Where Macedonia is
Panagiotis Lolonis
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek
>Subject: Re: where Macedonia is
>> You obviously did that because you approve of the Skopjans making a similar
>> misuse of a geographical term for political ends.
>There is no connection at all, but I do think that every state has the right
>to choose its own name. Period.
I aggree with this statement, only if the choice of the name does not violates
the rights of other states. The rights of one state stop at the point where
the rights of other states start.
>If you (i.e. the Greeks) want, you may use a different name for the Republic
>of Macedonia, e.g. Skopje.But you have no right to tell THEM what name to use.
We do not tell them what name to use. We ask them NOT to use the term
"Macedonia" to identify their country especially at the international level.
>> Why don't the Skopjans accept a name from their history or
>> constituent ethnicities?
>As much as it might be disturbing to you, it is none of your business.
It is, because there is evidence that they chose the name to promote
political agendas against Greece and we are not convinced that they
have given up those agendas. We need to see some proof that they
have abandoned their old territorial designs. Choosing a name that
is not associated with Greek territory or culture is one proof. Words
and statements made by politicians, as you know very well, do not suffice.
>Sven
Panos Lolonis
Dept. of Geography
The U. of Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This govenrment [F.D. Roosevelt] considers any talk of a Macedonian `nation',
Macedonian `Fatherland' or Macedonian `national consciousness' to be
unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or politcal reality ... a
possible cloak for aggresive intentions against Greece"
Edward R. Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cengiz Akgun
>
>We do not tell them what name to use. We ask them NOT to use the term
>"Macedonia" to identify their country especially at the international level.
>
>
>>As much as it might be disturbing to you, it is none of your business.
>
>It is, because there is evidence that they chose the name to promote
>political agendas against Greece and we are not convinced that they
>have given up those agendas. We need to see some proof that they
>have abandoned their old territorial designs. Choosing a name that
>is not associated with Greek territory or culture is one proof. Words
>and statements made by politicians, as you know very well, do not suffice.
>
I can understand this as internal politics to pacify some
people at home. However, It must be amazing to say this in the
international platform and expect not to be shunned or to be taken
seriously. I was not reading this issue for long time. I
hope diplomats of Greece not saying this that bluntly. This
basically means no one in this world can take a name,
which has a Greek connotation or reflect Greek heritage if
they are not Greek or could not prove their good intentions
towards Greeks. Have Greeks thought patenting all those names
they considered offensive by outsider's use? If they haven't,
it is not too late though.
So, choosing a different name for themselves but promoting political
agendas against Greece is OK then. I hope what I am reading
above just a fluke. Otherwise, the fathers of logic and reasoning
are losing it.
Sorry, I could not help it but I leave this painful issue right there,
C. Akgun
sven hauptfeld
>
>>There is no connection at all, but I do think that every state has the right
>>to choose its own name. Period.
>
>I aggree with this statement, only if the choice of the name does not violates
>the rights of other states. The rights of one state stop at the point where
>the rights of other states start.
So which right is violated?
>
>>If you (i.e. the Greeks) want, you may use a different name for the Republic
>>of Macedonia, e.g. Skopje.But you have no right to tell THEM what name to use.
>
>We do not tell them what name to use. We ask them NOT to use the term
>"Macedonia" to identify their country especially at the international level.
This is really childish, like "I didn't hit him in the nose! I hit him in the
eye!"
>
>>> Why don't the Skopjans accept a name from their history or
>>> constituent ethnicities?
>
>>As much as it might be disturbing to you, it is none of your business.
>
>It is, because there is evidence that they chose the name to promote
"Evidence" seems too strong a word here.
>political agendas against Greece and we are not convinced that they
>have given up those agendas. We need to see some proof that they
>have abandoned their old territorial designs.
Change of name certainly does not appear to be a valid proof.
If there are any ways in which Macedonia is threatening certain Greek rights
or legitimate Greek interests, you are free to oppose them. But that cannot be
the case with the name.
>Choosing a name that
>is not associated with Greek territory or culture is one proof.
By virtue of what?
>Words
>and statements made by politicians, as you know very well, do not suffice.
So why is the name, which is less substantial than "words and statements"
(about actions, I presume), better?
>
>Panos Lolonis
>Dept. of Geography
>The U. of Iowa
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"This govenrment [F.D. Roosevelt] considers any talk of a Macedonian `nation',
>Macedonian `Fatherland' or Macedonian `national consciousness' to be
>unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or politcal reality ... a
>possible cloak for aggresive intentions against Greece"
>
>Edward R. Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are using this as an argument, it is called "argument of authority", a
classical logical mistake.
Sven
Panagiotis Lolonis
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek
>Subject: Re: Where Macedonia is
>>In article <1992Jun9.2...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu> lol...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Panagiotis Lolonis) writes:
>
>>We do not tell them what name to use. We ask them NOT to use the term
>>"Macedonia" to identify their country especially at the international level.
[....]
>
>>>As much as it might be disturbing to you, it is none of your business.
>>
>>It is, because there is evidence that they chose the name to promote
>>political agendas against Greece and we are not convinced that they
>>have given up those agendas. We need to see some proof that they
>>have abandoned their old territorial designs. Choosing a name that
>>is not associated with Greek territory or culture is one proof. Words
>>and statements made by politicians, as you know very well, do not suffice.
>I can understand this as internal politics to pacify some
>people at home.
