The heart of the Balkans - Bulgaria - the nation of central political and cultural importance of the Balkans
kou...@my-deja.com
Bulgaria In the heart of the Balkans sits a small nation of central
political, cultural importance
Bangor Daily News; Bangor; Sep 4, 1999; Dana Wilde Special to the NEWS;
Start Page:
1
Abstract:
Bulgaria, a place few Americans can locate accurately on a map, lies
literally just a stone's throw from the present
troubles in Yugoslavia. While not much mentioned in news reports about
Kosovo, Bulgaria is in fact the geographical
center of the Balkans, with millennia of history, including
archaeological sites from before 3500 B.C., Ottoman Turkish
architecture, and the remains of Eastern Europe's communist era, visible
virtually everywhere. Despite its proximity to
the recent war, Bulgaria has remained a relative island of peace, yet is
a key to understanding the region's continuing
conflicts. Slightly larger than Maine in area, Bulgaria covers the
ancient land of Thrace, north of Greece, west of Turkey,
and south of its Danube River border with Romania. About 40 miles east
of Serbia lies the capital, Sofia (pronounced
SOF-eeya), home to 1.3 million of Bulgaria's 8.23 million people. Sofia
is a mixture of old and new architecture, home to
5th century churches and the Soviet-style art and concrete apartment
blocks of communism.
Full Text:
Copyright Bangor Publishing Company Sep 4, 1999
Bulgaria, a place few Americans can locate accurately on a map, lies
literally just a stone's throw from the present troubles in Yugoslavia.
While not much mentioned in news reports about Kosovo, Bulgaria is in
fact the geographical center of the Balkans, with millennia of
history, including archaeological sites from before 3500 B.C., Ottoman
Turkish architecture, and the remains of Eastern Europe's
communist era, visible virtually everywhere. Despite its proximity to
the recent war, Bulgaria has remained a relative island of peace, yet is
a key to understanding the region's continuing conflicts. Slightly
larger than Maine in area, Bulgaria covers the ancient land of Thrace,
north of Greece, west of Turkey, and south of its Danube River border
with Romania. About 40 miles east of Serbia lies the capital, Sofia
(pronounced SOF-eeya), home to 1.3 million of Bulgaria's 8.23 million
people. Sofia is a mixture of old and new architecture, home to
5th century churches and the Soviet-style art and concrete apartment
blocks of communism.
My family and I often visited Sofia when we lived in Blagoevgrad, 75
miles south of the capital. My wife and I taught at the American
University in Bulgaria. One of our favorite parts of the capital
included the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, completed in 1912. Nevsky is
decorated with a mixture of medieval and modern icons and artwork, and
its gold dome, overlooking nearby tree-lined streets, commands
the skyline. Toward the city center, the Great Sephardic Synagogue
(completed in 1910) holds a museum of Bulgarian Jewish history,
including information on Bulgaria's successful protection of its Jewish
population from Nazi death camps. Short walks away are the Banya
Bashi mosque (1576) and the 5th century St. Sofia Church, near the Sofia
Sheraton. Bulgarians observe that the three great religions -
Judaism, Islam and Christianity - peacefully co-exist within sight of
each other. The whole range of Bulgarian history swirls throughout
Sofia. The National History Museum's spectacular collection of Thracian
gold artifacts embodies the city and region's antiquity. The mix of
old and new cultures is represented in the ornate, 19th century solidity
of St. Kliment Ohridski University and the sleek, upscale National
Palace of Culture, with its enormous courtyard and fountains.
We often strolled through the open-air market near Nevsky, where
cell-phone users weave among vendors hawking everything - in a
custom derived from twilight antiquity - from replicas of ancient icons
to jewelry, artwork and Russian-made watches, reminders of nearly
50 years behind the Iron Curtain. Occasionally one of the famous dancing
bears ambles in chains along a bustling street with its master.
We saw them one day as we made for the downtown McDonald's, which
debuted here in 1995 - old Bulgaria intersecting with the
modern. Outside Sofia, Bulgaria's Black Sea beaches attract visitors to
resorts in Varna and Bourgas, and inland cities like Plovdiv and
Veliko Turnovo contain the remains of bygone eras. Bulgaria's rugged
mountains are awe-inspiring. The east-west Balkan Mountains split
the country roughly in two. Southeasterly are the Rhodope Mountains, and
in the southwest lie the Rila and Pirin ranges. All offer
opportunities for hiking and mountaineering, activities much loved by
many natives, and Bulgaria promotes tourism at developing ski
resorts such as Bansko and Borovets, three to four hours southeast of
Sofia, at exceptionally inexpensive costs. Bulgaria was first
occupied by the Bulgars in the 8th century, as Orthodox Christianity was
spreading northward through the monastery system of Greece's
Mount Athos. Medieval monasteries dot Bulgaria's countryside, the most
impressive of which is Rila Monastery, a World Heritage Site
located in the Rila Mountains near Blagoevgrad. Rila's walls rise three
stories around the central courtyard of stone and elaborately
painted 19th century church. Tourists can sometimes arrange an overnight
stay at Rila; the sleeping chambers are monastically bare and
cold. Rila was founded in the 10th century and later rebuilt, and
although abandoned temporarily during the 15th century as Bulgaria fell
to
the Ottoman Turks, it was revived during the 16th century. The 500 years
of the "Ottoman Yoke," finally cast off in the 1880s, is the
dominant figure of Bulgarian and indeed Balkan history. The Turks
brought Islam to the mainly Eastern Orthodox Balkans, and the Slavic-
speaking peoples of the region - Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats - plus
Greeks, still mistrust Turkey and resent Muslim culture. This helps
account for the recent hostilities between Serbs and the Muslim ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo. And no Balkan nation escapes this tension:
Shortly before the 1989 fall of communism, Bulgaria's government
conducted a campaign against people of Turkish descent, confiscating
their land, requiring them to take Bulgarian names, and expelling
thousands from the country. The land and name laws later were
rescinded, but centuries-old resentments remain. This tension helped
ignite the war in Yugoslavia, which has affected Bulgaria critically.
Bombing destroyed many of Serbia's bridges and railroads, and so
Bulgaria's trade with the West, which it desperately needs, has been
seriously disrupted. Economic development had been regaining steam since
the 1996-97 banking crisis - which many attributed to the
corruption of a regime headed by former communists - that resulted in
the crash of Bulgaria's currency, the lev, and in shortages of food
and fuel. A political showdown in January 1997 brought Bulgaria to the
brink of civil war. Eventually politicians negotiated an uneasy
solution, and Bulgaria's economy was slowly improving until this year's
war in Yugoslavia. Anxious to become a NATO partner, Bulgaria
offered logistical support for ground troops to enter Kosovo, despite
average Bulgarians' recognition that their location at the center of the
Balkans means they would face major threats from a larger war. During
the bombing of Serbia, missiles strayed into Bulgaria; one blew
the roof off a house in Sofia's suburbs. Fortunately, no Bulgarians were
injured, but the strays symbolize the danger. In recognition of the
interconnections of the Balkan countries, a European Union commission
recently recommended Bulgaria be lent 100 million euros (just
under $100 million) to help economic recovery. Still, as war and
politics play out, Bulgaria maintains its everyday routines, including
the
production of rose oil and, especially, wine. Indeed, Bulgaria is worth
visiting just for its delicious red wines. There are dozens of folk
songs about red wine, goes a wry Bulgarian observation, but only one
about white wine - and its refrain says, "O white wine, white wine,
why aren't you red?"
On one trip to the southwestern town of Melnik, we discovered why. We
climbed the foothills of the awesome "sand pyramid" mountains
that enclose the town, and arrived at caves, obviously ancient, in the
hillside. A home-made sign outside one cave proclaimed "vino" in
Cyrillic letters. Inside, we found rock walls, dirt floor, tables of
huge, round slabs of wood, low stone stools, and barrels of wine on
their
sides. We sat and were served cheese, bread and slices of black sausage
resembling pepperoni. We drank glasses of merlot wine so rich
and smooth we began to understand where the mythic idea of nectar must
have originated - right here in Thrace. When we left, the vintner
cheerfully filled six bottles for us and slapped his homemade labels on
them. We carried them away for $1.25 each. Although occupying a
region burdened by age-old conflicts, Bulgaria remains proud and
protective of its rich past, and is central to appreciating the cultural
complexities of the Balkans.
[Illustration]
The dome of the Russian Orthodox cathedral (left Photo, at left) and the
Bulgarian Parliament building loom in the background in this view from
downtown Sofia, Bulgaria. Rila Monastery, first built in the 10th
century, sits high in Bulgaria's Rila Mountains. The "sand pyramids"
overlook the
wine-making town of Melnik in southwest Bulgaria. The minaret of an old
mosque rises over pedestrians walking past a modern snack bar in Sovia.
This three-piece monument to Bulgaria's working people was originally
located in Sofia and later moved to the courtyard near the American
University in Bulgaria in Blagovgrad. Travelers can sometimes arrange an
overnight stay at Rila Monastery, a World Heritage Site in western
Bulgaria. (Photos by Larry Gordon and Bonnie Woellner)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
kou...@my-deja.com
Nikoll A Mirakaj
have common enemies , and we have common solutions. There are two languages
spoken in Macedonia (Fyrom) : Albanian , and Bulgarian. What is the point of
a Macedonia, when the Albanians of FYROM can join Albania and the
Bulgarians of FYROM can join Bulgaria. It would be a just solution. Serbia
has done a lot to change the Bulgarian dialect in FYROM so as to distance
this people from their origin . Albanians know their origin and there is no
problem there.
<kou...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r3ujt$50d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
George S. Tsapanos
the ones to the South of the river.
Of course you know which river I am talking about, right ?
And then lets do the same with FYROM and then with the Orvhlian
Bulgaria.
What do you say ?
Regards to all ............L.
""Vlachs...the Autochthonous
Of the Hellenian Peninsula"".
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r4lv1$bta$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
join Greece. Macedonian slavs on the other hand, are of Bulgarian origin and
have been known as such until very recent times. The linguistic differences
are dialectical, as Bulgaria has chosen as its official language its most
eastern dialect while the Fyromian is the Most western Bulgarian dialect.
This is why Bulgaria, although among the first to recognize its
independence, would not accept to recognize its language as separate from
Bulgarian. IMRO was a Bulgarian movement which was betrayed by Greeks in
its fight for independence from Turkey, while the brave Albanians of Shkup
also staged general insurrections aganinst the Ottomans. The Fyromians of
slavic stock would eventually fair better by joining Bulgaria, and be free
once and for all from Greek and Serb skeeming on their future. Albanians of
Macedonia on the other hand would obviously benefit from the arrangement, by
joining Albania. That should make everyone there happy in the end and
justice would be done.
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OBQFT7a##GA.51@cpmsnbbsa03...
George S. Tsapanos
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r4pre$iom$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>South of the river you have the Tosk Albanian Majority who have no
reason to
>join Greece. >
South of the river there are traditionally Ancient Hellenic populations
that not only look but also are of Hellenian stock.
They were feeling like that during the forties they still are. Why not
go for a referendum?
If they like so much Greece for what it has to offer them, you might be
surprise what their vote will be.
>Macedonian slavs on the other hand, are of Bulgarian origin and
>have been known as such until very recent times. >
Now...now........who those Makedonian Slavs might be ?
The ones that wish to be FYROMIANS, the ones that wish to have FYROM or
at least part of it annexed by Bulgaria, the ones that wish that
independence never happened, or the ones that would like to see FYROM or
part of it annexed by Greece ?
>The linguistic differences
>are dialectical, as Bulgaria has chosen as its official language its
most
>eastern dialect while the Fyromian is the Most western Bulgarian
dialect.
And the Serbs of the North as more pure Slavs can tell you that the
Bulgarian language is more related to theirs rather than to the one
called Bulgarian, that actually has very little to do with the REAL
Bulgars .
>This is why Bulgaria, although among the first to recognize its
>independence, would not accept to recognize its language as separate
from
>Bulgarian. >
But they already did it .....:))
> IMRO was a Bulgarian movement which was betrayed by Greeks in
>its fight for independence from Turkey,>
Betrayed is the wrong word for it.
The people of the land that felt that were of Hellenic stock, fought
against the IMRO because they felt that its ultimate ends were the
annexation of Makedonia by Bulgaria, while they wanted it to be annexed
by Greece, even if Greece was afraid to do anything for the first 53
years of that Makedonian struggle, during which the Vlachs and the
Grekomans carried the load of the fight.
> while the brave Albanians of Shkup
>also staged general insurrections aganinst the Ottomans.>
Those days there were not brave Albanians, matter of fact there were not
any Albanians before 1923 at all.
The left-overs of Ali-Pasha's bands were running around like dizzy
yellow-jackets trying to see who to rob next.
There has never been any organized attempt to annex any piece of
Makedonian land by the Turk-Albanians, while after Krussovo and the
Balkan wars many Greeks left Monastiri not to go to Greece but to
Korytsa because they had many realtives in there since Moschopolis times
and because they were considering the land as Hellenian.
They simply wanted to go back home!
> The Fyromians of
>slavic stock would eventually fair better by joining Bulgaria, and be
free
>once and for all from Greek and Serb skeeming on their future.
The FYROMIANS of Slav stock will do much better if they join the Serbs,
and the FYROMIANS of Bulgarian stock or at least of what has been
builded up as Bulgarian Coscience, will do even better if they ask to
join Bulgaria.
They are different kind of people.
>Albanians of
>Macedonia on the other hand would obviously benefit from the
arrangement, by
>joining Albania.>
Those Albanians of Makedonia have very little to do with the ones living
in Albania.
Matter of fact Albania herself doesn't want them at all.
They are the poorest among the poor of the land, that found themselves
called by that name just because they became Muslims, and because they
ended up speaking the language of the Arvanites imported in Albania by
the early Thracian populations that moved to the west willingly or by
force.
> That should make everyone there happy in the end and
>justice would be done.>
What will make everybody happy is the Sefl-Determination for which I
keep talking.
The people of the land know better than anyone else what they were and
what they want to be.
They might be some splitting situations that can be accomodated by free
exhanges of populations, but the Masters decided otherwise.
And so..........the problems will keep persisting.
Regards to all ............L.
""Vlachs....the Autochthonous
Descendant of Philip II makedon
EUROBANK #10/5659936210120
KAI STHN ETHNIKH TRAPEZA#100/47124986
http://community.webtv.net/Philip_Makedon/PHILIPOSKAI
Nikoll A Mirakaj
>
> Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r4pre$iom$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
> >South of the river you have the Tosk Albanian Majority who have no
> reason to
> >join Greece. >
>
> South of the river there are traditionally Ancient Hellenic populations
> that not only look but also are of Hellenian stock.
> They were feeling like that during the forties they still are. Why not
> go for a referendum?
> If they like so much Greece for what it has to offer them, you might be
> surprise what their vote will be.
> >have been known as such until very recent times. >
>
> Now...now........who those Makedonian Slavs might be ?
> The ones that wish to be FYROMIANS, the ones that wish to have FYROM or
> at least part of it annexed by Bulgaria, the ones that wish that
> independence never happened, or the ones that would like to see FYROM or
> part of it annexed by Greece ?
> >The linguistic differences
> >are dialectical, as Bulgaria has chosen as its official language its
> most
> >eastern dialect while the Fyromian is the Most western Bulgarian
> dialect.
>
> And the Serbs of the North as more pure Slavs can tell you that the
> Bulgarian language is more related to theirs rather than to the one
> called Bulgarian, that actually has very little to do with the REAL
> Bulgars .
>
>
> >This is why Bulgaria, although among the first to recognize its
> >independence, would not accept to recognize its language as separate
> from
> >Bulgarian. >
>
> But they already did it .....:))
Only after great resistance and the likely international pressure, but thingas are not always what they seem to be ....
> > IMRO was a Bulgarian movement which was betrayed by Greeks in
> >its fight for independence from Turkey,>
>
> Betrayed is the wrong word for it.
> The people of the land that felt that were of Hellenic stock, fought
> against the IMRO because they felt that its ultimate ends were the
> annexation of Makedonia by Bulgaria, while they wanted it to be annexed
> by Greece, even if Greece was afraid to do anything for the first 53
> years of that Makedonian struggle, during which the Vlachs and the
> Grekomans carried the load of the fight.
>
> >also staged general insurrections aganinst the Ottomans.>
>
> Those days there were not brave Albanians, matter of fact there were not
> any Albanians before 1923 at all.
> The left-overs of Ali-Pasha's bands were running around like dizzy
> yellow-jackets trying to see who to rob next.
> There has never been any organized attempt to annex any piece of
> Makedonian land by the Turk-Albanians, while after Krussovo and the
> Balkan wars many Greeks left Monastiri not to go to Greece but to
> Korytsa because they had many realtives in there since Moschopolis times
> and because they were considering the land as Hellenian.
> They simply wanted to go back home!
> > The Fyromians of
> >slavic stock would eventually fair better by joining Bulgaria, and be
> free
> >once and for all from Greek and Serb skeeming on their future.
>
> The FYROMIANS of Slav stock will do much better if they join the Serbs,
> and the FYROMIANS of Bulgarian stock or at least of what has been
> builded up as Bulgarian Coscience, will do even better if they ask to
> join Bulgaria.
> They are different kind of people.
> >Albanians of
> >Macedonia on the other hand would obviously benefit from the
> arrangement, by
> >joining Albania.>
>
> Those Albanians of Makedonia have very little to do with the ones living
> in Albania.
> Matter of fact Albania herself doesn't want them at all.
> They are the poorest among the poor of the land, that found themselves
> called by that name just because they became Muslims, and because they
> ended up speaking the language of the Arvanites imported in Albania by
> the early Thracian populations that moved to the west willingly or by
> force.
>
>
> > That should make everyone there happy in the end and
> >justice would be done.>
>
> What will make everybody happy is the Sefl-Determination for which I
> keep talking.
> The people of the land know better than anyone else what they were and
> what they want to be.
> They might be some splitting situations that can be accomodated by free
> exhanges of populations, but the Masters decided otherwise.
> And so..........the problems will keep persisting.
>
> Regards to all ............L.
>
Nikoll A Mirakaj
The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture (see Hallstatt ), were divided into tribes, each a self-governing community with a council of elders and a chosen leader. A strong tribal chieftain, however, could unite several tribes into a kingdom. The last and best-known Illyrian kingdom had its capital at Scodra (modern Shkodër, Albania). One of its most important rulers was King Agron (second half of the 3rd century BC), who, in alliance with Demetrius II of Macedonia, defeated the Aetolians (231). Agron, however, died suddenly, and during the minority of his son, his widow, Teuta, acted as regent. Queen Teuta attacked Sicily and the Greek colonies of the coast with part of the Illyrian navy. Simultaneously, she antagonized Rome, which finally sent a large fleet to the eastern shores of the Adriatic. Although Teuta submitted in 228, the Illyrian kingdom of the interior was not destroyed, and a second naval expedition was sent against Illyria in 219. Philip V of Macedonia aided his Illyrian neighbours and thus started a protracted war that ended with the conquest of the whole Balkan Peninsula by the Romans. The last Illyrian king, Genthius, surrendered in 168 BC. (see also Index: Roman Republic and Empire)
The Roman province of Illyricum stretched from the Drilon River (the Drin, in modern Albania) in the south to Istria (modern Slovenia and Croatia) in the north and to the Savus (Sava) River in the east; its administrative centre was Salonae (near present-day Split) in Dalmatia. With the extension of the Roman Empire along the Danube River valley, Illyricum was divided between the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia (qq.v.).
Under the empire Illyria enjoyed a high degree of prosperity. It was traversed by a Roman road, and Illyria's ports served as important trade and transit links between Rome and what is now eastern Europe. Copper, asphalt, and silver were mined in parts of the region, and Illyrian wine, oil, cheese, and fish were exported to Italy.
Since the semiautonomous clansmen of the Illyrian highlands were hardy warriors, it was inevitable that the emperors should recruit them to serve with the Roman legions and even the Praetorian Guard. When in the 3rd century BC the empire began to be threatened by the barbarian peoples of what are now eastern and central Europe, Illyricum became a principal military bulwark of Rome and its culture in the ancient world. Several of the most outstanding emperors of the late Roman Empire were of Illyrian origin, including Claudius II Gothicus, Aurelian, Diocletian, and Constantine the Great, most of whom were chosen by their own troops on the battlefield and later acclaimed by the Senate.
In AD 395 the empire was finally divided, and Illyria east of the Drinus River (the Drina, in modern Yugoslavia) became part of the Eastern Empire. Between the 3rd and the 5th century it was devastated by the Visigoths and the Huns, who, however, left no lasting mark on Illyria. But the Slavs, who started their incursions into the Balkan Peninsula in the 6th century, had by the end of the 7th century transformed the ethnic structure of all the Illyrian-speaking territories. Croatia, Serbia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and parts of Macedonia lost their Illyrian language and were thoroughly Slavonized, so that only the Albanians remain as direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. For the later history of the region, "
"Roughly parallel with the rise of Greek colonies, Illyrian tribes began to evolve politically from relatively small and simple entities into larger and more complex ones. At first they formed temporary alliances with one another for defensive or offensive purposes, then federations and, still later, kingdoms. The most important of these kingdoms, which flourished from the 5th to the 2nd century BC, were those of the Enkalayes, the Taulantes, the Epirotes, and the Ardianes.
