina (Greece): It's giving the impression of such
systematic liers and forgerers than valid complaints about what
_really_ happened in Balkan history, etc, at the expense of
these people, ALSO looses credibility (to impartial observers).

Seems like, as in the case of Turkey, we are arguing for some
steps toward sincerity on behalf of the other side, which is
in the end beneficial to BOTH sides, also the non-Greek side.

Postings threatening to... finance 'Macedonian' terrorists
to invade Greece as allies of Turkey show clearly what the
problem is...

> Anywhow, here is another quote from the same author:

> wing wheeling upon it. This was the first decisive
> victory of ROMANS OVER GREEKS in a set battle on a large
> scale; but it sufficed definitely to establish Roman
> ascendancy in GREECE. -pg 191
>
> Can Mangovski c o m p r e h e n d the above? Can Mangovski
> understand that his recommended author describes the
> Macedonians as Greeks in their battle with the romans?

ditto!

Thanks for the information
George

[Charon]

sp...@erols.com wrote:

>No, it's just not false Greek logic. False Greek logic presumes that
>someone must have ethnopurist evidence to call himself or herself a
>Macedonian. What Slavko and others are saying is that the people WERE
>Macedonian, ARE Macedonian and wish to be REFERRED TO as Macedonian.
>Now, all these Macedonians you wouold like to deny are from the same
>general geographical location , i.e. from Thrace to the limits of
>todays's Republic and Macedonia and parts of Albania. AND they are from
>the same geographical area that they have been for an incredible length
>of time. Does this say something other than they are who they say they
>are?

>On the other hand, given the expulsions form Asia Minor even in this
>century, can most of you guys prove that continuation of existence in the
>same area? Some can but most cannot.

>Macedonians WERE, ARE, and WILL BE Macedonians.

I know it is a waste of time to reply to persons like you Galina.
Anyway

Once again you are of course right that Macedonians are Macedonians
etc.
What you completely and constantly fail to do is to explain to us
what connections Slavs/Tatars/Bulgars like you and others like you
wishing to call themselves "Macedonians" have with the actual
Macedonians who were a Greek tribe.

Merry Christmas

[sp...@erols.com]

Charon wrote:
>
> sp...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >No, it's just not false Greek logic. False Greek logic presumes that
> >someone must have ethnopurist evidence to call himself or herself a
> >Macedonian. What Slavko and others are saying is that the people WERE
> >Macedonian, ARE Macedonian and wish to be REFERRED TO as Macedonian.
> >Now, all these Macedonians you wouold like to deny are from the same
> >general geographical location , i.e. from Thrace to the limits of
> >todays's Republic and Macedonia and parts of Albania. AND they are from
> >the same geographical area that they have been for an incredible length
> >of time. Does this say something other than they are who they say they
> >are?
>
> >On the other hand, given the expulsions form Asia Minor even in this
> >century, can most of you guys prove that continuation of existence in the
> >same area? Some can but most cannot.
>
> >Macedonians WERE, ARE, and WILL BE Macedonians.
>

"Charon" says:
> I know it is a waste of time to reply to persons like you Galina.

Probably, so why bother?

> Anyway

yesssssssssssssss?

>
> Once again you are of course right that Macedonians are Macedonians
> etc.

Thank you, but I think you are one of those people with a small logical
gap in your reasoning and you didn't understand what I wrote.

> What you completely and constantly fail to do is to explain to us
> what connections Slavs/Tatars/Bulgars like you and others like you
> wishing to call themselves "Macedonians" have with the actual
> Macedonians who were a Greek tribe.
>

The question is a non starter. I happen not to be a Slav-Tartar-Bulgar
and the people I personally know who are half slavic Tatar/Bulgars ( I
know two, actually), do not fit a very wide flung mixed heritage

> Merry Christmas

You mean Xmas. I celebrate that with my family today. The religious
event, the Birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a.k.a. Christmas, I
celebrate on January 7 according to the Gregorian calendar which you
obviously follow.

Regards,

Galina

[Josif Grezlovski]

Charon wrote:
>
> sp...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >No, it's just not false Greek logic. False Greek logic presumes that
> >someone must have ethnopurist evidence to call himself or herself a
> >Macedonian. What Slavko and others are saying is that the people WERE
> >Macedonian, ARE Macedonian and wish to be REFERRED TO as Macedonian.
> >Now, all these Macedonians you wouold like to deny are from the same
> >general geographical location , i.e. from Thrace to the limits of
> >todays's Republic and Macedonia and parts of Albania. AND they are from
> >the same geographical area that they have been for an incredible length
> >of time. Does this say something other than they are who they say they
> >are?
>
> >On the other hand, given the expulsions form Asia Minor even in this
> >century, can most of you guys prove that continuation of existence in the
> >same area? Some can but most cannot.
>
> >Macedonians WERE, ARE, and WILL BE Macedonians.
>

> I know it is a waste of time to reply to persons like you Galina.

> Anyway

>
> Once again you are of course right that Macedonians are Macedonians
> etc.

> What you completely and constantly fail to do is to explain to us
> what connections Slavs/Tatars/Bulgars like you and others like you
> wishing to call themselves "Macedonians" have with the actual
> Macedonians who were a Greek tribe.
>

> Merry Christmas

***************************************************
"Explain to you?????"
Who said that we need to explain ANYTHING to you? What kind of pedestal
do you think you are sitting on? What pompousness and a lofty display of
empty braggadacio. Remove the vail of ignorance child, and then, we may
talk to you.
--
°MFNê

[Chris Trajkovski]

>cha...@fons.adae (Charon) writes:

>Macedonians who were a Greek tribe.

Yeah right, you don't even know who or what they were yourself. Give it up!

>Merry Christmas

Yeah and Merry Christmas to you!

CHris.

[Slavko Mangovski]

George Alex Stathis wrote:

>
> Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
> > I was just at the Perseus project site, 'housed' at Tufts University. I had
> > occassion to read ALL of the oratories of Demosthenes provided there, as well
> > as those of Aeschines. (yes, I spent more than two-hours there)That
> > Demosthenes' polemics against Philip and the Macedonians in general were
> > politically (in both an 'instrumentalist' sense, and in a 'form of polity'
> > sense) motivated and in substance is OBVIOUS. I invite every participant
> > reader of anm to go to the perseus project cite and read the texts without any
> > pre-conceived notions and to judge for themselves.
>

> Indeed, some days ago, I've also browsed this remarkable site:
>
> PERSEUS: <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu>.
>
> ALL the Greek texts of any importance can be found there, and also with
> English translations.
>

I'm so glad that some Romais finally decided to study ancient history
:-)
It was high time.

> > And, yet, Mr. Mangovski will surface again, probably next month, and assert
> > AGAIN that ALL authorities and ALL ancient texts CLEARLY demonstrate that the
> > Ancient Macedonians were NOT and were not considered to be Hellenic.

The writer here, of course, neglects to mention that it is not ME that
claims
the ancient Macedonians were considered NOT TO BE GREEK. It is
historians like
Badian, Borza, Green, Hammond, Wilken and the rest that do that. I just
support
their findings on the subject. If the writer has objections then I guess
he
should write and voice his opposition to the historians mentioned above.

>
> And again and again, will do things that do not contribute even one 'iota'(!)
> to the improvement of his country's relations with Greece...
> ` (on which his own country's prosperity largely depends).

Only insofar as you don't put another blockade and/or obstruct RM
relations
with EU, NATO and the rest of the world.

>
>
> > How many tens of times, and how many oodles and oodles of documents have been
> > posted in this forum about the Hellenic character of the Ancient
> > Macedonians we know about, who have left us traces of their sentiments, and
> > about whom ancient writers and politicians opined and argued? Does Mr.
> > Mangovski think that ALL THOSE TEXTS and all those detailed references are
> > going to go away, somehow?

No it's the other way around. I WANT them to stay while I'm sure you
WANT them to
go away.

Hasn't he got the message by now that ALL the
> > documents, and ALL the arguments against his revisionist positions that have
> > been provided in the past are NOT lost to the current Greek participants on
> > anm?

I only hope so as they all say the same thing: the ancient Macedonians
were not
considered to be Greeks.

> What is particularly ominous, is the tendency of revisionists to rely on
> 'information overload', hoping that people will _not_ check out the falsified
> (or hidden) information...
>
> Some of us, however, are extremely stubborn when checking-out such information,
> and in the future analyses (e.g. of 'Dejanews' archives), people doing this are
> likely to do it in a much more systematic way, than Mr. Mangovski thinks.

I only hope you do check all the material. Do you mind telling us which
part of
the statement "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks"
is
falsified?

[del]

>
> Meanwhile,
> the Perseus Site is _objective_ information, for everyone... (Greek or Slav).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

May we know how did you determine that? It is mighty suspicious that you
claim
the site is "objective." Most likely it's not.

[Winter Swimmer]

Slavko Mangovski wrote:
> George Alex Stathis wrote:
> > Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

> > > I was just at the Perseus project site, 'housed' at Tufts University. I had
> > > occassion to read ALL of the oratories of Demosthenes provided there, as well
> > > as those of Aeschines. (yes, I spent more than two-hours there)That
> > > Demosthenes' polemics against Philip and the Macedonians in general were
> > > politically (in both an 'instrumentalist' sense, and in a 'form of polity'
> > > sense) motivated and in substance is OBVIOUS. I invite every participant

> > > reader f anm to go to the perseus project cite and read the texts without any

> > > pre-conceived notions and to judge for themselves.
> >

> > Indeed, some days ago, I've also browsed this remarkable site:
> >
> > PERSEUS: <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu>.
> >
> > ALL the Greek texts of any importance can be found there, and also with
> > English translations.

[...]

> > And again and again, will do things that do not contribute even one 'iota'(!)
> > to the improvement of his country's relations with Greece...
> > ` (on which his own country's prosperity largely depends).
>
> Only insofar as you don't put another blockade and/or obstruct RM
> relations
> with EU, NATO and the rest of the world.

I see no reason for blockades and such things, provided the Greek side
of (geographic) Macedonia is recognised as Greek.

If it's not recognised as Greek, then this means claiming it (as 'occupied
territory'), which is like threatening the safety of a E.U. country (Greece).
In this case, there is ample reason for blockades etc.
European countries today respect each other's borders and history.

> > > How many tens of times, and how many oodles and oodles of documents have been
> > > posted in this forum about the Hellenic character of the Ancient
> > > Macedonians we know about, who have left us traces of their sentiments, and
> > > about whom ancient writers and politicians opined and argued? Does Mr.
> > > Mangovski think that ALL THOSE TEXTS and all those detailed references are
> > > going to go away, somehow?
>

> No it's the other way around. I WANT them to stay while I'm sure you
> WANT them to
> go away.

Mr. Mangovski, attributing such motives to Stavros is not very civil of you.
He may indeed disagree with you, but bases his arguments pretty much on the
_same_ texts which you are invoking. This is what makes the debate interesting.

> Hasn't he got the message by now that ALL the
> > > documents, and ALL the arguments against his revisionist positions that have
> > > been provided in the past are NOT lost to the current Greek participants on
> > > anm?
>

> I only hope so as they all say the same thing: the ancient Macedonians

> were not
> considered to be Greeks.

They don't say it in the sense that _you_ mean it, Slavko. And a great many
(more) historians say the opposite. So WHAT?

This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born as babies
into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs. It has been
explained to you again and again that even if you are right (as regards
ancient macedonians being non-Greek), you are closing your mind to the
historical _certainty_ that a few centuries later they _became_ Greeks.

Alexander the Great wanted his people to become Greek, and indeed they became.
Personally I am inclined to believe that they were a Greek tribe already,
but I... wouldn't give a rat's ass if genes from them were transferred to
modern Greeks. I believe in cultures more than genes...

> > What is particularly ominous, is the tendency of revisionists to rely on

> > 'information hoping that people will _not_ check out the falsified

> > (or hidden) information...
> >
> > Some of us, however, are extremely stubborn when checking-out such information,
> > and in the future analyses (e.g. of 'Dejanews' archives), people doing this are
> > likely to do it in a much more systematic way, than Mr. Mangovski thinks.
>
> I only hope you do check all the material. Do you mind telling us which
> part of

> the statement "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks"
> is
> falsified?

Look, Slavko, as far as I am concerned the ancient Macedonians landed on the
Earth from a Spaceship from Mars. The inscriptions on the spaceship were
ancient Slavic, and contained a hammer and sickle. The people who came out
of the spaceship had green hair, so they were worshipped as Gods. Later they
repented and turned Christian. Their green hair inspired some modern people
to continue to shout "ALL hair is green". :-) :-) :-)

And hair is hair, which proves all hair is green... :-) :-)

DO you get the point? Even if you are right, you are still evading the
REAL problem: That the ancient Macedonians became Greek even if they were
not. Look: Even Greeks were not 'originally' Greeks. SO WHAT?

> > Meanwhile,
> > the Perseus Site is _objective_ information, for everyone... (Greek or Slav).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> May we know how did you determine that? It is mighty suspicious that you
> claim
> the site is "objective." Most likely it's not.

Look, Slavko: Save your efforts to instill suspicion, they are futile in this
case: The Perseus project is NOT Greek propaganda. It's an American project
to make available on the net ALL the ORIGINAL Greek texts as they ARE. There
are no 'opinions'. This is why the Perseus project is objective: It contains
ONLY objective information: Original texts, AS they were written. NO opinions.

Happy Winter
George

[Slavko Mangovski]

Winter Swimmer wrote:

[del]

> > > ` (on which his own country's prosperity largely depends).
> >
> > Only insofar as you don't put another blockade and/or obstruct RM
> > relations
> > with EU, NATO and the rest of the world.
>
> I see no reason for blockades and such things, provided the Greek side
> of (geographic) Macedonia is recognised as Greek.

It doesn't appear that the Greek govt. shares your opinion. Only
two years ago it imposed an embargo on RM and that was not because
RM didn't recognize that the Greek side of Macedonia is Greek. Are
you aware of that? Talks of new embargo occur every now and then
whenever RM states that it will not yield on the name issue.

> If it's not recognised as Greek, then this means claiming it (as 'occupied
> territory'), which is like threatening the safety of a E.U. country (Greece).
> In this case, there is ample reason for blockades etc.
> European countries today respect each other's borders and history.

The real problem is Greece's refusal to recognize the Republic of
Macedonia
and the Macedonian minority in Greece.

[del]

> > No it's the other way around. I WANT them to stay while I'm sure you
> > WANT them to
> > go away.
>
> Mr. Mangovski, attributing such motives to Stavros is not very civil of you.
> He may indeed disagree with you, but bases his arguments pretty much on the
> _same_ texts which you are invoking. This is what makes the debate interesting.

I don't recall Stavros making any big arguments on ancient history
except
his visit to the Perseus project (for whole two hours) and his refusal
to accept a certain simple sentence.

> > Hasn't he got the message by now that ALL the
> > > > documents, and ALL the arguments against his revisionist positions that have
> > > > been provided in the past are NOT lost to the current Greek participants on
> > > > anm?
> >
> > I only hope so as they all say the same thing: the ancient Macedonians
> > were not
> > considered to be Greeks.
>
> They don't say it in the sense that _you_ mean it, Slavko.

I really don't see any other meaning then what exactly it says:
the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. Do you
mind explaining any other meaning which escapes me?

And a great many
> (more) historians say the opposite. So WHAT?

Which ones? Ancient texts and most respected historians
(Hammond, Borza, Badian, Wilken, Green, Grant) all say
the same.

>
> This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born as babies
> into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
> a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs.

That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim? I certainly
would never dream of proving such a thing.

It has been
> explained to you again and again that even if you are right (as regards
> ancient macedonians being non-Greek), you are closing your mind to the
> historical _certainty_ that a few centuries later they _became_ Greeks.

Well that is exactly what I want to discuss here. But we cannot discuss
history if we don't agree on what was the state of affairs in certain
historical periods. In this case we have a clear undeniable fact that
the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks by the Greeks
nor they considered themselves as Greeks. I'm very eager to continue
this discussion for the later periods of history and I keep my mind
open. Let's move on!

>
> Alexander the Great wanted his people to become Greek, and indeed they became.
> Personally I am inclined to believe that they were a Greek tribe already,
> but I... wouldn't give a rat's ass if genes from them were transferred to
> modern Greeks. I believe in cultures more than genes...

That is certainly another worthy subject of dicussion.

[del]

> >
> > I only hope you do check all the material. Do you mind telling us which
> > part of
> > the statement "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks"
> > is
> > falsified?
>
> Look, Slavko, as far as I am concerned the ancient Macedonians landed on the
> Earth from a Spaceship from Mars. The inscriptions on the spaceship were
> ancient Slavic, and contained a hammer and sickle. The people who came out
> of the spaceship had green hair, so they were worshipped as Gods. Later they
> repented and turned Christian. Their green hair inspired some modern people
> to continue to shout "ALL hair is green". :-) :-) :-)
>
> And hair is hair, which proves all hair is green... :-) :-)
>
> DO you get the point? Even if you are right, you are still evading the
> REAL problem: That the ancient Macedonians became Greek even if they were
> not.

Nice sense of humor. Do you then accept the fact that ancient
Macedonians were
not considered to be Greeks? If you do then let's discuss when did the
Macedonians become Greek?

> Look: Even Greeks were not 'originally' Greeks. SO WHAT?

Which period are you reffering to? And when did Greeks become Greek?

[del]

> > May we know how did you determine that? It is mighty suspicious that you
> > claim
> > the site is "objective." Most likely it's not.
>
> Look, Slavko: Save your efforts to instill suspicion, they are futile in this
> case: The Perseus project is NOT Greek propaganda. It's an American project
> to make available on the net ALL the ORIGINAL Greek texts as they ARE. There
> are no 'opinions'. This is why the Perseus project is objective: It contains
> ONLY objective information: Original texts, AS they were written. NO opinions.

Actually, it does contain opinion under Encyclopedia headings and they
do not
appear to be very objective so I have to continue to suspect Greek
involvement.

> Happy Winter
> George

Looking forward to continuing the discussion and hoping others will join
in.

Slavko

[Winter Swimmer]

(a first, and partial reply, as I'm in the middle of a work-project, Mr. Mangovski! :) )

Slavko Mangovski wrote:
> Winter Swimmer wrote:[....]

> > This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born as babies
> > into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
> > a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
>
> That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim? I certainly
> would never dream of proving such a thing.

Well, people like Galina (on your 'side') claim this all the time. The entire
purpose of her 'maverick historian' revisionist hypothesis is to cast doubts
about the Greekness of ancient Macedonians IN ORDER TO prove that they were
ancestors of Slavs instead. If there was no such purpose or motive, we'd
all be drinking Turkish (errr... Greek) coffee and indulging in friendly
Balkan debates about history which would have no consequence on our
friendship today...

It is highly dishonest to dream of proving such a thing, and a pleasure to
see that you unequivocally condemn it as a 'stupid claim'. Makes BOTH of
us winners, for a change: Reason against irrationalism! :-)

> It has been
> > explained to you again and again that even if you are right (as regards
> > ancient macedonians being non-Greek), you are closing your mind to the
> > historical _certainty_ that a few centuries later they _became_ Greeks.
>
> Well that is exactly what I want to discuss here. But we cannot discuss
> history if we don't agree on what was the state of affairs in certain
> historical periods. In this case we have a clear undeniable fact that
> the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks by the Greeks
> nor they considered themselves as Greeks. I'm very eager to continue
> this discussion for the later periods of history and I keep my mind
> open. Let's move on!

It's not necessary to 'agree' on ONE interpretation of ONE period of
history in order to discuss another (IMHO more important) period... :)

> > Alexander the Great wanted his people to become Greek, and indeed they became.
> > Personally I am inclined to believe that they were a Greek tribe already,
> > but I... wouldn't give a rat's ass if genes from them were transferred to
> > modern Greeks. I believe in cultures more than genes...
>
> That is certainly another worthy subject of dicussion.

Glad you agree it's worthy of discussion. But it's the _most_ important
subject, for those of us who do not 'cling' to our genes. What is our fault
if our ancestors... loved each other or hated each other (and... made babies
and wars as a result)? Our aim should be to look at the most important things
of relevance today: The theories (e.g. of Galina) that Alexander the Great
was 'an ancestor of Slavs' serve only one purpose: To define 'Aeghean Macedonia'
as an 'occupied zone', and... causing morons like Petrovic to... announce
wars and guerilla-armies to invade Greece. THIS is the problem. The rest is
toothpaste for... Alexander's teeth, and a pain in... Balkan asses today.

> > Look, Slavko, as far as I am concerned the ancient Macedonians landed on the
> > Earth from a Spaceship from Mars. The inscriptions on the spaceship were
> > ancient Slavic, and contained a hammer and sickle. The people who came out
> > of the spaceship had green hair, so they were worshipped as Gods. Later they
> > repented and turned Christian. Their green hair inspired some modern people
> > to continue to shout "ALL hair is green". :-) :-) :-)
> >
> > And hair is hair, which proves all hair is green... :-) :-)
> >
> > DO you get the point? Even if you are right, you are still evading the
> > REAL problem: That the ancient Macedonians became Greek even if they were
> > not.
>
> Nice sense of humor. Do you then accept the fact that ancient
> Macedonians were
> not considered to be Greeks? If you do then let's discuss when did the
> Macedonians become Greek?