After warring for the better part of the 4th century BC against the expansionist Macedonian state of Philip II and Alexander the Great, the Illyrians faced a greater threat from the growing power of the Romans. Seeing Illyrian territory as a bridgehead for conquests east of the Adriatic, Rome in 229 BC attacked and defeated the Illyrians, led by Queen Teuta, and by 168 BC established effective control over Illyria. (see also Index: Roman Republic and Empire)
The Roman Empire.
The Romans ruled Illyria--which now became the province of Illyricum--for about six centuries. Under Roman rule Illyrian society underwent great change, especially in its outward, material aspect. Art and culture flourished, particularly in Apollonia, whose school of philosophy became celebrated in antiquity. To a great extent, though, the Illyrians resisted assimilation into Roman culture. Illyrian culture survived, along with the Illyrian tongue, though many Latin words entered the language and later became a part of the Albanian language. "
The Byzantine Empire.
"From Illyria to Albania."
"When the Roman Empire divided into east and west in 395, the territories of modern Albania became part of the Byzantine Empire. As in the Roman Empire, some Illyrians rose to positions of eminence in the new empire. Three of the emperors who shaped the early history of Byzantium (reigning from 491 to 565) were of Illyrian origin: Anastasius I, Justin I, and--the most celebrated of Byzantine emperors--Justinian I.
In the first decades under Byzantine rule (until 461), Illyria suffered the devastation of raids by Visigoths, Huns, and Ostrogoths. Not long after these barbarian invaders swept through the Balkans, the Slavs appeared. Between the 6th and 8th centuries they settled in Illyrian territories and proceeded to assimilate Illyrian tribes in much of what is now Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. The tribes of southern Illyria, however--including modern Albania--averted assimilation and preserved their native tongue.
In the course of several centuries, under the impact of Roman, Byzantine, and Slavic cultures, the tribes of southern Illyria underwent a transformation, and a transition occurred from the old Illyrian population to a new Albanian one. As a consequence, from the 8th to the 11th century, the name Illyria gradually gave way to the name, first mentioned in the 2nd century AD by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria, of the Albanoi tribe, which inhabited what is now central Albania. From a single tribe the name spread to include the rest of the country as Arbëri and, finally, Albania. The genesis of Albanian nationality apparently occurred at this time as the Albanian people became aware that they shared a common territory, name, language, and cultural heritage. (Scholars have not been able to determine the origin of Shqipëria, the Albanians' own name for their land, which is believed to have supplanted the name Albania during the 16th and 17th centuries. It probably was derived from shqipe, or "eagle," which, modified into shqipëria, became "the land of the eagle.")
Long before that event, Christianity had become the established religion in Albania, supplanting pagan polytheism and eclipsing for the most part the humanistic world outlook and institutions inherited from the Greek and Roman civilizations. But, though the country was in the fold of Byzantium, Albanian Christians remained under the jurisdiction of the Roman pope until 732. In that year the iconoclast Byzantine emperor Leo III, angered by Albanian archbishops because they had supported Rome in the Iconoclastic Controversy, detached the Albanian church from the Roman pope and placed it under the patriarch of Constantinople. When the Christian church split in 1054 between the East and Rome, southern Albania retained its tie to Constantinople while northern Albania reverted to the jurisdiction of Rome. This split in the Albanian church marked the first significant religious fragmentation of the country. "
"Medieval culture."
"In the latter part of the Middle Ages, Albanian urban society reached a high point of development. Foreign commerce flourished to such an extent that leading Albanian merchants had their own agencies in Venice, Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik, Croatia), and Thessalonica (now Thessaloníki, Greece). The prosperity of the cities also stimulated the development of education and the arts.
Albanian, however, was not the language used in schools, churches, and official government transactions. Instead, Greek and Latin, which had the powerful support of the state and the church, were the official languages of culture and literature.
The new administrative system of the themes, or military provinces created by the Byzantine Empire, contributed to the eventual rise of feudalism in Albania, as peasant soldiers who served military lords became serfs on their landed estates. Among the leading families of the Albanian feudal nobility were the Thopias, Balshas, Shpatas, Muzakas, Aranitis, Dukagjinis, and Kastriotis. The first three of these rose to become rulers of principalities that were practically independent of Byzantium."
"The decline of Byzantium."
"Owing partly to the weakness of the Byzantine Empire, Albania, beginning in the 9th century, came under the domination, in whole or in part, of a succession of foreign powers: Bulgarians, Norman crusaders, the Angevins of southern Italy, Serbs, and Venetians. The final occupation of the country in 1347 by the Serbs, led by Stefan Dusan, caused massive migrations of Albanians abroad, especially to Greece and the Aegean islands. By the mid-14th century, Byzantine rule had come to an end in Albania, after nearly 1,000 years.
A few decades later the country was confronted with a new threat, that of the Turks, who at this juncture were expanding their power in the Balkans. The Ottoman Turks invaded Albania in 1388 and completed the occupation of the country about four decades later (1430). But after 1443 an Albanian of military genius--Gjergj Kastrioti (1405-68), known as Skanderbeg--rallied the Albanian princes and succeeded in driving the occupiers out. For the next 25 years, operating out of his stronghold in the mountain town of Krujë, Skanderbeg frustrated every attempt by the Turks to regain Albania, which they envisioned as a springboard for the invasion of Italy and western Europe. His unequal fight against the mightiest power of the time won the esteem of Europe as well as some support in the form of money and military aid from Naples, the papacy, Venice, and Ragusa. After he died, Albanian resistance gradually collapsed, enabling the Turks to reoccupy the country by 1506.
Skanderbeg's long struggle to keep Albania free became highly significant to the Albanian people, as it strengthened their solidarity, made them more conscious of their national identity, and served later as a great source of inspiration in their struggle for national unity, freedom, and independence. "
" The Ottoman Empire "
The nature of Turkish rule.
"The Turks established their dominion over Albania just as the Renaissance began to unfold in Europe, so that, cut off from contact and exchanges with western Europe, Albania had no chance to participate in, or benefit from, the humanistic achievements of that era. Conquest also caused great suffering and vast destruction of the country's economy, commerce, art, and culture. Moreover, to escape persecution by their conquerors, about one-fourth of the country's population fled abroad to southern Italy, Sicily, and the Dalmatian coast.
Although the Turks ruled Albania for more than four centuries, they were unable to extend their authority throughout the country. In the highland regions Turkish authorities exercised only a formal sovereignty, as the highlanders refused to pay taxes, serve in the army, or surrender their arms--although they did pay an annual tribute to Constantinople.
Albanians rose in rebellion time and again against Ottoman occupation. In order to check the ravages of Albanian resistance--which was partly motivated by religious feelings, namely, defense of the Christian faith--as well as to bring Albania spiritually closer to Turkey, the Ottomans initiated a systematic drive toward the end of the 16th century to Islamize the population. This drive continued through the following century, by the end of which two-thirds of the people had converted to Islam. A major reason Albanians became Muslims was to escape Turkish violence and exploitation, an instance of which was a crushing tax that Christians would have to pay if they refused to convert.
Islamization aggravated the religious fragmentation of Albanian society, which had first appeared in the Middle Ages and which was later used by Constantinople and Albania's neighbours in attempts to divide and denationalize the Albanian people. Hence leaders of the Albanian national movement in the 19th century used the rallying cry "The religion of Albanians is Albanianism" in order to overcome religious divisions and foster national unity.
The basis of Ottoman rule in Albania was a feudalmilitary system of landed estates, called timars, which were awarded to military lords for loyalty and service to the empire. As Ottoman power began to decline in the 18th century, the central authority of the empire in Albania gave way to the local authority of autonomy-minded lords. The most successful of these lords were three generations of pashas of the Bushati family, who dominated most of northern Albania from 1757 to 1831, and Ali Pasa Tepelenë; of Janina (now Ioánnina, Greece), a colourful Oriental-type despot who ruled over southern Albania and northern Greece from 1788 to 1822. These pashas created separate states within the Ottoman state until they were overthrown by the sultan.
After the fall of the pashas, in 1831 Turkey officially abolished the timar system. In the wake of its collapse, economic and social power passed from the feudal lords to private landowning beys and, in the northern highlands, to tribal chieftains called bajraktars, who presided over given territories with rigid patriarchal societies that were often torn by blood feuds. Peasants who were formerly serfs now worked on the estates of the beys as tenant farmers.
Ottoman rule in Albania remained backward and oppressive to the end. In these circumstances, many Albanians went abroad in search of careers and advancement within the empire, and an unusually large number of them, in proportion to Albania's population, rose to positions of prominence as government and military leaders. More than two dozen grand viziers (similar to prime ministers) of Turkey were of Albanian origin. "
"Albanian nationalism".
"By the mid-19th century Turkey was in the throes of the "Eastern Question," as the peoples of the Balkans, including Albanians, sought to realize their national aspirations. To defend and promote their national interests, Albanians met in Prizren, a town in Kosovo, in 1878 and founded the Albanian League. The league had two main goals, one political and the other cultural. First, it strove (unsuccessfully) to unify all Albanian territories--at the time divided among the four vilayets, or provinces, of Kosovo, Shkodër, Monastir, and Janina--into one autonomous state within the framework of the Ottoman Empire. Second, it spearheaded a movement to develop Albanian language, literature, education, and culture. In line with the second program, in 1908 Albanian leaders met in the town of Monastir (now Bitola, Macedonia) and adopted a national alphabet. Based mostly on the Latin script, this supplanted several other alphabets, including Arabic and Greek, that were in use until then. (see also Index: Latin alphabet)
The Albanian League was suppressed by the Turks in 1881, in part because they were alarmed by its strong nationalistic orientation. By then, however, the league had become a powerful symbol of Albania's national awakening, and its ideas and objectives fueled the drive that culminated later in national independence.
When the Young Turks, who seized power in Istanbul in 1908, ignored their commitments to Albanians to institute democratic reforms and to grant autonomy, Albanians embarked on an armed struggle, which, at the end of three years (1910-12), forced the Turks to agree, in effect, to grant their demands. Alarmed at the prospect of Albanian autonomy, Albania's Balkan neighbours, who had already made plans to partition the region, declared war on Turkey in October 1912, and Greek, Serbian, and Montenegrin armies advanced into Albanian territories.
To prevent the annihilation of the country, Albanian national delegates met at a congress in Vlorë. They were led by Ismail Qemal, an Albanian who had held several high positions in the Ottoman government. On Nov. 28, 1912, the congress issued the Vlorë proclamation, which declared Albania's independence. "
"Independent Albania."
Creating the new state.
"Shortly after the defeat of Turkey by the Balkan allies, a conference of ambassadors of the Great Powers (Britain, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Italy) convened in London in December 1912 to settle the outstanding issues raised by the conflict. With support given to the Albanians by Austria-Hungary and Italy, the conference agreed to create an independent state of Albania. But, in drawing the borders of the new state, owing to strong pressure from Albania's neighbours, the Great Powers largely ignored demographic realities and ceded the vast region of Kosovo to Serbia, while, in the south, Greece was given the greater part of Çamëria, a part of the old region of Epirus centred on the Thíamis River. Many observers doubted whether the new state would be viable with about one-half of Albanian lands and population left outside its borders, especially since these lands were the most productive in food grains and livestock. On the other hand, a small community of about 35,000 ethnic Greeks was included within Albania's borders. "
"Thereafter, Kosovo and the Greek minority remained troublesome issues in Albanian-Greek and Albanian-Yugoslav relations.
The Great Powers also appointed a German prince, Wilhelm zu Wied, as ruler of Albania. Wilhelm arrived in Albania in March 1914, but his unfamiliarity with Albania and its problems, compounded by complications arising from the outbreak of World War I, led him to depart from Albania six months later. The war plunged the country into a new crisis, as the armies of Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia invaded and occupied it. Left without any political leadership or authority, the country was in chaos, and its very fate hung in the balance. At the Paris Peace Conference after the war, the extinction of Albania was averted largely through the efforts of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who vetoed a plan by Britain, France, and Italy to partition Albania among its neighbours.
A national congress, held in Lushnje in January 1920, laid the foundations of a new government. In December of that year Albania, this time with the help of Britain, gained admission to the League of Nations, thereby winning for the first time international recognition as a sovereign nation and state. "
"Bishop Noli and King Zog."
"At the start of the 1920s, Albanian society was divided by two apparently irreconcilable forces. One, made up mainly of deeply conservative landowning beys and tribal bajraktars who were tied to the Ottoman and feudal past, was led by Ahmed Bey Zogu, a chieftain from the Mat region of north-central Albania. The other, made up of liberal intellectuals, democratic politicians, and progressive merchants who looked to the West and wanted to modernize and Westernize Albania, was led by Fan S. Noli, an American-educated bishop of the Orthodox church. In the event, this East-West polarization of Albanian society was of such magnitude and complexity that neither leader could master and overcome it.
In the unusually open and free political, social, and cultural climate that prevailed in Albania between 1920 and 1924, the liberal forces gathered strength, and, by mid-1924, a popular revolt forced Zogu to flee to Yugoslavia. Installed as prime minister of the new government in June 1924, Noli set out to build a Western-style democracy in Albania, and toward that end he announced a radical program of land reform and modernization. But his vacillation in carrying out the program, coupled with a depleted state treasury and a failure to obtain international recognition for his revolutionary, left-of-centre government, quickly alienated most of Noli's supporters, and six months later he was overthrown by an armed assault led by Zogu and aided by Yugoslavia.
Zogu began his 14-year reign in Albania--first as president (1925-28), then as King Zog I (1928-39)--in a country rife with political and social instability. Greatly in need of foreign aid and credit in order to stabilize the country, Zog signed a number of accords with Italy. These provided transitory financial relief to Albania, but they effected no basic change in its economy, especially under the conditions of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Italy, on the other hand, viewed Albania primarily as a bridgehead for military expansion into the Balkans. On April 7, 1939, Italy invaded and shortly after occupied the country. King Zog fled to Greece.
The social base of Zog's power was a coalition of southern beys and northern bajraktars. With the support of this coalition--plus a vast Oriental bureaucracy, an efficient police force, and Italian money--King Zog brought a large measure of stability to Albania. He extended the authority of the government to the highlands, reduced the brigandage that had formerly plagued the country, laid the foundations of a modern educational system, and took a few steps to Westernize Albanian social life. On balance, however, his achievements were outweighed by his failures. Although formally a constitutional monarch, in reality Zog was a dictator, and Albania under him experienced the fragile stability of a dictatorship. Zog failed to resolve Albania's fundamental problem, that of land reform, leaving the peasantry as impoverished as before. In order to stave off famine, the government had to import food grains annually, but, even so, thousands of people migrated abroad in search of a better life. Moreover, Zog denied democratic freedoms to Albanians and created conditions that spawned periodic revolts against his regime, alienated most of the educated class, fomented labour unrest, and led to the formation of the first communist groups in the country. "
"World War II."
"Using Albania as a military base, in October 1940, Italian forces invaded Greece, but they were quickly thrown back into Albania. After Nazi Germany defeated Greece and Yugoslavia in 1941, the regions of Kosovo and Çamëria were joined to Albania, thus creating an ethnically united Albanian state. The new state lasted until November 1944, when the Germans--who had replaced the Italian occupation forces following Italy's surrender in 1943--withdrew from Albania. Kosovo was then reincorporated into the Serbian part of Yugoslavia, and Çamëria into Greece.
Meanwhile, the various communist groups that had germinated in Zog's Albania merged in November 1941 to form the Albanian Communist Party and began to fight the occupiers as a unified resistance force. After a successful struggle against the fascists and two other resistance groups--the National Front (Balli Kombëtar) and the pro-Zog Legality Party (Legaliteti)--which contended for power with them, the communists seized control of the country on Nov. 29, 1944. Enver Hoxha, a college instructor who had led the resistance struggle of communist forces, became the leader of Albania by virtue of his post as secretary-general of the party. Albania, which before the war had been under the personal dictatorship of King Zog, now fell under the collective dictatorship of the Albanian Communist Party. The country became officially the People's Republic of Albania in 1946 and, in 1976, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. "
"Socialist Albania"
The Stalinist state.
"The new rulers inherited an Albania plagued by a host of ills: pervasive poverty, overwhelming illiteracy, blood feuds, epidemics of disease, and gross subjugation of women. In order to eradicate these ills, the communists drafted a radical modernization program intended to bring social and economic liberation to Albania, thus completing the political liberation won in 1912. The government's first major act to "build socialism" was swift, uncompromising agrarian reform, which broke up the large landed estates of the southern beys and distributed the parcels to landless and other peasants. This destroyed the powerful class of the beys. The government also moved to nationalize industry, banks, and all commercial and foreign properties. Shortly after the agrarian reform, the Albanian government started to collectivize agriculture, completing the job in 1967. As a result, peasants lost title to their land. In addition, the Hoxha leadership extended the new socialist order to the more rugged and isolated northern highlands, bringing down the age-old institution of the blood feud and the patriarchal structure of the family and clans, thus destroying the semifeudal class of bajraktars. The traditional role of women--namely, confinement to the home and farm--changed radically as they gained legal equality with men and became active participants in all areas of society. (see also Index: collectivization)
In order to obtain the economic aid needed for modernization, as well as the political and military support to enhance its security, Albania turned to the communist world: Yugoslavia (1944-48), the Soviet Union (1948-61), and China (1961-78). Economically, Albania benefited greatly from these alliances: with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and credits, and with the assistance of a large number of technicians and specialists sent by its allies, Albania was able to build the foundations of a modern industry and to introduce mechanization into agriculture. As a result, for the first time in modern history, the Albanian populace began to emerge from age-old backwardness and, for a while, enjoyed a higher standard of living. Politically, Hoxha was disillusioned with his communist allies and patrons and broke with each one, charging that they had abandoned Marxism-Leninism and the cause of the proletariat for the sake of rapprochement with the capitalist West. Alienated from both East and West, Albania adopted a "go-it-alone" policy and became notorious as an isolated bastion of Stalinism. (see also Index: industrialization)
Hoxha's program for modernization aimed at transforming Albania from a backward agrarian country into a modern industrial society, and, indeed, within four decades Albania had made respectable--in some cases historic--strides in the development of industry, agriculture, education, the arts, and culture. A notable achievement was the drainage of coastal swamplands--until then breeding grounds for malarial mosquitoes--and the reclamation of land for agricultural and industrial uses. Also symbolic of the change was a historic language reform that fused elements of the Geg and Tosk dialects into a unified literary language.
Political oppression, however, offset gains made on the material and cultural planes. Contrary to provisions in the constitution, during Hoxha's reign Albania was ruled, in effect, by the Directorate of State Security, known as the Sigurimi. To eliminate dissent, the government resorted periodically to purges, in which opponents were subjected to public criticism, dismissed from their jobs, imprisoned in forced-labour camps, or executed. Travel abroad was forbidden to all but those on official business. In 1967 the religious establishment, which party leaders and other atheistic Albanians viewed as a backward medieval institution that hampered national unity and progress, was officially banned, and all Christian and Muslim houses of worship were closed. "
"Collapse of communism."
"After Hoxha's death in 1985, his handpicked successor, Ramiz Alia, sought to preserve the communist system while introducing gradual reforms in order to revive the economy, which had been declining steadily since the cessation of aid from former communist allies. To this end he legalized some investment in Albania by foreign firms and expanded diplomatic relations with the West. But, with the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989, various segments of Albanian society became politically active and began to agitate against the government. The most alienated groups were the intellectuals and the working class--traditionally the vanguards of a communist movement or organization--as well as Albania's youth, which had been frustrated by years of confinement and restrictions. In response to these pressures, Alia granted Albanian citizens the right to travel abroad, curtailed the powers of the Sigurimi, restored religious freedom, and adopted some free-market measures for the economy. In December 1990 Alia endorsed the creation of independent political parties, thus signaling an end to the communists' official monopoly of power.
With each concession to the opposition, the state's absolute control over Albanian society weakened. Continuing economic, social, and political instability led to the fall of several governments, and in March 1992 a decisive electoral victory was won by the anticommunist opposition led by the Democratic Party. Alia resigned as president and was succeeded by Sali Berisha, the first democratic leader of Albania since Bishop Noli.
Albania's progress toward democratic reform enabled it to gain membership in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, formally bringing to an end its notorious isolation. Efforts to establish a free-market economy caused severe dislocations, but they also opened the road for Albania to obtain vast amounts of aid from developed countries. Albania was thus well on its way toward integrating its politics and institutions with the West, which Albanians have historically viewed as their cultural and geographic home. "
Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica Encarta Concise Encyclopedia
EXCERPT
History
ALBANIA
"The Albanians established independent states
during the 5th
and the 3rd centuries BC. Rome
conquered the region in 168 BC and ruled
it
for more than five centuries. Beginning in the
4th century AD and
continuing over the next
thousand years, various factions invaded
Albania.