I don't see why you insist one should 'accept as a fact' something which, to
the best of my knowledge, is a 'maverick' historian's hypothesis. I prefer to
keep a mind open, and to the best of my knowledge, the ancient Macedonians
were a Greek tribe. Freed of all 'ulterior motives' (e.g. of invading Greek
Macedonia) Borsa's maverick views, can also be intriguing or interesting,
despite my (or anyone's) disagreeement with them. However, placing an
'axiomatic' condition that Borsa is a... Pope demanding our... obedience
is hardly commendable as an exercise in tolerance or intellectual honesty.

> > Look: Even Greeks were not 'originally' Greeks. SO WHAT?
>
> Which period are you reffering to? And when did Greeks become Greek?

NO people in the world were 'originally' what they later became. I had a
close friend from Wales, who claimed (to my amusement and satisfaction)
that we Greeks are... cousins of Welsh people and Irish and Keltish people
too, because (according to _her_) the 'wave of Keltic immigration' westwards
in VERY ancient times was split into two paths: One south (the ancestors
of ancient Greeks -Doreans, Acheans, etc) and one West (to the British
isles eventually). If this is an explanation of why we get along so well
with Irish/Welsh/Scottish people today, it's a most amusing and welcome
hypothesis. It came from a historian (Ms. Joanne FitzPatrick) anyway...

But as it is presently impossible for... me to claim Wales is... Greek,
and even more impossible or futile to claim a... Republic of Wales which
is Greek!!!! ROTFL....

> > > May we know how did you determine that? It is mighty suspicious that you
> > > claim
> > > the site is "objective." Most likely it's not.
> >
> > Look, Slavko: Save your efforts to instill suspicion, they are futile in this
> > case: The Perseus project is NOT Greek propaganda. It's an American project
> > to make available on the net ALL the ORIGINAL Greek texts as they ARE. There
> > are no 'opinions'. This is why the Perseus project is objective: It contains
> > ONLY objective information: Original texts, AS they were written. NO opinions.
>
> Actually, it does contain opinion under Encyclopedia headings and they
> do not
> appear to be very objective so I have to continue to suspect Greek
> involvement.

Well, why don't you express your criticisms with examples, then? If you cared
to post critiques of those opinions, it perhaps would be more beneficial than
critiques of _our_ opinions, since these opinions are accepted as academic
truths by non-Greek people, more than Greeks.

OTH, if you expect 'maverick historians' like Borsa to appear in the Perseus
site you are proposing an... innovation of no real substance or relevance
(to the Greek texts themselves). Just look at the texts, if you don't like
the rest...

> > Happy Winter
> > George
>
> Looking forward to continuing the discussion and hoping others will join
> in.

Indeed. A sense of humour helps! :-)

George

[Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD]

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 21:41:25 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net>
wrote:

>Winter Swimmer wrote:

>> > Only insofar as you don't put another blockade and/or obstruct RM
>> > relations with EU, NATO and the rest of the world.
>>
>> I see no reason for blockades and such things, provided the Greek side
>> of (geographic) Macedonia is recognised as Greek.
>
>It doesn't appear that the Greek govt. shares your opinion. Only
>two years ago it imposed an embargo on RM and that was not because
>RM didn't recognize that the Greek side of Macedonia is Greek. Are
>you aware of that? Talks of new embargo occur every now and then
>whenever RM states that it will not yield on the name issue.

Either you pretend to be naive or you really are. The whole issue is
the name. As long as FYROM sports itself as the representative of
"all Macedonia", the claims on Greece, although not overt, are
inferential to say the least. If FYROM had no aspirations to "Greater
Macedonia", it would have been very easy to accept a name such as
"Slavic -or Slavonic- Macedonia", "Northern Macedonia", "Vardar
Macedonia" or "Nova Macedonia". Its insistence of maintaining the
undifferentiated name "Macedonia" makes these claims clear and
unmistakable even in the presence of half-hearted admissions of the
"sanctity" of the present frontiers. These admissions are not worth
the paper they are written on because they were obtained under
pressure and they run contrary to the official propaganda -which you
also disseminate- of FYROM as it is included in its choise of official
emblems, icons, currency depictions, and school teaching. You will be
fools to believe that we will not see beyond the falsity of such
half-hearted consessions to the international forums.

>> If it's not recognised as Greek, then this means claiming it (as 'occupied
>> territory'), which is like threatening the safety of a E.U. country (Greece).
>> In this case, there is ample reason for blockades etc.
>> European countries today respect each other's borders and history.
>
>The real problem is Greece's refusal to recognize the Republic of
>Macedonia and the Macedonian minority in Greece.

Greece recognizes FYROM. It does not accept the present name but it
has no problems with the existence of this state. Again, there is no
"Macedonian" minority in Greece. All inhabitants of the Macedonia
province are Macedonians. I think if members of the community want
to describe themselves as Slavic Macedonians, nobody will have an
objections. But to use the undifferentiated term "Macedonian" when
the totality of the population is also Macedonian, is unacceptable.
If we extend any recognition to 3% of the inhabitants of Macedonia as
"Macedonian", then the clear inference will be that 97% of the
population of the province are not Macedonian which is, of course, not
true even simply by geographical association.

Second, Greece renders no official recognition to any ethnic group in
accordance with the practices of all western nations. The present
Albanian, Georgian, Lebanese, Armenian immigrant populations in
Greece are far more numerous than that of the slavonic-speaking
Macedonians but none of these communities has been awarded any special
status nor should they be.

The Greek State renders official recognition to the muslim minority
only because of a specific agreement: that of Lauzanne (1925?).
Neither I nor any of my fellow citizens will accept any further
"recognitions" as such will undermine the present legal status which
is full accordance with western European practices. I do not recall
the British rendering any official recognition to the numerous Indian,
Pakistani, West Indian, Cypriot Greek, Polish or Italian communities
in Britain. The same applies to other European nations with numerous
ethnic groups.

If, however, the existing Slavonic-speaking minority in Macedonia
would accept a self-definition as "Slavonic Macedonians" or something
akin to this, then, independent of any such stupid acts such a
"recognition", then institutions can take active steps to preserve
the language and special character of these citizens.

>> > No it's the other way around. I WANT them to stay while I'm sure you
>> > WANT them to
>> > go away.
>>
>> Mr. Mangovski, attributing such motives to Stavros is not very civil of you.
>> He may indeed disagree with you, but bases his arguments pretty much on the
>> _same_ texts which you are invoking. This is what makes the debate interesting.
>
>I don't recall Stavros making any big arguments on ancient history
>except his visit to the Perseus project (for whole two hours) and his refusal
>to accept a certain simple sentence.

By the way, the Perseus project is an attempt to provide all ancient
texts in digital format both in their original Greek and in English
translation. It contains no "editorializing" what-so-ever, despite of
your previous assertions.

>> > I only hope so as they all say the same thing: the ancient Macedonians
>> > were not considered to be Greeks.
>>
>> They don't say it in the sense that _you_ mean it, Slavko.
>
>I really don't see any other meaning then what exactly it says:
>the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. Do you
>mind explaining any other meaning which escapes me?

Should I try for the upteenth time? The only such support for this
statement is Demosthenes' Philippics and Olynthics in the charged
atmosphere of the middle of the 4th century, a period when the
emergent power of Macedon was threatening efforts of some Athenian
imperialists to assert their control over their former empire. Other
Athenian politicians took the exact opposite tack -supported the
hellenic credentials of Philip and the Macedonians, a fact clearly
absent from your remarks.

Even in the 4th century, we have no recorded opinions from the
majority of the Greek states such as Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, Argos,
Epirus, Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania, Rhodes, etc, etc.. on the
ethnic character of Macedonia. Actually, both the Lamian and the
Chremonidian war clearly illustrate that the Macedonians were not
regarded as non-Greeks because in the former Argos and Corinth sided
with the Macedonians and suffered Athenian attacks, and in the latter
most of the effort to "liberate" the southern states from Antigonid
control was led by the Macedonian troops of Ptolemy II who cemented
his alliance with some of the Southern Greeks by presiding over the
Isthmian Games.

Somehow, you fail to comprehend that Greece is not the same as Athens
-or you pretend not to understand. But, beyond your little phrase
"Macedonians were not considered Greeks" lays the most important
question that begs to be answered? "What did the Macedonians consider
themselves to be?" I will not go to long diatrebes here about the
official descent of the Macedonian royal family and nobility, about
toponyms and onomastics (all Macedonian names and locality names are
Greek). We discussed these at some length and you have failed to
provide any reasonable retort. There are two official acts of
Alexander that speak volumes: (a) the dedication to Parthenon of the
spoils of the Granikos battle with the inscription "from all the
Greeks except the Lakedaemonians.." (b) the burning of Persepolis as
"an official act of Revenge for the burning of the Parthenon".

> And a great many
>> (more) historians say the opposite. So WHAT?
>
>Which ones? Ancient texts and most respected historians
>(Hammond, Borza, Badian, Wilken, Green, Grant) all say
>the same.

Again, you misrepresent these authors as it has been pointed to you
time and time again. Hammond, Wilken, Grant, Eddigton, Peters and
others clearly state that the Macedonians were Greeks, independent of
the stated opinions of Demosthenes. Borza and Badian clearly accept
that by the middle of the Hellenistic age and in Roman times, any
distinction between southern Greeks and Macedonians had been
eradicated. These points were made time after time and you simply
fail to answer them and return to your usual song -the Greeks did not
recognize the Macedonians as Greeks- as if it really matters or as if
it has remained immutable during the later historical development.

>> This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born as babies
>> into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
>> a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
>
>That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim? I certainly
>would never dream of proving such a thing.

You again fail to inform us why this discussion, of the ethnic origins
of the Macedonians, is of any importance to the present. It seems to
me that in order to discuss the present origins of the
slavonic-speaking Macedonians, we have to go to 560 AD, when the Avars
and the Slavs broke through the imperial defences along the Danube.
This story and the subsequent events as well as the establishment of
the Bulgarian kingdom seem to me far more relevant to the present
issues than the ethnic origins of the ancient Macedonians. Do you
have anything valid to add regarding the ethnic and social background
of the province of Macedonia at those times?

> It has been
>> explained to you again and again that even if you are right (as regards
>> ancient macedonians being non-Greek), you are closing your mind to the
>> historical _certainty_ that a few centuries later they _became_ Greeks.
>
>Well that is exactly what I want to discuss here. But we cannot discuss
>history if we don't agree on what was the state of affairs in certain
>historical periods. In this case we have a clear undeniable fact that
>the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks by the Greeks
>nor they considered themselves as Greeks. I'm very eager to continue
>this discussion for the later periods of history and I keep my mind
>open. Let's move on!

How can you state this clearly outrageous lie? It is more than clear
that, independent of the opinions of some Athenian politicians, both
the Macedonian Royal house and the nobles, who were associated with it
but intermarriage, regarded themselves as Greek. The Argeiads
clearly claimed descent from Heracles and thus from Zeus. Alexander
also claimed descent from Achilles on his mother's side. Many
official acts of Philip, Alexander and the successors clearly
illustrate that they regarded themselves as Greek and wanted to be
recognized as such. All the historians that you lined up above
clearly agree on this point and I am sure that we have discussed this
on many occassions. Stop the lies. Then we can move on.

>> Alexander the Great wanted his people to become Greek, and indeed they became.
>> Personally I am inclined to believe that they were a Greek tribe already,
>> but I... wouldn't give a rat's ass if genes from them were transferred to
>> modern Greeks. I believe in cultures more than genes...
>
>That is certainly another worthy subject of dicussion.

Never with you.

>> >
>> > I only hope you do check all the material. Do you mind telling us which
>> > part of the statement "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks"
>> > is falsified?

I provided you an answer above as I did previously on many occassions
without any retort from you.

>> DO you get the point? Even if you are right, you are still evading the
>> REAL problem: That the ancient Macedonians became Greek even if they were
>> not.
>
>Nice sense of humor. Do you then accept the fact that ancient
>Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks? If you do then let's discuss when did the
>Macedonians become Greek?

Nobody will accept your premise so if is up to you, I guess.

>> Look: Even Greeks were not 'originally' Greeks. SO WHAT?
>
>Which period are you reffering to? And when did Greeks become Greek?
>
>[del]
>> > May we know how did you determine that? It is mighty suspicious that you
>> > claim the site is "objective." Most likely it's not.

You are referring to "Project Perseus" here. As it is only a
compilation of texts in ancient Greek with an English translation and
provides no editorializing, I think that it is more than objective.
You can check it. It is on the web.

>> Look, Slavko: Save your efforts to instill suspicion, they are futile in this
>> case: The Perseus project is NOT Greek propaganda. It's an American project
>> to make available on the net ALL the ORIGINAL Greek texts as they ARE. There
>> are no 'opinions'. This is why the Perseus project is objective: It contains
>> ONLY objective information: Original texts, AS they were written. NO opinions.
>
>Actually, it does contain opinion under Encyclopedia headings and they
>do not appear to be very objective so I have to continue to suspect Greek
>involvement.

Suspect away. This is all you have to say on hard facts. If the
facts do not suit you, then it is the "unseen, black hand of the
Greeks" that has changed modern historiography. You must lead a very
frustrating life.

Anastassios

[Slavko Mangovski]

Winter Swimmer wrote:
>
> (a first, and partial reply, as I'm in the middle of a work-project, Mr. Mangovski! :) )

So I reply you first :-)

>
> Slavko Mangovski wrote:
> > Winter Swimmer wrote:[....]
> > > This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born as babies
> > > into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
> > > a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
> >
> > That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim? I certainly
> > would never dream of proving such a thing.
>
> Well, people like Galina (on your 'side') claim this all the time.

I guess then we'll have to ask Galina for evidence to support such
claims and
keep an open mind. To tell you the truth I have heard of similar
theories but
have seen no substantial evidence except for one medievel text. I have
also heard
theories about the similarity between Homer's language and modern
Macedonian
and have seen a list of about 10 words showing remarkable similarity. My
first reaction was to qualify such claims as hard to beleive until
several weeks
ago. You will never beleive who is the greatest supporter of such
theory:
your ex-Minister and author of "The Falsification of Macedonian History"
Nikolaos Martis. You can visit his web site on HR yourself and read his
statement.
He claims that the Slavic language spoken in Northern Greece is a form
of
ancient Greek and containes more then 1000 Homeric words!? We all know
that the
language in question is modern Macedonian. But we are getting away from
our
original subject i.e. the "ancient Macedonians were not considered to be
Greek." We can discuss more about the above after we settle this one.

The entire
> purpose of her 'maverick historian' revisionist hypothesis is to cast doubts
> about the Greekness of ancient Macedonians IN ORDER TO prove that they were
> ancestors of Slavs instead.

That would make the Poles and the Russians direct descendants of the
ancient
Macedonians :-) Such theory would actually also validate Greece's claim
to the ancient Macedonian ancestry since at least half of its population
has Slavic origins :-) Perhaps Galina and Martis work together :-)

If there was no such purpose or motive, we'd
> all be drinking Turkish (errr... Greek) coffee and indulging in friendly
> Balkan debates about history which would have no consequence on our
> friendship today...

Please beleive me that I don't desire nothing more but it is all up to
you
to make real such a wonderful dream.

> It is highly dishonest to dream of proving such a thing, and a pleasure to
> see that you unequivocally condemn it as a 'stupid claim'. Makes BOTH of
> us winners, for a change: Reason against irrationalism! :-)

Reason above all except honor.

[del]

>
> It's not necessary to 'agree' on ONE interpretation of ONE period of
> history in order to discuss another (IMHO more important) period... :)

Yes, it is very necessary. The Greek govt. is spending millions
convincing
everybody (including its citizens) that the ancient Macedonians were
considered Greek. We already saw that they weren't. Why this propoganda,
why
these lies?

[del]

The theories (e.g. of Galina) that Alexander the Great
> was 'an ancestor of Slavs' serve only one purpose: To define 'Aeghean Macedonia'
> as an 'occupied zone', and... causing morons like Petrovic to... announce
> wars and guerilla-armies to invade Greece. THIS is the problem.

As if they can make real on their threats! Can't you see
that it's just big talk? Considering the strenght of your armed
forces you can sleep well as there is no real threat. I'm sure the
guys in Athens know that although the real threat is your unwilingness
to face reality. The only way to remove any threat in our part of the
Balkans is outright recognition of the Republic of Macedonia under
that name, recognition of the etnic Macedonians in Greece, repatriation
of Macedonian exiles and restitution and/or compensation of their
properties
and a public apology for the past maltreatments. Not only would you
remove
the threat but you will gain several million friends who will think that
Greece is the greatest democratic country.

[del]

> > Nice sense of humor. Do you then accept the fact that ancient
> > Macedonians were
> > not considered to be Greeks? If you do then let's discuss when did the
> > Macedonians become Greek?
>
> I don't see why you insist one should 'accept as a fact' something which, to
> the best of my knowledge, is a 'maverick' historian's hypothesis. I prefer to
> keep a mind open, and to the best of my knowledge, the ancient Macedonians
> were a Greek tribe. Freed of all 'ulterior motives' (e.g. of invading Greek
> Macedonia) Borsa's maverick views, can also be intriguing or interesting,
> despite my (or anyone's) disagreeement with them. However, placing an
> 'axiomatic' condition that Borsa is a... Pope demanding our... obedience
> is hardly commendable as an exercise in tolerance or intellectual honesty.

Well said but unfortunately for you it is not only Borza that says that
"the
ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks." We have to add
Badian, Hammond, Wilken, Green, Grant, Sakkelarou, Demosthenes,
Thrasymachus,
Thucydudes, Aristoteles and many others.

>
> > > Look: Even Greeks were not 'originally' Greeks. SO WHAT?
> >
> > Which period are you reffering to? And when did Greeks become Greek?
>
> NO people in the world were 'originally' what they later became. I had a
> close friend from Wales, who claimed (to my amusement and satisfaction)
> that we Greeks are... cousins of Welsh people and Irish and Keltish people
> too, because (according to _her_) the 'wave of Keltic immigration' westwards
> in VERY ancient times was split into two paths: One south (the ancestors
> of ancient Greeks -Doreans, Acheans, etc) and one West (to the British
> isles eventually). If this is an explanation of why we get along so well
> with Irish/Welsh/Scottish people today, it's a most amusing and welcome
> hypothesis. It came from a historian (Ms. Joanne FitzPatrick) anyway...

See, there are all kind of crazy theories around :-) I'm curios how does
she explain the language difference?

> But as it is presently impossible for... me to claim Wales is... Greek,
> and even more impossible or futile to claim a... Republic of Wales which
> is Greek!!!! ROTFL....

Or the the Greeks are Welsh....

[del]

> > Actually, it does contain opinion under Encyclopedia headings and they
> > do not
> > appear to be very objective so I have to continue to suspect Greek
> > involvement.
>
> Well, why don't you express your criticisms with examples, then?

That would be the subject of different post.

If you cared
> to post critiques of those opinions, it perhaps would be more beneficial than
> critiques of _our_ opinions, since these opinions are accepted as academic
> truths by non-Greek people, more than Greeks.

But we have seen that they are not. The accepted academic truth is that
Macedonians
were not considered to be Greeks.

>
> OTH, if you expect 'maverick historians' like Borsa to appear in the Perseus
> site you are proposing an... innovation of no real substance or relevance
> (to the Greek texts themselves). Just look at the texts, if you don't like
> the rest...

I did actually.

>
> > > Happy Winter
> > > George
> >
> > Looking forward to continuing the discussion and hoping others will join
> > in.
>
> Indeed. A sense of humour helps! :-)
>
> George

It does.

Slavko

[MKroki7879]

To Greeks everywhere,

The name "Macedonians" for the ihabitants of FYROM is a matter of
_national concern_ for the Greek nation, the Greek State and governemnt
and the Greek citizens. Allthough I respect every opinion, I state that is
highly inappropriate to "inforce" a solution or to advocate one, for the
sake of "been a humanitarian" etc.

I would like to strees the following:

1. Greece does not hate, impose threat or wants to provoke the newly
founded nation of Fyrom.
2. Greece should not and would not yield a concession on the "Macedonia"
name issue.
3. Since the name constitutes a PROPERTY of Greek heritage, it should ONLY
be given for foreign use after a national referendum.
4. Greece has NOTHING to gain and a lot to lose by allowing the MISUSE of
its heritage.
6. The nation of FYROM has a lot to gain and NOTHING to lose by abolishing
its claim on the name "Macedonia".
7. It is highly important for every Greek to THINK before liberally giving
his opinion
on subjects of national importance - especially if his opinion is contrary
to the official Greek foreign policy. This does not, by all means,
constitue a prohibition of freedom of speach. It rather suggests a
restrain on supporting issues that can hurt vital Greek interests.
Unfortunately, the Greek foreign policy was never unique or solid, thus
Greece still fights on many fronts for issues that other countries have
solved long ago.

Thank you.

Mike K

[SjonJine]

Geroge Stathis wrote:

"I see no reason for blockades and such things, provided the Greek side
of (geographic) Macedonia is recognised as Greek."