In the 14th century the Ottomans
conquered the Albanians, and the majority
of
the population, which was previously
Christian, converted to Islam.
"
Encarta Concise Encyclopedia
History: Ancient History
Illyria
Info on Illyrian origins of Albanians form " The Encyclopedia of
Military History, New York, 1970, 95"
Excerpt:
"
The name Albania is derived from the name of anIllyrian tribe called the Arber, or Arbereshë, and later Albanoi, that lived near Durrës. The Illyrians
were Indo-European tribesmen who appeared in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula about
1000 B.C., a period coinciding with the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. They
inhabited much of the area for at least the next millennium. Archaeologists associate the Illyrians with
the Hallstatt culture, an Iron Age people noted for production of iron and bronze swords with
winged-shaped handles and for domestication of horses. The Illyrians occupied lands extending from
the Danube, Sava, and Morava rivers to the Adriatic Sea and the Sar Mountains. At various times,
groups of Illyrians migrated over land and sea into Italy."
George S. Tsapanos
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:uMxUaMh##GA.248@cpmsnbbsa05...
snip mine.
Hellenic minority in south Albania could never be a majority since Albaniansmake up 98% of the population in Albania and south of the river lives more than half of this population.
Then you don't have any objectionn going for a referendum do you ?
All you are saying is how confused those poor people are today, except for the Albanians who know who they are, of course.Greek presence in FYROMacedonia is negligible and your mention laughable. Much more notable however is the Slav-Macedonian and the Albanian presence in Greece . There indeed we should hold a referendum.
But the poor people I was talking about are exactly those Albanians!Regarding the laughble Greek presence again in FYROM it appears to me that you shouldn't have any objection to a referendum right ?The Slav-Makedonians in Greece are 4951 strong, regarding the Albanian one is 350,000 Albanian workers with green card ready to vote for annexation of South Albania to Greece so their families will join them
Only after great resistance and the likely international pressure, but thingas are not always what they seem to be ....Should Macedonia ever loose the support of the USA, it would revert to the Albanian and Bulgarian territories which it is.
If things are not always what seem to be , lets go for the self-determination.Makedonia doesn't exist to become anything, if you refer to FYROM, you and the Bulgarians can keep what you think is yours, Pelagonia goes back where it belongs.Who wants those Albanians from Tetovo ? Even the Albanians from Tirana don't!
Betrayed is the only word when you seee pictures of the Greek Orthodox priest and the Turkish soldiers displaying the head of an IMRO hero.
Obviously the IMRO heros weren't made for that country.You can not have in revolt people that they don't like you. Kind of Albanians and Italians..............
Dear George Albanians, the only direct descendant of the Illyrians, have been there longer than Greeks or Slavs, and you can read about their revolts in Shkup, by reading some of the history and traveller logs of the times.
Really ? How come you didn't call yourselves Ilyrians then ?Albanians are nothing more nothing less than the Thracians moving to the West first with the other Barbarian tribes and later on their own.The few Illyrians left became part of the Monte-Negro or moved in the early times to the South.No wonder your language contains almpost no Illyrian words at all.Regarding History, I occassionaly read some, but my understanding is that the Hellenes were in there first.
Wishfull thinking. What you are preaching is the old order, influenced by the Greco-Serbian alliance.
It is over George. The truth has emerged. No more greco serbian border to squeeze all others out. Albanians of Macedonia are undeniably so and they have been shot by the macedonian police protecting the Albanian flag, and the Albanian university of Tetova. When we Albanians get toghether , say at a caffee, we are there from all the ethnic Albanian populated lands without distinction. We listen to one song, the song of unity. And let us be frank. Anyone that knows the Balkans know why you like macedonia under the Serbs, since they were your accomplices in stealing those lands.
Are you nuts ?Who wants them ? We lost Monastiri to them just trying to be nice, and we lost the Prespian villages exchanging presents among the Kings!No-one wants a Serbo-Greek alliance and we are tired of nursing them.Albanians of FYROM must say first what they want, voices of organized KLA sympathizers has nothing to do with what they want.Obviously when you say that I lioke the Serbs you must be ignorant of History regarding the Makedonian lands.............
>Self determination is all the Albanians have been asking for !Illirida would join Albania in an instat.
SURE, I'll go for that !Regards to all ..............L.
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6ivj$k9m$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r6np7$l4k$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:OXR8#fk##GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03...Dear Nikol
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6ist$jp9$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:uMxUaMh##GA.248@cpmsnbbsa05...snip mine.
Hellenic minority in south Albania could never be a majority since Albaniansmake up 98% of the population in Albania and south of the river lives more than half of this population.Then you don't have any objectionn going for a referendum do you ?
Of course not, but it should be asked by them , not you, and of course they have no reason. Why should they?
All you are saying is how confused those poor people are today, except for the Albanians who know who they are, of course.Greek presence in FYROMacedonia is negligible and your mention laughable. Much more notable however is the Slav-Macedonian and the Albanian presence in Greece . There indeed we should hold a referendum.But the poor people I was talking about are exactly those Albanians!Regarding the laughble Greek presence again in FYROM it appears to me that you shouldn't have any objection to a referendum right ?The Slav-Makedonians in Greece are 4951 strong, regarding the Albanian one is 350,000 Albanian workers with green card ready to vote for annexation of South Albania to Greece so their families will join them
You think you can buy Albanian land with Greek Jobs? If this is what Greeks have been hoping for you've got another surprise coming. Slavo Macedonians in Greece are mauch more than that , and as far as the Albanian workers in Greece they are going to support and revive the rights of the Cams and Arvanites in time. Just wait untill they get strong enough on Greek laziness. Greece rounds them up to evict them and the greek farmer demonstrates to get his worker back. Some have even driven to Albania to find their previous workers. Meantime the Greek government has agreed to open Albanian schools for the children of these workers, which makes it quite obvious that they will remain loyal to Albania. It is rather apparent that things will go the other way, and not the one which you are hoping.
Only after great resistance and the likely international pressure, but thingas are not always what they seem to be ....Should Macedonia ever loose the support of the USA, it would revert to the Albanian and Bulgarian territories which it is.If things are not always what seem to be , lets go for the self-determination.Makedonia doesn't exist to become anything, if you refer to FYROM, you and the Bulgarians can keep what you think is yours, Pelagonia goes back where it belongs.Who wants those Albanians from Tetovo ? Even the Albanians from Tirana don't!
Tirana has played it as it had to, you can't achieve it all at once. Today Prishtina, tomorrow Tetova. even modern Greece as it is known today was not won at once. Tha Albanian dream will never die.
Betrayed is the only word when you seee pictures of the Greek Orthodox priest and the Turkish soldiers displaying the head of an IMRO hero.Obviously the IMRO heros weren't made for that country.You can not have in revolt people that they don't like you. Kind of Albanians and Italians..............Dear George Albanians, the only direct descendant of the Illyrians, have been there longer than Greeks or Slavs, and you can read about their revolts in Shkup, by reading some of the history and traveller logs of the times.Really ? How come you didn't call yourselves Ilyrians then ?
and Albanians are nothing more nothing less than the Thracians moving to the West first with the other Barbarian tribes and later on their own.
The few Illyrians left became part of the Monte-Negro or moved in the early times to the South.No wonder your language contains almpost no Illyrian words at all.Regarding History, I occassionaly read some, but my understanding is that the Hellenes were in there first.
If you read history you would know that the Albanoi were an Illyrian tribe who lived in what is known today as Albania. If you like you can read some history collected through some encyclopedia which I have posted for your benefit in this thread. There are many Illirian words in Albanian and we are recognized as the only direct descendants of the Illyrians because of our language.
Wishfull thinking. What you are preaching is the old order, influenced by the Greco-Serbian alliance.
It is over George. The truth has emerged. No more greco serbian border to squeeze all others out. Albanians of Macedonia are undeniably so and they have been shot by the macedonian police protecting the Albanian flag, and the Albanian university of Tetova. When we Albanians get toghether , say at a caffee, we are there from all the ethnic Albanian populated lands without distinction. We listen to one song, the song of unity. And let us be frank. Anyone that knows the Balkans know why you like macedonia under the Serbs, since they were your accomplices in stealing those lands.Are you nuts ?Who wants them ? We lost Monastiri to them just trying to be nice, and we lost the Prespian villages exchanging presents among the Kings!No-one wants a Serbo-Greek alliance and we are tired of nursing them.Albanians of FYROM must say first what they want, voices of organized KLA sympathizers has nothing to do with what they want.Obviously when you say that I lioke the Serbs you must be ignorant of History regarding the Makedonian lands.............
Greece and Serbia made a secret pact to screw Bulgaria out of Macedonia. Previously the Greeks cooperated with the turks so that IMRO would loose their fight for freedom. What more do you want . Greek skeeming is an open book. As for the Albanians of Macedonia, they have spoken for themselves with the creation of Illirida. By the way I hear from a traveller that there are a lot of Serbs on Greek beaches and that they are displaying the greek flag. Poor souls.
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6se4$6ff$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6tvt$jlo$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r7alt$pus$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r7b2k$rnr$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
June R Harton
:)
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote sarcastically:
>Pass by your local greek diner and see how many ..........
June R Harton
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote
>The Encyclopedia Britannica
>"Illyria"
> The most important of these kingdoms, which flourished
> from the 5th to the 2nd century BC, were those of the
> Enkalayes, the Taulantes, the Epirotes, and the Ardianes.
We really must get that corrected (Britannica).
The Epirotes were Greek not Illyrian:
And if one was to enquire 'Well, were the Macedonians
a Greek tribe _originally_ or not?, let us look at what Hammond
wrote lucidly about on just this question:
""""
Taken from N. G. L. Hammond's "The Macedonian State:
The Origins, Institution and History," Calrendon Press, Oxford,
1989, pp. 413.pp. 12-14:"
4. The Language of the Macedonians.
What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself
is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means
'highlanders,' and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such
as 'Orestai' amd 'Oreitai,' meaning 'mountain-men.' A reputedly
earlier variant, 'Maketai,' has the same root, which means 'high,'
as in the Greek adjective 'makednos' or the noun mekos.'
The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod
recorded (p. 3 above) has a bearing on the question of Greek
speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes;
as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic
dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to
suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect.
Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins
of Hellen's three sons -- Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus -- who
were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely
Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recored this
relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh
century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people.
The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the
sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples
of their province in Europe, and one of them was the
'yauna takabara,' which meant the 'Greeks wearing the hat.'
[27] There were Greeks in Greek city-states here
and there in the province, but they were of various origins
and not distinguished by a common hat, the 'kausia.'
We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to
be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth
century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and
modified Hesiod's genealogy by bringing Macedon and his
descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking
family.
[28] Hesiod, Persia, Hellanicus had no motive for making
a false statement about the language of the Macedonians,
who were then an obscure and not a powerful people.
Their independent testimonies should be accepted as
conclusive. That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars.
They disregard or fail to assess the evidence which I have cited,
[29] and they turn instead to 'Macedonian' words and names,
or/and to literary references. Philologists have studied words
which have been cited as 'Macedonian' in ancient lexica and
glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for
some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not
Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the
Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples
who spoke Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they
certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors
of lexica and glossaries. The philological studies result in a
verdict, in my opinion, of 'non liquet.' [30]
The toponyms of the Macedonian homeland are
the most significant. Nearly all of them are Greek: Pieria, Lebaea,
Heracleum, Dium, Petra, Leibethra, Aegae, Aegydium, Acesae,
Acesamenae; the rivers Helicon, Aeson, Leucus, Baphyras, Sardon,
Elpe'u's, Mitys; lake Ascuris and the region Lapathus.
The mountain names Olympus and Titarium may be pre-Greek;
Edessa, the earlier name for the place where Aegae was founded,
and its river Ascordus were Phrygian. [31]
The deities worshipped by the Macedones and the names
which they gave to the months were predominantly Greek,
and there is no doubt that these were not borrowings.
To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the
Macedonians were 'barbarians.' The term referred to their way
of life and their institutions, which were those of the 'ethne' and
not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can
see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes
'barbarians.' But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively
that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek
and used names which were Greek. [32]
In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive
terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people.[33]
In passages which refer to the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander
the Great and the early successors there are mentions of
a Macedonian dialect, such as was likely to have been spoken in the
original Macedonian homeland. On one occassion Alexander
'called out to his guardsmen in Macedonian ('Makedonisti'),
as this [viz. the use of 'Macedonian'] was a signal ('symbolon') that
there was a serious riot.' Normally Alexander and his soldiers
spoke standard Greek, the 'koine,' and that was what the Persians
who were to fight alongside the Macedonians were taught. So the
order 'in Macedonian' was unique, in that all other orders were in
the 'koine.' [34] it is satisfactorily explained as an order in broad
dialect, just as in the Highland Regiment a special order for a
particular
purpose could be given in broad Scots by a Scottish officer who
usually spoke the King's English.The use of this dialect among
themselves was a characteristic of the Macedonian soldiers
(rather that the officers) of the King's Army. This point is made
clear in the report -- not in itself dependable -- of the trial of
a Macedonian officer before an Assembly of Macedonians, in
which the officer (Philotas) was mocked for not speaking in dialect.
[35]
In 321 when a non-Macedonian general, Eumenes, wanted
to make contact with a hostile group of Macedonian infantrymen,
he sent a Macedonian to speak to them in the Macedonian dialect,
in order to win their confidence. Subsequently, when they and the
other Macdonian soldiers were serving with Eumenes, they
expresed their affection for him by hailing him in the Macedonian
dialect
('Makedonisti'). [36] He was to be one of themselves. As Curtius
observed, 'not a man among the Macedonians could bear to part
with a jot of his ancestral customs.' The use of this dialect was one
way in which the Macedonians expressed their apartness from the
world of the Greek city-states. [27] See J. M. Balcer in 'Historia' 37
(1988) 7.[28] FGrH 4 F 74 [29] Most recently E. Badian in
Barr-Sharrar 33-51 disregards the evidence as set out
in e.g. HM 2.39-54, when it goes against his view that the
Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other
than Greek. [30] The matter is dicussed at some length
in HM 2. 39-54 with reference especially to O. Hoffmann,
'Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihre Volkstun' (Goettingen, 1906)
and J. Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens I (Athens, 1954);
see also Kalleris II and R. A. Crossland in the CAH 3.1.843ff.
[31] For Edessa see HM 1.165 and for the Phrygians
in Macedonia 407-14. Olympus occurs as a Phrygian personal
name. [32] See Hammond, 'Epirus' 419ff. and 525ff.
[33] As Badian, loc. cit. 42, rightly observes: 'this, of course,
is simple abuse.'[34] Plu. 'Alex.'51.6[35] Curtius 6.8.34-6.
[36] PSI XII 2(1951) no. 1284, Plu. Eun.14.11.
Badian, loc. cit. 41 and 50 n.66, discusses the former
and not the latter, which hardly bears out his theory that
Eumenes 'could not directly communicate with Macedonian
soldiers,' and presumably they with him. Badian says in his
note that he is not concerned with the argument as to whether
Macedonian was a 'dialect' or 'a language.' Such an argument
seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. We have a
similar problem in regard to Epirus, where some had thought
the language of the people was Illyrian. In Plu.'Pyrrh.'1.3
reference was made to 'the local 'phone,'' which to me means
'dialect' of Greek; it is so in this instance because Plutarch
is saying that Achilles was called 'in the local 'phone' Aspestos.'
The word 'Aspestos' elsewhere was peculiar to Greek epic,
but it survived in Epirus in normal speech. It is of course
a Greek and not an Illyrian word. See Hammond, 'Epirus' 525ff.,
for the Greek being the language of central Epirus
in the fifth century B.C. "
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r7cfp$dki$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r7bvu$96j$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
*note: the Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece* "
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r8a1e$9m$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r8csn$1h1$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
Ha ha ha ha! The only reason I will not tell you again who the turk really is , is that I really feel bad insulting Turkey. They ar4e suffering enough! Is this your prove you poor soul? So one source says Albania is 97% and Greece 98% pure.
If you checked the CIA website it gives a 95% for Albania and not a 97%.
Wow what a difference. I'll take the 97% without qualification then the 98 percent with the qualification:"Ethnic groups: Greek 98%, other 2%
*note: the Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece* "
The Greek gvt. might state that there are no ethnic divisions in Greece, but the CIA does, therefore the 2% remainder. There goes your silly argument.
Even they know you are a bunch of liers hiding the Albanian, Turkish, and Slavo Macedonian or Bulgarian minorities and had to make that clear. Thanks for the links.
Wow! You managed to fit all that in a mere 2%! FYI, the only minority in Greece is the Turkish one. As for who is the liar, look at the mirror. Albanians intentionally lower the number if their Greek minority by only counting the "minority zone" that the Albanian regime has indicated, excluding all other ethnic Greeks who live outside this zone.
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r8dgg$ari$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
George S. Tsapanos
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6tvt$jlo$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:OXR8#fk##GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03...Dear Nikol
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6ist$jp9$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:uMxUaMh##GA.248@cpmsnbbsa05...snip mine.
Of course not, but it should be asked by them , not you, and of course they have no reason. Why should they?
I don't see how you believe that you can ask such a thing yourself --as you did in the end of the message-- but then is not any of my business when it comes to me!The So-Called Kossovar Albanians had a big majority in Kossovo and yet......they didn't ask for Unification or Annexation by Albania, if we should have a referendum in the Balkans what makes you thing that the ones that according to certain circles exist in Greece will ask for something similar ?Now regarding the Greeks in Albania, they have plenty reasons of doing, among and stronger, the fact that for the first time they are free to express themselves freely and vote for their decisions, something that in Greece has been in force for many many years.
You think you can buy Albanian land with Greek Jobs? If this is what Greeks have been hoping for you've got another surprise coming. Slavo Macedonians in Greece are mauch more than that , and as far as the Albanian workers in Greece they are going to support and revive the rights of the Cams and Arvanites in time. Just wait untill they get strong enough on Greek laziness. Greece rounds them up to evict them and the greek farmer demonstrates to get his worker back. Some have even driven to Albania to find their previous workers. Meantime the Greek government has agreed to open Albanian schools for the children of these workers, which makes it quite obvious that they will remain loyal to Albania. It is rather apparent that things will go the other way, and not the one which you are hoping.
I think nothing. I am reading the counted votes, 4951 all of them, do you have any other proofs ?The Greek goverment, is not anymore just plain Greek.It has to allpy the rules of the European Community.You are destinate to become the working hands in the Greek Industry and Agricultur with all its good bad things.We see it here in the States with the Mexican workers.
Tirana has played it as it had to, you can't achieve it all at once. Today Prishtina, tomorrow Tetova. even modern Greece as it is known today was not won at once. Tha Albanian dream will never die.
So actually you do agree with me.Regarding the Albanian dream is 76 years old, and a small one. If NATO and Uncle Sam had not decide to eradicate the last country of Pan-Slavs and semi-allies to the Russians, your fate would have been that of always....................
If you read history you would know that the Albanoi were an Illyrian tribe who lived in what is known today as Albania. If you like you can read some history collected through some encyclopedia which I have posted for your benefit in this thread. There are many Illirian words in Albanian and we are recognized as the only direct descendants of the Illyrians because of our language.
I do read History, and History is telling me that according to Ptolemy Albanians were the people called by the others by the name Parthinians living in the upper valley of the river Mati and possibly in the areas of Kroia and Tirana.But those Ptolemy's Albanians were a Makedono-Illyrian tribe as the ones living farther to the south the Taylantians, the Eordaians, and the Dassaritians.What modern day Albanians have to do with them ?Now talking about the Encyclopedia.......do you really believe what you read in there ?And thats the BEST references you can bring in here to discuss the origins of the Albanians ?Your language according to Gustav Meyer (here we go again), between 5110 usable words contains:1420 of Roman origins, for the better Vlachians........1180 of Turkish origins840 Neo-Hellenic540 Slavs730 of Uknown origins400 of Pre-Historic origins COMMON to all the local populations.Now ....I fully understand your eagerness to have a nobile continuation and connections with an ancient race, but this is the wrong forum for you to do so.You are NOT recognize as direct descendants of the Illyrians by NO-ONE. Cut the crap in here, unless you wish to keep repeating it until you begin believing it yourself.
Greece and Serbia made a secret pact to screw Bulgaria out of Macedonia. Previously the Greeks cooperated with the turks so that IMRO would loose their fight for freedom. What more do you want . Greek skeeming is an open book. As for the Albanians of Macedonia, they have spoken for themselves with the creation of Illirida. By the way I hear from a traveller that there are a lot of Serbs on Greek beaches and that they are displaying the greek flag. Poor souls.
Did you come into this board looking for allies ?We know better who did what when and how, but Albania had nothing to do with Makedonia, other than killing the people of the land in the names of the Ali-Pasha family's orders and the following Beys.So much indeed the Makedonian populations hated you, that the term Turkalvani still today remains synonymous with the Genitsars.Now......you can create as many Illiridas you want, you can make as many Albanians you wish, but Illyrians or descendants from the nobile races of the antiquity you ain't going to become.
Self determination is all the Albanians have been asking for !Illirida would join Albania in an instat.
Aren't you one you said in the beginning of this posting that the populations should ask for it ?Let them ask for it then .......................
George S. Tsapanos
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r7cfp$dki$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
What a bunch of crap! Do you think that things really work according to your dreams? Albanians are purer simply by reason of their geography. Greece has always been more cosmopolitan and there has always been more mixing, including with our Illyrian blood. Don't forget that the inhabitants of Hydra , who fought the Turks for Greek independance were of Albanian origin, or have you already forgotten?
snipRegards to all ..............L.""Vlachs the AutochthonousOf the Hellenic Peninsula"".
Nikoll A Mirakaj
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:#z1am8s##GA.92@cpmsnbbsa05...Dood morning Nikoll
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6tvt$jlo$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:OXR8#fk##GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03...Dear Nikol
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r6ist$jp9$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:uMxUaMh##GA.248@cpmsnbbsa05...snip mine.
Of course not, but it should be asked by them , not you, and of course they have no reason. Why should they?I don't see how you believe that you can ask such a thing yourself --as you did in the end of the message-- but then is not any of my business when it comes to me!The So-Called Kossovar Albanians had a big majority in Kossovo and yet......they didn't ask for Unification or Annexation by Albania, if we should have a referendum in the Balkans what makes you thing that the ones that according to certain circles exist in Greece will ask for something similar ?
They could not have such a referendum while under Serbia could they?Recently Rugova has mentioned that eventually there should be a referendum to decide if Kosovars want to be independent or join one of the neighboring states.(I don't think he meant Serbia)
Now regarding the Greeks in Albania, they have plenty reasons of doing, among and stronger, the fact that for the first time they are free to express themselves freely and vote for their decisions, something that in Greece has been in force for many many years.
The CIA fact book has Greeks in Albania at 3% . I think that's a bit small to fulfill your dream.
You think you can buy Albanian land with Greek Jobs? If this is what Greeks have been hoping for you've got another surprise coming. Slavo Macedonians in Greece are mauch more than that , and as far as the Albanian workers in Greece they are going to support and revive the rights of the Cams and Arvanites in time. Just wait untill they get strong enough on Greek laziness. Greece rounds them up to evict them and the greek farmer demonstrates to get his worker back. Some have even driven to Albania to find their previous workers. Meantime the Greek government has agreed to open Albanian schools for the children of these workers, which makes it quite obvious that they will remain loyal to Albania. It is rather apparent that things will go the other way, and not the one which you are hoping.I think nothing. I am reading the counted votes, 4951 all of them, do you have any other proofs ?The Greek goverment, is not anymore just plain Greek.It has to allpy the rules of the European Community.You are destinate to become the working hands in the Greek Industry and Agricultur with all its good bad things.We see it here in the States with the Mexican workers.
SO why do you think they'll have Albanian schools in Greece. Think!
Tirana has played it as it had to, you can't achieve it all at once. Today Prishtina, tomorrow Tetova. even modern Greece as it is known today was not won at once. Tha Albanian dream will never die.So actually you do agree with me.Regarding the Albanian dream is 76 years old, and a small one. If NATO and Uncle Sam had not decide to eradicate the last country of Pan-Slavs and semi-allies to the Russians, your fate would have been that of always....................
Don't be naive, HISTORY CHANGES, and now it is in motion for Albanians. There is nothing in that which says that I'm in agreement with you. Sorry about that.
If you read history you would know that the Albanoi were an Illyrian tribe who lived in what is known today as Albania. If you like you can read some history collected through some encyclopedia which I have posted for your benefit in this thread. There are many Illirian words in Albanian and we are recognized as the only direct descendants of the Illyrians because of our language.I do read History, and History is telling me that according to Ptolemy Albanians were the people called by the others by the name Parthinians living in the upper valley of the river Mati and possibly in the areas of Kroia and Tirana.But those Ptolemy's Albanians were a Makedono-Illyrian tribe as the ones living farther to the south the Taylantians, the Eordaians, and the Dassaritians.What modern day Albanians have to do with them ?Now talking about the Encyclopedia.......do you really believe what you read in there ?And thats the BEST references you can bring in here to discuss the origins of the Albanians ?Your language according to Gustav Meyer (here we go again), between 5110 usable words contains:1420 of Roman origins, for the better Vlachians........1180 of Turkish origins840 Neo-Hellenic540 Slavs730 of Uknown origins400 of Pre-Historic origins COMMON to all the local populations.Now ....I fully understand your eagerness to have a nobile continuation and connections with an ancient race, but this is the wrong forum for you to do so.You are NOT recognize as direct descendants of the Illyrians by NO-ONE. Cut the crap in here, unless you wish to keep repeating it until you begin believing it yourself.
Albanians are a great part of the Macedonian population, they have plenty to do with it, and yes, I would consider Bulgaria a possible good ally in this matter. Not to be discounted!
Constantine Zissiadis
George S. Tsapanos wrote in message ...
Now......now.........NikollDon't identify the Albanians with the Arvanites !Unless of course you can prove your point !
The Arvanites fought for Greek independence AS GREEKS! If they were "Albanians" they would have fought under the Albanian flag. This proves that the modern and even the 19th century Arvanites were/are hardly related to those of the 14th century.CostasNikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r7cfp$dki$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
What a bunch of crap! Do you think that things really work according to your dreams? Albanians are purer simply by reason of their geography. Greece has always been more cosmopolitan and there has always been more mixing, including with our Illyrian blood. Don't forget that the inhabitants of Hydra , who fought the Turks for Greek independance were of Albanian origin, or have you already forgotten?
Stephan Nikolov
> Look at the CIA homepage below.
>
> http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/gr.html
>
> There you will see that Greece is THE MOST ethnically homogeneous Balkan country with a 98% Greek population, a figure found
in all encyclopedias as well.
Then look at the less homogeneous Albania at:
>
> http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/al.html
>
.... which comes to show that inspite all the communist shit, Hoxha,
etc., Albania have been much more tolerant toward ethnic minorities than
Greece. Unfortunately, this is not exacltly accurate for the situation in
Kossovo right now.
SN
Nikoll A Mirakaj
reasons and their recent ordeal, but the Albanians had always been a
tolerant people. This is demonstrated also by the religious harmony between
the different faiths , and by the way Albanians risked their lives in WW2 to
save all the Jews within its borders. Bulgaria also demonstrated great
courage in this respect. Greece is the one who has ethnically cleansed
Albanians and Bulgarians to a great extent, while those who remained were
forbidden to express their culture. They wouldn't even baptized you if you
used an Albanian or Bulgarian name in accordance with your ancestry. Hoxha
in Albania was indeed a terrible dictator, but he was so to all Albanians,
especially if he considered them political enemies, but he did have many
minorities in his administration. If anything Greece was benefiting
throughout this period by the isolation of Albania, considering that in the
after war period they were equally poor.
Stephan Nikolov <ou...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.95.990909...@sable.ox.ac.uk...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Constantine Zissiadis wrote:
>
> > Look at the CIA homepage below.
> >
> > http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/gr.html
> >
> > There you will see that Greece is THE MOST ethnically homogeneous Balkan
country with a 98% Greek population, a figure found
> in all encyclopedias as well.
> Then look at the less homogeneous Albania at:
> >
> > http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/al.html
> >
>
>
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r8n0s$bfa$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Constantine Zissiadis
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r8que$6me$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
It proves what? The Albanian descendants of Hydra and other Arvanites fought for Greece because they were Christians,
After so many centuries in Greece, and being engulfed by Greeks, they had become Greek too, both in terms of blood and national consciousness. I repeat, the fought AS GREEKS AGAINST ALBANIANS (of all creeds) AND TURKS.
and during the Ottoman Empire, religion was seen as more important than nationality.
True, but from the late 18th century and on, with the emergence of Greek Nationalism, ethnicity overcame religion. Let me remind you the profound hatred between Orthodox Greeks and Orthodox Bulgarians.
If the island of Hydra was settled by the albanians , then naturally their descendants are also related to the Albanians.
Hydra was settled by the Greeks over 35 centuries ago, and the Arvanite-speakers followed much later on. Anyway, I am not willing to play this silly game with you. Go to Hydra yourself and ask the locals what they really are.
This does not mean you should not celebrate them as the heros they were. Just don't act as if we are from another planet or don't exist in Greece, when Greece is full of Albanians. Athens for one is sorrounded by Albanians, and I'm not talking about the new ones.
What you mean to say is that Albania is full of Greeks and not only in the gvt. designated minority zone. As for Greece, the last remnants of Albanians (Tosks) departed in 1944. I know it hurts but that's the truth.The CIA factbook is just another proof...Costas
Tinko Eftimov
South of the river you have the Tosk Albanian Majority who have no
reason to
join Greece. Macedonian slavs on the other hand, are of Bulgarian origin
and
have been known as such until very recent times. The linguistic
differences
are dialectical, as Bulgaria has chosen as its official language its
most
eastern dialect while the Fyromian is the Most western Bulgarian
dialect.
This is why Bulgaria, although among the first to recognize its
independence, would not accept to recognize its language as separate
from
Bulgarian. IMRO was a Bulgarian movement which was betrayed by Greeks
in
its fight for independence from Turkey, while the brave Albanians of
Shkup
also staged general insurrections aganinst the Ottomans. The Fyromians
of
slavic stock would eventually fair better by joining Bulgaria, and be
free
once and for all from Greek and Serb skeeming on their future. Albanians
of
Macedonia on the other hand would obviously benefit from the
arrangement, by
joining Albania. That should make everyone there happy in the end and
justice would be done.
End of quote.
Well Nikoll,
You see this is in a way the most reasonable solution for there is
nothing better than staying close to normalcy.
Although this is dificult to realize now my gut feeling is that things
will end one day more or less as you suggest. Of course in this line of
reasoning I consider it normal that Serbs get together.
But you, know, all this could have been done at the beginning of the
century.
It could have been done at the end of the WW I.
Even at the end of WW II.
Why do you think it was not done?
Because the people did not want it, or because the superpowers could not
impose on them a solution based on the will of the people (in spite of
their eternal noise about democracy, the will of the people etc. ad
nauseum).
You see evennow it is clear that the Bosnian model is a complete
failure. It can exist only as long as somebody injects mone and
exercises control.
Kossovo should be partitioned - both Albanians and Serbs want it.
BUT THE INTERNATIONALISTS DO NOT WANT IT.
They want multiethnic society.
Why?
Because it is unstable, and thus once in a while there will be the need
to intervene, i.e to control.
If things were settled right from the beginning Yugoslavia should not
have existed at all.
But then what pretext will superpowers find to intervene.
You see unless the Balkan people and their polititians understand that
they should rely on themselves and not on foreign helpers and advisers
who have entirely different objectives from our folks it is going to be
a deliberately created mess.
Each time the Big Players intervene, they just substitute one chaos for
another.
Tinko Eftimov
The reason in my view is that if you
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Constantine Zissiadis <phala...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7r9ed5$mup$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Nikoll A Mirakaj
great powers made mistakes in the past, but I think that something is now
moving in the right direction toward the appeasement of nationalism in the
Balkan( even if in the end it might lead to some kind of european
integration, but let us at least reach that point whole nations, and not
fragmented). Does the fall of the Soviet Union have anything to do with all
this? I think so! Is the west chosing a trustworthy ally in the Albanians
who are naturallt anti the Serbo-Russian alliance. I believe it is. In no
way do I think however that Kosova should be partitioned, nor that the
Albanian people would want or allow that to happen. Serbia already got its
piece of the pie. They've got half of Bosnia, and they did it with NATO's
blessing, really, so they should not complaint. Serbia was an unnatural
thing in Kosova and that is why they were only able to govern by brutal
force, and still they could not keep the Albanians from creating and
respecting their own parallel and independent structures. In the recently
created "Republika Srpska" it might be another story., and who knows what
might be in store.
Tinko Eftimov <eft...@uqah.uquebec.ca> wrote in message
news:37D840...@uqah.uquebec.ca...
Robert
Tinko Eftimov wrote:
>
> Although this is dificult to realize now my gut feeling is that things
> will end one day more or less as you suggest. Of course in this line of
> reasoning I consider it normal that Serbs get together.
>
> But you, know, all this could have been done at the beginning of the
> century.
> It could have been done at the end of the WW I.
> Even at the end of WW II.
>
> Why do you think it was not done?
> Because the people did not want it, or because the superpowers could not
> impose on them a solution based on the will of the people (in spite of
> their eternal noise about democracy, the will of the people etc. ad
> nauseum).
> You see evennow it is clear that the Bosnian model is a complete
> failure. It can exist only as long as somebody injects mone and
> exercises control.
> Kossovo should be partitioned - both Albanians and Serbs want it.
>
> BUT THE INTERNATIONALISTS DO NOT WANT IT.
>
> They want multiethnic society.
> Why?
> Because it is unstable, and thus once in a while there will be the need
> to intervene, i.e to control.
America especially has an emotional attachment to multiculturalism and
internationalism. I recall hearing a liberal pundit on one of the political
news programs here in the U.S. (Eleanor Clift of the McGlaughlin Group)
state something to the effect that Serbs can't live only with Serbs, and
that they will have to get used to multiculturalism just as we here in the
U.S. must get used to it. Gen. Wesley Clark also uttered something to the
effect that nation-states are a thing of the 19th century past, and that it
was time Europeans shed such antiquated nationalist notions. What is
disturbing is that Americans and liberals don't appear to be so adamant
about multiculturalism in non-European countries like Japan, or those of
Black Africa., but woe to any white European tribe that wishes to live alone
by itself.
Americans viewed Russia as the "evil empire." Why? Because it was
viewed as wanting to spread its socialist ideology by force if need be.
Today America is doing the same thing more blatantly than ever: spreading
American-style multiculturalism and "democracy" and not hesitating to use
force to do it.
Stavros N. Karageorgis
>
> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Tinko Eftimov wrote:
>
> > Kossovo should be partitioned - both Albanians and Serbs want it.
> >
> > BUT THE INTERNATIONALISTS DO NOT WANT IT.
> >
> > They want multiethnic society.
> > Why?
> > Because it is unstable, and thus once in a while there will be the need
> > to intervene, i.e to control.
> > have existed at all.
> > But then what pretext will superpowers find to intervene.
> >
>
Stef,
This is a false dichotomy: ethnic states or multi-cultural (read
officially multi-ethnic) states. The 'nation' part in the Western
European model of statehood was never meant to be an ETHNIC-genealogical
nation, but a political, civic, territorial and at worst a 'cultural' in
the French sense of the world, nation. The 'indivisible' nation of
Liberal democratic nation-states CAN, of course, be multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural but DE FACTO, ***NOT*** de jure. Democracy, in the sense
of popular sovereignty and, in the end, majority rule, has nothing to do
with liberty of conscience and expression and association.
Multi-cultural states, that is de jure multi-ethnic and/or
multi-religious etc. states, are strictly speaking anti-democratic, in
that they split the citizenship-demos up into essentialist sub-groups,
elevate allegiance to and membership in groups either smaller than or
larger than demos, institute different rights and protections for
different citizens (thus, vitiating the very basis of citizenship), and
elevate collectivities to a status equivalent to or even superior to
that of the individual citizen. The answer to the ethnicization of life
is NOT to give it official status, either in the form of single- or
multi-ethnic states. The answer lies in the complete separation of
ethnicity (and religion, and language, etc.) from citizenship, rights,
etc.
SNK
> Multi-cultuaral society is regarded as a product, but also further safeguard
> for democracy. Once established a democratic system
> in such a society, you will need to gain much more substantial support
> to challenge it that in a "national state". It must also be noted that the
> concept of "national state" is rather recent in Europe, and it never
> became the exclusive model. Additional and practical reason might be that
> a multi-cultuarl state is more easy to integrate in united Europe than a
> "national state".. The last reasoning is illustrated with the case of
> Greece and Spain who fail to meet the European requirements. Do not
> forget that Greece was never meant as a multi-cultuaral state.
>
> It is also feared that if borders are re-drawn, according ethnic
> principles, this might provoke further ethnic cleansing in order to
> justify this ot that territory (this was the case in Bosnia).
>
> I am not sure if I subscribe in full all these lines of reasoning. I tend
> to believe that it is very difficult to admit that the mess comes from the
> Versailes system which was reaffirmed after the WWII. It will be another
> blow if it turnes out Hitler's borders were somewhat better reckoned
> than those imposed on Europe by France, UK and USA (spel).
> Ethnic states will also be a very bad precedent wordwide and then no
> country will be guaranteed against ethnic separatist movement.
> Finally, the mixture of populations in the Balkans does not allow clear
> cut borders. On the other hand, the exchange of populations has proved
> very bad idea in the 1920's (Greece - Bulgaria; Greece - Turkey).
>
> SN
>
> *************************************************************************
> When traditional relationships between present and past break down,
> those the most affected by this rupture respond by re-shaping an
> understanding of what unites past and present in terms of some new
> continuity in order to defend themselves from the effects of the rupture.
> J. Pocock (1962)
> *************************************************************************
June R Harton
>Greeks have always worked on rewriting history.
>so what else is new.
How long have you been around these Newsgroups?
If not long, let me advise you right now, nothing that
I post is incorrect.
You should also realise that when you contradict me,
you by the very nature of it, expose yourself to looking
extremely foolish when I am forced to correct you.
Stephan Nikolov
> Kossovo should be partitioned - both Albanians and Serbs want it.
>
> BUT THE INTERNATIONALISTS DO NOT WANT IT.
>
> They want multiethnic society.
> Why?
> Because it is unstable, and thus once in a while there will be the need
> to intervene, i.e to control.
> If things were settled right from the beginning Yugoslavia should not
> have existed at all.
> But then what pretext will superpowers find to intervene.
>
Tinko and also Robert,
Multi-cultuaral society is regarded as a product, but also further safeguard
GS
If two brothers start fighting in a well run house, you sometimes have
to separate them into separate rooms but eventually, they have to make
peace if they wish to come to the dinner table
GS
I must disagree with you and say that Serbs are natural in Kosovo. They
have been there for around a thousand years, certainly long enough.
There is room for both people as long as nationalism and revenge upon
revenge are not prominent.
Galina
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote:
>
> The problem with Serbia is that they wanted it all for themselves. True the
> great powers made mistakes in the past, but I think that something is now
> moving in the right direction toward the appeasement of nationalism in the
> Balkan( even if in the end it might lead to some kind of european
> integration, but let us at least reach that point whole nations, and not
> fragmented). Does the fall of the Soviet Union have anything to do with all
> this? I think so! Is the west chosing a trustworthy ally in the Albanians
> who are naturallt anti the Serbo-Russian alliance.
I don't buy your theory. First, it is not clear that Albanians are a
natural ally. Second, I hope for the integration of everyone into the
EU and mutual economic and political reasons to lessen borders, not
create more of them.
I believe it is. In no
> way do I think however that Kosova should be partitioned, nor that the
> Albanian people would want or allow that to happen. Serbia already got its
> piece of the pie. They've got half of Bosnia, and they did it with NATO's
> blessing, really, so they should not complaint. Serbia was an unnatural
> thing in Kosova and that is why they were only able to govern by brutal
> force, and still they could not keep the Albanians from creating and
> respecting their own parallel and independent structures.
THe Milosevic regime was unnatural in Kosovo, and its hallmark is ruling
by force and elite.
In the recently
> created "Republika Srpska" it might be another story., and who knows what
> might be in store.
RS is becoming more democratic. Go figure. Everyone eventually wants
normality and a future.
>
>
June R Harton
GS wrote
>If two brothers start fighting in a well run house, you sometimes have
>to separate them into separate rooms but eventually, they have to make
>peace if they wish to come to the dinner table
Shut up Galina.
June R Harton
Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote
>This is a false dichotomy: ethnic states or multi-cultural (read
Heh guys!
You are all way off the mark here!
What do you think was created by an independent Slovenia,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc. etc etc etc!!!!!!
The countries were being split into non-multicultural entities
for the take over by Germany and Nato and the U.S.
How soon one forgets about the New World Order as one
hopelessly is manipulated and controlled by it!!!!
What the hell planet are you on?!
:)
June R Harton
GS the crazed heretic from Russia wrote of the Balkans
instead of, of Russia her homeland.
Niet!
June R Harton
>This is a false dichotomy: ethnic states or multi-cultural (read
>officially multi-ethnic) states. ..................................
Heh guys!
You are all way off the mark here!
What do you think was created by an independent Slovenia,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc. etc etc etc!!!!!!
The countries were being split into non-multicultural entities
for the take over by Germany and Nato and the U.S.
How soon one forgets about the New World Order as one
hopelessly is manipulated and controlled by it!!!!
What the hell planet are you on?!
:)
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
ps Aside from this, Stavros' data was of course correct.