If it's not recognised as Greek, then this means claiming it (as 'occupied
territory'), which is like threatening the safety of a E.U. country
(Greece).
In this case, there is ample reason for blockades etc.
European countries today respect each other's borders and history."

How can you deny a name and propose theeconomic and political bondage of
the beautiful Macedonians, you horrid pagan thief of a name and a culture?

Be proud of who you are and what you have, irridentist one, the hour of
accounting and grief fast approaches and you stand in the way of the
light.

Might you think you have but there is stronge rwill than yours for Truth
has a strength and a dignity outliving the petty dreams of would be
tyrants.

Rant and rave all you will and yet the love of the people will spill over
your breast and you will gasp afraid at your insignificance when you feel
the powerful love of the Narod pass over you.

Stripped of your ranting raves, the wind will unmask your greed. Why the
need to have what you need not own? Is not being Greek enough? Must you
rake over the bones of neighbors to satisfy your carnivorous greed to
remake your identity, to challenge what should be Greek with what is not,
seek to own what never should be sought?

Better to lie in the serenity of ancient ways and gaze upon an icon of the
collective will. It will spell and spill you in a sidelong glance, you
with the temerity to look upon your neighbor and your neighbor's wife with
desire, you who could have so much at home were you to simply look at what
you yourself have if you were not to rewrite your history, your space,
your place in the holy written word.

The thief writes his own dirge and is buried in a common unmarked grave.
Why battle then when peace is close to hand? Why not gasp at love, why
not understand the simple pleasure of welcoming a firend or two from the
place of the sun ? Their stones will then warm you, their arms embrace
your peace. Harmony will invade your songs, and you wil be invited to
dance a shaman's love in cadences close enough to your center to bring you
to the completeness you ever have denied within.

Between the sin of want and the pursuit of love is a chance for peace..
The second brings you to a best and lucky chance, the first to
accellerating grief.

Positively Byzantine,

Galina

[Winter Swimmer]

SjonJine wrote:

> Geroge Stathis wrote:
> "I see no reason for blockades and such things, provided the Greek side
> of (geographic) Macedonia is recognised as Greek."
>
> If it's not recognised as Greek, then this means claiming it (as 'occupied
> territory'), which is like threatening the safety of a E.U. country
> (Greece).
> In this case, there is ample reason for blockades etc.
> European countries today respect each other's borders and history."
>

> How can you deny a name and propose the economic and political bondage of
> the beautiful Macedonians, you horrid pagan thief of a name and a culture? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"thief of a name and a culture" ? :-) :-) :-)

Look who's talking! :-)

> The thief writes his own dirge and is buried in a common unmarked grave. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are _determined_ to turn our region of the Balkans into another Former
Yugoslavia: You already revealled, by a slip of the tongue, your fantasies
of hatred against an entire people, NOT me: To be executed and buried in a
common _unmarked_ grave. (According to you, what Greeks as a people deserve).

[hypocritical farisean rants and magic spells deleted]

> Positively Byzantine,
> Galina

Yes!!! the... Positively fanatic, moronic, slanderous, abusive, and ungreatful
for _any_ kindness, hypocritical farisean 'byzantinean' psychopath: GALINA! :-)

Professionally... (your job being what it is)... (which is _known_ now):

You've designed _prisons_ for the Human Spirit because there is so little of
it left inside you. You are a Neo-Nazi Slavic Supremacist, with the obsessive
ambition to cause War and Strife between our peoples...

*****************************************************************************
But, it is NOT 'Greeks' that you hate, and want to bury in 'unmarked graves'.

What you hate is the Human Spirit itself!

And the more human it is, the more it infuriates you.
*****************************************************************************

Few human beings receive such a rare honour, to be hated for much
for being so very human... Few human beings and peoples have been
challenged SO much, to transcend their narrow national self-definitions...

So, we _thank_ you, Galina.

George

[Hyperlex]

lavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in article

<32D469...@gate.net>...

> > Slavko Mangovski wrote:
> > > Winter Swimmer wrote:[....]
> > > > This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born
as babies
> > > > into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying
to prove
> > > > a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
> > >
> > > That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim? I
certainly
> > > would never dream of proving such a thing.
> >
> > Well, people like Galina (on your 'side') claim this all the time.

> I guess then we'll have to ask Galina for evidence to support such
> claims and
> keep an open mind. To tell you the truth I have heard of similar
> theories but
> have seen no substantial evidence except for one medievel text. I have
> also heard
> theories about the similarity between Homer's language and modern
> Macedonian

This would indeed make modern Slavic Macedonians... descendants of ancient
Greeks!!! :-)

(Homer's language being Greek).

> and have seen a list of about 10 words showing remarkable similarity. My
> first reaction was to qualify such claims as hard to beleive until
> several weeks
> ago. You will never beleive who is the greatest supporter of such
> theory:
> your ex-Minister and author of "The Falsification of Macedonian History"
> Nikolaos Martis. You can visit his web site on HR yourself and read his
> statement.
> He claims that the Slavic language spoken in Northern Greece is a form
> of
> ancient Greek and containes more then 1000 Homeric words!?

How amazing!!! Where is this site we can look at? :-) :-)

> We all know
> that the
> language in question is modern Macedonian. But we are getting away from
> our
> original subject i.e. the "ancient Macedonians were not considered to be
> Greek." We can discuss more about the above after we settle this one.

I think a new answer to the original question has emerged, rather
hilariously in fact:

YOU ARE GREEKS!!!! a ha ha ha ha!!!! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Welcome to the Hellenic-Macedonian FEDERATION.
( not so funny in... 20 years or so! )

George

[Slavko Mangovski]

Hyperlex wrote:

[del]

> > I guess then we'll have to ask Galina for evidence to support such
> > claims and
> > keep an open mind. To tell you the truth I have heard of similar
> > theories but
> > have seen no substantial evidence except for one medievel text. I have
> > also heard
> > theories about the similarity between Homer's language and modern
> > Macedonian
>

> This would indeed make modern Slavic Macedonians... descendants of ancient
> Greeks!!! :-)
>
> (Homer's language being Greek).

Why not? If it can make the slavo-albanian Greeks then why not the
ethnic
Macedonians? :-)

>
> > and have seen a list of about 10 words showing remarkable similarity. My
> > first reaction was to qualify such claims as hard to beleive until
> > several weeks
> > ago. You will never beleive who is the greatest supporter of such
> > theory:
> > your ex-Minister and author of "The Falsification of Macedonian History"
> > Nikolaos Martis. You can visit his web site on HR yourself and read his
> > statement.
> > He claims that the Slavic language spoken in Northern Greece is a form
> > of
> > ancient Greek and containes more then 1000 Homeric words!?
>

> How amazing!!! Where is this site we can look at? :-) :-)

Here it is: http://www.hri.org/Martis/contents/main8.html

This is what it says:

"The Slavic dialect spoken in Central and Western Macedonia
(Northern Greece) is an ancient Greek language. It contains
1164 Homeric words. Due to the long coexistence of Greeks, Serbs
and Bulgarians, this dialect has been enriched with Bulgarian
words and endings and has nothing to do with the so-called
"Macedonian language" invented in 1944-45, which is a mixture of the
Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian languages."

I hope you understand the implication of the above statement
especially when it comes from such an "expert."

>
> > We all know
> > that the
> > language in question is modern Macedonian. But we are getting away from
> > our
> > original subject i.e. the "ancient Macedonians were not considered to be
> > Greek." We can discuss more about the above after we settle this one.
>

> I think a new answer to the original question has emerged, rather
> hilariously in fact:
>
> YOU ARE GREEKS!!!! a ha ha ha ha!!!! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))

That is entirely possible :-) President Clinton said several years ago
"we are all Greeks." A Greek expert said that Greeks are all those who
espouse the ancient Greek ideal of freedom and democracy. If that is
so then we are all Greeks :-) Of course, then there arises the problem
who are you? Rhomaios, Slavs, Albanians, Turks or a mixture of all the
previous? :-)

>
> Welcome to the Hellenic-Macedonian FEDERATION.
> ( not so funny in... 20 years or so! )

I'll drink to that!

>
> George

Slavko

[John Kyrimis]

sjon...@aol.com (SjonJine) wrote:

> How can you deny a name and propose theeconomic and political bondage of

> the beautiful Macedonians, you horrid pagan thief of a name and a culture?

I wonder the same thing. How can the Slavophones do this to us, the
Macedonians?

> Be proud of who you are and what you have, irridentist one, the hour of
> accounting and grief fast approaches and you stand in the way of the
> light.

I agree. FYROM will have to account for its irredentism.

> Might you think you have but there is stronge rwill than yours for Truth
> has a strength and a dignity outliving the petty dreams of would be
> tyrants.

Again I agree.

BTW, I note you signed as "Positively Byzantine". Is this the new
FYROM approach: "Well since we're not Macedonians, let's call
ourselves Byzantines and see how that goes."

--
John Kyrimis
E-mail: j...@dove.net.au
WWW: http://dove.net.au/~jsk/

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD wrote:

[del]

> >
> >It doesn't appear that the Greek govt. shares your opinion. Only
> >two years ago it imposed an embargo on RM and that was not because
> >RM didn't recognize that the Greek side of Macedonia is Greek. Are
> >you aware of that? Talks of new embargo occur every now and then
> >whenever RM states that it will not yield on the name issue.
>
> Either you pretend to be naive or you really are. The whole issue is
> the name.

No it is not the name. The issue is the Macedonian identity that your guys
in Athens have nightmares about feeling insecure about the real number
of Macedonians in Northern Greece and how many of the hellenized
Macedonians are really so. The presence of a Macedonian state will
inevitably direct Macedonian identity towards it eventually. So instead
choosing a humane and just way of recognizing the ethnic Macedonians on
its territory and granting all possible rights and therefore eliminating
any separatist or negative feelings you have decided to apporpriate the
name and hence destroy any Macedonian identity.

Face it: the name Republic of Macedonian is sufficiently different from
the name Greek Macedonia so nobody can make any mistakes. There is no
military or any other threat coming from RM so why all this hoopla?

But you and the guys in Athens have badly miscalculated (bad
intelligence?) We will never give up our identity. FYI the red flag of the
Macedonian Sun is flying all around the world where Macedonians live.

As long as FYROM sports itself as the representative of
> "all Macedonia", the claims on Greece, although not overt, are
> inferential to say the least.

What claims? Are you afraid of big talk? Don't tell me the
Hellenic Armed Forces are afraid of the Macedonian army!
(Wait a sec: I'm experiencing deja-vu! Haven't we already
had cases of Macedonian v.s. Hellenic forces long time ago?)
:-) :-)

If FYROM had no aspirations to "Greater
> Macedonia", it would have been very easy to accept a name such as
> "Slavic -or Slavonic- Macedonia", "Northern Macedonia", "Vardar
> Macedonia" or "Nova Macedonia".

Why should we? Your country is called Greece ours is called Macedonia.
I don't see any similarities.

Its insistence of maintaining the
> undifferentiated name "Macedonia"

The name is Republic of Macedonia. Quite differentiated.

makes these claims clear and
> unmistakable even in the presence of half-hearted admissions of the
> "sanctity" of the present frontiers. These admissions are not worth
> the paper they are written on because they were obtained under
> pressure and they run contrary to the official propaganda -which you
> also disseminate-

Which propaganda is that? Is that the one that says "the ancient
Macedonions were not considered to be Greeks?" Let me remind you that it
is not ME that says that. It is Hammond, Borza, Badian, P. Green, M.
Grant, Demosthenes, Thrasymachus, Thucydides and so many others ...
But you already know that but are just pretending.

of FYROM as it is included in its choise of official
> emblems, icons, currency depictions, and school teaching. You will be
> fools to believe that we will not see beyond the falsity of such
> half-hearted consessions to the international forums.
>

So, what do you think we'll do? Attack you?

[del]

>
> Greece recognizes FYROM. It does not accept the present name but it
> has no problems with the existence of this state.

Pure BS. If we were living 100 years ago Greece would've invaded in no
time (Isn't that your secret dream?). Today we have CNN, UN, EU and the
rest and these things are no-no.

Again, there is no
> "Macedonian" minority in Greece.

That's not what the Macedonians there say,or Amnesty Internationsl.
Helsinki Wacth, Danforrh, CIA and many others... Besides, I happen to know
PERSONALLY that to be true.

All inhabitants of the Macedonia
> province are Macedonians.

Even the birds? :-)

I think if members of the community want
> to describe themselves as Slavic Macedonians, nobody will have an
> objections.

Everybody in the Balkans is more-less Slavic, you included.

But to use the undifferentiated term "Macedonian" when
> the totality of the population is also Macedonian, is unacceptable.
> If we extend any recognition to 3% of the inhabitants of Macedonia as
> "Macedonian", then the clear inference will be that 97% of the
> population of the province are not Macedonian which is, of course, not
> true even simply by geographical association.

Is this the way govt. statistics work in Greece? You are telling us that
the population statistics in Greece are like:

10% Macedonians
10% Thesalians
5% Thracians

etc. Are they?

>
> Second, Greece renders no official recognition to any ethnic group in
> accordance with the practices of all western nations. The present
> Albanian, Georgian, Lebanese, Armenian immigrant populations in
> Greece are far more numerous than that of the slavonic-speaking
> Macedonians but none of these communities has been awarded any special
> status nor should they be.
>

With the difference that these populations are IMMIGRANT and the
Macedonian are native.

> The Greek State renders official recognition to the muslim minority
> only because of a specific agreement: that of Lauzanne (1925?).
> Neither I nor any of my fellow citizens will accept any further
> "recognitions" as such will undermine the present legal status which
> is full accordance with western European practices.

BS. It's nice that you have such a nice opinion of your country yet
international otganizations disagree with you and say that Greece violates
most international human rights conventions.

I do not recall
> the British rendering any official recognition to the numerous Indian,
> Pakistani, West Indian, Cypriot Greek, Polish or Italian communities
> in Britain. The same applies to other European nations with numerous
> ethnic groups.
>

Immigrant vs. native

> If, however, the existing Slavonic-speaking minority in Macedonia
> would accept a self-definition as "Slavonic Macedonians" or something
> akin to this, then, independent of any such stupid acts such a
> "recognition", then institutions can take active steps to preserve
> the language and special character of these citizens.
>

That will never happen.

[del]

>
> By the way, the Perseus project is an attempt to provide all ancient
> texts in digital format both in their original Greek and in English
> translation. It contains no "editorializing" what-so-ever, despite of
> your previous assertions.
>

Then you have never visited the site or you havn't looked well enough.

[del]

>
> >
> >I really don't see any other meaning then what exactly it says:
> >the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. Do you
> >mind explaining any other meaning which escapes me?
>
> Should I try for the upteenth time? The only such support for this
> statement is Demosthenes' Philippics and Olynthics in the charged
> atmosphere of the middle of the 4th century, a period when the
> emergent power of Macedon was threatening efforts of some Athenian
> imperialists to assert their control over their former empire. Other
> Athenian politicians took the exact opposite tack -supported the
> hellenic credentials of Philip and the Macedonians, a fact clearly
> absent from your remarks.

Well, Tasos, you might be a PhD but certainly not in history. Have you
heard of Thrasymachus? Of Badian? Of Hammod? Od Borza? Of Sakkelariou?
Of Thycidides? Do you want me to name ALL who say the same thing? What's
the matter with you? Too brainwashed to see?

> Even in the 4th century, we have no recorded opinions from the
> majority of the Greek states such as Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, Argos,
> Epirus, Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania, Rhodes, etc, etc.. on the
> ethnic character of Macedonia. Actually, both the Lamian and the
> Chremonidian war clearly illustrate that the Macedonians were not
> regarded as non-Greeks because in the former Argos and Corinth sided
> with the Macedonians and suffered Athenian attacks,

No, that was becaise the Macedonians, like the Persian, bought their
allies. The Greek city-states were a quarellsome lot and the Macedonians
knew how to use it, especially Phillip. He was the Master of the Masters.
Ever heard about his saying that there is no Greek fortification that a
donkey laden with gold cannot climb?

and in the latter
> most of the effort to "liberate" the southern states from Antigonid
> control was led by the Macedonian troops of Ptolemy II who cemented
> his alliance with some of the Southern Greeks by presiding over the
> Isthmian Games.
>

Are you aware that the Romans attacled Macedonia under the pretext to
"free Greece of Macedonian rule."

> Somehow, you fail to comprehend that Greece is not the same as Athens
> -or you pretend not to understand. But, beyond your little phrase
> "Macedonians were not considered Greeks" lays the most important
> question that begs to be answered? "What did the Macedonians consider
> themselves to be?"

They considered themslevs to be Macedonians and looked down upon
the Greeks

I will not go to long diatrebes here about the
> official descent of the Macedonian royal family and nobility, about
> toponyms and onomastics (all Macedonian names and locality names are
> Greek).

Not all. That is all besides the point that the Macedonians considered
themselves not tobe Greek neither were they conisdered to be Greek by the
Greeks and that is quite clear. Some of your compatriots (Zanikos)
suggested that the Macedonians became Greeks by Roman times. What is your
stand?

We discussed these at some length and you have failed to
> provide any reasonable retort. There are two official acts of
> Alexander that speak volumes: (a) the dedication to Parthenon of the
> spoils of the Granikos battle with the inscription "from all the
> Greeks except the Lakedaemonians.."

I suggest you read Sakkelarou on the subject. He thinks that the above is
a proof the Macedonians were not Greeks. Alexander send the spils as a
warning to Athens and the Greeks to stop plotting. He excluded the
Spartans because they refused to partecipate in the Amphyctionic League
because they didn't want to serve under foreigners i.e. the Macedonians.
You are ruuning away from the subject Tasos. The simple fact of history,
as presented by Badian, Hammond, Borza and the others is that the
Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. Are you saying that these
people are lying?

(b) the burning of Persepolis as
> "an official act of Revenge for the burning of the Parthenon".

And the Romans occupied Macedonia and Greece under the pretext that they
were "liberating Greece from the Macedonian occupier." That, according to
your twisted and brainwashed logic, would make the Romans to be Greeks.
You displey an utmost (deliberate?) ignorance of contemporary events
when Greeks rebelled againts the Macedonians at every possible occassion.

> > And a great many
> >> (more) historians say the opposite. So WHAT?
> >
> >Which ones? Ancient texts and most respected historians
> >(Hammond, Borza, Badian, Wilken, Green, Grant) all say
> >the same.
>
> Again, you misrepresent these authors as it has been pointed to you
> time and time again. Hammond, Wilken, Grant, Eddigton, Peters and
> others clearly state that the Macedonians were Greeks,

That is not the subject of this discussion and I'll quote Wilken:

"...Even in Philips 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..."

What's the matter, Tasos, the English language too complicated for you? Do
you want me to translate the above? Or are you brainwashed beyond repair
and can't see and comprehand simple sentences? Which one?

independent of
> the stated opinions of Demosthenes. Borza and Badian clearly accept
> that by the middle of the Hellenistic age and in Roman times, any
> distinction between southern Greeks and Macedonians had been
> eradicated.

Not "southern Greeks" but Greeks and Macedonians. Start accpeting simple
facts, Tasos, of science. Ever heard of Thrasymachus?

These points were made time after time and you simply
> fail to answer them and return to your usual song -the Greeks did not
> recognize the Macedonians as Greeks-

You even twist simple words. Not recognize but consider. And it is not
only
the Greeks that didn't cosnider the Macedonians to be Greeks but the
Macedonians THEMSELVES didn't consider themselves to be Greeks.
There must be a mental block when simple sentences fail to convey
their meaning.

as if it really matters or as if
> it has remained immutable during the later historical development.
>

Why don't you accept it if it doesn't matter?

> >> This is not a problem. We are all... UFOS anyway, when we are born as babies
> >> into this world. The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
> >> a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
> >
> >That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim? I certainly
> >would never dream of proving such a thing.
>
> You again fail to inform us why this discussion, of the ethnic origins
> of the Macedonians, is of any importance to the present.

I think it is quite important to establish what ancient Macedonians and
Greeks thought about themselves and each other.

It seems to
> me that in order to discuss the present origins of the
> slavonic-speaking Macedonians, we have to go to 560 AD, when the Avars
> and the Slavs broke through the imperial defences along the Danube.

And they invaded and populated the whole area of the Balkans the
Peloponesos included. We can discuss that at a future date. First things
first.

> This story and the subsequent events as well as the establishment of
> the Bulgarian kingdom seem to me far more relevant to the present
> issues than the ethnic origins of the ancient Macedonians. Do you
> have anything valid to add regarding the ethnic and social background
> of the province of Macedonia at those times?
>

I do, but that will be at a future date. Don't be impetient, Tasos. We
should go era by era. If we discuss everything today then we'll be left
with nothing to duscuss. Besides, writing kilometric posts like this one
is counterproductive.

[del]

> >
> >Well that is exactly what I want to discuss here. But we cannot discuss
> >history if we don't agree on what was the state of affairs in certain
> >historical periods. In this case we have a clear undeniable fact that
> >the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks by the Greeks
> >nor they considered themselves as Greeks. I'm very eager to continue
> >this discussion for the later periods of history and I keep my mind
> >open. Let's move on!
>
> How can you state this clearly outrageous lie? It is more than clear
> that, independent of the opinions of some Athenian politicians, both
> the Macedonian Royal house and the nobles, who were associated with it
> but intermarriage, regarded themselves as Greek.

"...Even in Philips 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.

So Wilken is lying. So is Hammond, Borza, Badian and the rest. Come on,
just say so: these historians are lying!

The Argeiads
> clearly claimed descent from Heracles and thus from Zeus. Alexander
> also claimed descent from Achilles on his mother's side. Many
> official acts of Philip, Alexander and the successors clearly
> illustrate that they regarded themselves as Greek and wanted to be
> recognized as such. All the historians that you lined up above
> clearly agree on this point and I am sure that we have discussed this
> on many occassions. Stop the lies. Then we can move on.
>

I'll cut a deal to you: we'll separate the Argeads and the Macedonians.
Concede that the Macedonians were not Greeks and we'll discuss the Argeads
separately.

> >> Alexander the Great wanted his people to become Greek, and indeed they became.
> >> Personally I am inclined to believe that they were a Greek tribe already,
> >> but I... wouldn't give a rat's ass if genes from them were transferred to
> >> modern Greeks. I believe in cultures more than genes...
> >
> >That is certainly another worthy subject of dicussion.
>
> Never with you.

Liar :-)

> >> >
> >> > I only hope you do check all the material. Do you mind telling us which
> >> > part of the statement "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks"
> >> > is falsified?
>
> I provided you an answer above as I did previously on many occassions
> without any retort from you.
>
> >> DO you get the point? Even if you are right, you are still evading the
> >> REAL problem: That the ancient Macedonians became Greek even if they were
> >> not.
> >
> >Nice sense of humor. Do you then accept the fact that ancient
> >Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks? If you do then let's discuss when did the
> >Macedonians become Greek?
>
> Nobody will accept your premise so if is up to you, I guess.
>

Stop evading: it is not MY premise but histories. Accept it and let's move
on.

> >> Look: Even Greeks were not 'originally' Greeks. SO WHAT?
> >
> >Which period are you reffering to? And when did Greeks become Greek?
> >
> >[del]
> >> > May we know how did you determine that? It is mighty suspicious that you
> >> > claim the site is "objective." Most likely it's not.
>
> You are referring to "Project Perseus" here. As it is only a
> compilation of texts in ancient Greek with an English translation and
> provides no editorializing, I think that it is more than objective.
> You can check it. It is on the web.
>

I already did. It stinks :-)

> >> Look, Slavko: Save your efforts to instill suspicion, they are futile in this
> >> case: The Perseus project is NOT Greek propaganda. It's an American project
> >> to make available on the net ALL the ORIGINAL Greek texts as they ARE. There
> >> are no 'opinions'. This is why the Perseus project is objective: It contains
> >> ONLY objective information: Original texts, AS they were written. NO opinions.
> >
> >Actually, it does contain opinion under Encyclopedia headings and they
> >do not appear to be very objective so I have to continue to suspect Greek
> >involvement.
>
> Suspect away. This is all you have to say on hard facts. If the
> facts do not suit you, then it is the "unseen, black hand of the
> Greeks" that has changed modern historiography. You must lead a very
> frustrating life.
>

Not very unseen to those of us who have been watching :-) Your govt. is
spending millons of ECU's to convince the world that the ancient
Macedonians were Greek. Sort of the same thing you do here :-)

> Anastassios
>
>

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970110...@dakota.gate.net> Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:
<snip>

>With the difference that these populations are IMMIGRANT and the
>Macedonian are native.

Hey, Slavko, are the 'Arvanites' and the 'Vlakhi' ALSO 'immigrants'? Let's
establish some facts, for the 1,000 th time. No sovereign democratic state is
obliged by ANYTHING or ANYONE to 'recognize' or 'view' its citizens as
ANYTHING but that. Just as ALL LEVELS OF STATE in the U.S.A. do NOT
'recognize', 'record', 'count' etc. the religious identity and/or affiliation
of their 'citizens' WITHOUT discriminating against or suppressing the
religious identity or practices of those very citizens, Greece does not
recognize, record, etc, the 'ethnic' (rather 'ancestral') identity/affiliation
of its citizenry.
<snip>

>Well, Tasos, you might be a PhD but certainly not in history. Have you
>heard of Thrasymachus? Of Badian? Of Hammod? Od Borza? Of Sakkelariou?
>Of Thycidides? Do you want me to name ALL who say the same thing? What's
>the matter with you? Too brainwashed to see?

Slavko, please stop calling people names. For now the 5th time personally, I
shall state: Ancient texts and historical scholarship (ancient and modern)
suggests that before the Hellenistic era, SOME (but not ALL) influential
ATHENIAN politicians and citizens did NOT consider the Macedonians of the time
as 'fellow Hellines', as 'of their own'. This, despite the objective facts
that those ancient Macedonians spoke a GREEK language (with mostly Illyrian
admixtures) and that their institutions were in fact 'Homeric'. NOW, even the
most sceptical, most revisionist historical and other scholarly work on these
matters CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY concludes that by Hellenistic times, and
BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER by the beginning of the Roman era, ANY 'ethnic'
distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes had DISAPPEARED completely and
utterly in the minds and practices of not only the people in question
themselves, but (and importantly) from the minds of important, powerful and
interested third parties (to wit,the ROMANS). The COMMON Hellenic identity of
Hellenistic and Roman era Macedonians, Thessalians, Athenians, Spartans,
Thebans etc was SUI GENERIS, but it was HELLENIC nonetheless. It was DIFFERENT
from Classical (mostly Athens-based) Hellenic identity, and it was different
from 4th Century B.C. Macedonian identity.

Now, which part of the above is not entirely faithfull with ALL the
historical, archaeological, literary etc. work on the matter? Who is the one
who is too brainwashed to understand now?

BTW, you stated that your father was a Greek citizen once. When did he lose
his Greek citizenship, WHY, and at what age? Where did he receive his primary
and secondary education (if any)? Have you considered what kind of propaganda
HE was subject to?
<snip>

>Are you aware that the Romans attacked Macedonia under the pretext to

>"free Greece of Macedonian rule."

The Athenians attacked many a city-state under the pretext of 'freeing it of
Spartan rule'. What's your point?

>> Somehow, you fail to comprehend that Greece is not the same as Athens
>> -or you pretend not to understand. But, beyond your little phrase
>> "Macedonians were not considered Greeks" lays the most important
>> question that begs to be answered? "What did the Macedonians consider
>> themselves to be?"

>They considered themslevs to be Macedonians and looked down upon
>the Greeks

Really? Some 'looking down upon' that darn Alexander the Great did! Nice comic
relief, Slavko.
<snip>

> The simple fact of history,
>as presented by Badian, Hammond, Borza and the others is that the
>Macedonians were not considered to be Greeks. Are you saying that these
>people are lying?

No, Slavko. YOU are lying.

<snip>

>You displey an utmost (deliberate?) ignorance of contemporary events
>when Greeks rebelled againts the Macedonians at every possible occassion.

Go buy yourself a clue, Slavko. If Anastassios displays 'utmost (deliberate?)
ignorance of contemporary events' what exactly do YOU display? If Anastassios
is 'ignorant' and deliberately so, what does that make YOU? Mentally
challenged?
<snip>

>That is not the subject of this discussion and I'll quote Wilken:

>"...Even in Philips 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..."

>What's the matter, Tasos, the English language too complicated for you? Do
>you want me to translate the above? Or are you brainwashed beyond repair
>and can't see and comprehand simple sentences? Which one?

Learn how to spell first, Slavko, before you start accusing others of not
being masters of the English language. Secondly, your excerpt AGAIN refers to
PRE-HELLENISTIC times. Do you deny that by ALL accounts the Macedonians
became indistinguishable in an 'ethnic' sense from Hellenes at the latest by
Roman times? Where does that FACT leave you? You said you wanted to 'move on'.
Ok, MOVE ON. We start at the beginning of the Roman era with Greeks and
Macedonians being one. Now, what happened between then and the 'descent' of
the Slavs and Avars into the area in 6-7 century A.D.? Anastassios has told
what happened. Do you have any contrary scholarly evidence to his description?
Even the fanciful story that the descending and settling Slavs/Avars
'intermixed' with descendants of the Ancient Macedonians to produce the
ancestors of modern-day Makedonci does not support your position. Even if
sufficient numbers of descendants of indigenous ancient Macedonians had
survived Roman times to be 'available' for inter-mixing with the descending
and settling Slav/Avar tribes, their 'identity' could NOT have been different
from that of their Roman era ancestors, which was UNEQUIVOCALLY Hellenic. So,
where are you now?
<snip>

>> You again fail to inform us why this discussion, of the ethnic origins
>> of the Macedonians, is of any importance to the present.

>I think it is quite important to establish what ancient Macedonians and
>Greeks thought about themselves and each other.

How so? And WHICH ancient Macedonians and WHICH ancient Greeks are you
discussing here? What historical period are you refering to? WHICH specific
Greeks are you refering to? Do you have any texts written by Spartans,
Thebans, Corinthians, Thessalians, etc. vis-a-vis the Macedonians?
<snip>

>> Do you
>> have anything valid to add regarding the ethnic and social background
>> of the province of Macedonia at those times?

>I do, but that will be at a future date. Don't be impetient, Tasos. We
>should go era by era. If we discuss everything today then we'll be left
>with nothing to duscuss. Besides, writing kilometric posts like this one
>is counterproductive.

Again, learn how to spell, Slavko. Secondly, please don't keep us waiting, You
have enticed us so powerfully with your pearls of wisdom about the pre-6th
century A.D. period that we simply cannot help but be impatient. And be as
laconic as you desire. Being laconic is to love wisdom ('To lakwvizeiv esti
filosofeiv').

<snip>
>> Anastassios

"There is no royal road to scholarship, and only those who do not dread
the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its
luminous summits"

Karl Marx, "Preface to the French Edition of Das Kapital".

Stavros N. Karageorgis
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu

[HyperLEX]

Remarkable new light has emerged at the end of the Tunnel Restauran,
where we were all waiting for our portion of... Macedonian Salad (what the
French call "Russian Salad")... :-)

Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in article
<32D6D3...@gate.net>...
> Hyperlex wrote:
> [del]

>
> > > I guess then we'll have to ask Galina for evidence to support such
> > > claims and
> > > keep an open mind. To tell you the truth I have heard of similar
> > > theories but
> > > have seen no substantial evidence except for one medievel text. I
have
> > > also heard
> > > theories about the similarity between Homer's language and modern
> > > Macedonian
> >

> > This would indeed make modern Slavic Macedonians... descendants of
ancient
> > Greeks!!! :-)
> >
> > (Homer's language being Greek).
>
> Why not? If it can make the slavo-albanian Greeks then why not the
> ethnic
> Macedonians? :-)

Case closed, toast proposed!!!! We can never trust who the hell
our... ancestors fucked around with, anyway!!!

Do YOU trust your ancestors? Can WE trust our ancestors??
How do we know they were... faithful to their.. lawfully wedded spouses?
:-) :-) :-)

> > > and have seen a list of about 10 words showing remarkable similarity.
My
> > > first reaction was to qualify such claims as hard to beleive until
> > > several weeks
> > > ago. You will never beleive who is the greatest supporter of such
> > > theory:
> > > your ex-Minister and author of "The Falsification of Macedonian
History"
> > > Nikolaos Martis. You can visit his web site on HR yourself and read
his
> > > statement.
> > > He claims that the Slavic language spoken in Northern Greece is a
form
> > > of
> > > ancient Greek and containes more then 1000 Homeric words!?
> >

> > How amazing!!! Where is this site we can look at? :-) :-)
>
> Here it is: http://www.hri.org/Martis/contents/main8.html
>
> This is what it says:
>
> "The Slavic dialect spoken in Central and Western Macedonia
> (Northern Greece) is an ancient Greek language. It contains
> 1164 Homeric words. Due to the long coexistence of Greeks, Serbs
> and Bulgarians, this dialect has been enriched with Bulgarian
> words and endings and has nothing to do with the so-called
> "Macedonian language" invented in 1944-45, which is a mixture of the
> Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian languages."
>
> I hope you understand the implication of the above statement
> especially when it comes from such an "expert."

We have more to talk about, in an entirely new light, Mr. Mangovski.
This is what I found, which reveals incredible new... cooking recipies
to accompany... Macedonian Salad:

> >
> > > We all know
> > > that the
> > > language in question is modern Macedonian. But we are getting away
from
> > > our
> > > original subject i.e. the "ancient Macedonians were not considered to
be
> > > Greek." We can discuss more about the above after we settle this one.
> >

> > I think a new answer to the original question has emerged, rather
> > hilariously in fact:
> >
> > YOU ARE GREEKS!!!! a ha ha ha ha!!!! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
> That is entirely possible :-) President Clinton said several years ago
> "we are all Greeks." A Greek expert said that Greeks are all those who
> espouse the ancient Greek ideal of freedom and democracy. If that is
> so then we are all Greeks :-) Of course, then there arises the problem
> who are you? Rhomaios, Slavs, Albanians, Turks or a mixture of all the
> previous? :-)

Basically, we are to a large extent Hellenic, as it's impossible
to imagine that our ancestors... castrated themselves. Our women
might have been sold to Pashas, but there were always more of
them enjoying the Hellenic sun...

We've always been... rascals :-), and we always will be...

Hm...
Perhaps DNA examinations of our highly bugged human coding,
might reveal peculiarities hitherto undisclosed, causing our
computer-analyses or our genes to... Parity-Error overflow!!!! :-) :-)

Hellenicity is in the _Culture_. This is why Alexander the Great
loved it so much... otherwise why would his dad pay such an...
expensive tutor, Aristotle? These tutors were Publicity Celebrities
and charged too high prices at the time, when you... couldn't
even buy a decent slave (as Demosthenes joked)... :-) :-) :-)

> >
> > Welcome to the Hellenic-Macedonian FEDERATION.
> > ( not so funny in... 20 years or so! )
>
> I'll drink to that!

We will open a... chain of Restaurants called "Lazanie na Golem Alexandr",
(in Greek: Lazania of Alexander the Great). You know why, Mr. Mangovski?
Do you know WHO created the myth that Slavo-Macedonians are descendants
of Alexander the great?

- Grekomani-fanatic propagandists!!!! :-)

There was a "Proklamatsia na Ellinomakedonski Komitet ot' Atina
Za nasite brate Makedonski" (Declaration of the Helleno-Macedonian
Committe of Athens to our brothers the Macedonci -1870) which tries to
convince your unfortunate ancestors that they... are direct descendants
of Alexander the Great!

Together with "Preskazanie na Golem Alexandr", (Prophecies of
Alexander the Great), an entirely _fictional_ propaganda leaflet
of Greek origin trying to persuade SlavoMAcedonians that they
are in reality... HellenoMacedonians)... (yesterday's Eleftherotypia
revealled all this, BTW)...

Such are the 'boomerang' effects of fictional propaganda: What we
suffer from today, we Hellenes, is the result ALSO of our grandfathers'
"inventiveness". Some of them tried to persuade your people, that
your... genes come from Hellenes. Probably some of them did!
So what???? :-) :-)

( see my posting on "Ancient MAcedonian Time-Traveller" for a satire
of this... dated in the year 2097).

Cheers and Smiles for a lasting Peace

George

[HyperLEX]

Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in article

<Pine.A32.3.93.970110...@dakota.gate.net>...

> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD wrote:

> > >It doesn't appear that the Greek govt. shares your opinion. Only
> > >two years ago it imposed an embargo on RM and that was not because
> > >RM didn't recognize that the Greek side of Macedonia is Greek. Are
> > >you aware of that? Talks of new embargo occur every now and then
> > >whenever RM states that it will not yield on the name issue.
> >
> > Either you pretend to be naive or you really are. The whole issue is
> > the name.
>
> No it is not the name. The issue is the Macedonian identity that your
guys
> in Athens have nightmares about feeling insecure about the real number
> of Macedonians in Northern Greece and how many of the hellenized
> Macedonians are really so.

No nightmares, Slavko. At _worst_, there are much less than 200.000
Slavic-origin
people in our regions, and about 2.000.000 Greeks. The ratio is much less
than
one to ten.

Besides, our "insecurity" is surely a... very bad reason for YOUR
decisions, isn't it?

The insecurity is yours, perhaps. You are afraid that Hellenic Macedonians
are just
too many...

I choose to believe, however, that NONE of us is 'afraid'.
We just learnt from the Turks how to... bargain in an Eastern
Bazaar.!!!!!!! :-)
(both you and we)...

> The presence of a Macedonian state will
> inevitably direct Macedonian identity towards it eventually.

The Macedonian identity does not consist ONLY of your people.
The "Macedonci" are only ONE among many peoples of Macedonia.

We will not recognize your state until your state recognises us...
And this means to differentiate itself NOT from Greece but from
indigenous Macedonian Hellenic Populations in Greece, mostly...
who call themselves Macedonians too.

So, e.g. Call your Republic "Republik na Macedonci".

It is DIFFERENT from "Republic of Macedonia". THINK about it.

"Macedonci" are what you call yourselves, but Macedonia is not
_just_ you people. A spade is a spade, and not all spades are... foul!

> > >> Look, Slavko: Save your efforts to instill suspicion, they are
futile in this
> > >> case: The Perseus project is NOT Greek propaganda. It's an American
project
> > >> to make available on the net ALL the ORIGINAL Greek texts as they
ARE. There
> > >> are no 'opinions'. This is why the Perseus project is objective: It
contains
> > >> ONLY objective information: Original texts, AS they were written. NO
opinions.
> > >
> > >Actually, it does contain opinion under Encyclopedia headings and they

> > >do not appear to be very objective. I have to continue to suspect

Greek
> > >involvement.
> >
> > Suspect away. This is all you have to say on hard facts. If the
> > facts do not suit you, then it is the "unseen, black hand of the
> > Greeks" that has changed modern historiography. You must lead a very
> > frustrating life.
> >
> Not very unseen to those of us who have been watching :-) Your govt. is
> spending millons of ECU's to convince the world that the ancient
> Macedonians were Greek. Sort of the same thing you do here :-)

So your only criterion for the validity of the Perseus project is...
money?

Or... do you really think the Greek government is so... competent? :-)

Neither is true!!!

Look, we will make more money cooperating. Recognise Hellenic Macedonia
and we _will_ recognise Slavic Macedonia.

Macedonia belongs to ALL Macedonians: Hellenes, Slavs, Albanians, whatever.

"Republic of Macedonia" is not sufficiently differentiated from
"Macedonia".

I give you one more offer: Call yourselves "Republic of Ethnic
Macedonia".
Then... there will be ethnic (slavic) macedonians and Hellenic Macedonians.

If you refuse this offer, we give you NO Lazanie na Golem Alexandr!!!! :-)
:-)
- No lazanie, only Turkish (err... Greek) coffee!!!!

Bon Appetit (for Lazanie, but NOT for Greek territories...) ;-)
George

[John Prodromidis]

I am back.
I read Slavko Mangovski's <ma...@gate.net> article of January 8th,
1997, 22:44:39 -0500, and wonder about some of his positions:

>> The _real_ problem for you is that you're trying to prove
>> a preposterous hypothesis: That ancient Macedonians were
>> Slavs.
> That is ridicilous! Where did you hear such a stupid claim?
> I certainly would never dream of proving such a thing.

Good!
The characterizations "ridiculous" and stupid" apply to the
misleading reconstructions and mission of the so-called
"MACEDONIAN WORLD CONGRESS" of "P.O. BOX 2826, Ormond Beach,
Florida, USA, 32175" and "Phone/Fax 904-676-2466", which
informed us some time ago in the opus "MACEDONIA THROUGH THE
AGES" (authored by J.Bacid five years ago) that:
"Of the many Macedonian peoples, Homer only mentions the
Paeones who lived in the heart of Macedonia. In the Trojan
War, the Paeones joined the besieged Trojans, an indication
that they were not Greeks. ...In the sixth century, the
Paeones, now called Slavs, came back and captured all of
Macedonia from the East Romans, with the exception of a few
coastal cities."

The same characterizations also describe other ahistorical
contrivances of individuals such as S.Mangoski (two years ago)
who attempted (why really?) to link the ancient Macedonians with
the early Slavs otherwise:
"What I meant was Alexandar might have had contact with Slavs
in their place of dwelling. We know from history that he
pursued the Scyths far to the North so he might had had a
contact with the Slavs. ...it is not entirely impossible that
Alexandar had contacts with Slavs somwhere in Asia. Clear?"

And:

> Well said but unfortunately for you it is not only Borza that

> says that "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be

> Greeks." We have to add Badian, Hammond, Wilken, Green, Grant,
> Sakkelarou, Demosthenes, Thrasymachus, Thucydudes, Aristoteles
> and many others.

Is Badian's view somewhat expanded and distorted here? He clearly
argued the exact opposite for the Hellenistic era and subsequent
antiquity.