Stephan Nikolov
> Stef,
>
> This is a false dichotomy: ethnic states or multi-cultural (read
> officially multi-ethnic) states. The 'nation' part in the Western
> European model of statehood was never meant to be an ETHNIC-genealogical
> nation, but a political, civic, territorial and at worst a 'cultural' in
> the French sense of the world, nation.
Nevertheless, modern nations a looking for ethnic origins. No nation, as
fat I as can recall, can survive without myth of common origins and
descent. Speaking af Frnace, the country developed that string "integral
nationalism" aimed at reafirming the cultural and historic unity of the
country against minorities and ideologies that were thought that they
might undermine that unity. Similar is the case with Greece now.
Etnic movements can and usually are exploited when there is a need to
build up a "territorial" and "civic" model. Yugoslavia was in a way such a
case: although Tito recognised selectively the etnic parameters of certain
communities (some of them arguable, especially when others were largely
neglected), there was strong emphasis on the Illyrian homeland, of the
shadowy Yugoslavism, of the non-aligment as a unifying factor, etc.
Such a policy had also a strong trend of national colonialism, in the
sense that certain communities were strongly urged to take over others.
The 'indivisible' nation of
> Liberal democratic nation-states CAN, of course, be multi-ethnic and
> multi-cultural but DE FACTO, ***NOT*** de jure. Democracy, in the sense
> of popular sovereignty and, in the end, majority rule, has nothing to do
> with liberty of conscience and expression and association.
> Multi-cultural states, that is de jure multi-ethnic and/or
> multi-religious etc. states, are strictly speaking anti-democratic, in
> that they split the citizenship-demos up into essentialist sub-groups,
> elevate allegiance to and membership in groups either smaller than or
> larger than demos, institute different rights and protections for
> different citizens (thus, vitiating the very basis of citizenship), and
> elevate collectivities to a status equivalent to or even superior to
> that of the individual citizen. The answer to the ethnicization of life
> is NOT to give it official status, either in the form of single- or
> multi-ethnic states. The answer lies in the complete separation of
> ethnicity (and religion, and language, etc.) from citizenship, rights,
> etc.
>
Unfortunately, this is impossible and you are mixing things for it seems
to me that you are advocating a unitary state. Spliting
authority to smaller units does noc challenge democracy but rather
efficiency. That is why federalism might be a key for solving the problem.
You can not separate language from citizenship and rights -- this is
contradiction of the right of expression which, in my mind, comprises not
only the content but also the form. As for religion, again, public
manifestation of religious allegiance is integral part of certain
religions, and the right of free demonstration of this
religious allegiance should be acknowledged as a civic right.
The right of perpetuation of local history aka myth of origins of this or
that ethnic group should also be acknowledged.
SN
> SNK
>
> > Multi-cultuaral society is regarded as a product, but also further safeguard
> > for democracy. Once established a democratic system
> > in such a society, you will need to gain much more substantial support
> > to challenge it that in a "national state". It must also be noted that the
> > concept of "national state" is rather recent in Europe, and it never
> > became the exclusive model. Additional and practical reason might be that
> > a multi-cultuarl state is more easy to integrate in united Europe than a
> > "national state".. The last reasoning is illustrated with the case of
> > Greece and Spain who fail to meet the European requirements. Do not
> > forget that Greece was never meant as a multi-cultuaral state.
> >
> > It is also feared that if borders are re-drawn, according ethnic
> > principles, this might provoke further ethnic cleansing in order to
> > justify this ot that territory (this was the case in Bosnia).
> >
> > I am not sure if I subscribe in full all these lines of reasoning. I tend
> > to believe that it is very difficult to admit that the mess comes from the
> > Versailes system which was reaffirmed after the WWII. It will be another
> > blow if it turnes out Hitler's borders were somewhat better reckoned
> > than those imposed on Europe by France, UK and USA (spel).
> > Ethnic states will also be a very bad precedent wordwide and then no
> > country will be guaranteed against ethnic separatist movement.
> > Finally, the mixture of populations in the Balkans does not allow clear
> > cut borders. On the other hand, the exchange of populations has proved
> > very bad idea in the 1920's (Greece - Bulgaria; Greece - Turkey).
> >
> > SN
> >
Nikoll A Mirakaj
> >Greeks have always worked on rewriting history.
> >so what else is new.
>
> How long have you been around these Newsgroups?
> If not long, let me advise you right now, nothing that
> I post is incorrect.
>
> You should also realise that when you contradict me,
> you by the very nature of it, expose yourself to looking
> extremely foolish when I am forced to correct you.
>
>
Nikoll A Mirakaj
Either you end up with apartheid of with interest groups which are damaging
to the whole. Within the ethnic (and I'm not talking about purity or
absolutely no minorities) state democracy will be best served as the
INDIVIDUAL will have a say, through the vote, and freedom of speach. When a
ethnic group is forced to vote or speak in a block due to the competition
from other ethnic groups, individuality , and with it, true democracy is
lost, while "group think" and interest groups that weaken the nation are
created.
Stephan Nikolov <ou...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.95.990910...@sable.ox.ac.uk...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Tinko Eftimov wrote:
>
> > Kossovo should be partitioned - both Albanians and Serbs want it.
> >
> > BUT THE INTERNATIONALISTS DO NOT WANT IT.
> >
> > They want multiethnic society.
> > Why?
> > Because it is unstable, and thus once in a while there will be the need
> > to intervene, i.e to control.
> > If things were settled right from the beginning Yugoslavia should not
> > have existed at all.
> > But then what pretext will superpowers find to intervene.
> >
>
>
>
> Tinko and also Robert,
>
Nikoll A Mirakaj
If you look east, however, or west (in the case of the Albanians).....
GS <sp...@erols.com> wrote in message news:37D8874F...@erols.com...
> If two brothers start fighting in a well run house, you sometimes have
> to separate them into separate rooms but eventually, they have to make
> peace if they wish to come to the dinner table
> >
> >
Nikoll A Mirakaj
closing all Albanian institutions, while Albanians made up the majority.
GS <sp...@erols.com> wrote in message news:37D8867F...@erols.com...
George S. Tsapanos
It proves what? The Albanian descendants of Hydra and other Arvanites fought for Greece because they were Christians, and during the Ottoman Empire, religion was seen as more important than nationality.
You keep mixing Albanians with Arvanites!And now you involve religion also!What do you thing were the connections with the Arvanite Generals of Samuil's Army and today's Albanians ?Or with the Thracians of Kekaymenos from the 4th-5th century that me and Stefan we have been talking couple a weeks backs?Were those people Albanians ?But for sure they were Arvanites ...................!Are you going to make them Albanians ?
If the island of Hydra was settled by the albanians , then naturally their descendants are also related to the Albanians.
Albanians do not exist until 1923. Period.
This does not mean you should not celebrate them as the heros they were. Just don't act as if we are from another planet or don't exist in Greece, when Greece is full of Albanians. Athens for one is sorrounded by Albanians, and I'm not talking about the new ones.
You sound like one who just found his freedom and wants everything to be his.You have a lot to learn, you are surrunded by Greeks, Bulgars and Serbs and they had more time to write their History................:))
June R Harton
GS
> Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote:
>
> Megalo-Maniac inpersonated! Continue.
It actually sounds like it goes about imagining it dominates something
or another. Sad
>
>
> June R Harton <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:7raavi$3vv4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> > Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote
> > >Greeks have always worked on rewriting history.
> > >so what else is new.
> >
> > How long have you been around these Newsgroups?
> > If not long, let me advise you right now, nothing that
> > I post is incorrect.
> >
> > You should also realise that when you contradict me,
> > you by the very nature of it, expose yourself to looking
> > extremely foolish when I am forced to correct you.
> >
> >
GS
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote:
>
> Two brothers who grew up side by side would not speak different languages.
they might
> If you look east, however, or west (in the case of the Albanians).....
You are missing the major point which is that the goal should not be
ethnic or cultural hegemony, but a mutual respect and harmony in order
to reach certain social and economic goals. By breaking the tyranny of
separatism, a future is ensured.
Galina
GS
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote:
>
> If they were natural they would not have needed to rule by force, or by
> closing all Albanian institutions, while Albanians made up the majority.
Ruling by force and inequity has nothing to do with being natural in
place; it only has to do with desperate and wrong political choices. l.
Dandulakis
Stephan Nikolov wrote in message ...
...
>Finally, the mixture of populations in the Balkans does not
>allow clear cut borders.
Political sciences can help a lot to clarify matters.
It carries the _distilled_ knowledge, accumulated over
5,000 years of recorded history.
Roughly, there are two types of states: Independent and
Dependent.
Independent states are defined based on their ability to
act, if necessary, alone and yet effectively (= impose
their will) internationally, and to repulse external
assaults on their integrity. The assaults can be overt,
covert; military, economic, political.
In general, the internal stability depends on the interna-
tional political status of a state. A dependent one is
liable to the wims and designs of the independent ones,
as they evolve over time.
A certain degree (not too much) of cultural inhomogeneity
can add strength to an independent state. On the contrary,
it is a major potential "soft spot" for a dependent one
(the rats leave a sinking boat first; as a saying goes).
A previously independent state can lose that status only
through (a) major geoeconomic event(s); usually the result
of unaccounted cummulative effects over a long period of
time.
Today, there are 3, and only 3, independent states (with their
own geographical sphere of action (fuzzy at the interfaces)):
US, Russia, China. (There were periods in the past when there
were many more independent ones; technology changed that). All
the other states, are at the mercy of (at least one of) those
three. Their role is preprogrammed and distributed. Some are
the "lucky" ones, some are not. (India might evolve to an in-
dependent one; It depends how well China goes; and what role
is assigned to India, by some of the big ones, over the next cen-
tury or so).
Deep seas are controlled fully by the US, today. Therefore, her
unique ability to project major conventional power anywhere in
the earth's near-seashores-restricted states.
Gregory
PS: The heart of the Balkans today, geopolitically speaking, is
where Serbia stands. The Balkans are thoroughly neutrallized,
as an independent geopolitical-player region (like the rest of
Europe, since the end of WW II).
And there is an old addage: "The borders breath, pulsate".
There is nothing static; given "enough" time.
Tinko Eftimov
Tinko and also Robert,
Finally, the mixture of populations in the Balkans does not allow clear
cut borders. On the other hand, the exchange of populations has proved
very bad idea in the 1920's (Greece - Bulgaria; Greece - Turkey).
SN
End of quote:
Comments:
Well, I maybe have to elaborate a bit more on that.
First let me say it that I do not think that pure ethnic states should
be the ideal solution. This is unnatural and in the final analysis will
lead to degeneration of society. It is also irreal so I am not talking
about that. To keep a sociaty ethnically (or racially pure) will need
draconian measures leading to fierce dictatorship.
However we should be able to answer the simple questions:
Why does Nature create different ethnicities, races, cultures, etc?
What is their value?
In the same line of reasoning: why are there different species and
subspecies.
Why does not Nature promote intensive interspecie mixing through the
efforts of some Nature Chosen Animal King who will teach different
species and subspecies how to live harmoniously for ever in a tolerant
multispecie animal world?
Why?
You know, we are products of Nature (or God) so we are hardly in the
capcity to challenge the natural (divine) logic beond the reality around
us.
Is it not paradoxial that the same who are crazy about preserving the
variety of animal species on Earth ar the same who are the propagandists
of forced multiethnic societies?
And of course they know how to teach every nation in the world how to
live harmoniously with the rest.
Now the reason that Nature creates and maintains variety in races,
languages and ethnicities is that each ethnicity is built through
evolution as a response to the chalenge of a particular environment and
through specific social mechanisms adapts itself in the most economic
way. For Nature this means most efficient use of natural resources.
So Nature favors it and establishes something like a genetic code for
the reproduction of each ethnicity: language,folklore, traditions etc.
Different ethnicities actually occupy different niches and the final
result is more efficient use of the scarce natural resources.
The effect is that competition and ,as a result, hostilities among
different groups are greatly reduced. Therfore you can find as many
examples as you want of how different peoples are best in one or two
specific areas. It is a sort of division of labor.
The direct consequences are that:
1. Each ethnic group is valuable in itself.
2. Society based on a single ethnicity will reduce its efficiency sooner
or later.
3. It is impossible to maintain a pure ethnic state without some force.
4. Ethnicities should be preserved and perfectioned and the best way is
to secure them a political structure known as the National State in
which a given ethnos is in majority, but respecting the value of its
minorities, which nonetheless remain minorities.
Now Nature also permits multi-ethnic societies in which no ethnicity is
a dominant (in terms of numbers). Most often these are the empires.
Why does Nature permit empires to exist?
Because empires in a specific way make better use until a certain level
of Natural resources. They create greater markets and reduce costs and
increase profits. I.e. the make in a way more efficent use of natural
resources. As different ethnicities share different values Empires need
greater bureaucracy to maintain order. The latter reduce efficiency.
This is because what is a self-regulating rule for one ethnic component
may be meaningless for another ehtnic group. Empires therefore create
and propagate new values. Christianity, Islam, Communism and
Cosmopolitism are created and imposed by empires for the sake of
unification of the system of values.
However Empires are temporary, no matter how great and powerful they
grow. They are efficient as long as they make good use of the specific
talents of each ethnic subgroup. This was the strength of the Roman, of
the Ottoman Empire, of the British Empire and now of the American
Empire.
Finally empires collapse because they become too inefficient and
dissipate more than create. That is how the Roman Empire finally
collapsed, The Ottoman, The Soviet and where finally USA will end in
spite of its present day glory and power.
Comparing the National and the International ideas we see that quite
often their are completely anthagonistic. Their values are different.
A Greek, or Bulgarian, or German, or Japanes National State has as its
aim the preservation and development of its basic ehtnicity.
An International cosmopolitic entity has no such goal at all. The
talents of any particular ethnicity can be substituted by the talents of
another ethnicity. Empires defend and propagate multiculturalism because
they need peace in order to maintain and expand the markets. They
however tend to neglect the fact that unless there are Nation States to
preserve and develop particular talents, Empires are doomed to failure.
Efficiency is based on difference of talents and their skillful use.
Unification leads to degradation and collapse (see Soviet Union's fate).
Coming back to practical and real policy we can see through history how
multiethnic empires and cosmopolitan ideologies and policies have caused
much more disturbance and chaos than National states although their
initial objectives were peace and order (the slogan for the Roman
Empire).
The reason is that the empires are powerful enough to enforce unnatural
frameworks on different and often incompatible ehtnicities. Since such
artificial entities (as Yugoslavia was) are unnatural they can be
mainained by force or unnatural status quo. But these demand financial
injections, they consume and do not produce as much.
Once the force and external support is gone and these are gone in blood
and fire.
National states of course have been the reason for a lot of unjust wars
but their scales are invariably smaller. Therefore the wreckthey have
caused is smaller in scale unless a total chaos of inter-state conflicts
occurs.
Concerning the Versaille system and its consequences.
The Versaille system was the greatest enemy of the principles on which
it was supposed to be constructed.
The principles were: National Self-determination. The result was maximum
dividents for the French and British Empires through the imposition of a
status quo which doomed tens of nations to mere slavery or despotic rule
of which the Bulgarians, the Albanians, the Hungarians and many more are
an example. The Versaille system created mini-empires in the likeness of
the winners (also empires) and finally all of them collapsed because
they were UNNATURAL.
The Versaille system justified the extreme anti-cosmopolitism of the
Nazi ideology which set as an objective an equally unnatural thing:
create an empire on the basis of a pure race through expansion and at
the expense of other nations like Russian, Bielorussian, Ukrainian,
Jewish as is outlined in Mein Kampf. Hitler has amply written where the
direction of his territorial expansion should be: to the East.
Not on the Balkans, nor to the West. Therefore, almost no of his evil
policies concerning non-Germanic ethnicities were demostrated in many
parts of what he conqured (except for anti-semitism). Paradoxically he
introduced a more just system of attribution of territories to the
dominating ethnicities than Internationalists did. The latter
deliberately created unviable entities to keep them dependent on them
and in control. (A sarcasm of historyy is that the latest NATO agression
against Serbia will in the edn achieve something which was already
solved by Hitler. No strange that the Serbs perceive NATO as a Nazi-type
of power).
Why so? Because these states were democratic in their internal affairs
and in a democracy it is difficult to convince the voters to accept huge
human sacrifices for the sake of the Imperial growth. Imperial growth
however needs wars to be waged. Therefeore somebody else must do the
dirty job on the International Arena.
Since in both wars (WWI and WWII) the fundamental objective of Western
Democracies was to prevent Germany from becoming their equal and thus
creat a powerful opponent, the democracies had to pay some other
countries to do the dirty job of fighting Germany and her allies.
Serbia was more than willing to slaughter anybody around in return for
territories. So Serbian manforce was used to fight for the prosperity of
the Democracies and was paid for with territories inhabited by
Bulgarian, Albanian, Hungarian, Croatian etc. ethnicities. The same was
valid for Greece.
Thus in order to ensure their economic and teritorrial expansions and
preserve their internal order the Democracies had to rely on and
actively maintain fierce dictatorships outside.
To fight Nazi Germany the West needed a butcher like Stalin who would
shoot the last of his soldiers and provide huge manpower to destroy
Hitler. Stalin was paid for the service at Yalta and Eastern Europe was
cheply sold like on a traditional slave market.
An extremely noble democratic deed, inddeed!
Simple truths are that:
You cannot get something for nothing!
You cannot build democratic order without simultanoeusly creating
anti-democratic disorder somewhere else.
The growth of Empires is possible thanks to the specific talents of
different ethnicities which are developed in Nation States.
Democracies cannot exist without Tyranies to do the dirty jobs or to
supply huge manpower for wars or markets in peace time. The inverse is
also true and Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and Milosevic are good examples.
It is no coincidence that the West now woes Dictatorial China (for
economic profits), as it woed Stalinist USSR for military profits.
And it si no coincidence that each to maintain economic growth in USA a
war somewhere must be fought.
We are all helping the growth of Democratic Order.
Some by becoming good consumers, other by being well consumed.
Tinko Eftimov
June R Harton
GS wrote
>It actually sounds like it goes about imagining it dominates something
>or another. Sad
You mean exposing your ignorance and lies, my dear.
You, with your lies have finally made the grade.
You have persistantly lied to the public in these Ngs.,
and have taken no responsibility for your lies.
You stir up hate and you spread filthy lies whenever
you post. Your only pleasure is the distress of the
innocent and good.
Thus:
REVISION AUG 22nd 1999
The original paragraph in the 'Pigs' post is hereby
revised as follows to include the filth, Galina:
"Maybe he is just using another communist - type tool
-- the one where you _repeat_ something long enough
with the intention that even though it is a complete absurd
lie, that people will begin to believe it,'There must be
some truth in it if he keeps saying it'. We discussed just
this particular propaganda tool yesterday, when we
looked at the operations of Slavko's son (Nicholov, Bill)
and that abomination pseudo - 'makedon' from Australia,
and their pet, Galina, the crazed heretic from Russia,
-- we saw how this was _their_ favorite tool too.
PIGS
REVISED AUG 22nd 1999
A wise man once said "Never wrestle with pigs,
they enjoy it and you get dirty")
I don't take to lamely following wise men when
a job needs to be done, but I must say with Slavko,
it can get _very_ dirty.)
O.K., now let us look closely at each of his replies
considering PROPAGANDA and REVISIONISM.
Slavko Mangovski wrote
> June R Harton
> Slavko Mangovski wrote
> >>>Politis (1993:40-42) cites fourteen examples from the Greek
>literature
> >>> of the 1794-1841 period in which the ancient Macedonians are not
> >>>considered to be part of the ancient Greek world.
> >Can you detail all or any of the fourteen so - called examples
> >for all of us to see?
> What's the problem? You don't trust the Journal of Modern Greek
> Studies?
> Wanna know what Capodistrias thought about Macedonia? Wanna
> know who Melas called "Macedonian speaking Macedonians?"
What do we observe here?
Instead of answering the Q., he throws out other random propaganda
in an effort to distract us from clarifying the original items discussed,
where we would have seen his perversion of, or the perversion in, that
material itself .
So, we have his original propaganda effort being masked by a second
propaganda effort.
Also, in a premeditated revisionist manner he uses the communist - type
technique of taking a word in this case 'Macedonian', and changing
it's original meaning (e.g 'Democratic' = 'Totalitarian' in Soviet Russia ),
so that now instead of 'Macedonian' having the definition of an
ancient Macedonian Greek, or it's modern meaning of a general
person from a geographical area called Macedonia, it becomes
the name of a Slav language speaking people!
This makes evident a tampering with 'time' - a leaving out of
TWO THOUSAND and FIFTY years of history at the 'swing of his pen'!
> >>Of course the 'ancient Greek world' was from Thessaly and South.
> >>Are you saying Macedonia wasn't part of the 'ancient Greek world?'
> >What I said was :"Of course the 'ancient Greek world' was from
> >Thessaly and South.
> >>So you exclude Macedonia from the ancient Greek world.
> >You deliberately mislead people! Macedonia
> >and Hellenistic times were in mainstream history later."
> Which mainstream, babe? The Roman one?
O.K. So you see him here continuing in the same vein.
Besides his chauvinistic style, you see here both his propaganda
and revisionism in his three words 'The Roman one?'
He, here, ( let's be a little graphic ), 'spits in the face' of
all the hundreds and thousands of scholars and learned
people of the past, who spent thousands upon thouands
of hours studying the ancient world, who could read the
actual latin and greek works themselves, and who
determined that the time flow of history and culture of
Western Civilization went through the cycle of 'Hellenic',
then 'Hellenistic', and then followed by 'Greco - Roman'.
Again the time omission is evident where we see about
THREE HUNDRED years obliterated from history in his
statement. The original concept being discussed has been
entirely hidden from view, and his earlier revisionism and
propaganda, related to whether Macedonia was part of
the ancient Greek world or not, has been buried from
sight so that his distortions are prevented from being
corrected.
> >>>You deliberately mislead people!
> >>How? By telling what scientific journals say about the "greekness" of
> >>Macedonia?
> >No by implying that what you are writing is scientific fact not just
> >the authors opinion, and by citing only one side of what that author
> >said. When you posted the address for the article it allowed any
> >intelligent person to see how you were misrepresenting it selectively.
> What is selective in the statement saying Greeks didn't consider the
> Macedonians Greek up to the second half of the 19th C?
Here we see Slavko using typical propaganda and ignoring the fact
that he had misrepresented the article as fact not opinion, and
misrepresented what was in the article.
We, of course, also notice that the entire generality of 'didn't consider
the Macedonians Greek' doesn't identify 'which Greeks' he claims
didn't, or at 'what time period' his claim is related to, in order for his
false claim to not be exposed as a lie, in order to give persistance
to his revisionism.
> >>> Macedonia and Hellenistic times were
> >>>in mainstream history later. Stop misleading people.
> >>Roman history, you mean?
> >Go back and reread the Livy quotes I posted.
> No, you go and reread them, again and again until you
> understand them.
At this point we have to actually question the intelligence
of this Slavko. Slavko says ''the Greeks didn't consider
the Macedonians Greek up to the second half of the _19th C''_.
Supposing, Ladies and Gentlemen, that we didn't know
that the Macedonians were Greek, and/or we had never read
Herodotus related to the origins of the Macedonian royal
house and the Macedonian people, or we had only read
Badian's _misinterpretion_ of what is in Herodotos work and
we had not read Hammond to see that Badian's work
was, correctly, found by him to be flawed (more on this later),
and _all_ we knew was that the Aetolians and the Acarnanians
were Greek peoples. What would the Livy quote tell us?
Let us look again at the Livy quote:
The Macedonian delegate said
'The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, are
divided or united by unimportant causes that arise from time
to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks are and
will be for ever at war; for they are enemies not for
reasons which change from day to day, but by nature -
and nature is eternal. But now my speech will end .........'
Exactly! The Macedonians were unquestionably
stating that they were Greek!
Now, if in addition, we look at the fact that the
Macedonians were emphasizing that _they_ were Greek
and that the Romans _weren't_, and there was _no _ statement
denying that the Macedonians were Greek from the
Athenians, the Romans, nor the Aetolians, only the statement
(paraphrasing): "With the _destruction_ you have done you
are more barbaric than anyone else, and we hate you!",
--with that _no denying_ that the Macedonians were Greeks,
what would this mean Ladies and Gentlemen?
Exactly! They were also _regarded_ as Greeks!
As Slavko had said "Greeks didn't consider the
Macedonians Greek up to the second half of the 19th C",
you see why I questioned Slavko's intelligence
here just before. ...... Or perhaps, Ladies and Gentlemen,
he questions _your_intelligence! Maybe he is just
using another communist - type tool -- the one where
you _repeat_ something long enough with the intention
that even though it is a complete absurd lie, that people
will begin to believe it,'There must be some truth in it
if he keeps saying it'. We discussed just this particular
propaganda tool yesterday, when we looked at the
operations of Slavko's son (Nicholov, Bill) and that
abomination pseudo - 'makedon' from Australia or their
pet, Galina, the crazed heretic from Russia, -- we saw
how this was _their_ favorite tool too.
But are we that stupid Ladies and Gentlemen?
Haven't we had enough experience with the communists
not to be taken in by those operating on that trite chauvinistic
assumption that the world is full of unintelligent people to be
manhandled by these reprobates at will?!
> >These quotes do several things, first, the first quote says to the
> >academic world that in 200 B.C. that they, the Macedonians themselves,
> >say words which mean that they, the Macedonians, are Greek 'by
> >eternal nature', which says they are saying that they have always been
> >Greek
> >and are Greeks. (And, by the way, it was stated as an unquestionable
> >fact and received by those present as an unquestionable fact.)
> It doesn't say Macedonians are Greek. Let me quote you from the
> book "Macedonia:4000 years of Greek history."
O.K. Here we see his first sentence above saying the total opposite
of that which we have seen for ourselves to be true. We have seen
how the Macedonians stated in an unquestionable way that they
were Greek, _and_ that they were also perceived to be just that
by their peers.
So, what does Slavko do? He again throws something else at you
to distract you onto something else! This time onto the geographic
territory of Macedonia! 'Don't look at the quote', he is telling you!
His sleight of hand is a wonder to perceive!
(Be very careful not to peek or you may see Slavko without any
clothes on!)
He goes on to say:
>Various ancient Greek geographers and historians in the classical and
>post-classical periods, such as Ephoros, Pseudo-Skylax, Dionysios son of
>Kalliphon and Dionysios Periegetes, put the northern border of Greece at
>the line from the Ambrakian Gulf to the Peneios, therefore excluding
>Macedonia.
So he gives us this quote! So?, you might ask. Me too. But let's
pretend he means it. Perhaps, he, not being Greek or
a scholar or an adequately educated person, and being nothing
but a propagandist and revisionist, does not know that 'Hellas'
more or less approximated those areas that were prominent
in Mycenaean Greek times.
Where has this Slavko been all his life?!!! DUH ???! Or perhaps
he thinks _you_ don't know, so he is just presenting something
that no - one had any problem with understanding before, as a
problem, just to confuse and mislead you further.
Whatever, as we know, 'Hellas' to Alexander included Macedonia.
And 'Hellas' had a more limited area location than the whole
Mycenaean area at first. So, 'Hellas' has been variously described.
And let us not forget what our dear Doctor Anastassios told
you last month:
"It is indeed true that the Hellas was defined in the
ancient world as the land as far north as Thessaly.
However, this area excluded Ionia and the whole
coast of Asia Minor that was inhabited by Greeks,
southern Italy and Sicily, Cyprus and, of course,
Macedonia and Epirus. Therefore, because Hellas
was defined in these limited terms, it hardly means
that this was the end of the Hellenic world."
So, what did Slavko achieve by implying that this was
a problem with relation to identifying the Macedonians
as Greeks ? He accomplished his sole aim, to
mislead, deceive and push onto you his revisionist
agenda.
> >The second quote shows the Macedonian People again, these
> >so-called (by the Fyrom'ers) 'Hellas-conquering Macedonians',
> >ten leading citizens from each city - from the city of
> >Pelagonia (Heraklea near modern day Bitola) to the Peneus,
> >from Edessa to Amphipolis - are being communicated to by the Romans-
> >and the Romans in order to communicate to this 'crowd of Macedonians'
> >in the Macedonians' own homeland translate their Latin into Greek
> >not some non-existant ficticious 'Macedonian'.
> Macedonian wasn't a written language and all paoples in the
> Mediteranean
> world used Greek as we today use English.
Oh look at this one! A gem!
">Macedonian wasn't a written language"!
Here at one fell swoop Slavko has formed the existance of
a non - existant people who speak a non - existant language
but couldn't write it! So here we have a revisionist concept
being thrust down the unwary's throat in such a manner that
you have to snatch at it before it pierces your reality and
you fall into his _trap_ with,'What!', you say,'They didn't write!
Oh that's why no - one knew anything about this before!'
(Not even Slavko of course, though, as his revisionist
concept is a _complete_ fabrication!).
The non - existant, non - existant entity that one now, by Slavko 's
revisionism, one has to prove is non - existant! Oh a delight!
The abomination, Slavko, just used another total communist - type
trick of stating the existance of a non - existance which was
designed to blank out all your knowledge of the subject and thus
promote his revisionist agenda!
In relation to Slavko's:
>and all paoples in the Mediteranean
>world used Greek as we today use English.
Let us also recall what Anastassios went on to tell you :
(Regarding the claim) " that the Macedonians did
speak Greek throughout this period but they were
"Macedonians" through and through. This is not true.
Actually, from Antigonos Gonatas onwards, the
Macedonian state did change its description vis-a-vis
the Amphictyonic council and the Delphi oracle to
conform with the standard of practice throughout Greece.
So, while it was appropriate before to address the
Macedonian delegates as "those send by Antigonos",
the description changed to the "Makethonikon koinon"
which can be loosely translated as the "Macedonian
Common". Furthermore, Macedonian towns were
organized very much along the southern Greek pattern.
What is evident then, that when Macedonians and southern
Greeks came in extensive contact from the time of Philip II,
the Macedonians, who were isolated and maintained
virtually a Homeric society, rushed headlong to catch up
with the developments in the Greek world.
(Any arguments) that the developments in Macedonia
mirrored developments in the non-Greek Hellenistic
world are pure fantasy. There are excellent records
that indicate that the Asiatic populations were never
converted en mass to hellenism. Greek did not spread
beyond the core cities (in Asia), and indeed in the middle
East well into the 3rd century AD, Aramaic was mainly
spoken and Greek was only understood and spoken in
the "islands" of Antioch and some coastal towns.
On the other hand, Macedonia was Greek speaking
as we know from many sources. You really do not have
to go back. There are many inscriptions in Philippi
from Roman times and many of them funenary ones.
In addition, Macedonia was organized by the Romans
very much as the south of Greece, as a League of Cities,
the only two provinces in the empire to have this kind
of organization. So, when one looks beyond the stupid
plays of words, one discerns an essential similarity
between Macedonia and Southern Greece which is
not and could not have been coincidental.
Regarding the fusion of (both Greek lands), there are
excellent statements as to that in P. Green's book
"From Alexander to Actium".
Let us return to Slavko's propaganda agenda now.
> >Also, the second quote identifies Paeonia from as far south as
> >at least Stobi and the Dardanians beyond Paeonia - this of course
> >covering most of the area of what is the FYROM.
> But it includes it into Macedonia.
What exactly did the quote say about the Paeonians:
"The second district was ....
to include the Paeonians dwelling near the Axius on
the east bank of the river."
(One needs only to refer to Thucydides to see that Paeonians
inhabited up to the lake Prasias area. The Axios turns south
below Stobi and becomes the river Erigon and at the lowest
point one finds Mt Bora.)
"The third district ....
- on the north Mount Bora forms a barrier;
to this division was added the region of Paeonia
which extends along the west bank of the Axius"
"The fourth district was on the other side of Mount Bora,
one part of it bordering on Illyricum, the other on Epirus"
"The fourth region is inhabited by the Eordaei, the
Lyncestae, and the Pelagonians; added to these
are Atintania, Tymphaeis, and Elimiotis."
"The capitals of the districts, where their councils were
to be held, were these: for the first district, Amphipolis;
for the second, Thessalonica; for the third, Pella; for the fourth,
Pelagonia."
"When the Dardanians asked for the restoration of Paeonia,
on the ground that it had been theirs and that it adjoined their
boundaries, Paulus announced that freedom was being given
to all those who had been under the rule of King Perseus. But
after refusing them Paeonia he gave them the right to import salt;
he ordered the third district to convey salt to Stobi in Paeonia"
(the geographic macedonia map 1. gif in The Macedonian
Question by Maria Nystazopoulou, at
http://www.abest.com/~angelos/macfaq.html ,
gives a close approximation of the
territory as described by Livy in the 2nd quote, and Stobi's
location is also shown)
"The districts with barbarians on their borders - all the districts,
that is, except the third - were given leave to have armed guards
along their frontiers."
It is clear from these statements that the land to the south of
Dardania was indeed Paeonia and occupied by Paeonians.
It is also clear that the territory of the _actual_ Macedonians,
as relates to borders with FYROM, remained without
question as per the description in Thucydides Histories
2.99.1 - 2.99.6 with the additional area of the capital of the
fourth district, Pelagonia (Heraklea near modern day Bitola).
O.K. Let's look at what Slavko did here. Whereas the FYROM
is claiming the name of Macedonia and per Slavko and company
we are elsewhere treated to the 'soul - wrenching' claim that
the population of the _FYROM_ land are the descendents of the
indigenous ancient Macedonians, this second Livy quote clearly
shows this to be an absurd lie, and a _calculated_ knowing lie
as evidenced by Slavko's flippant response to the news that
the people that occupied what is now the FYROM area were
Dardanians and Paeonians _not_ the Macedonians at all!
Instead of hanging his head in shame at the knowledge of all
the people he and his have harmed by their knowing deceit,
he skirts the whole issue and trys to hang onto the name
concept, even though the territory of the _actual_ Macedonians
was in what is today's Northern Greece area, _south_ of the
ancient Paeonian land!
Why does he do this? Of course the answer is so he can
continue to promote his revisionism. In other words,
so that he can _by association_ still hang onto the 'Macedonian'
_people_ concept! Communist - type propaganda and revisionism
at it's best!
> >And related to other arguments on population #'s in the past, the
> >Chalcidice
> >and from the Peneus is completely identified as part of Macedonia.
> Look at the above quote.
Slavko continues his revisionism to divert your attention
from the obvious, that there is no way the FYROM people can be
identified as Macedonians.
> >Also, this shows that an independent nation, namely the Romans,
> >solidly recognised that the Macedonians were Greeks way back
> >then, so it is not a 'fabrication of 19th century Greece'.
> No, they didn't. Romans clearly distingushed between Macedonians
> and Greeks.
Here we see again the revisionism in action. We have seen the quote
that the Macedonians made and he can not provide a counter
statement from anyone at the meeting saying "No, you are not Greeks."
That fact, that the Macedonians were Greeks, we have seen,
was accepted by the Aetolians, the Athenians AND the Romans
without question.
The thing to remember here Ladies and Gentlemen, is that Slavko
has had access to all the historical infomation that you have.
He knows that one only has to read Herodotus to understand
the nature of the ancient Macedonian Greeks, both their royal
house and their people, and read Thucydides to understand the
nature of the ancient Macedonian Greek territory, and yet he still
says the opposite. One can complain about his lack of integrity
or say he is a man in need of help, but the fact remains that he is an
unrepentant forger of history whom any decent person should think
very carefully about, before having any association with him (pigs).
Let us remember all the hate and upset, which Slavko and company
have created by this propaganda and revisionism, which has
caused so much suffering to many people in and out of the Fyrom,
not to mention some sixteen MILLION Greeks.
Let us continue...
> >Also, the dimensions of Macedonia mentioned clearly show
> >that the land approximates very closely the dimensions of
> >the territory in modern Greece, and provide a definition
> >of the territory of Macedonia at the end of their period,
> >(Thucydides of course providing the dimensions at the beginning)
>Look at this quote:
>Borza: Both Herodotus and Thycidides describe the Macedonians as
>foreigners, a distinct people living outside the
>frontiers of the Greek city-states.
>In a controversial and sometimes
>misunderstood essay on this question, E. Badian concluded that, whatever
>the ethnic origins and identity of the Macedonians, they were generally
>perceived in their own time BY GREEKS AND THEMSELVES not to be Greek.
>Badian shows that, until quite late, the Macedonians as people were
>excluded from
>panhellenic festivals in which only Greeks were permitted to participate,
>that the attempts of their kings to participate met with objections from
>the Greeks, that contemporary Greek literature offers numerous
>examples of Greek contempt for the Macedonians as barbarians,
>and that to the extent that Macedonian kings participated in panhellenic
>or bilateral arrangements with Greeks, they did
>so as individuals.
Here Slavko parades his revisionist formula and propaganda.
He gives you statements with the intention that you are to doubt
what you just saw for yourself! "But isn't he just trying to get his
ideas across like anyone else would?", you ask. NO!
He does not say "Yes, that is correct", to you, "but look at this".
No, he uses the communist - type technique of "Look over here!", Wham!
- so that what you just saw before has been blanked out!
Want proof? Lets look at his quote:
>Borza: Both Herodotus and Thycidides describe the Macedonians as
>foreigners, a distinct people living outside the
>frontiers of the Greek city-states.
We see that this Borza beginning statement would be
in disagreement with both Herodotus and Thucydides as far as
the 'Greekness' of the Macedonians is concerned!
But _Borza's_ intention was _NOT_ to discuss that
aspect in this paragraph that Slavko posted here!
Look at what _Borza_, not Slavko, _actually_ says regarding
the Greekness of the Macedonians --in a version taken from
a website claiming to be non-partisan.
(Since the following statement accompanied
the webpage: "My interest in forming this web page is to find
who the Macedonians were and still are as a people", in my
opinion it is not a non-partisan source but one of Slavko's buddies,
but I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusion on that from
those words. I obviously cannot guarantee the word for word
accuracy of any version obtained in this manner):
This is what was on the website:
""""
Taken From: "IN THE SHADOW OF OLYMPUS
THE EMERGENCE OF MACEDON"
Written By Eugene N. Borza
"The reconstruction that follows is tentative in the extreme,
and the reader is cautioned to be wary. Since the
archaeological record is scanty, this account of early
Macedonian history is based on the most sceptical analysis
of literary traditions. We have seen that the "Makedones"
or "Highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may
have been derived from Northwest Greek stock. That is,
Northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European
speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes
who were later known by different names as they
established their regional identities in separate parts of
the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been
related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated
south to become the historical Dorians, and to other
Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes
or Molossians.
""""
So, wonder oh wonder, BORZA, contrary to Slavko's
propaganda, still aligns _himself_ , although (per this
website) 'tentative in the extreme', on the side of the
mainstream historians who conclude that the
Macedonians were indeed Greek!
And what about Badian, again from the same
website :
""""
Taken From: "Macedonia and Greece in
Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times"
Written By E. BADIAN
"We have now become accustomed to regarding
Macedonians as "northern Greeks" and, in extreme
cases, to hearing Alexander's conquests described
as in essence Greek conquests. The former certainly
became true, in Greek consciousness, in the course
of the Hellenistic age; the latter may be argued to be
true ex post facto".
"""''
Badian opening sentence :
""""
What is of greater historical interest is the
question of how Greeks and Macedonians
were perceived by each other.
""""
IS COMPLETED with this sentence:
""""
The question of whether the Macedonians, in the forth
century B.C., were regarded as Greeks or as barbarians
- a question which , as I have indicated, is not closely
connected with the real affinities that a modern scholar
might find - is therefore of considerable historical interest.
""""
Wonder oh wonder! Badian is _not_ stating that the
Macedonians were not Greeks, as per Slavko's propaganda,
just looking at whether they were _regarded_ as Greeks
in the 4th century BC! He also states that (whether they were or
not), it "certainly became true, in Greek consciousness in
the course of the Hellenistic age"!
So we see in both of these quotes from _Borza_ and _Badian_
a totally different picture than with the quote which _Slavko_
tried to blast you with.
So much for Slavko's propaganda revisionist quote!
What would make a person lie to you like this you ask?
Whatever the reason you can now make the judgement
as to whether you can believe _any_ communications he
makes in reference to this issue.
And if one was to enquire 'Well, were the Macedonians
a Greek tribe _originally_ or not?, let us look at what Hammond
wrote lucidly about on just this question:
""""
Taken from N. G. L. Hammond's "The Macedonian State:
The Origins, Institution and History," Calrendon Press, Oxford,
1989, pp. 413.pp. 12-14:"
4. The Language of the Macedonians.
What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself
is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means
'highlanders,' and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such
as 'Orestai' amd 'Oreitai,' meaning 'mountain-men.' A reputedly
earlier variant, 'Maketai,' has the same root, which means 'high,'
as in the Greek adjective 'makednos' or the noun mekos.'
The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod
recorded (p. 3 above) has a bearing on the question of Greek
speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes;
as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic
dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to
suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect.
Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins
of Hellen's three sons -- Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus -- who
were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely
Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recored this
relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh
century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people.
The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the
sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples
of their province in Europe, and one of them was the
'yauna takabara,' which meant the 'Greeks wearing the hat.'
[27] There were Greeks in Greek city-states here
and there in the province, but they were of various origins
and not distinguished by a common hat, the 'kausia.'
We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to
be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth
century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and
modified Hesiod's genealogy by bringing Macedon and his
descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking
family.
[28] Hesiod, Persia, Hellanicus had no motive for making
a false statement about the language of the Macedonians,
who were then an obscure and not a powerful people.
Their independent testimonies should be accepted as
conclusive. That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars.