Would the Hammond mentioned above be the same historian who quoted
the early ancient authors such as Hesiod and Hellanikos and
concluded that the Macedonians were a "branch of the Greek-speaking
race", who also had a "Hellenic religion"? The same Hammond who
has considered the views of the S.Greeks as views of an urban
people towards rural ("backward") folks?

Is the Wilken mentioned above the same individual who decades ago
voiced his conviction that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks?
And is the Green mentioned here the same Green who introduces the
early ancient Macedonian instrument of communication as a...
dialect?

And is Sakellariou the scholar who states that Demosthenes and
Thrasymachos were enemies of the contemporary Macedonians
and thus unreliable; whereas the other ancient more objective
sources such as the Persian inscription of the 510s, Herodotos,
Agelaos and Lykiskos, the decree of the Ephessians and others
clearly declare the Macedonians as Greeks?

And why were these "others" not considered here Slavko?

And you would not mind quoting the lines in full from the very
passages of Thucydides and Aristoteles which you have read and
refer to? Would you? (No general reference to lines XY-XZ please,
but the actual lines you have read and refer to! Use the
translation of your choice.)

Pr.I

[John Prodromidis]

On January 10th, 1997, 15:42:13 -0800, Slavko Mangovski
(ma...@gate.net) mentioned a passage of N.Martis:

>
> Here it is: http://www.hri.org/Martis/contents/main8.html
>
> This is what it says:
>
> "The Slavic dialect spoken in Central and Western Macedonia
> (Northern Greece) is an ancient Greek language. It contains
> 1164 Homeric words. Due to the long coexistence of Greeks, Serbs
> and Bulgarians, this dialect has been enriched with Bulgarian
> words and endings and has nothing to do with the so-called
> "Macedonian language" invented in 1944-45, which is a mixture of
> the Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian languages."
>
> I hope you understand the implication of the above statement
> especially when it comes from such an "expert."

Two points:
- Martis is no expert. I do not know if he even has a B.A. degree
in history: He is a lawyer and a politician. I happen to find
him honest, but this does not make him an "expert" in anything.
I consider chunks of his "historical work" simply irrelevant!
Unfortunately his pals (?) in high offices gave him undeserving
academic promotion.
- However, what he says here is that the so-called "Slavic
dialect" encountered in Greece "has nothing to do with the so-
called 'Macedonian language' " of FYROM. Martis seems to
consider it a Greek dialect, "enriched with Bulgarian words and
endings", which makes it the most slavic idiom of Greek.

I do not know if Martis is right or wrong here, but this sounds
like Martis. It seems to me that Slavko believes that Martis says
the exact opposite...

Pr.I

[Slavko Mangovski]

HyperLEX wrote:
>
> Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote in article

[del]

> > No it is not the name. The issue is the Macedonian identity that your
> guys
> > in Athens have nightmares about feeling insecure about the real number
> > of Macedonians in Northern Greece and how many of the hellenized
> > Macedonians are really so.
>

> No nightmares, Slavko. At _worst_, there are much less than 200.000
> Slavic-origin
> people in our regions, and about 2.000.000 Greeks. The ratio is much less
> than
> one to ten.

I wish we knew the truth, George. I hear different numbers all the time.
Unfortunately, we are unable to know the real number mainly for two
reasons: there hasn't been a reliable census in your country and
secondly even if there was one people have long memories so it
would've been inaccurate. I guess we'll have to wait until
people like you and Stavros come to govern HR so people stop
being afraid. Any chance of that in the near future?

>
> Besides, our "insecurity" is surely a... very bad reason for YOUR
> decisions, isn't it?

No. We really have few choices. We either speak up and risk our
future or we just pretend to be what we are not.

>
> The insecurity is yours, perhaps. You are afraid that Hellenic Macedonians
> are just too many...

You wish :-) No, it's not that. Remember it is not RM that imposed an
embargo but v.v. Doesn't this look like a fight between David and
Goliath :-)

BTW we have a unique way to see thru these
"Hellenic" Macedonians. Let me describe you a daily happenning here
in South Florida. There are several condominuim complexes where Aegean
Macedonians from Canada spend their winters. They all know each other
since they come from same or neighbouring villages, they all
speak the same language at home and among themselves (i.e. Macedonian)
they all listen and dance to the same music (i.e. Macedonian) and
spend their time playing golf and/or playing cards and having fun.
Yet most of them are what you would describe as Hellenic Macedonians and
only some of them are ethnic Macedonians. Shall I question
their Hellenism? I would be wrong. Although beyond any doubt
we are the same people they in the same time appear to be
Hellenic. We of course call them "Grkomani" yet we are the
same people.

IMHO we as ethnic Macedonians should respect their Hellenism as they
should respect our Macedonism. That is why I trully support a
Macedonian-Hellenic Federation (MHF). Perhaps we should model
it according the Amphytionuc Council, a prior Macedonian-Hellenic
Federation :-) I just wonder which side of the Federation Tasos
will be :-)

> I choose to believe, however, that NONE of us is 'afraid'.
> We just learnt from the Turks how to... bargain in an Eastern
> Bazaar.!!!!!!! :-) (both you and we)...

This is not bargaining, at least not for our identity. There
can be never any bargaining about it.

> > The presence of a Macedonian state will
> > inevitably direct Macedonian identity towards it eventually.
>

> The Macedonian identity does not consist ONLY of your people.
> The "Macedonci" are only ONE among many peoples of Macedonia.

No "macedonci" George, but ethnic Macedonians. Learn that
if you really want a federation. No Macedonian will ever
agree to any prefixes amd/or suffixes and you better start
getting used to it.

> We will not recognize your state until your state recognises us...

You are kidding, of course, George? What do you want me to
recognize you as? Martian? I'll do it in 1/2 a second :-)
Havn't you noticed that I call you a Hellene? That is a
show of respect since that is the way, I beleive, you want
to be reffered as. Now you do the same for us and everything
will be OK :-}

> And this means to differentiate itself NOT from Greece but from
> indigenous Macedonian Hellenic Populations in Greece, mostly...
> who call themselves Macedonians too.

And in the same time they tell us they are "Grci"!? What the
hell is going on? They tell you they are Macedonians and
they tell us they are Greek. :-)

> So, e.g. Call your Republic "Republik na Macedonci".

So you'll have a Macedonci-Hellenic Federation? No way, Jose!

It's Republic of Macedonia and therefore a MHF.

[del]

> > >
> > Not very unseen to those of us who have been watching :-) Your govt. is
> > spending millons of ECU's to convince the world that the ancient
> > Macedonians were Greek. Sort of the same thing you do here :-)
>

> So your only criterion for the validity of the Perseus project is...
> money?

Why, is this new to you?

>
> Or... do you really think the Greek government is so... competent? :-)
>
> Neither is true!!!

The Greek govt.'s have been quite competent, at least on international
level.
That is undoubtedly because of unified approach with the Greek
emigration and
the amounts of $$$ spent byuing everybody in sight.

>
> Look, we will make more money cooperating. Recognise Hellenic Macedonia
> and we _will_ recognise Slavic Macedonia.

No, you recognize Macedonia and we'll recognize Hellenic Macedonia.

>
> Macedonia belongs to ALL Macedonians: Hellenes, Slavs, Albanians, whatever.

You're making a fundamental mistake here, George. Your definition of
"Slav" would include both us and the "Grkomans" and that gives you
an overwhelming majority in Aegean Macedonia. :-)

>
> "Republic of Macedonia" is not sufficiently differentiated from
> "Macedonia".

Of course it is:

1. Republic of Macedonia
2. Greek province of Macedonia.

Looks quite different.

>
> I give you one more offer: Call yourselves "Republic of Ethnic
> Macedonia".
> Then... there will be ethnic (slavic) macedonians and Hellenic Macedonians.

No.

>
> If you refuse this offer, we give you NO Lazanie na Golem Alexandr!!!! :-)
> :-)

What's this "Lazanie"? Do you mean "lasagna?"

> - No lazanie, only Turkish (err... Greek) coffee!!!!

I like both :-)

>
> Bon Appetit (for Lazanie, but NOT for Greek territories...) ;-)
> George

You must be hungry, George :-)

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970116...@navajo.gate.net> Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:
<snip>

>Good to know! Everybody: you can safely discard Marti's book in the
>garbage together with most other books and publication published by the
>Greek govt.!

No, not quite, Slavko. The Greek govt, did NOT publish Martis' book. Moreover,
like the publications of ANY government, one should treat them with caution.
No more and no less than that. (BTW, do through Martis' books and publications
in the garbage can. That's where they belong)

>It's frighttening to know that "non-experts in anything" are ruling Greece
>:-)

Who's 'ruling Greece'? 'Elected officials'. Neither intelligence nor expertise
has ever been a necessary qualification of elected officials. Just look at
Reagan . . . :-=>

>> - However, what he says here is that the so-called "Slavic
>> dialect" encountered in Greece "has nothing to do with the so-
>> called 'Macedonian language' " of FYROM. Martis seems to
>> consider it a Greek dialect, "enriched with Bulgarian words and
>> endings", which makes it the most slavic idiom of Greek.
>>
>> I do not know if Martis is right or wrong here, but this sounds
>> like Martis. It seems to me that Slavko believes that Martis says
>> the exact opposite...

>Why do you think, John?

>The language spoken in Aegean Macedonia is the same language spoken in the
>Republic of Macedonia and it's called Macedonian.

First of all, you know that that is not quite right. I have personally been
told by an older Prespano that he can't read MILS-NEWS in standard literary
Makedonski to 'save his life'. In any case, what the language is 'called' is
irrelevant.

>The above, of course, shatters Greek theories about the "non-existant"
>ethnic Macedonians. :-)

How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again, good
luck.

>Similar theories (like Martis') exist in RM. I will try to
post something>on the subject in the near future.

Please don't. We don't need more jingoist pseudo-intellectual theories in this
forum.

>> Pr.I

Regards,

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, John Prodromidis wrote:

> And:
> > Well said but unfortunately for you it is not only Borza that
> > says that "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be
> > Greeks." We have to add Badian, Hammond, Wilken, Green, Grant,
> > Sakkelarou, Demosthenes, Thrasymachus, Thucydudes, Aristoteles
> > and many others.
>
> Is Badian's view somewhat expanded and distorted here? He clearly
> argued the exact opposite for the Hellenistic era and subsequent
> antiquity.

No, he says "by Roman times" hence excluding Hellenistic times. He also
speaks about "unity" not that the Macedonian became Greek. But that is
another subject.

So, do you, Johhny boy, accept that the ancient Macedonians were not
considered to be Greeks, until Roman times (for now)?

>
> Would the Hammond mentioned above be the same historian who quoted
> the early ancient authors such as Hesiod and Hellanikos and
> concluded that the Macedonians were a "branch of the Greek-speaking
> race", who also had a "Hellenic religion"? The same Hammond who
> has considered the views of the S.Greeks as views of an urban
> people towards rural ("backward") folks?
>

Yep, the same one. Here's what he says:

N.L.G. Hammond. "The Macedonian State" published by Clarendon Press in
1989.

We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that
the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not
to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing
Amyntas, who was king c.500, as a Greek ruling over Macedonians, and
Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as
barbarians in the sense of non-Greeks, despite the fact that were
Greek-speaking. When it came to political controversy, it was naturally
good invective to call he king barbarian too. Thus a Greek speech-writer
called the Thessalians Greeks and Archelaos, the contemporary Macedonian
king, a barbarian. Demosthenos spoke of Philip as the barbarian from
Pella. Writing in 346 and eager to win Philips approval, , Isocrates paid
tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same
time that the Macedonians were not Greeks. Aristotle, born at Stageira on
the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian
court, classed the Macedonians and their institutions of monarchy as not
Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the
Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by the Alexander
the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. The were proud to be so.

> Is the Wilken mentioned above the same individual who decades ago

> voiced his conviction that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks?

Yep, the same one. Here's what he says:

Even in Philips 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.

> And is the Green mentioned here the same Green who introduces the
> early ancient Macedonian instrument of communication as a...
> dialect?

Yep, the same one. Here's what he says:

P. Green: The attitude of the city-state Greeks to this sub-Homeric
enclave was one of genial and sophisticated contempt. They regarded
Macedonians in general as semi-savages, uncouth of speech and dialect"

>
> And is Sakellariou the scholar who states that Demosthenes and
> Thrasymachos were enemies of the contemporary Macedonians
> and thus unreliable;

This is what Sakkelarou said:

in his book "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history" on
page 54 states "..the backward institutions and coarseness of the
Macedonians will have been among the reasons why they seemed to other
Greeks to be barbarians

whereas the other ancient more objective
> sources such as the Persian inscription of the 510s, Herodotos,
> Agelaos and Lykiskos, the decree of the Ephessians and others
> clearly declare the Macedonians as Greeks?

Clearly? Aaahhh, Prodromaides, you're a liar or brainwashed beyond
repair because you make all the above historians as liars.
You forgot to mention other evidence brought by Sakkelraiou:

In Peri Politeias, an anonymous work written at the end of V and beginning
of IV century B.C., the Macedonians are listed as barbarians.

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

Medeios of Larisa, in Thessaly which borders Macedonia, who accompanied
Alexander on his campaign in Asia, calls the Thessalians 'the most
northerly of the Greeks'.

>
> And why were these "others" not considered here Slavko?
>

You tell me.

>
> And you would not mind quoting the lines in full from the very
> passages of Thucydides and Aristoteles which you have read and
> refer to? Would you? (No general reference to lines XY-XZ please,
> but the actual lines you have read and refer to! Use the
> translation of your choice.)
>

Stop misinterpreting ancient texts, John. They've been interpreted already
and there is nothing you can add or change. The big fact remains:

The ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greek.

Case closed. I will no longer waste time on this period.
Let's discuss Roman times now and let's see when did Macedonians "became"
Greeks.

Your move.

>
> Pr.I
>
>

[Mario Ioannidis]

Nntp-Posting-Host: aglet.uwaterloo.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Organization: University of Waterloo

A32.3.93.97011609...@navajo.gate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Slavko Mangovski wrote:

>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, John Prodromidis wrote:
>
> > On January 10th, 1997, 15:42:13 -0800, Slavko Mangovski
> > (ma...@gate.net) mentioned a passage of N.Martis:
> > >
> > > Here it is: http://www.hri.org/Martis/contents/main8.html
> > >
> > > This is what it says:
> > >
> > > "The Slavic dialect spoken in Central and Western Macedonia
> > > (Northern Greece) is an ancient Greek language. It contains
> > > 1164 Homeric words. Due to the long coexistence of Greeks, Serbs
> > > and Bulgarians, this dialect has been enriched with Bulgarian
> > > words and endings and has nothing to do with the so-called
> > > "Macedonian language" invented in 1944-45, which is a mixture of
> > > the Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian languages."
> > >
> > > I hope you understand the implication of the above statement
> > > especially when it comes from such an "expert."
> >
> > Two points:
> > - Martis is no expert. I do not know if he even has a B.A. degree
> > in history: He is a lawyer and a politician. I happen to find
> > him honest, but this does not make him an "expert" in anything.
> > I consider chunks of his "historical work" simply irrelevant!
> > Unfortunately his pals (?) in high offices gave him undeserving
> > academic promotion.
>

> Good to know! Everybody: you can safely discard Marti's book in the
> garbage

That would probably be a wise move...

> together with most other books and publication published by the
> Greek govt.!

Care to name them so we can also avoid them ?

> It's frighttening to know that "non-experts in anything" are ruling Greece

Ruling? No. Getting published? Yes.
It's amusing to see Usenet propagandists play with words !

Mario

[Theodore L Georgiou]

Slavko why don't you go to alt.news.macedonia to develop your
ideas based on your virtual historical beliefs. But I forgot it's empty.

Theodore

Makedonia was, is and will be always Hellenic.
H Makedonia htan, einai kai 0a einai Ellhnikh.

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, John Prodromidis wrote:

> On January 10th, 1997, 15:42:13 -0800, Slavko Mangovski
> (ma...@gate.net) mentioned a passage of N.Martis:
> >
> > Here it is: http://www.hri.org/Martis/contents/main8.html
> >
> > This is what it says:
> >
> > "The Slavic dialect spoken in Central and Western Macedonia
> > (Northern Greece) is an ancient Greek language. It contains
> > 1164 Homeric words. Due to the long coexistence of Greeks, Serbs
> > and Bulgarians, this dialect has been enriched with Bulgarian
> > words and endings and has nothing to do with the so-called
> > "Macedonian language" invented in 1944-45, which is a mixture of
> > the Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian languages."
> >
> > I hope you understand the implication of the above statement
> > especially when it comes from such an "expert."
>
> Two points:
> - Martis is no expert. I do not know if he even has a B.A. degree
> in history: He is a lawyer and a politician. I happen to find
> him honest, but this does not make him an "expert" in anything.
> I consider chunks of his "historical work" simply irrelevant!
> Unfortunately his pals (?) in high offices gave him undeserving
> academic promotion.

Good to know! Everybody: you can safely discard Marti's book in the

garbage together with most other books and publication published by the
Greek govt.!

It's frighttening to know that "non-experts in anything" are ruling Greece
:-)

> - However, what he says here is that the so-called "Slavic
> dialect" encountered in Greece "has nothing to do with the so-
> called 'Macedonian language' " of FYROM. Martis seems to
> consider it a Greek dialect, "enriched with Bulgarian words and
> endings", which makes it the most slavic idiom of Greek.
>
> I do not know if Martis is right or wrong here, but this sounds
> like Martis. It seems to me that Slavko believes that Martis says
> the exact opposite...

Why do you think, John?

The language spoken in Aegean Macedonia is the same language spoken in the
Republic of Macedonia and it's called Macedonian.

The above, of course, shatters Greek theories about the "non-existant"
ethnic Macedonians. :-)

Similar theories (like Martis') exist in RM. I will try to post something

on the subject in the near future.

> Pr.I
>
>

[Anastassios D.Retzios, PhD]

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:54:15 -0500, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, John Prodromidis wrote:

>
>> And:
>> > Well said but unfortunately for you it is not only Borza that
>> > says that "the ancient Macedonians were not considered to be
>> > Greeks." We have to add Badian, Hammond, Wilken, Green, Grant,
>> > Sakkelarou, Demosthenes, Thrasymachus, Thucydudes, Aristoteles
>> > and many others.
>>
>> Is Badian's view somewhat expanded and distorted here? He clearly
>> argued the exact opposite for the Hellenistic era and subsequent
>> antiquity.
>
>No, he says "by Roman times" hence excluding Hellenistic times. He also
>speaks about "unity" not that the Macedonian became Greek. But that is
>another subject.

I do not know your version of the meaning of the word "unity" but it
seems clear cut to me. Also, hellenistic and Roman time-scales
overlap depending on the area considered. For Greece proper, "Roman
times" begun in the first third of the 2nd century BC, which was the
middle of the hellenistic era for Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt and the
Indo-Greek kingdoms. Stop obfuscating.

>So, do you, Johhny boy, accept that the ancient Macedonians were not
>considered to be Greeks, until Roman times (for now)?

What does it matter, Slavko? Who cares if a number of Athenian
politicians regarded the Macedonians as semi-barbarous in the 4th
century BC? What is important is what ***they were***, not what they
were *** considered to be***. Whatever mind games Demosthenes and
Hypereides may have played with the Athenian common folk, their
oratory never impressed the conservatives who always opposed war with
Macedon (why, Slavko?) and, at the end, they are inconsequential when
considered against the evidence we have. Is it surprising to you that
I fail to see matters through Demosthenes eyes? and what qualifies
Demosthenes in your eyes as the "oracle of the truth"?

Modern historians clearly state that on the basis of archaelogical,
epigramatic, inscriptional, onomastic, toponymic evidence, the
Macedonians were a Dorian tribe. Perceptions of Athenian politicians
hardly change this fact. Live with it.

I have always opposed the "athenocentric" view of classical history.
We have no idea with the Acarnanians, Phokians, Thebans, Corinthians,
Argives, Spartans, Megalopolitans, Messenians, Rhodians thought of the
ethic origin of Macedonians. Most of those, exluding the Spartans and
the Rhodians, were close allies with Macedon for most of its history.
We have huge gaps in our knowledge of the times and politics. A
couple of speeches and a few lines here and there hardly constitute
evidence, specially when the evidence to the contrary is so
overwhelming. I suggest that you make a pilgrimage to the
archaelogical sites and museums in Greek Macedonia and then render an
opinion.

>> Would the Hammond mentioned above be the same historian who quoted
>> the early ancient authors such as Hesiod and Hellanikos and
>> concluded that the Macedonians were a "branch of the Greek-speaking
>> race", who also had a "Hellenic religion"? The same Hammond who
>> has considered the views of the S.Greeks as views of an urban
>> people towards rural ("backward") folks?
>>
>
>Yep, the same one. Here's what he says:
>
>N.L.G. Hammond. "The Macedonian State" published by Clarendon Press in
>1989.
>
>We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that
>the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not
>to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing
>Amyntas, who was king c.500, as a Greek ruling over Macedonians, and
>Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as
>barbarians in the sense of non-Greeks, despite the fact that were
>Greek-speaking.