They disregard or fail to assess the evidence which I have cited,
[29] and they turn instead to 'Macedonian' words and names,
or/and to literary references. Philologists have studied words
which have been cited as 'Macedonian' in ancient lexica and
glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for
some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not
Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the
Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples
who spoke Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they
certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors
of lexica and glossaries. The philological studies result in a
verdict, in my opinion, of 'non liquet.' [30]
The toponyms of the Macedonian homeland are
the most significant. Nearly all of them are Greek: Pieria, Lebaea,
Heracleum, Dium, Petra, Leibethra, Aegae, Aegydium, Acesae,
Acesamenae; the rivers Helicon, Aeson, Leucus, Baphyras, Sardon,
Elpe'u's, Mitys; lake Ascuris and the region Lapathus.
The mountain names Olympus and Titarium may be pre-Greek;
Edessa, the earlier name for the place where Aegae was founded,
and its river Ascordus were Phrygian. [31]
The deities worshipped by the Macedones and the names
which they gave to the months were predominantly Greek,
and there is no doubt that these were not borrowings.
To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the
Macedonians were 'barbarians.' The term referred to their way
of life and their institutions, which were those of the 'ethne' and
not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can
see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes
'barbarians.' But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively
that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek
and used names which were Greek. [32]
In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive
terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people.[33]
In passages which refer to the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander
the Great and the early successors there are mentions of
a Macedonian dialect, such as was likely to have been spoken in the
original Macedonian homeland. On one occassion Alexander
'called out to his guardsmen in Macedonian ('Makedonisti'),
as this [viz. the use of 'Macedonian'] was a signal ('symbolon') that
there was a serious riot.' Normally Alexander and his soldiers
spoke standard Greek, the 'koine,' and that was what the Persians
who were to fight alongside the Macedonians were taught. So the
order 'in Macedonian' was unique, in that all other orders were in
the 'koine.' [34] it is satisfactorily explained as an order in broad
dialect, just as in the Highland Regiment a special order for a particular
purpose could be given in broad Scots by a Scottish officer who
usually spoke the King's English.The use of this dialect among
themselves was a characteristic of the Macedonian soldiers
(rather that the officers) of the King's Army. This point is made
clear in the report -- not in itself dependable -- of the trial of
a Macedonian officer before an Assembly of Macedonians, in
which the officer (Philotas) was mocked for not speaking in dialect. [35]
In 321 when a non-Macedonian general, Eumenes, wanted
to make contact with a hostile group of Macedonian infantrymen,
he sent a Macedonian to speak to them in the Macedonian dialect,
in order to win their confidence. Subsequently, when they and the
other Macdonian soldiers were serving with Eumenes, they
expresed their affection for him by hailing him in the Macedonian dialect
('Makedonisti'). [36] He was to be one of themselves. As Curtius
observed, 'not a man among the Macedonians could bear to part
with a jot of his ancestral customs.' The use of this dialect was one
way in which the Macedonians expressed their apartness from the
world of the Greek city-states. [27] See J. M. Balcer in 'Historia' 37
(1988) 7.[28] FGrH 4 F 74 [29] Most recently E. Badian in
Barr-Sharrar 33-51 disregards the evidence as set out
in e.g. HM 2.39-54, when it goes against his view that the
Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other
than Greek. [30] The matter is dicussed at some length
in HM 2. 39-54 with reference especially to O. Hoffmann,
'Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihre Volkstun' (Goettingen, 1906)
and J. Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens I (Athens, 1954);
see also Kalleris II and R. A. Crossland in the CAH 3.1.843ff.
[31] For Edessa see HM 1.165 and for the Phrygians
in Macedonia 407-14. Olympus occurs as a Phrygian personal
name. [32] See Hammond, 'Epirus' 419ff. and 525ff.
[33] As Badian, loc. cit. 42, rightly observes: 'this, of course,
is simple abuse.'[34] Plu. 'Alex.'51.6[35] Curtius 6.8.34-6.
[36] PSI XII 2(1951) no. 1284, Plu. Eun.14.11.
Badian, loc. cit. 41 and 50 n.66, discusses the former
and not the latter, which hardly bears out his theory that
Eumenes 'could not directly communicate with Macedonian
soldiers,' and presumably they with him. Badian says in his
note that he is not concerned with the argument as to whether
Macedonian was a 'dialect' or 'a language.' Such an argument
seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. We have a
similar problem in regard to Epirus, where some had thought
the language of the people was Illyrian. In Plu.'Pyrrh.'1.3
reference was made to 'the local 'phone,'' which to me means
'dialect' of Greek; it is so in this instance because Plutarch
is saying that Achilles was called 'in the local 'phone' Aspestos.'
The word 'Aspestos' elsewhere was peculiar to Greek epic,
but it survived in Epirus in normal speech. It is of course
a Greek and not an Illyrian word. See Hammond, 'Epirus' 525ff.,
for the Greek being the language of central Epirus
in the fifth century B.C. "
""""
That the ancient Macedonians were indeed Greeks is clearly
shown by Hammond's details.
So,back to Slavko's propaganda!
> >>>This is the rest, Mihali {another Poster}. Ancient Macedonians
> >>weren't considered Greek in
> >>>ancient times, the middle ages and all the way to the second half of
> >>the 19th C.
> >>> when the Mageli Idea invented the Greekness of the Macedonians.
> >>Slavko, you warped sob, prove Livy wrong or shut your lying mouth.
> >You should read whole Livy. He clearly distinguishes between
> > Macedonians and Greeks.
> >You continue to mislead the uninformed by statements like that. You
> >and Josif have a problem with talking about "Greeks" and "Macedonians"
> >because you think in terms of black and white where history is
> >concerned.
> >You _think_ Greeks are saying there were no differences between the
> >Southern Classical Greeks and the Macedonian Greeks. Of course there
> >were differences but historians with any sense have always understood
> >the differences AND the similarities.
> No, Macedonians weren't simply regarded as Greek, that's it.
O.K. As per standard, Slavko continues with his propaganda 1,2,3.
We have already addressed this issue, and only need to note here
his attempt to make out that the ancient Macedonians _were_
not Greek by substituting a statement that they weren't _regarded_
as Greek. (Might as well ask what the def. of "Is" is!)
He again denies your intelligence by making a generality, omitting
time and the event which his statement applies to, so avoiding your
scrutiny of his lie.
> >But you consider this now:
> >"... Even in Philip?s day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians as a
> >non-Greek
> >foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the
> >history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and
> >obstacles
> >which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important then
> >our
> >modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren; this was
> >equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political
> >effect...."
> >More on the author of the above little piece later.
A further word on the above quote. As you see, it really is a comment
by the author having nothing to do with whether the ancient Macedonians
_were_ Greek or not. Just some attempt to set a scene for his pet theory
related to some Greeks at a particular period of time.This author actually
say's _therein_ that the fact that ''Greeks'' and "Macedonians" are
brethren is indeed a modern _conviction_.
This is a far cry from Slavko's attempt to portray it as a _proof_
that the ancient Macedonians weren't Greek! He intends to mislead
the unwary and further his propaganda by substituting non - related
data and gives it the appearance of related data which it is not!
This brings to the forefront another propaganda tool of his, where
he shows a truth but holds it up as an _untruth_, and by just holding
it up, causes the unwary to think that there must be something
in what he is saying, just because it is being said! Revisionism
and propaganda is obviously _all_ that is being said.
> >As I said before, Slavko, prove Livy wrong in the following quotes
> >or, to put it politely, stop being a source of disinformation.
> >You do humanity a disservice:
> And you're just another brainwashed Greek who cannot see the truth.
Here we observe Slavko's propaganda attempt to neutralize the
source opposing his propaganda and revisionism. And as we have also
seen, he and his, also use the tactic of accusing those people
who are protesting _their_ deceit, of being propagandists and revisionists!
The very thing he and his are the guilty of doing, as we have clearly
seen by this review of his statements herein, they try to mask that fact,
by claiming that the _other_ party is doing the activity that _they_
themselves are doing!
This is one of the reasons for this examination -- to see exactly _WHO_
is _actually_ the party guilty of propaganda and revisionism!
l humbly submit to you this proof that it is indeed Slavko and his.
> "...If the hundreds of thousands of refugees had not come to Greece,
> Greek Macedonia would not exist today..."
> Augustinos, Metropolite of Florina.
Another propagandist quote by Slavko taking the statement out of context
to further his revisionist agenda. This does not tell us what Augustinos
was talking about, in which this quote was only a part. It, for instance,
may have been a discussion on Tito trying to grab Northern Greece
and the enhanced population being able to fight off the communist
insurgents!
> "...we have set ourselves apart from the Greeks, should we now become
> subjected to others?"
> Macedonians protesting Bulgarian influence in Macedonia
> ("The Macedonian Question" by P.R. Slavejkov. published in "Macedonia,"
> Istanbul, 1871)
This is a perversion of history, a substitution by Slavko of fantasy
for fact. Another propagandist quote which belies the truth that the
Fyrom people of last century, almost to the man, identified with
being Bulgarians, even if this was, for some, geographical
'Macedonian' Bulgarians.
Ladies and Gentlemen history is history as we have seen,
not a subject that is open to the whim of the likes of Slavko
and company!
You have seen by this review of Slavko's responses just what
a deviant he is, and that when you examine his responses
critically you find nothing but propaganda and revisionism.
When these are removed, you have seen herein that you
cannot find even _ONE_ sentence he says that is relevant
to the issue at hand, nor _ANY_ truth coming from him.
In conclusion Ladies and Gentleman, you have herein
seen Slavko without any clothes on. You might as well
have him in your kill file, (excuse me a moment......... ),
as I was saying, you might as well have him in your
kill file for all the use discussing _anything_ with him is.
An occasional sortie, to expose his flagrant lies, is sufficient
exposure to his type of filth (pigs) for anybody!
June R Harton
>You are missing the major point which is that the goal should not be
>ethnic or cultural hegemony, but a mutual respect and harmony in order
>to reach certain social and economic goals. By breaking the tyranny of
>separatism, a future is ensured.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
A little late for your hypocrisy, don't you think, foul one?!
June R Harton
GS wrote
>Ruling by force and inequity has nothing to do with being natural in
>place; it only has to do with desperate and wrong political choices. l.
Talking of wrong choices, Galina:
EVAGORAS wrote
>Old serbs become terror target
>========================
I don't here your pious voice raised in outrage, Galina,
you piece of filth!
Stephan Nikolov
> Well, I maybe have to elaborate a bit more on that.
>
> First let me say it that I do not think that pure ethnic states should
> be the ideal solution. This is unnatural and in the final analysis will
> lead to degeneration of society. It is also irreal so I am not talking
> about that. To keep a sociaty ethnically (or racially pure) will need
> draconian measures leading to fierce dictatorship.
>
Noone argues for that for purtity, etc.
I am not willing to argue with you on your biological interpretation of
ethnos: it is unacceptable for me.
SN
Nikoll A Mirakaj
George S. Tsapanos <LYN...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:eWaLz84##GA.164@cpmsnbbsa05...Good morning to all
Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote in message <7r8que$6me$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...It proves what? The Albanian descendants of Hydra and other Arvanites fought for Greece because they were Christians, and during the Ottoman Empire, religion was seen as more important than nationality.You keep mixing Albanians with Arvanites!And now you involve religion also!What do you thing were the connections with the Arvanite Generals of Samuil's Army and today's Albanians ?Or with the Thracians of Kekaymenos from the 4th-5th century that me and Stefan we have been talking couple a weeks backs?Were those people Albanians ?But for sure they were Arvanites ...................!Are you going to make them Albanians ?
Arvanite is Albanian.Arbresh is Albanian. Arnaut is Albanian.
If the island of Hydra was settled by the albanians , then naturally their descendants are also related to the Albanians.Albanians do not exist until 1923. Period.
This does not mean you should not celebrate them as the heros they were. Just don't act as if we are from another planet or don't exist in Greece, when Greece is full of Albanians. Athens for one is sorrounded by Albanians, and I'm not talking about the new ones.You sound like one who just found his freedom and wants everything to be his.You have a lot to learn, you are surrunded by Greeks, Bulgars and Serbs and they had more time to write their History................:))
You sound like someone who'd like to ignore reality.
Nikoll A Mirakaj
June R Harton <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:7rb3ef$1tqk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
What did I tell you?
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
The heart of macedonia? Is that supposed to be some kind of poem? You Got Albanians who've always been there. You've got Bulgarians and had a hell of a lot more in greek macedonia in the northern part. Lots of the locals who emigrated to australia and canada have changed their names back to the Bulgarian, wondering how their parents could have one name and they another. Lots have been ethnically cleansed and replaced by new populations of asia minors and pontians. It is the heart of greek propaganda.
Nikoll A Mirakaj
>
> Nikoll A Mirakaj wrote:
> >
> > Two brothers who grew up side by side would not speak different languages.
>
> they might
>
> > If you look east, however, or west (in the case of the Albanians).....
>
> ethnic or cultural hegemony, but a mutual respect and harmony in order
> to reach certain social and economic goals. By breaking the tyranny of
> separatism, a future is ensured.
>
> >
> > GS <sp...@erols.com> wrote in message news:37D8874F...@erols.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> > > >
> > > to separate them into separate rooms but eventually, they have to make
> > > peace if they wish to come to the dinner table
> > > >
> > > >
ARVANITI
Gamisu re Pusti...
Ftani me pustides ja ti ise ena alvano pedi ke tipota alo.
Diavaste edo kato ke meta tha pas stin trelokomio ja ti ise
hameno...
Aman re Costaki Mavraki kseris kati leksi arvanitika.
An thelis na mathis tha se stiso ena alvanika diksioner...
Buke - Psomi
Djathe Tiri
Nena - Mana
Si je - Ti kanis
Shendet - Jassu
Shqiptar - Alvano
Djale - Agori
Tha su grapso pali re kucubithaqi....
from: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html
_________________________________________
. THE ARVANITES
General data on the language
Arvanites are those whose mother tongue is Arvanitika (name in Greek -
Áñâáíßôåò)/ Arberichte (name in their language); most linguists use the
word Albanian for that language, but the community loathes its use, and
it is therefore advisable that this sensitivity be taken into
consideration unless researchers and/or human and minority rights
activists do not mind alienating the very community they are studying.
Likewise, they call themselves Arvanites (in Greek) and Arberor (in
their language); but in Northwestern Greece, in their language, they use
the term Shqiptar (the same used by Albanians of Albania), a term
strongly disliked by the other Arvanites, who also resent being called
Albanians.
Nevertheless, Arvanitika belongs to the linguistic family of Albanian,
and it has evolved from one of the two linguistic groups of Albanian,
the South Albanian Tosk (the other is the North Albanian Gheg).
Arvanitika has a dialectical richness: there are three different groups
of dialects spoken, one in Thrace, one in Northwestern Greece (near the
Albanian border), and one in Central and Southern Greece. The latter,
which includes the vast majority of speakers of Arvanitika in Greece,
has by itself a great dialectical variety which makes some of these
dialects to be, or to be perceived by the speakers as, mutually
unintelligible(Nakratzas,
1992:86; Trudgill et al., 1975:44; Tsitsipis, 1983:297; Williams,
1992:85). Along with Vlachs, Macedonians, and Roma, Arvanites in Greece
argue whether they should use the Greek or the Latin alphabet to write
their language, which has rarely been written (Gerou, 1994a; Kazazis,
1994).
Most Arvanites have traditionally lived in Central and Southern Greece:
in most departments of the regions of Continental Greece (Sterea Ellada)
and the Peloponnese (including especially most islands corresponding to
these areas) and the Cyclades island of Andros. Arvanites also live
near the
Albanian border, in most departments of Epirus and in the Florina and
Kastoria departments of Macedonia; also, in the border (with Turkey)
department of Evros (in Thrace) and in the Salonica department
(where they settled along with other Orthodox refugees from Eastern
Thrace, in the 1920’s). Like the rest of the population, since the
1950s, Arvanites have been emigrating from their villages to the cities
and especially to the capital Athens, which, incidentally, was a mainly
Albanian (Arvanite) small town in the early 1800’s, before becoming the
Greek state’s capital (Nakratzas, 1992:87-8). It appears that
urbanization has been leading to the loss of the use of the language,
which has been surviving more in the traditional villages.
There have not been any official statistics on this as well as on any
other minority group in Greece since 1951 (and the statistics before
then are generally considered unreliable, reflecting mostly only those
with a strong ethnic consciousness). Today, the best estimate for the
people who speak the language and/or have an Arvanite consciousness is
that they number around 200,000. Trudgill (1983:128) gives an estimate
of 140,000 for the speakers in Attica and Beotia, a figure also
mentioned in Hill (1990:135). For the Arvanites in the Northwest, a
figure of 30,000 is given by Ciampi (1985:87), who also puts the figure
for the total group at 156,000-201,000. Some members of the community
give much higher figures, around 1,600,000 (Kormoss, 1994:1; and Gerou,
1994b:2): this figure may correspond to all Greeks who have some
Arvanite ancestry, but certainly not to the current speakers and those
with a similar consciousness. Like all other minority languages, except
Turkish, Arvanitika has no legal status in Greece and is not taught at
any level of the educational system.
Moreover, there are no media in Arvanitika, though in some Attica radio
stations some Arvanitika songs can be heard. Arvanites are Orthodox
Christians (many belong to the Old-Calendarist ‘Genuine Orthodox’
Church); their church services are held in Greek, with some rare
exceptions of Gospel reading in Arvanitika at Easter. Even Arvanite
cultural activities appear to be limited. Tsitsipis has reported only
occasional folklore festivals, music and poetry contests (Tsitsipis,
1983 & 1994). Since the 1980’s, there has been a creation of Arvanite
cultural associations and publication of a magazine and some books on
Arvanite culture (very little though published in the language). In some
areas, Easter Gospel is read in Arvanitika (Gerou, 1994a). Perhaps the
most significant -for the large public- venture is the release of the
CD -with an attached explanatory booklet- Arvanitic Songs (FM Records,
1994).
History of the community and the language
The first Christian Albanian migrations to what is today Greek
territory took place as early as the XI-XII centuries (Trudgill, 1975:5;
Banfi, 1994:19), although the main ones most often mentioned in the
bibliography happened in the XIV-XV centuries, when Albanians were
invited to settle in depopulated areas by their Byzantine, Catalan or
Florentine rulers (Tsitsipis, 1994:1; Trudgill, 1975:5; Nakratzas,
1992:20-24
& 78-90; Banfi, 1994:19). According to some authors, they were also
fleeing
forced Islamization by the Turks in what is today Albania (Katsanis,
1994:1). So, some have estimated that, when the Ottomans conquered the
whole Greek territory in the XV century, some 45% of it was populated by
Albanians (Trudgill, 1975:6). Another wave of Muslim Albanian migrations
took place during the Ottoman period, mainly in the XVIII century
(Trudgill, 1975:6; Banfi, 1994:19). All these Albanians are the
ancestors of modern-day Arvanites in Central and Southern Greece.
Very little is known about the Albanian presence in Thrace; it was
probably a spill-over of the many migrations mentioned above.
Anyhow, there were many Albanians in Eastern Thrace and in the adjacent
Western Thrace department of Evros. The former, as Christians, were
relocated in Greece during the compulsory exchange of Christians and
Muslims between modern-day Turkey and Greece in the 1920’s: many
settled in the Salonica department.
As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia, they are
considered to be part of the modern Albanian nation (Banfi, 1994:20),
something which perhaps explains their self-identification as Shqiptars
rather than Arberor. When frontiers were drawn up in the early XX
century, some Christian and Muslim Albanians were left in Greek
territory, just as some Greeks were left in Albanian territory. An
important part of these Albanians, the Muslim Chams, fled Greece towards
the end of World War II, as many had collaborated with the occupying
forces and were, as a result, persecuted by Greek resistance.
When the modern Greek state was formed, the Albanian-speaking
population and its language were called Albanian, even if those
Christian Albanians were considered an integral part of the Greek
nation and had played a decisive role in the War of Independence
between 1821-1828 (Bartholdy, 1993; Bickford-Smith, 1993: 47;
Embeirikos, 1994; Vakalopoulos, 1994:243-249). However, the policy of
the new Greek state was to Hellenize all the non-Greek speaking
Orthodox populations within its, then limited, territory as well as in
the territories of Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor still under
Ottoman rule, which were though considered as part of Greek irredenta;
the other Balkan countries (Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and later
Albania) had also followed similar policies. As elsewhere in Europe,
army and education were the most effective mechanisms of Hellenization,
assisted
by the judiciary system ready to denounce and punish all forms of
behavior inconsistent with the state’s nationalist culture
(Kitromilidis, 1990:38; Kollias, 1994).
It is noteworthy to point out though, that, before the definite
development of modern Albanian nationalism, there were efforts in the
1870’s to include most Albanians under Ottoman rule in a Greek-Albanian
kingdom (Castellan, 1991:333; Vakalopoulos, 1994: 243-249), just as
others appealed to them for their inclusion in an Albanian-Vlach
Macedonian state (Berard, 1987:292-333). The Albanians’ fear of an
eventual
assimilation by the Greeks led to the failure of the former effort.