Now, if Thucidides claims that they were Greek speaking, and since he
had a knowledge of the area (since his military blunders occured
there), doesn't this clue you in that their description as
"semi-barbarous" may have been a cultural and political one and not
ethnic? Doesn't this potentially suggest that Thucidides opinions may
not have been shared by others with intimate knowledge of Macedonia?

> When it came to political controversy, it was naturally
>good invective to call he king barbarian too. Thus a Greek speech-writer
>called the Thessalians Greeks and Archelaos, the contemporary Macedonian
>king, a barbarian. Demosthenos spoke of Philip as the barbarian from
>Pella. Writing in 346 and eager to win Philips approval, , Isocrates paid
>tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same
>time that the Macedonians were not Greeks. Aristotle, born at Stageira on
>the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian
>court, classed the Macedonians and their institutions of monarchy as not
>Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the
>Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by the Alexander
>the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. The were proud to be so.

You and I know, Slavko, that Hammond clearly states that the
Macedonians were Greeks independent of the perceptions some southern
Greeks may have held for them because of the backward state of civic
and political development. Why don't you bother to post here
Hammond's full quote on the ethnicity of Macedonians? Is it too
painful for you?

>> Is the Wilken mentioned above the same individual who decades ago
>> voiced his conviction that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks?
>
>Yep, the same one. Here's what he says:
>
>Even in Philips 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.

Who cares if it had a political effect or not? We can be discussing
this until we are blue in the face. Wilken clearly states, *** in the
lines you have omitted from this quote*** that modern evidence
indicates that the Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. Why are we playing
this game?

>> And is the Green mentioned here the same Green who introduces the
>> early ancient Macedonian instrument of communication as a...
>> dialect?
>
>Yep, the same one. Here's what he says:
>
>P. Green: The attitude of the city-state Greeks to this sub-Homeric
>enclave was one of genial and sophisticated contempt. They regarded
>Macedonians in general as semi-savages, uncouth of speech and dialect"

Yes, they were regarded as semi-savages and uncouth by some, I guess
but how many remains an open question. But this hardly matters (only
to you). What we are debating here is ***what they were*** and **why
this is important to you***. Please, make it crystal clear to me why
it is not important ***what the Macedonians really were*** and why it
is of paramount importance to consider here ***southern Greek
perceptions of the Macedonians***. Make your points very clear and
let us know why the opinion of Demosthenes, in the light of modern
evidence, is important **to you**.

>>
>> And you would not mind quoting the lines in full from the very
>> passages of Thucydides and Aristoteles which you have read and
>> refer to? Would you? (No general reference to lines XY-XZ please,
>> but the actual lines you have read and refer to! Use the
>> translation of your choice.)
>>
>
>Stop misinterpreting ancient texts, John. They've been interpreted already
>and there is nothing you can add or change. The big fact remains:
>
>The ancient Macedonians were not considered to be Greek.

Now, Slavko, as I mentioned before, please let us know why the opinion
of southern Greeks is important to you and how it is connected to the
modern question. I am waiting..... But I guess that I will have to
wait a long, long time. Because you have nothing to say

[Theodore L Georgiou]

Slavko are your repeated attempts to convince us, a way actually
to convince yourself with such outragous distortions of historical facts
and events? (Prenthesis: The Athenians used to call the rest of the other
greek tribes "epilhdes". Somebody who knows better can explain to you what
it means and the beliefs of the Athenians for the rest of the Greeks)
But even Slavko, if somebody tried, in the most elaborate way, to
present you THE FACTS and prooved beyond any resonable doubt that
Makedonia is greek and should not become a part of your country, you would
still back up your beliefs 100% and try to show that the other guy is
wrong.
And this reminds me what we used to say back in my village, when
he had to deal with people like you:" Stou koufou thn porta oso 0eleis
bronta". In english:" On a deaf man's door, knock as many times as you
want".

Trampakoulas the Boukolos.

PS. I don't have a PhD in History, Anthropology, Archeology etc and
I am just a simple and humble boskos. Believe whatever you want dear
"Macedonian" but like my grandfather used to tell me while we were milking
the goats ( we had between us the best discussions then), I will tell you
that:" To gala einai panta gala" in english " Milk is always milk". And as
an ignorant herder , even though I know that is a great oversimplication,
I apply the same saying as an answer to your so well presented "facts"-
like the ones some televangelists use by interpreting passages from the
scriptures and finding stuff that are not there- " H Makedonia htan, einai
kai 0a einai Ellhnikh" that means in english " Makedonia was, is and will
be Hellenic". ( I use Makedonia pronounced in greece(Hellas) as
Ma-Ke'-Tho(th here the same voice like the)-Ni'-A which is a province of
Hellas and inhabited by greeks.)

Trampakoulas Phd from Strougga University in Milking Goats (MG):-)

PS. In my stanh:-)) we didn't learn very good spelling, so "epilhdes"
might be not the right orthography.

[Theodore L Georgiou]

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Theodore L Georgiou wrote:
[snip]

> that:" To gala einai panta gala" in english " Milk is always milk". And as
> an ignorant herder , even though I know that is a great oversimplication,

[snip]

I noticed my own jewel:-) I wrote oversimplication, instead of
oversimplification. What do you expect from a herder like me!:-))

Trampakoulas PhD in MG

[Josif Grezlovski]

--
°MFNÿ
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And........one wonders what happened to your assertion that
Philip and Alexander "loudly proclaimed their Greekness"? As usual,
there was no clear statement coming from you, nor was there any EVIDENCE
CITED.
Now, Retzioss, as I mentioned before, please let us know why the
opinion
> of ancient Macedonians is important to you and how it is connected to the

> modern question. I am waiting..... But I guess that I will have to
> wait a long, long time. Because you have nothing to say

J.G.

[Slavko Mangovski]

Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

> >The language spoken in Aegean Macedonia is the same language spoken in the
> >Republic of Macedonia and it's called Macedonian.
>

> First of all, you know that that is not quite right. I have personally been
> told by an older Prespano that he can't read MILS-NEWS in standard literary
> Makedonski to 'save his life'. In any case, what the language is 'called' is
> irrelevant.

Come on, Stavros, you don't really beleive that. Why don't we ask our
resident Prespano Josif Grezlovski who comes from within few miles
of the Greek border if the langiage used in Prespa is
not the same language used in RM? I can tell you personally that
the language used in Bitola is identical to that used in Lerin
and the same more or less goes for Kostur or Voden.

>
> >The above, of course, shatters Greek theories about the "non-existant"
> >ethnic Macedonians. :-)
>

> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again, good
> luck.

I have no intention to question the patriotism of the above ethnicities.
I'm sure they'll all very Greek today. Is there really a choice? :-)
Of course, that said we have to start wondering about the ethnicity
of other Greeks, the non-Arvanitiki and the non-Vlakh ones. Do we have
any statistics about the ethnic composition of Greece?

>
> >Similar theories (like Martis') exist in RM. I will try to
> post something>on the subject in the near future.
>

> Please don't. We don't need more jingoist pseudo-intellectual theories in this
> forum.

We had them so many so one more will not make much difference :-)

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <32E438...@gate.net> Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> writes:

>Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

>> >The language spoken in Aegean Macedonia is the same language spoken in the
>> >Republic of Macedonia and it's called Macedonian.
>>
>> First of all, you know that that is not quite right. I have personally been
>> told by an older Prespano that he can't read MILS-NEWS in standard literary
>> Makedonski to 'save his life'. In any case, what the language is 'called' is
>> irrelevant.

>Come on, Stavros, you don't really believe that. Why don't we ask our

>resident Prespano Josif Grezlovski who comes from within few miles

>of the Greek border if the language used in Prespa is

>not the same language used in RM? I can tell you personally that
>the language used in Bitola is identical to that used in Lerin
>and the same more or less goes for Kostur or Voden.

If you think that I will ever take Josif Grezvloski word for anything, you
must have been drinking too much rakija lately (the last part is meant to be a
joke). The person I was refering to, has posted something on MAKEDON, and I
e-mailed him personally. He told me he was 'old', and an 'old immigrant' to
North America. On my personal and professional honor, this is what he told me.
If HE lied, then what can I say? What would be his motivation?

>>
>> >The above, of course, shatters Greek theories about the "non-existant"
>> >ethnic Macedonians. :-)
>>
>> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
>> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
>> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
>> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
>> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
>> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again, good
>> luck.

>I have no intention to question the patriotism of the above ethnicities.

They are not ethnicities, buddy, nor do these people belong to 'minority'
ethnic groups. Their only 'ethnicity' is identical to their national identity,
and it is Greek. BTW, you didn't respond to the part of my riposte about the
discredited status of linguistic nationalism. The fact that two groups of
people speak the same language does NOT automatically imply that they have the
same ethnic or national identity and/or belong to the same ethnic group or
nation. Countless Spanish speakers 'belong', according to their own
self-ascribed ethnic or national identity, to different ethnic groups and
nations. And, there are thousands of NON-Spanish speaking people in Los
Angeles who are, according to their own self-ascription, to an ethnic group
and a nation which is Spanish-speaking.

>I'm sure they'll all very Greek today. Is there really a choice? :-)

Oh, how funny! They were Greek, smart guy, when they HAD more of a choice, if
you will. The Arvanites were Greek, in ACTION, in the 1820's. The Vlakhs,
courted by Roumanian propaganda and agents at the end of the 19th century,
were GREEK, and SHOWED it many many times in BATTLE long before being Greek in
Greece became the only thing that most Greek citizens would even think of
being.

>Of course, that said we have to start wondering about the ethnicity
>of other Greeks, the non-Arvanitiki and the non-Vlakh ones. Do we have
>any statistics about the ethnic composition of Greece?

Why do we need such statistics? Greek citizens ought to be treated as simply
Greek citizens by the Greek state. Their own other particularistic identities
and affiliations are their own business, and the Greek state should neither
promote nor hinder those at all. BTW, we do have elections, and the results
show the TINIEST minority, if there was ever one.

>> >Similar theories (like Martis') exist in RM. I will try to
>> post something>on the subject in the near future.

>> Please don't. We don't need more jingoist pseudo-intellectual theories in this
>> forum.

>We had them so many so one more will not make much difference :-)

Suit yourself.

[John Prodromidis]

Once again Slavko Mangovki <ma...@gate.net> goes on with his
little dance.

First he comments to my criticism concerning N.Martis's expertise:

> > > I hope you understand the implication of the above statement
> > > especially when it comes from such an "expert."
> >
> > Two points:
> > - Martis is no expert. I do not know if he even has a B.A.
> > degree in history: He is a lawyer and a politician. I happen
> > to find him honest, but this does not make him an "expert"
> > in anything. I consider chunks of his "historical work"
> > simply irrelevant! Unfortunately his pals (?) in high
> > offices gave him undeserving academic promotion.
>
> Good to know! Everybody: you can safely discard Marti's book in
> the garbage together with most other books and publication
> published by the Greek govt.!

Let us see if Slavko is going to follow up with this...

Yet, note how the propagandist in him exaggerates:
I said that I happen not to respect a certain work.
Slavko generalizes on a bunch of other items.

The propagandist also assumes much more and makes up his own
story:
Where exactly did I say that Martis's book was published by
the Greek Government?
I simply do not know that, but if Slavko has private or other
information on the matter may he please post it or else stop
flooding us with what may be inaccuracies...

> It's frighttening to know that "non-experts in anything" are
> ruling Greece :-)

A good propagandist (such as Slavko) distorts:
I was commenting on Slavko's recommendation to treat Martis as
an expert historian or accomplished linguist. I happen to
believe that Martis, honestly (but not always very
scientifically) reported, copied down or translated pieces from
ancient sources (the bible, eastern texts, etc.) which I do not
think add much to the issue.
I hope it is apparent to all that N.Martis' honesty and his
publishing "a lot" does not necessarily make him an expert in
any one thing or everything.
By profession and experience he may be (if he is still alive)
an e x p e r t in some other things.

On the other hand Slavko's abuse of my sentences and stretch of
my words indicates to me that he (at least) is an e x p e r t
distorter...

> > - However, what he says here is that the so-called "Slavic
> > dialect" encountered in Greece "has nothing to do with the

> > so-called 'Macedonian language' " of FYROM. Martis seems to

> > consider it a Greek dialect, "enriched with Bulgarian words
> > and endings", which makes it the most slavic idiom of Greek.
>
> > I do not know if Martis is right or wrong here, but this
> > sounds like Martis. It seems to me that Slavko believes that
> > Martis says the exact opposite...
>
> Why do you think, John?

Because Slavko Mangovski himself said so in another posting!!!

He took Martis' position of a 1100 or so Homeric words found in an
idiom in N.Greece and concluded that this, without doubt, had to
be the language of FYROM. But, to put it mildly: It may or may not
be the same language.

Actually, Slavko's reasoning here faces a problem:

According to Slavko (January 10th, 1997, 15:42:13 -0800), N.Martis
says that the dialect is an ancient Greek one, and due to
"...the long coexistence of Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians, this

dialect has been enriched with Bulgarian words and endings and
has nothing to do with the so-called 'Macedonian language'
invented in 1944-45, which is a mixture of the Bulgarian and the
Serbo-Croatian languages."

Slavko, as many times in the past, has conveniently concluded that
the author says something else:

>
> The language spoken in Aegean Macedonia is the same language
> spoken in the Republic of Macedonia and it's called Macedonian.

Compare:

NM: "The dialect... has nothing to do with the so-called...
language invented..." [in FYROM]

SM: "The language... in Aegean Macedonia is the same language..."
[as the one in fyROM]

Slavko does not even try to amend somehow the points of
contradiction of the very statement he published WITH the story he
evangelizes today.

But Slavko-the-propagandist does not have to be accurate or
consistent... He just has to go on with a tune.

Pr.I

PS: I happen to dissagree with Martis.
Slavko-the-idiot, however, thought that he was after something
(perhaps he thought that since Greeks dismissed it... it may
work to his advantange), and even argued to Stavros Karageor-
gis (January 16th, 1997, 22:36:08 -0500):
"Actually, on second thought, that is exactly the same
language Martis talks about. Are we sure he's not an expert?"

Come on Slavko ! ! Go ahead tiger ! !

Take Martis as an expert and go on to accept his position!

:-) :-) :-) :-)

[Jimmy Palatsoukas]

In article <32E438...@gate.net>, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote:

>Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again, good
> luck.
>

Stavros... this is like the nth time you post about the Arvanites outside
Athens. Can you provide some more information about them because from what
I know and have seen, they are Greek and the fact that they speak Arvanitika
is no different from the Pontioi in Macedonia/Thrace who speak Pontiaka
at home.

Regards

Jimmy

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <5c3245$c...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> ji...@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca (Jimmy Palatsoukas) writes:

>In article <32E438...@gate.net>, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote:
>>Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
>> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
>> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
>> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
>> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
>> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the

^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^

>> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
>>good luck.

>Stavros... this is like the nth time you post about the Arvanites outside
>Athens. Can you provide some more information about them because from what
>I know and have seen, they are Greek and the fact that they speak Arvanitika
>is no different from the Pontioi in Macedonia/Thrace who speak Pontiaka
>at home.

>Regards

>Jimmy

Well, my dear co-Hellene Jim, that is PRECISELY my point as well. As I told
Mr. Mangovski, if he was to go and tell an 'Arvanite' that hey, you're ethnic
Albanian, not a Greek, he (Mr. Mangovski) would be lucky to get out of there
without serious bodily harm done to him by this 100% GREEK man. The same
applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones. That
was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic
this or that'. If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance. It's
frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
completely. I am at a loss.

[Goce Naumoski]

In article <karageor.20...@ucla.edu>, kara...@ucla.edu (Aias o Telamwvios) writes:
|> In article <5c3245$c...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> ji...@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca (Jimmy Palatsoukas) writes:
|>
|>
|> >In article <32E438...@gate.net>, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote:
|> >>Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
|> >> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
|> >> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
|> >> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
|> >> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
|> >> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
|> ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
|> >> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
|> >>good luck.
|>
|>
|> >Stavros... this is like the nth time you post about the Arvanites outside
|> >Athens. Can you provide some more information about them because from what
|> >I know and have seen, they are Greek and the fact that they speak Arvanitika
|> >is no different from the Pontioi in Macedonia/Thrace who speak Pontiaka
|> >at home.
|>
|> >Regards
|>
|> >Jimmy
|>
|> Well, my dear co-Hellene Jim, that is PRECISELY my point as well. As I told
|> Mr. Mangovski, if he was to go and tell an 'Arvanite' that hey, you're ethnic
|> Albanian, not a Greek, he (Mr. Mangovski) would be lucky to get out of there
|> without serious bodily harm done to him by this 100% GREEK man. The same
|> applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones. That

****???******************

|> was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
|> language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic
|> this or that'. If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
|> 'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance. It's
|> frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
|> completely. I am at a loss.

My experience is rather different than yours. Those whou you labelled as
'Slavomakedones' (and the Greeks in general label them diffently) claim to
be 'the most "pure" Macedonians'; they even say 'more pure' than we are :-)))
Whom should I believe, to myself or to you?

|>
|> Regards,
|>
|> "There is no royal road to scholarship, and only those who do not dread
|> the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its
|> luminous summits"
|>
|> Karl Marx, "Preface to the French Edition of Das Kapital".
|>
|> Stavros N. Karageorgis
|> E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu

Regards,
Goce.

[Aias o Telamwvios]

I see that you have underlined and 'questioned' who the Sarakatsani or
Sarakatsaney are. Is it possible that the reason you don't know about them is
that you may not know as much about the population of Greece as you may think
(Just as I OBVIOUSLY don't know enough about the population of RM?).
Saraktsaney are, according to the best literature available, 'Vlakh'-stock,
Greek-speaking transhumant, high-lander people, mainly in Epirus. As you may
know there have existed and still exist three groups of Vlakhs in the region:
Greek-speaking, Vlakh-Aruman speaking, and Slav-speaking (I am sure one of the
many local Slavonic dialects which you, probably rightly, consider forms of
Makedonski). There are many great monographs on the Vlakhs of Macedonia (the
entire region) and the Balkans in general.

>My experience is rather different than yours. Those whou you labelled as
>'Slavomakedones' (and the Greeks in general label them diffently) claim to
>be 'the most "pure" Macedonians'; they even say 'more pure' than we are :-)))
>Whom should I believe, to myself or to you?

What I called 'Slavomakedones' are those whom you MAY call, probably by now
without much 'ulterior' and 'mean' intent, "Grkomani'. That is, people of
Macedonian Slavonic 'stock', Macedonian slavonic linguistic background,
Patriarchist Orthodox Christian religious-ecclesiastical background, and
Hellenic national conscience. The ones who may claim that they are 'purer'
(Slavonic) Macedonians, Makedonci, then you Vardar-Macedonian Makedonci, are
probably those who are NOW called (unfortunately) 'Skopianoi' or
'autonomists'. They probably think of you guys as too 'Serbianized' or
something, n'est-ce pas? We have similar 'internal differentiations' amongst
ourselves. What we call 'Neoelladites', i.e. Greeks from areas NOT included in
the 'original' Kingdom of Greece are often derogatorily refered as to
'tourkospori' (Turkish-seed) or 'khanoumia/khanoumakia' (you know, the alleged
female dancers in the Sultan's harem) and other 'lovely' terms.

One thing on the use of the term 'Voulgaros' up there in Greek Macedonia, and
down there in Southern Greece. It obviously did not start out having an
'ethnic' or 'national' connotation. Just as 'protevousiani' (of the capital,
Athens) often derogatorily refer to 'uncouth, backward in appeareance and
manners' folks as 'Vlakhoi' without the slightest intent of denoting that they
were REAL 'Vlakhs' or even being fully aware that in other parts of the
country to call somebody a 'Vlakh' is NOT a 'derogatory' term, in the North
(and by extension in the South), as a remnant of the usage in Byzantine and
Ottoman times, if one wanted to 'put down socially' another, to refer to him
as a 'simpleton', a 'mere agriculturalist', a 'bit naive' etc. they would call
him or refer to him as a 'Voulgaro'. The opposite occured with the term
'Ellhvas' or "Grk". If a Slavonic Macedonian of peasant stock was putting on
airs, started dressing 'smart', went to Greek school and generally behaved as
'better than us', he would be called 'Grk' by his former fellows, right?
Anyway, this is the kind of stuff, the kind of metonymy that confused the crap
out of outside travellers and scholars, as we all know very well.

>Regards,
>Goce.

Likewise,

Stavros

[Jimmy Palatsoukas]

In article <karageor.20...@ucla.edu>,

Aias o Telamwvios <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <5c3245$c...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> ji...@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca (Jimmy Palatsoukas) writes:
>
>
>>In article <32E438...@gate.net>, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote:
>>>Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
>>> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
>>> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
>>> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
>>> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
>>> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
> ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
>>> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
>>>good luck.
>
>
>>Stavros... this is like the nth time you post about the Arvanites outside
>>Athens. Can you provide some more information about them because from what
>>I know and have seen, they are Greek and the fact that they speak Arvanitika
>>is no different from the Pontioi in Macedonia/Thrace who speak Pontiaka
>>at home.
>
>>Regards
>
>>Jimmy
>
>Well, my dear co-Hellene Jim, that is PRECISELY my point as well. As I told
>Mr. Mangovski, if he was to go and tell an 'Arvanite' that hey, you're ethnic
>Albanian, not a Greek, he (Mr. Mangovski) would be lucky to get out of there
>without serious bodily harm done to him by this 100% GREEK man. The same
>applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones. That

>was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
>language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic
>this or that'. If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
>'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance. It's
>frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
>completely. I am at a loss.

Point well-taken.

Later

Jimmy
>
>Regards,

[Jimmy Palatsoukas]

In article <5c74kp$r...@tuegate.tue.nl>, Goce Naumoski <go...@win.tue.nl> wrote:
>In article <karageor.20...@ucla.edu>, kara...@ucla.edu (Aias o Telamwvios) writes:

>|> Well, my dear co-Hellene Jim, that is PRECISELY my point as well. As I told
>|> Mr. Mangovski, if he was to go and tell an 'Arvanite' that hey, you're ethnic
>|> Albanian, not a Greek, he (Mr. Mangovski) would be lucky to get out of there
>|> without serious bodily harm done to him by this 100% GREEK man. The same
>|> applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones. That

> ****???******************

>|> was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
>|> language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic
>|> this or that'. If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
>|> 'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance. It's
>|> frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
>|> completely. I am at a loss.
>

>My experience is rather different than yours. Those whou you labelled as
>'Slavomakedones' (and the Greeks in general label them diffently) claim to
>be 'the most "pure" Macedonians'; they even say 'more pure' than we are :-)))
>Whom should I believe, to myself or to you?

From what I have heard, there are villages in Greek-Macedonia whose inhabitants
are Greek and are said to be the purest of Macedonians. In other words,
their people (although Greek culturally/genetically) did not mix with those
around them, whether they were of Greek, Bulgarian, or Slavic origin. Much
in the same way many Slavs in the region did not mix with Greeks and
consequently kept their Slavic heritage. Should I believe you, who states
that Slavs who entered the region in the 7th century are pure 'Macedonians'
or the actual Greeks from the region who state that their roots extend back
to Alexander's time (and I am not referring to the Greek refugees from
Asia Minor etc..)?

Jimmy

>
>|>
>|> Regards,
>|>
>|> "There is no royal road to scholarship, and only those who do not dread
>|> the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its
>|> luminous summits"
>|>
>|> Karl Marx, "Preface to the French Edition of Das Kapital".
>|>
>|> Stavros N. Karageorgis
>|> E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
>

>Regards,
>Goce.

[Slavko Mangovski]

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Aias o Telamwvios wrote:

> >> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
> >> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
> >> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
> >> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
> >> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
> ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
> >> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
> >>good luck.
>
>
> >Stavros... this is like the nth time you post about the Arvanites outside
> >Athens. Can you provide some more information about them because from what
> >I know and have seen, they are Greek and the fact that they speak Arvanitika
> >is no different from the Pontioi in Macedonia/Thrace who speak Pontiaka
> >at home.
>
> >Regards
>
> >Jimmy
>

> Well, my dear co-Hellene Jim, that is PRECISELY my point as well. As I told
> Mr. Mangovski, if he was to go and tell an 'Arvanite' that hey, you're ethnic
> Albanian, not a Greek, he (Mr. Mangovski) would be lucky to get out of there
> without serious bodily harm done to him by this 100% GREEK man.

I have no intention to doubt the pure, 100% Hellenism of all these
evidently various ethnic groups that make HR today. All the same several
questions arise.

Were these ethnic groups always Hellenic and if they were not when did
they became so?

Is being Greek an ethnic or cultural quality? There seems to be some
disagreement on the matter. If it is cultural do I also qualify
as Greek since I do understand little Greek and am trying to learn it?

The same
> applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones.

Are these names as these people self-identify themselves or you're just
playing godfather? :-)

Your above statement would indicate that being Greek is a cultural quality
as we know for a fact that some of the people mentioned are not
ethnic Greeks.

That

> was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
> language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic
> this or that'.

Quite confusing! What are/were they, then?

If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
> 'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance.

And what about when they THEMSELVES do that? And they are supported by
all major human rights organizations?

It's
> frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
> completely. I am at a loss.

In other words, Stavros, you claim that your positions are those of most
Greeks?

Slavko

[Elizavjeta]

Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970124...@dakota.gate.net>,
> ma...@gate.net says...

> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
> >
> >> >> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural

YOU SAY:

> There is a distinction to be made, Slavko, between 'ethnic categories' and 'ethnic groups'
> proper. People 'belong' to a myriad different social 'categories', based on characteristics
> chosen by analysts. In my circles, these are what we call 'paper classes' (in the general
> sense of the term class, not the Marxian or Weberian sense of 'economic' or 'property'
> class) or 'paper groups'. Depending on the analyst's chosen categories (criteria) of
> classification, and the definition of what makes for an 'ethnic (paper) group', all kinds of
> people with 'particularities' can be classified as being 'members' of this or that 'ethnic
> group' (a 'paper' ethnic group). In the end, whether a specific ethnic group exists, IN
> PRACTICE, and in the conscience of its putative members and relevant outsiders,
> depends on 'self-ascription' and 'other ascription'. An example from another controversial
> field will clarify the issue, I believe. According to certain Marxists, e.g. the French-Greek
> Nicos Poulantzas, a single young Mexican-American man who works as a semi-skilled
> wage employee in a small, family-owned, car-repair shop, and a middle-aged
> Polish-American woman (married to a Slovak-American butcher, mother of two, etc.)
> who is a member of the UAW (United Autoworkers' union) and works in the assembly line
> of GM in say Flint, Michigan, are BOTH equally members of the 'American working class'.
> Well, this is Poulantzas's 'paper' working class. Whether these two folks would
> themselves classify themselves as such, whether they would feel that they were both
> part of the same, equally important 'working class US', etc. etc. is NOT resolved by them
> having been categorized by Monsieur Poulantzas as both members of the U.S. working
> class.

>
> >Is being Greek an ethnic or cultural quality?
>

> This question, from a sociological point of view, is a 'false dichotomy'. There is no such
> thing as an 'ethnic' quality which is NOT 'cultural' (but not vice-versa'). In YOUR use of
> the term 'ethnic', I would have to say that being Greek is NOT an 'ethnic' quality.

>
> >There seems to be some
> >disagreement on the matter. If it is cultural do I also qualify
> >as Greek since I do understand little Greek and am trying to learn it?
>

> Obviously not. Do you self-ascribe 'ethnically' as a Greek? Are you 'other-ascribed' by
> those who self-ascribe ethnically as Greeks as a fellow Greek? How about relevant
> 'outsiders'? Do they regard and treat you as an 'ethnic Greek'? The answers to the
> above questions will give you the answer to YOUR question.

> >
> >
> > The same
> >> applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones.
> >
> >Are these names as these people self-identify themselves or you're just
> >playing godfather? :-)
>

> Any time anyone speaks about groups of individual human beings en masse, one
> necessarily plays 'god-father'. It's part of human thought, you know. Do you have
> personal knowledge of how the people that I have categorized with the above 'names'
> self-identify? Notice that I did not specify the above groups as 'ethnic' groups, myself,
> because I do not know whether THEY consider themselves as parts of 'ethnic' groups,
> and how THEY define the term 'ethnic'.

>
> >Your above statement would indicate that being Greek is a cultural quality
> >as we know for a fact that some of the people mentioned are not
> >ethnic Greeks.
>

> Meaning, I suppose, that they are NOT of 'Greek genetic stock', right? To you,
> apparently, 'ethnicity' is an indelible, primordial, characteristic of any individual human,
> which you or anybody else can 'observe' and 'record', and about which one need not
> 'bother' with the individual's own 'self-ascription', right? Yes, indeed, many if not all of the
> people mentioned above are of non-Greek 'genetic stock' (whatever that means in
> practice), they (or their ancestors) use(d) a non-Greek vernacular language/idiom, and
> have had customs and mores which can be considered as distinct from those of others,
> with different 'genetic', 'linguistic' and other 'particularistic' backgrounds. So, what is it that
> we can surmise from these facts, without playing 'god-father'? If they have a Greek
> national conscience, and they participate fully in Greek 'national life', what difference
> does (should) it make that you or anybody else may insist that they 'ethnically'
> non-Greek?

> >
> > That
> >> was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
> >> language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic
> >> this or that'.
> >
> >Quite confusing! What are/were they, then?
>

> It's not confusing at all, if one does not have a reified, 'written in stone', primordial and
> indellible conception of 'ethnicity', like you seem to have. Whatever list of 'characteristics'
> you may adduce, so long as individuals X, Y, Z, etc. conceive of themselves as G and
> are so recognized and treated by those who also conceive of themselves as G, then
> they are G.

>
> >
> >
> > If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
> >> 'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance.
> >
> >And what about when they THEMSELVES do that? And they are supported by
> >all major human rights organizations?
>

> HOW MANY GREEK CITIZENS DO YOU KNOW, or know of, who themselves CLAIM that
> they are 'ETHNIC MINORITIES' (I would like you to tell me, what with your knowledge of
> Greek and all, how exactly they would phrase that in Greek)? As for the so-called 'human
> rights organizations' who exactly appointed them 'Lord Deciders' of who is and who is
> not part of an 'ethnic minority'?

>
> > It's
> >> frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
> >> completely. I am at a loss.
>
> >In other words, Stavros, you claim that your positions are those of most
> >Greeks?
>

> In other words, what you wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Jimmy
> Palatsoukas thought I was claiming that the Arvanites have an 'Albanian ethnic identity'
> and that THEY themselves do not consider themselves as fully Greek, and that they are
> so considered by other Greeks. My position is that Arvanites are 100% Greeks, DESPITE
> their linguistic particularities (mostly PAST) etc. Got it now?
>
> >Slavko
>
> Stavros N. Karageorgis
> e-mail: kara...@ucla.edu

Let Max Weber and the rest of the Marxist Structuralists drown in their
own spit and excrement. There is absolutely no rational reason why this
sort of inapplicable historiography whould be applied to anything Balkan
as the methodology itself is extremely suspect.

As to your irrepressive personal need to have every atom on this planet
self identify, do it yourslef and save it for no one else. No one is
interested in providing grist for your artificially contructed theses,
for to do so would be to provide credence for inanity where no credence
is due..

Give it a rest and stop utilizing pseudoscientific terminology.
Instead, learn to embrace the idea that you are possibly a Macedonian
and that Macedonians have a unique and beautiful heritage.

Galina

Galina

[Stavros N. Karageorgis]

In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970124...@dakota.gate.net>,
ma...@gate.net says...
>
>
>
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
>

There is a distinction to be made, Slavko, between 'ethnic categories' and 'ethnic groups'

[Galja]

Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
>
> In article <32E92C...@erols.com>, sp...@erols.com says...
> >
> >Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
> >>
> <snip>

> >
> >Let Max Weber and the rest of the Marxist Structuralists drown in their
> >own spit and excrement.
>

> Max Weber is NOT a structural Marxist, you ignorant FOOL! Showing your ignorance
> once again . . . Since you are an idiot, you are not good enough for even the spit and
> excrement of great minds such as Max Weber and Althusser, Poulantzas et. al (i.e the
> structural Marxists).
>

WEll, a lot of history and sociology departments went therough a Weber
craze a number of years ago. It was this irrepresive need on the part
of people who did not want to do any real vigorous research to spend
their time codifying and categorizing things. One of my favorite
lamentable examples of how this can go awry is the work of Marshal
Hobson, slaient example, the Venture of Islam, in which the reader must
plow through the muchk of pseudoterminology of utter uselessness like
"Islamicate"versis "Islamic" before being offered any primary source
substance whatsoever. Here is a quote I have taken completely at
random:

>Yet it is especially in this 'exceptionalizing' perspective that persons' ideal norms and expectations and even the special visions of individuals can be crucial. For they prive to be the mainstreams of creativity at the interstices of routine patterns, when exceptional circumstances arise adn something new must be found to do. This is how, in fact, the would-be 'typicalizer' finds himself dragged into matters more suited to the programme of the 'exceptionalizer'.< (v.1, p.25)

This random quote actually is pertinent to you, if you can plow through
the muck of it.

Max Weber (always but always pronounced in precious, patronizing tones
with a "V" according to the German) is the great love of many Marxist
structuralists. There was actually a subfield in many departments for a
while in which faculty discussed the applicability and inapplicability
of Weber to their fields.

A bit more successful utilizer of the genre is Gombrich, but even he had
to break free from his own terminological devices in his Art and
Illusion in order to discuss Byzantine art.

> > There is absolutely no rational reason why this
> >sort of inapplicable historiography
>

> Moronic, as usual. Neither Max Weber's work nor that of the structural Marxists' is
> 'historiography'. Familiarize yourself with the meaning of the terms you use, ignoramus,
> or stick to 'poetry'.

No, it is not historiography. It is a method for constructing history
and other fields.

>
> > whould be applied to anything Balkan
> >as the methodology itself is extremely suspect.
>

> As if you know what the heck the methodology of Max Weber or the structural Marxists is
> all about . . . go buy yourself a clue first, and then come back with your 'critiques'. BTW,
> my point was PRECISELY that structuralist thinking, especially if it reifies the structures it
> conceptualizes (as Slavko Mangovski's thought seems to)

Slavko has a very clear and ordered mind, but I don't notice him
veerring into structural categorizations. rather, he follows an implicit
classical logical historic method.

is ENTIRELY NOT-useful for
> matters cultural and emic, such as ethnic identity and nationality.

>
> >As to your irrepressive personal need to have every atom on this planet

> >self identify, do it yourself and save it for no one else.
>
> What about your irrepressive personal need to try to match wits with me? Do you have
> some kind of inferiority complex, some HUGE chip on your shoulders, huh?
>

Sweetie pie, I don't think I answered many of your posts lately. If I
did, I didn't happen to notice you wrote them.

> > No one is
> >interested in providing grist for your artificially contructed theses,
>

> As opposed to what, 'naturally constructed theses'? What are those and where does
> one find them? Are they for sale, or what? Do you have a supply handy at home?

I was referring to having to plow through the terminological muck in
addition to the ideas themselves, when they exist. You really do spin
the same record, you know. Did you fall in love with the sound of the
word "tautology" at some point? You must have because I have never seen
you clearly and succinctly define it. Nor have I ever seen the need for
its exploration for any of the topics discussed on this newsgroup. It
is so silly and so pointless.

>
> >for to do so would be to provide credence for inanity where no credence
> >is due..
>

> Your own writing is proof enough as to who is the inane one here.

Thank you for your assessment.

>
> >Give it a rest and stop utilizing pseudoscientific terminology.
>

> As opposed to what, YOUR REAL scientific terminology? Your condition is lamentable.
> Start by being sure you comprehend the meaning of the fancy terms you try to use, and
> by learning not to venture so authoritatively on matters of which you are so utterly
> ignorant.

Ah, I see by extension that you realize that the terminology you employ
IS pseudoscientific. On the other point, above, there is no need to
provide pseudoscientic or scientific for most of the topics discussed
here in this netgroup. And thank you again for your assertion of my
mental worth, i.e. that I am lamentably ignorant. I agree. I do wish I
knew more and more and more. But, this is bound to occur as ,in my own
aphorism "Education regresses as Age progresses." Fact of life, dear
one.

>
> >Instead, learn to embrace the idea that you are possibly a Macedonian
> >and that Macedonians have a unique and beautiful heritage.
>

> Aha, so you're going to 'teach' me what kinds of ideas about my own identity

Of ocurse not - I said "possibly"

I have to
> embrace huh? Macedonian Slavs (a term used by none other than Krste Misirkov
> himself, so don't give me any more B.S. about it) do have a unique and beautiful
> heritage, which they should by all means celebrate and protect with their OWN money
> and resources, and their OWN time and labor.
>

I spoke of no Macedonian Slavs. I spoke only of Macedonians.

> As for my own heritage, I know precisely what it is. It is Constanipolite and Eastern
> Thrakian.

If part of you is from Eastern Trakia, there is still a heavy chance
that you are Macedonian. I could still embrace you as a brother, in any
cvase. It is a matter of attitude involved, after all, not one of
ethnogenesis.

>
> I leave with a couple of short excerpts from Krste Misirkov:

These were irrelevant to the discussion.

snipped except for illustrative example:

> .]Here is what one might say to those who claim that Macedonian as a nationality has
> never existed: ***it may not have existed in the past, but it exists today and will exist in
> the future.****"

The implication of this passage is that one ought to accept the
existence, but if one did not, the verity of present existence should be
enough reason for acceptance.

>
> (op.cit., p. 159, emphasis mine)
>
> >Galina
>
> >Galina
>
> Twice for emphasis, I guess . . .

Nope, severe server problems today. And as I have but a half hour every
two days, this is a bitch.

>
> Regards,
>
> Stavros N. Karageorgis

> e-mail: kara...@ucla.edu

Glad you like the poetry. But somehow, you inspire none. Why could
that be?

[Aias o Telamwvios]

In article <32E973...@erols.com> Galja <sp...@erols.com> writes:

>Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
>>
>> In article <32E92C...@erols.com>, sp...@erols.com says...
>> >
>> >Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
>> >>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Let Max Weber and the rest of the Marxist Structuralists drown in their
>> >own spit and excrement.
>>
>> Max Weber is NOT a structural Marxist, you ignorant FOOL! Showing your
>>ignorance once again . . . Since you are an idiot, you are not good
>>enough for even the spit and excrement of great minds such as Max Weber
>>and Althusser, Poulantzas et. al (i.e the structural Marxists).
>>

>WEll, a lot of history and sociology departments went therough a Weber
>craze a number of years ago.

How many actual history and sociology departments are you closely familiar
with? Wild guess = 0! You have a hard time figuring out the difference between
anthropology and sociology . . . that should occupy you pea-brain for another
twenty years, so call me back when you've figured THAT out . . .

> It was this irrepresive need on the part
>of people who did not want to do any real vigorous research to spend
>their time codifying and categorizing things.

When was the last time that YOU did ANY research whatever, field or
library/archival? My scholarly publications are available to all who are
interested. How' bout yours? What, never had any . . . what a surprise!

> One of my favorite
>lamentable examples of how this can go awry is the work of Marshal

>Hobson, salient example, the Venture of Islam, in which the reader must
>plow through the muck of pseudoterminology

As opposed to what kind of terminology, 'real' terminology? Sasho, give this
poor woman a couple of internet lessons in what 'terminology' is all about,
will ya?

>of utter uselessness like
>"Islamicate" versus "Islamic" before being offered any primary source

>substance whatsoever. Here is a quote I have taken completely at
>random:

I don't know who Marshal Hobson is, nor do I know that he is either a Weberian
or a structural Marxist. In any case, what the heck does this have to do with
your inability to comprehend what I write, or with the substance of the issues
at hand?

<snip>

>Max Weber (always but always pronounced in precious, patronizing tones
>with a "V" according to the German) is the great love of many Marxist
>structuralists.

I challenge you to name me ONE. I also challenge you to define what a
structural Marxist is. Come on, show us your stuff!

>There was actually a subfield in many departments for a
>while in which faculty discussed the applicability and inapplicability
>of Weber to their fields.

Really? How'bout an example, or two? Sociologists, by the way, don't have to
EVER discuss the applicability of inapplicability of Weber or structural
Marxism in their fields. They figure that out in their first year of graduate
school. But what would YOU know about graduate school in Sociology . . .

>A bit more successful utilizer of the genre is Gombrich, but even he had
>to break free from his own terminological devices in his Art and
>Illusion in order to discuss Byzantine art.

I don't know who Gombrich is, but I have a feeling he is not a sociologist.

>> > There is absolutely no rational reason why this
>> >sort of inapplicable historiography
>>
>> Moronic, as usual. Neither Max Weber's work nor that of the structural
>Marxists' is
>> 'historiography'. Familiarize yourself with the meaning of the terms you use,
>ignoramus,
>> or stick to 'poetry'.

>No, it is not historiography. It is a method for constructing history
>and other fields.

So, why did you say it was 'historiography' at first? And it is NOT a method
for 'constructing' history. It is a method for DOING history, it is comprised
of a set of ontological and epistemological precepts.

<snip>

Ah, the hell with you. You are beneath contempt. I am wasting my precious time
dealing with fools such as yourself. Believe whatever the hell you want.

Enjoy the rest of your life.

Good-bye,

[Stavros N. Karageorgis]

In article <32E92C...@erols.com>, sp...@erols.com says...
>
>Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
>>
<snip>
>

>Let Max Weber and the rest of the Marxist Structuralists drown in their
>own spit and excrement.

Max Weber is NOT a structural Marxist, you ignorant FOOL! Showing your ignorance

once again . . . Since you are an idiot, you are not good enough for even the spit and
excrement of great minds such as Max Weber and Althusser, Poulantzas et. al (i.e the
structural Marxists).

> There is absolutely no rational reason why this
>sort of inapplicable historiography

Moronic, as usual. Neither Max Weber's work nor that of the structural Marxists' is

'historiography'. Familiarize yourself with the meaning of the terms you use, ignoramus,
or stick to 'poetry'.

> whould be applied to anything Balkan
>as the methodology itself is extremely suspect.