The result of the Hellenization policy -which was to take a very
oppressive turn during the Metaxas dictatorship (1936-1940)- was that
Albanian Greeks, especially after the emergence of Albanian nationalism
and of the Albanian state, felt that they had to ‘constantly prove their
Greekness.’ Hence, their very conservative political behavior: they had
traditionally been royalists and, in large numbers, adhered to the Old
Calendarist Orthodox Christian Church, which -when the split in the
Greek Church over the introduction of the new calendar took place in the
1920’s- was originally supported by the royalist forces. Moreover, and
more important for the survival of their language, they have distanced
themselves from the Albanians to the extent that most consider today
offending to be called Albanians: they have preferred the term Arvanite
(Arberor in their own language) for the people and Arvanitika
(Arberichte) for the language, as opposed to Albanian (Shqiptar for the
people and Shqip for the language) that Albanians use for themselves and
their language -with the exception of the Arvanites of Northwestern
Greece, as mentioned above. This attitude may also explain the efforts
of some intellectuals of the Arvanite community to trace Arvanites’ and
Arvanitika’s roots back to the prehistoric inhabitants of Greece, the
Pelasgians and their language, so as to claim indigenous status
(Williams, 1992:87; Gerou, 1994b; Thomopoulos, 1912).
Trudgill (1994) has shown that, in Greece, as minority languages are
all alien (Abstand) to Greek, the use of different names for them
(Arvanitika rather than Albanian, Vlach rather than Romanian, Slav
rather than Macedonian) has contributed to denying their heteronomy
(i.e. their dependence on the corresponding standard language) and
increasing their autonomy (by assigning them the status of autonomous
languages). As a result, the minority language’s vulnerability grew
significantly, as well as the dissociation of the speakers’ ethnic
(Arvanite, Vlach, Slavophone) identities from the corresponding
national
identities (Albanian, Romanian, Macedonian) which have developed in the
respective modern nation-states. Today, Arvanite ethnic identity is
perceived by many members of the community as distinct from that of
the other Greeks who have Greek as their mother tongue but as fully
compatible with Greek national identity (likewise for many Vlachs
and Macedonians). A similar phenomenon has helped weaken the links
between Pomaks in Greece (speaking a Bulgarian-based language) and
Bulgarians, and the consequent Pomaks’ assimilation into the Turkish
ethnic and, by now, national identity in Western Thrace, an assimilation
here detrimental to Greece’s homogenization and anti-minority policies.
In another Balkan context, such attitude helped distance the literary
Macedonian language standardized by Yugoslav authorities in the
late 1940s from Bulgarian to which the previously spoken dialects in
Yugoslav Macedonia were heteronomous.
If Hellenization was a significant factor for the weakening of
the use of Arvanitika, urbanization was another. Arvanitika had
survived until recently in many homogeneous villages where most
people had been using the language regularly. Those, though, who
moved to the cities soon abandoned the use of the language as it was
unintelligible to most other city dwellers and was even perecived as a
sign of backwardness; on the other hand, the children had no way of
learning the language as neither was it taught at school nor was it used
regularly by family members -often grand parents- at home
(Moraitis, 1994).
Current situation of the community and the language
Almost all information about the present concerns the bulk of the
Arvanite community in Central and Southern Greece. The other two
communities are hardly mentioned in the literature and have also been
ignored in the 1987 European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages
(EBLUL) visit to the Arvanite community in Greece, an oversight which
led to at least one indirect protest letter by the Tychero municipality
(Kazazis, 1994); nevertheless, a 1994 second visit by the EBLUL was
again limited to the Central Greece Arvanite villages.
Almost all speakers of Arvanitika are today bilingual, i.e.
they also speak Greek, usually fluently for the younger generations
(Trudgill, 1975:53). It is widely agreed that Arvanitika today have
been
influenced significantly by the linguistic environment in which they
have evolved, sometimes for centuries, without any contact with the
Albanian communities of modern day Albania. So, it has acquired a
separate (Ausbau) status from Albanian, in fact with dialectical
richness;
nevertheless, at least partial mutual intelligibility between Arvanite
and Albanian exists (Trudgill, 1994:14). Indeed, the recent (in the
early 1990’s) arrival of hundreds of thousands, mainly illegal, Albanian
immigrants in Greece has led to a successful test of that mutual
intelligibility, when many settled in Arvanitika villages (it is also
noteworthy that in these villages we have seen the two most serious
incidents of beatings of Albanian immigrants).
A comparison with standard Albanian shows that Arvanitika has
suffered reduction and simplification. Reduction here means loss of:
Albanian vocabulary (often replaced by Greek words duly adapted
phonetically and morphologically); prepositions (sometimes replaced
by Greek ones); verbal tenses; and forms. While simplification consists
of loss of case forms, connecting particles and invariable verbal
forms (Trudgill, 1983:115-123).
On the other hand, Arvanitika is threatened with extinction. In the
early 1970’s, more than 80% of the inhabitants of Arvanite villages in
the Attica & Beotia departments were found to be fluent speakers of
Arvanitika, though the loss of the language was more pronounced in the
villages close to Athens than elsewhere; at the same time, however, the
actual use of the language was more limited (Trudgill, 1975:56-61).
Moreover, there has been a rather widespread indifference among
Arvanites, as well as Vlachs and Macedonian, about the fate of their
mother tongues, along with self-deprecation: they have been led by the
dominant unilingual Greek culture to -usually sincerely- believe that
these languages are deficient, lack proper grammatical structure, have a
poor vocabulary (Trudgill, 1994:14; Tsitsipis, 1994:4). So, gradually,
Arvanites have switched from bilingualism to a subordination of
Arvanitika to Greek; and, sometimes, young people discourage their
parents from speaking the language (especially in public). It is
probably a correct estimate, although no studies equivalent to that of
the 1970s exist, that the language is used today by middle aged people
(interchanged with Greek) and by elderly people (in most contexts) and
much less by the younger generation (usually when addressing older
people, in strict family context, or, sometimes, too, to make fun of
non-speakers) (Tsitsipis, 1994; Trudgill, 1983:114-5).
Moreover, in the Peloponnese, it seems that the users are
predominantly elderly people (Williams, 1992:85-6). Experts, therefore,
agree that Arvanitika in Greece is threatened with extinction more than
the equivalent Arberichte language of Southern Italy, as the latter
country is more tolerant and does not feel threatened by plurilingualism
(Hamp, 1978; Tsitsipis, 1983).
Since the 1980s, some efforts to preserve Arvanite culture have been
made. A congress was held in 1985. Four cultural associations have been
created: the Arvanitikos Syndesmos Hellados (the Arvanite League of
Greece) which has been publishing, since 1983, the bimonthly
Besa (in Greek); the Kentro Arvanitikou Politismou (Center for Arvanite
Culture); the Arvanitikos Syllogos Ano Liosion (Arvanite
Association of Ano Liosia); and the Syllogos Arvaniton Corinthias
(Association of Arvanites of Corinthia). Books on Arvanite culture
have been published. Church reading and chanting in some Arvanite
villages has been reported (Williams, 1992:87). Finally, we had the
release of a CD with Arvanite music mentioned above. Overall, though,
this movement is weaker than similar ones among Vlachs and
Macedonians (and certainly among officially recognized Turks).
One reason for such a slow movement is the apparent hostility of the
Greek state to such ‘revivals’ among Arvanites, Vlachs, and
Macedonians, which is indicated by police disruption of festivals (in
Macedonia), and harassment of musicians who play and sing songs in
minority languages; as well as by the tolerance -by the state and
particularly its judiciary- of public calls, printed in the press, to
use violence against those musicians; likewise, human and minority
rights activists have been the object of similar threats (Stohos,
20/7/1994 and in previous issues, where even the European Union’s
Euromosaic project -to report on the status of the linguistic minorities
in the EU- was attacked). Such hostile environment makes even the
scholars’ work look suspicious: for example, Arvanites have reacted with
incredulity and suspicion to scholars’ assertions that their language
can be written (Tsitsipis, 1983:296-7; Trudgill, 1983:129; Williams,
1992:88). Moreover, the EBLUL’s first visit to the community was
violently attacked by some community members (Williams, 1992:88)
as well as in state-sponsored publications (Lazarou et al.,
1993:191-193).
Likewise, Arvanitika has never been included in the educational
curricula of the modern Greek state. On the contrary, its use has been
strongly discouraged at schools (and in the army) through physical
punishment, humiliation, or, in recent years, simple incitation of the
Arvanitika users (Williams, 1992:86; Trudgill, 1983:130-1). Such
attitudes have led many Arvanite (as well as Vlach, and Macedonian)
parents to discourage their children from learning their mother tongue
so as to avoid similar discrimination and suffering (Trudgill,
1983:130).
---------------------------------------------------------------
GS
Tinko Eftimov wrote:
>
> <-----interesting commentary deleted
> The growth of Empires is possible thanks to the specific talents of
> different ethnicities which are developed in Nation States.
>
> Democracies cannot exist without Tyranies to do the dirty jobs or to
> supply huge manpower for wars or markets in peace time. The inverse is
> also true and Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and Milosevic are good examples.
>
> It is no coincidence that the West now woes Dictatorial China (for
> economic profits), as it woed Stalinist USSR for military profits.
>
> And it si no coincidence that each to maintain economic growth in USA a
> war somewhere must be fought.
This is actually invalid reasoning as its underpinnings are Keynsian.
One could say as easily that the 60% plus of the American economy going
to defense spending could as easily be reshuffled into national and
international projects of various sorts, and might even create more
wealth if put into sustainable projects.
>
> We are all helping the growth of Democratic Order.
> Some by becoming good consumers, other by being well consumed.
very cute. But all of us through consuming interests, or was that more
in service of the oligarchical order?
>
> Tinko Eftimov
June R Harton
You don't know what you are talking about.
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
GS wrote
kou...@my-deja.com
->If they were natural they would not have needed to rule by force, or
->by closing all Albanian institutions, while Albanians made up the
->majority.
GS <sp...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37D8867F...@erols.com...
> Nikoll,
>
> I must disagree with you and say that Serbs are natural in Kosovo.
>They
> have been there for around a thousand years, certainly long enough.
> There is room for both people as long as nationalism and revenge upon
> revenge are not prominent.
>
> Galina
The non-Albaninan people from [Ro]Macedonia should understand that
their furure is not with Serbia/Yugoslavia [past, present or future]
and will be only some balance in regard to the present
ethnic boundaries between Albania and Bulgaria.
As fas as those people of Macedonia reject their past as ethnic
Bulgarians in 40 years from now they will need to vacate their entire
land in order to allow rapidly expanding Albanian population to live in
their [united] state of Illiria.
koutzar
Michael Gonzalez (Wall Street Journal), on Aug. 11, 1999 wrote:
"The preferred solution for the leadership in Romania, Bulgaria and
Macedonia would clearly be to have present borders frozen in place,
but become less and less significant over time.
…the 1975 treaty in Finland's capital which stated
that borders should be respected, and that the governments inside these
borders should respect the human rights of all. It's easy to see why."
"Bulgarians and their western neighbors, the
Macedonians, for example, speak pretty much the same language, and
often claim the same "founding fathers" as their own exclusive heritage.
Macedonia could lose its very raison d'etre if Kosovo were to
become independent, or joined Albania. The sizable Albanian-speaking
minority in Macedonia, some 30% strong, might become restless
and want to join with them."
[From "Thinking Outside the Sovereignty Box", Wall Street Journal,
Brussels; Aug 11, 1999; Page: 6]
Pristina's local KLA commander, Sali Mustafer, subordinate to Remi
[Rustem Mustafer], told reporters that:
"The ultimate aim of the KLA was to unite all the Albanian people in one
homeland, including areas of Macedonia."
[From: "KLA vows to keep weapons in its pursuit of statehood", by Guy
Dinmore; Financial Times, Jun 15, 1999,
Kosovo reports, Page 4 Editorial Comment, Page 23]
Zeke Wigglesworth (The Oregonian), on Nov 17, 1996 wrote:
"Bulgaria's major problem is a lack of identity."
[From: "THE BALKANS: Out of the dark", The Oregonian, Nov 17, 1996]
Stacy Sullivan, a freelance journalist who has covered the Balkans, and
who is now a consultant to the Human Rights Initiative at Harvard's John
F. Kennedy School of Government, stated the following:
"They [Bulgarians] believe Macedonia is theirs, but they're not going
to go after it [for all of it]."
[From "Beyond Yugoslavia: Scary scenarios for a wider conflict" written
by By Aaron Zitner, Boston Globe, Mar 30, 1999]
Richard Bassett [Jane's Defence Weekly's Business Editor, 1999, a former
Central Europe correspondent for the Times of London] wrote:
"… the future of Macedonia may have already been decided by its
neighbours."
"The language of the February [1999] agreement is adamant in its
reconciliation of the Bulgarian-Macedonian differences… In diplomatic
jargon this is a clear warning to Albanian groups smuggling weapons into
or, indeed, out of Macedonia."
"It remains to be seen whether this agreement
stabilises Macedonia. The clear anti-Albanian implications of the
agreement may drive the ethnic minority in Macedonia to desperate
measures.
Moreover, in the long-term, Bulgarian-Serbian-Greek rivalry over
Macedonia is inevitable and partition may be unavoidable also here."
"Bulgaria which has long maintained that Macedonian is
only a Bulgarian dialect, has also become more supportive of the
government in Skopje, though this is partly a result of the government,
dominated by the newly elected VMRO party, enjoying traditional ties
with Bulgaria.
Before the Second World War, Bulgaria financed with
Italy the VMRO party which was then dedicated to destroying the newly
created Yugoslav state and was implicated in the assassination of King
Alexander of Yugoslavia in Marseilles in 1934.
The news earlier this month that Bulgaria is to donate
150 main battle tanks, including 115 T-55As, and nearly 150 artillery
pieces caused some concern in western embassies. The concern was
particularly acute over the arms import as the Bulgarian donation came
on the heels of the supply by Germany of BTR-70 armoured personnel
carriers. With all Macedonian army leave cancelled and the deployment of
two brigades on the Albanian/Kosovo frontier, analysts fear that the
arsenal now being created in this small country is a tinderbox awaiting
ignition.
The emergence of Bulgaria as a regional player is also
viewed with some disquiet in the region - traditionally Bulgaria and
Serbia have a long history of emnity, though some analysts point to the
old Comintern idea of a Serbian-Bulgarian federation possibly being
revived. Such a development, however, has been described as two stranded
swimmers linking hands across a sea of Macedonian troubles.
It remains to be seen whether this agreement stabilises
Macedonia. The clear anti-Albanian implications of the agreement may
drive the ethnic minority in Macedonia to desperate measures. "
[From: BALKAN ENDGAME? , Richard Bassett, Jane's Defence Weekly, 1999]
On the April 5 CNBC show "Hardball," anchored by Chris Matthews,
Dr. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, made the following
comments on the current crisis in Kosovo:
"Once the objective in Kosovo has been reached, that will open the
chapter of Macedonia, because in Macedonia, there are 800,000 Albanians
and it's going to be a problem to deny them what has just, been granted
to the Albanians in Kosovo."
"And when that happens, the Slavs in Macedonia who are almost
exclusively Bulgarians, will raise their demands. "
"Once we have achieved self-government for the people of Kosovo, which
now support, this is not end of the story. Then we have to consider what
happens to the many ethnic clans that exist in the Balkans to avoid
being triggered into crisis after by this sort of issue and especially
by the issues that will emerge in Macedonia and maybe even in northern
Greece.", concluded Dr. Kissinger.
[From: "Kissinger warns of tragedy in Macedonia", Macedonian Tribune,
April 22, 1999]
Marshall Freeman Harris, a senior fellow at Freedom House in Washington,
DC. (As a State Department official, he served in Britain, Bulgaria and
Macedonia, and in Washington as special assistant in the Office of
Secretary of State James Baker. In 1993 he resigned in protest against
U.S. inaction in Bosnia) in "The National Interest" [Spring 1999] stated
the following:
"Bulgarian political forces continue to lay at least rhetorical claim to
Macedonian territory.
Bulgaria now enjoys the most progressively democratic government in the
Balkans, but, historically,
Bulgarians have viewed the territory that is now Macedonia as part of
Bulgaria.
In the nineteenth century, Bulgarian leaders purportedly moved their
capital to Sofia, in the far western part of the country, with the
expectation that it would be the political and geographical center of a
greater Bulgaria.
Today, among viable political forces outside of the government, the view
is still widespread that the Macedonians are ethnic Bulgarians
separated from their motherland only by an artificial frontier and an
ersatz Macedonian language. "
"Forces in Albania may have designs on Macedonia's western regions,
which are largely populated by ethnic Albanians. They hold that the
Macedonian Albanians, who may constitute as much as 40 percent of
Macedonia's population of two million, have no real historic ties to the
Slavic Macedonians and only tenuous political links to the new
Macedonian state. They belong instead, it is claimed, in their
motherland of Albania or some future pan-Albanian federation."
[From: Macedonia: The next domino? Marshall Freeman Harris, The National
Interest; Washington; Spring 1999, Issue: 55, Page: 42]
Elizabeth Pond (the author of "The Rebirth of Europe"), on Apr 7, 1999
wrote:
"…Macedonia was the cradle of Bulgarian identity and has as much of a
mythic aura.
In World War II [1941], Sofia seized the chance to join with Nazi
Germany and reconquer Macedonia, only to surrender it again in 1945."
[From: "Can Bulgaria Beat the Balkan Curse?", Wall Street Journal,
Brussels, Apr 7, 1999]
Tom Gallagher, Professor of Ethnic Peace and Conflict at Bradford
University, his "Europe's Turbulent South-East" is to be published in
2000 by Arwood, wrote:
"Rather than sponsoring a Balkan confederation or large ethnically
mixed states where minority rights were protected by international
guarantees, the European powers left two South Slav states with
unsatisfied national programmes who would clash in wars over the next
sixty years [1878-1919]: Serbia and Bulgaria [1978-1999]."
"The liking for improvised, shortterm solutions to complex problems that
ignore the wishes of local populations and are enforced by
tyrannical leaders characterised the major powers' approach to the
Balkans before and after 1945. It produced some of the biggest
American and British blunders of the Cold War and has left two
well-armed Balkan states, Greece and Turkey, which several times have
almost gone to war."
"Similarly, the penchant for diplomatic quick-fixes epitomised the
West's
engagement with Yugoslavia as it dissolved into fratricidal conflict
in the 1990s. A new note was apparently struck in the Kosovo conflict in
the spring of 1999 as NATO committed itself to undoing the
effects of ethnic violence perpetrated on over a million Kosovar
Albanians. Nato leaders also promised to abandon the view that the
Balkans are a nonEuropean zone of disorder and recurring hatreds by
integrating the region with the economic and security structures that
brought peace to western Europe after 1945. Time will tell whether these
expensive pledges, made in the heat of war, will be redeemed
by those who made them or their successors."
"The lazy statecraft of externalpolicy makers has turned the Balkans
into a European danger zone. Unless a new approach based on
conflict prevention and permitting ill-used Balkan peoples to enjoy the
same opportunities as the West emerges from the war in Kosovo,
there is every likelihood that Balkan wars and crises will be a feature
of the new millennium as they were of the old."
[From: "Folly & failure in the Balkans", by Tom Gallagher; History
Today; London; Sep 1999, Volume: 49, Issue: 9, Page 45, ISSN: 00182753]
Dana Wilde (Bangor Daily News) wrote:
"Despite its proximity to the recent war, Bulgaria has remained a
relative island of peace, yet is
a key to understanding the region's [Balkans] continuing conflicts.
Although occupying a region burdened by age-old conflicts, Bulgaria
remains proud and protective of its rich past, and is central to
appreciating the cultural complexities of the Balkans."
[From: "Bulgaria In the heart of the Balkans sits a small nation of
central political, cultural importance" ,
Bangor Daily News; Bangor; Sep 4, 1999; Page 1]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Nikoll A Mirakaj
<kou...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7rh6nn$dou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> The non-Albaninan people from [Ro]Macedonia should understand that
> their furure is not with Serbia/Yugoslavia [past, present or future]
> and will be only some balance in regard to the present
> ethnic boundaries between Albania and Bulgaria.
> As fas as those people of Macedonia reject their past as ethnic
> Bulgarians in 40 years from now they will need to vacate their entire
> land in order to allow rapidly expanding Albanian population to live in
> their [united] state of Illiria.
>
> koutzar
>
>
> Michael Gonzalez (Wall Street Journal), on Aug. 11, 1999 wrote:
>
> "The preferred solution for the leadership in Romania, Bulgaria and
> Macedonia would clearly be to have present borders frozen in place,
> but become less and less significant over time.
> .the 1975 treaty in Finland's capital which stated
> ". the future of Macedonia may have already been decided by its
> neighbours."
>
> "The language of the February [1999] agreement is adamant in its
> reconciliation of the Bulgarian-Macedonian differences. In diplomatic
> ".Macedonia was the cradle of Bulgarian identity and has as much of a