As if you know what the heck the methodology of Max Weber or the structural Marxists is

all about . . . go buy yourself a clue first, and then come back with your 'critiques'. BTW,
my point was PRECISELY that structuralist thinking, especially if it reifies the structures it

conceptualizes (as Slavko Mangovski's thought seems to) is ENTIRELY NOT-useful for

matters cultural and emic, such as ethnic identity and nationality.

>As to your irrepressive personal need to have every atom on this planet

>self identify, do it yourslef and save it for no one else.

What about your irrepressive personal need to try to match wits with me? Do you have

some kind of inferiority complex, some HUGE chip on your shoulders, huh?

> No one is

>interested in providing grist for your artificially contructed theses,

As opposed to what, 'naturally constructed theses'? What are those and where does

one find them? Are they for sale, or what? Do you have a supply handy at home?

>for to do so would be to provide credence for inanity where no credence
>is due..

Your own writing is proof enough as to who is the inane one here.

>Give it a rest and stop utilizing pseudoscientific terminology.

As opposed to what, YOUR REAL scientific terminology? Your condition is lamentable.

Start by being sure you comprehend the meaning of the fancy terms you try to use, and
by learning not to venture so authoritatively on matters of which you are so utterly
ignorant.

>Instead, learn to embrace the idea that you are possibly a Macedonian

>and that Macedonians have a unique and beautiful heritage.

Aha, so you're going to 'teach' me what kinds of ideas about my own identityI have to

embrace huh? Macedonian Slavs (a term used by none other than Krste Misirkov

himself, so don't give me any more B.S. about it) do have a unique and beautiful

heritage, which they should by all means celebrate and protect with their OWN money
and resources, and their OWN time and labor.

As for my own heritage, I know precisely what it is. It is Constanipolite and Eastern
Thrakian.

I leave with a couple of short excerpts from Krste Misirkov:

"We should attempt to create a state of affairs in Macedonia in which there are no
Serbian, Greek or Bulgarian interests in Macedonia, only ****Macedonians of Slav origin
and certain other Macedonian nationalities.**** We should examine our own interests
and protect them ourselves, not allowing others to interfere so that the small Balkan
states are able to exploit our interests for their own ends."

(_On Macedonian Matters_, p. 145, my emphasis)

"The name Macedonian was first used by the ***Macedonian Slavs*** as a
***geographical term*** to indicate their origin. This name is well known to the
***Macedonian Slavs*** and all of the use it to describe themselves. One thing is
certain: even the formation of nationalities is a political and mechanical process and so
all the necessary conditions exist for Macedonia to ***break off as an independent
ethnographic region***. The Macedonians have a common country which is gradually,
with the reforms, breaking off into an independent political whole in which there are
****'several branches of the South Slav language complex'****; these branches can be
easily be united through the mutual agreement that they should serve as the literary
language of all intelligent people in Macedonia and as the language of the schools. [. .

.]Here is what one might say to those who claim that Macedonian as a nationality has
never existed: ***it may not have existed in the past, but it exists today and will exist in
the future.****"

(op.cit., p. 159, emphasis mine)

>Galina

>Galina

Twice for emphasis, I guess . . .

Regards,

[HyperLEX]

Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
> In article <5c3245$c...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> ji...@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca (Jimmy Palatsoukas) writes:
> >In article <32E438...@gate.net>, Slavko Mangovski <ma...@gate.net> wrote:

> >>Aias o Telamwvios wrote:
> >> How so? This linguistic nationalist argument died a natural death in the
> >> inter-war period. Language does NOT determine ethnic or ethno-national
> >> identity. Take a stroll in the Attica plains or in the Saronic Gulf islands,
> >> where people who still speak 'Arvanitika' do live, and try to tell them that
> >> they are 'ethnic Albanians'. Good luck getting out in one piece. Go tell the
> ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
> >> Vlakhs of Naoussa that they are 'ethnic Vlakhs' and NOT Greeks. Again,
> >>good luck.
>
> >Stavros... this is like the nth time you post about the Arvanites outside
> >Athens. Can you provide some more information about them because from what
> >I know and have seen, they are Greek and the fact that they speak Arvanitika
> >is no different from the Pontioi in Macedonia/Thrace who speak Pontiaka
> >at home.
> >Regards
> >Jimmy
>
> Well, my dear co-Hellene Jim, that is PRECISELY my point as well. As I told
> Mr. Mangovski, if he was to go and tell an 'Arvanite' that hey, you're ethnic
> Albanian, not a Greek, he (Mr. Mangovski) would be lucky to get out of there

> without serious bodily harm done to him by this 100% GREEK man. The same
> applies to Pontioi, Vlakhoi, Sarakatsani, and yes 99% of Slavomakedones. That

> was my point. Their knowledge, vernacular use, or memory of another
> language/idiom other than Greek is NOT an indication that they are 'ethnic

> this or that'. If anyone claims that 'Pontioi' or 'Arvanites' or 'Vlakhoi' or
> 'Slavomakedones' are 'ethnic minorities' in Greece is out of ignorance. It's

> frankly amazing to me that a fellow Greek would misinterpret my position so
> completely. I am at a loss.

I quite frankly don't think Jimmy was 'misinterpreting', but simply... worried
about possible mis-interpretations (by 'expert distorters', as Mr. Prodromides
succinctly called them)! :-)))

I stopped worrying about such things long ago. WHY??? :-)

Examples

(1) Every time the... Salonica-football-teams come to Athens, or vice versa,
entire crowds call them "BULGARIANS"!!!! :-))))))))
(and a... descendant of Mr. Mangovski in the year...2997 might indeed
wonder: "IS this not consise proof that ancient Salonikians were
of Bulgarian ethnicity???" :)))

(2) One of the greatest, perhaps, 'Arvanites' from old Athens, is the great
actress, singer, and minister of Culture, the late MELINA MERKOURH. Most
people called 'Merkouris' have... Arvanitic genes mixed with Greek genes! :-)

(3) As in Physics, a 'high energy' state absorbs in the end completely a
'low energy state', and by 'high energy' we include stronger _cultures_
it is not surprising that Hellenic CULTURE absorbed SO many others, easily.

More examples later, perhaps
Greetings to all, and...good luck to Mr. Prodromides, whose... University
(of Essex) I know _very_ well. Did the bastards innovate those grey old
buildings or is it as gloomy as it was ten years ago? Anyway, refreshing
voices are now heard from there, such as yours!!! :-)

See ya later alligators :) Dasvedanie Tovarich, Dobijenia Kohanie!!! :-)
Dr. Georgi von Stathis ;-)))))))))))
(Galinologist at-large, under leave...)

[morpheus]

Theodore L Georgiou wrote:
>
> Slavko are your repeated attempts to convince us, a way actually
> to convince yourself with such outragous distortions of historical facts
> and events? (Prenthesis: The Athenians used to call the rest of the other
> greek tribes "epilhdes". Somebody who knows better can explain to you what
> it means and the beliefs of the Athenians for the rest of the Greeks)
> But even Slavko, if somebody tried, in the most elaborate way, to
> present you THE FACTS and prooved beyond any resonable doubt that
> Makedonia is greek and should not become a part of your country, you would
> still back up your beliefs 100% and try to show that the other guy is
> wrong.
> And this reminds me what we used to say back in my village, when
> he had to deal with people like you:" Stou koufou thn porta oso 0eleis
> bronta". In english:" On a deaf man's door, knock as many times as you
> want".
>
> Trampakoulas the Boukolos.
>
> PS. I don't have a PhD in History, Anthropology, Archeology etc and
> I am just a simple and humble boskos. Believe whatever you want dear
> "Macedonian" but like my grandfather used to tell me while we were milking
> the goats ( we had between us the best discussions then), I will tell you

> that:" To gala einai panta gala" in english " Milk is always milk". And as
> an ignorant herder , even though I know that is a great oversimplication,

> I apply the same saying as an answer to your so well presented "facts"-
> like the ones some televangelists use by interpreting passages from the
> scriptures and finding stuff that are not there- " H Makedonia htan, einai
> kai 0a einai Ellhnikh" that means in english " Makedonia was, is and will
> be Hellenic". ( I use Makedonia pronounced in greece(Hellas) as
> Ma-Ke'-Tho(th here the same voice like the)-Ni'-A which is a province of
> Hellas and inhabited by greeks.)
>
> Trampakoulas Phd from Strougga University in Milking Goats (MG):-)
>
> PS. In my stanh:-)) we didn't learn very good spelling, so "epilhdes"
> might be not the right orthography.

MEGALE...farmaki stazei h glossa soy...ORAIOS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jimmy Palatsoukas]

In article <32E92C...@erols.com>, Elizavjeta <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>Instead, learn to embrace the idea that you are possibly a Macedonian
>and that Macedonians have a unique and beautiful heritage.

You should take the medicine your prescribe. Learn to embrace your
FYROMian culture.

[Galja]

A p4erson of confused identity, calling himself either Aias o Telamwvios
wrote: or

> >Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
> >>
>You have a hard time figuring out the difference between
> anthropology and sociology . . . that should occupy you pea-brain for another
> twenty years, so call me back when you've figured THAT out . . .

difference between bones and moans - both feilds have teir problems...

>
> > It was this irrepresive need on the part
> >of people who did not want to do any real vigorous research to spend
> >their time codifying and categorizing things.
>
> When was the last time that YOU did ANY research whatever, field or
> library/archival? My scholarly publications are available to all who are
> interested.

list a couple. Let us take a look.. I can just imagine....

>
> > One of my favorite
> >lamentable examples of how this can go awry is the work of Marshal
> >Hobson, salient example, the Venture of Islam, in which the reader must
> >plow through the muck of pseudoterminology
>
> As opposed to what kind of terminology, 'real' terminology? Sasho, give this
> poor woman a couple of internet lessons in what 'terminology' is all about,
> will ya?
>
> >of utter uselessness like
> >"Islamicate" versus "Islamic" before being offered any primary source
> >substance whatsoever. Here is a quote I have taken completely at
> >random:
>
> I don't know who Marshal Hobson is, nor do I know that he is either a Weberian
> or a structural Marxist.

I think he was confused himself, and then he passed away.

In any case, what the heck does this have to do with
> your inability to comprehend what I write, or with the substance of the issues
> at hand?
>

plenty.

> <snip>
>
> >Max Weber (always but always pronounced in precious, patronizing tones
> >with a "V" according to the German) is the great love of many Marxist
> >structuralists.
>
> I challenge you to name me ONE. I also challenge you to define what a
> structural Marxist is. Come on, show us your stuff!

On this netgroup, we do not let you define how we are to conduct an
argument nor do we feel any necessity whatsoever to satisfy your
irrepresive need to have people justify themselves according to your
personal criteria.

>
> >There was actually a subfield in many departments for a
> >while in which faculty discussed the applicability and inapplicability
> >of Weber to their fields.
>
> Really? How'bout an example, or two? Sociologists, by the way, don't have to
> EVER discuss the applicability of inapplicability of Weber or structural
> Marxism in their fields. They figure that out in their first year of graduate
> school.

Depends on the sociologist, don't it.

But what would YOU know about graduate school in Sociology . . .

Do a littl3e reading , see the odd lecture but never actually get too
terribly near one. The disease, I have heard, is terminal.

>
> >A bit more successful utilizer of the genre is Gombrich, but even he had
> >to break free from his own terminological devices in his Art and
> >Illusion in order to discuss Byzantine art.
>
> I don't know who Gombrich is, but I have a feeling he is not a sociologist.
>

well, now, that is very bright of you, dear, to have figured that out...

> >> > There is absolutely no rational reason why this
> >> >sort of inapplicable historiography
> >>
> >> Moronic, as usual. Neither Max Weber's work nor that of the structural
> >Marxists' is
> >> 'historiography'. Familiarize yourself with the meaning of the terms you use,
> >ignoramus,
> >> or stick to 'poetry'.
>

> >No, it is not historiography. It is a method for constructing history
> >and other fields.

It is a method for artificially constricting and then constructing
history. Read what I said the first time.

>
> So, why did you say it was 'historiography' at first?

I only post for about a half hour a day could be part of the reason.

And it is NOT a method
> for 'constructing' history. It is a method for DOING history, it is comprised
> of a set of ontological and epistemological precepts.
>

ontological, tautological and epistemological scatological
perseverative perspective disorder = new DSM criteria being formed as
we speak for this new certifiable form of neurosis infecting certain
Greeks who self-proclaim as anti-nationalists to mask an undelying
personal need to denigrate the cultures of others.

> <snip>
>
> Ah, the hell with you. You are beneath contempt.

Ah, here I will agree with you

I am wasting my precious time
> dealing with fools such as yourself. Believe whatever the hell you want.

Thank you for the permission implicit in this statement.

>
> Enjoy the rest of your life.

I do so fully intend. T:his is actually, "Life, the Sequel, Part III"

>
> Good-bye, Karl Marx, and "Preface to the French Edition of Das Kapital", we didn't need you then nor doconstrained the minds and ideals of the many while enriching only the repressive few including, implicitly, by his association, > Stavros N. Karageorgis
> E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu

Love,

Galina

[Kostas]

In article <32ED298D...@lucent.com>, Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com>
wrote:

>As far as the Vlachi are concerned they ARE an ethnic minority
>that has over the past two centuries been gradually assimilated
The term Vlachi is incorrectly applied to a people called Armini. It was a
term given by Grecophones to anyone that spoke another language. What are
commonly called Vlachi in Greece are two separate language dialects stemming
from the Rumanian language break-up in to four groups. The languages are 95 to
97% Latin with some 3% Greek. The most populus is the Armini group. The older
generation "Vlachs" call themselves "Ar'mini". The younger follow the
mainstream and call themselves Vlachoi. They are beleived to either be Greeks
that adopted the Latin language during the Roman times, or are descendants of
the Roman emperial guard stationed along the remote Pindos mountains. In any
case there has never been any type of separatist movement by any Armini.

Here is a backgound:
ARUMANIAN (Greece)
Alternate language names
MACEDO-RUMANI, ARUMANIAN, AROMUNIAN, ARMINA
Genetic affiliation
Indo-European, Romance, Eastern, South
Geographical region
Northwest Salonika, and northern Greece, Pindus Mts., around Trikala.
Also Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia
Population
50,000 in Greece (1973 Byrd)
Status
Needs survey
Remarks
Structurally a distinct language from Rumanian (F. Agard). It split from
the other 3 Rumanian languages between 500 and 1000
A.D. 'Armini' refers to the people. Rapid assimilation to Greek culture;
children attend Greek schools. 20% live traditionally
Total speakers
50,000 or more

>into modern day Greece by the Greek governments use of at times
>rather repressive tactics.
That is rather fictional. I know people that speak Arumani and many of them
are rather old (100+ years). Though an interpreter, I've asked that question
many times. Their language, was only recently written down, and no Greek
government forced anything on them. The only schooling available to them and
all the other Greeks after the liberation form the Ottomans was in Greek
"katharebousa". Depending on who you ask, many Greeks will tell you that, that
form of the Greek language was repressive, considering that most Greeks'
Greek.

>If you go back as far as a generation ago, there existed many
>Vlachoi in Central and Northern Greece who did not speak Greek
>(especially women). However today the Vlach language as well
>as culture are on the verge of extinction within the next few
>generations.
That is not because of oppressive tactics of the Greek gov. Traditionally,
Armini occupied remote areas, and were either in to timber related activities
or animal farming. Since the youngsters, like most other youngsters in Greece
migrate to large metropolitan areas, the rural way of life is endangered in
general in Greece

>generation ago. This only proves that the Greek assimilation
>of the Vlachs has been successful, and nothing else.
Armini are usually proud people and do not submit to oppression easily. I have
encountered them, I can assure you that they have no separate national
identity and they never had. They do use the term Vlach, which is incorrect
since Vlachs were only in Romania and maybe 1,000 speakers are in Greece
today.
The Vlach language is a Gypsy one with roots in India, very different from
Arumani. We have about 1,000 speakers of Vlach known as Tsingani. The rest of
the Gypsies speak a varitety of Romani dialects which is a distinct group and
unrelated to the Arumani one.

>The fact of the matter is that YES Greece is made up of many
>ethnic minorities as is ANY other country in the world. To
>think otherwise is an act of ignorance.
Actually, according to the CIA 1995 world factbook:
--------
Ethnic divisions: Greek 98%, other 2%
note: the Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece
--------
So CIA says there are 2% and Gr. Gov. says none. If the truth is in the
middle, then there are 1% of minorities.

Regards,
Kostas R.

[Ellhvas (Stavros Karageorgis])]

In article <32ED298D...@lucent.com> Efthymi <e.kia...@lucent.com> writes:

>As far as the Vlachi are concerned they ARE an ethnic minority
>that has over the past two centuries been gradually assimilated

>into modern day Greece by the Greek governments use of at times
>rather repressive tactics.

I have some questions for you, Efthimi. How do you tell which group is
ETHNIC, and which group is e.g. linguistic, or 'religious' or whatever? What
are your criteria for classifying a group of people as an ETHNIC group, not to
mention an ETHNIC MINORITY (the numerical definition doesn't quite work).
Furthermore, what is it that a person 'gains', (rather, what do you think
he/she SHOULD 'gain' vis-a-vis the state of his/her citizenship) by being
'recognized' (by the above state) as a member of an ethnic group or an ethnic
minority?

Can you name some of those 'at times rather repressive tactics'? Are you
talking about the actions taken against the (infamous) Romanian nationalist
(by conscience) Politis and his followers or what? Or maybe against those who
chose to be armed by Italian fascist occupying forces, in the hopes of
attaining a promised 'Pindus Principate' within the 'soon to be reconstituted'
Roman Empire, as hoped for by the Italian fascists? Some of the biggest Greek
(by conscience) benefactors have been of Vlakhiki extraction and language.

>If you go back as far as a generation ago, there existed many
>Vlachoi in Central and Northern Greece who did not speak Greek
>(especially women).

And so? Since when did language define/determine 'membership' in the Greek
nation? The Arvanites of the Saronic Gulf and of Epirus (to name just a couple
of examples) did not speak a WORD OF GREEK during the 'War of Independence',
and YET, not only did they fight heroically for the cause of the Greek nation,
and its nation-state, they were 'admitted' in it, nay they partly CONSTITUTED
it, as full-fledged, bona fide Hellenes.

> However today the Vlach language as well
>as culture are on the verge of extinction within the next few
>generations.

NOTHING prevents the above from NOT happening. There are COUNTLESS Greeks of
Vlakh extraction and background in business, politics, the academy, culture,
etc. who could and SHOULD direct their plentiful resources into the
preservation and celebration of their QUINTESSENTIALLY neo-Hellenic culture
and language. Vlakhs are an INEXTRICABLE part of the modern Greek nation. BUT,
I agree with you fully, that MOST Greeks, especially young ones, haven't the
foggiest idea that 'Vlakhos' doesn't (and shouldn't) refer to 'peasant' or
'uncouth' or 'highlander', but to a people. In Norhern Greece, Vlakh culture
is alive and well. In fact, at the wedding of the son of one of the best known
Vlakhs of Greece, to wit Stelios Boutaris, to the daughter of one of the best
known Arvanitiki families (Lalaounis), BOTH cultures were represented with
their rituals MIGHTILY.

>Yes I am sure if you were to tell a modern day Greek-Vlach
>that he/she was not Greek, but a vlach you would get a rather
>rude answer. However this would not have been the case a
>generation ago.

Really? Do you have any evidence to that effect? And you are posing a false
dichotomy. The Vlakhs or Koutso-Vlakhs of Greece, are BOTH Vlakh AND Greek.
What would happen, as above, is if you told a Vlakh, like my felow high-school
student Gianikas, that he was NOT Vlakh, but ONLY Greek, or if you told him
that you are NOT Greek, BECAUSE you identify with or descend from Vlakhs.

> This only proves that the Greek assimilation
>of the Vlachs has been successful, and nothing else.

Nonsense. Every single piece of scholarship on the Vlakhs in Greek territory
testifies to the VOLUNTARY attachment of Vlakhs (whether Vlakhophone,
bilingual, or Grecophone) to Hellenism. If, on the other hand, YOU want to
identify as a Vlakh, and to construct that identity as ANTITHETICAL and
incompatible with a Hellenic identity, it is your prerogative, and you have
every right to do so. So long as you fulfil all your obligations to your
country of citizenship, you can do and be whatever you desire, and you should
not, in any way, be discriminated against, not to mention persecuted, for your
beliefs and/or identity.

>The fact of the matter is that YES Greece is made up of many
>ethnic minorities as is ANY other country in the world. To
>think otherwise is an act of ignorance.

See my questions, above. If you mean that there are millions of Greek citizens
who descend from non-Greek genetic stock, who speak a non-Greek language
(solely or in addition to Greek), who are of different religious
faith/ecclesiastical affiliation then the majority of Greek citizens, who
descent from such folks, or who identify as NON-GREEKS in an ETHNIC sense (a
sense which you have to define, and document that is shared by the people in
question), then you are entirely correct.

>Efthymi

All the best,

"The word Greek designate[s] not any more the race, but the culture, and we now call Greeks those who participate in our education rather than those who have the same origin with us."
Isocrates, "Panegyric", 50