Any facts to support your statement?
If "this" is "internal politics", how do you explain the massive
demonstrations of Greeks worldwide.
> However, It must be amazing to say this in the
>international platform and expect not to be shunned or to be taken
>seriously.
Why not ?
Is my statement false?
At the end of my original posting I provided evidence (the statement of the
former U.S. Secretary of State Stettinius that I include at the end of this
posting) that the term "Macedonia" was chosen to promote
political agendas.
Do you disagree with that?
If yes, do you have any evidence that supports your opinion?
>This basically means no one in this world can take a name,
>which has a Greek connotation or reflect Greek heritage if
>they are not Greek or could not prove their good intentions
>towards Greeks.
I hope you see that you generalize here. In my posting I said that
Greece has objections to recognize Skopje as "The Republic of Macedonia"
and I provided some reasons (not all reasons) why that objection is
justifiable. I said nothing about what Greece will do in other cases
that involve Greek names.
>So, choosing a different name for themselves but promoting political
>agendas against Greece is OK then.
No, it is not OK. Abandoning the name is a necessary condition for
demonstrating that the Republic of Skopje does not endorse past political
agendas against Greece. It is not a sufficient condition, however.
> I hope what I am reading
>above just a fluke. Otherwise, the fathers of logic and reasoning
>are losing it.
>Sorry, I could not help it but I leave this painful issue right there,
I hope you will find my clarifications helpful.
>C. Akgun
Panos Lolonis
Dept. of Geography
U. of Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This government [F.D. Roosevelt] considers any talk of a Macedonian `nation',
Macedonian `Fatherland' or Macedonian `national consciousness' [in Yugoslavia]
to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality ...
a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece".
- Edward R. Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panagiotis Lolonis
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek
>Subject: Re: Where Macedonia is
>>In article <1992Jun9.2...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu> lol...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Panagiotis Lolonis) writes:
>>>From: ha...@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven hauptfeld)
>
>>>There is no connection at all, but I do think that every state has the right
>>>to choose its own name. Period.
>
>>I aggree with this statement, only if the choice of the name does not violates
>>the rights of other states. The rights of one state stop at the point where
>>the rights of other states start.
>So which right is violated?
The right of the Greek state to protect its territorial sovereignty, and
its cultural heritage.
The right of people who leave in Macedonia (Greece) to name themselves
Macedonians and consider them a subset of Greeks. Those people have much
closer geographical and cultural relationship with ancient Macedonians than the
Skopjeans. They demonstrated that they do not wish to share their identity
with people who consider themselves not Greeks (I assume that you are
familiar with the demonstration of about 1,000,000 Macedonians in Salonika
few months ago) and I think that we should respect their wish.
>>>If you (i.e. the Greeks) want, you may use a different name for the Republic
>>>of Macedonia,e.g.Skopje.But you have no right to tell THEM what name to use.
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>We do not tell them what name to use. We ask them NOT to use the term
>>"Macedonia" to identify their country especially at the international level.
>This is really childish, like "I didn't hit him in the nose! I hit him in the
>eye!"
The question is not whether my statement is childish or not (in my opinion it
is not) but whether it is more accurate or not.
You state that "you [the Greeks] ... tell THEM what name to use."
I said we tell them what name NOT to use. Clearly, the two statements
are not the same. We do not impose a name to the Skopjeans, as your statement
implies, simply we restrict slightly their choice set. There is a very large
number of other names that they can choose from.
>>>> Why don't the Skopjans accept a name from their history or
>>>> constituent ethnicities?
>>
>>>As much as it might be disturbing to you, it is none of your business.
>>
>>It is, because there is evidence that they chose the name to promote
>"Evidence" seems too strong a word here.
I think it is the appropriate term. Please see my clarification about
the use of Stetinius's statement later in this posting.
I hope that my clarification will be helpful in understanding why the term
evidence is appropriate.
>>political agendas against Greece and we are not convinced that they
>>have given up those agendas. We need to see some proof that they
>>have abandoned their old territorial designs.
>Change of name certainly does not appear to be a valid proof.
Why not? The name was chosen and used to promote political plans against
Greece. As long as they use it, we cannot be sure that they have abandoned
those plans. If they drop it, then there is some evidence that they do not
endorse those plans anymore. They "distance" themselves from things that
are considered to be part of Greece (e.g. province Macedonia) and Greek
culture (e.g. relationship to ancient Macedonians).
As I stated in another posting on this subject, changing the name is
a necessary condition to convince us that Skopjeans have abandoned their past
designs and are looking for a peacefull co-existence in Balkans. Changing
the name is not a sufficient condition, however.
>If there are any ways in which Macedonia is threatening certain Greek rights
>or legitimate Greek interests, you are free to oppose them. But that cannot be
>the case with the name.
We oppose all provocations and threats against Greek sovereignty. The name is
one tool that has been used to carve territory from Greece and
that is one reason we oppose such a use of the name
(there are other reasons, but I will not discuss them here).
>>Choosing a name that
>>is not associated with Greek territory or culture is one proof.
>By virtue of what?
(I am not sure I understand your question clearly but I will try to answer)
As I stated earlier the use of the term "Macedonia" is associated with
expansive plans against Greece. If they denounce the name, they
denounce (part at least) of those plans.
>>Words
>>and statements made by politicians, as you know very well, do not suffice.
>So why is the name, which is less substantial than "words and statements"
>(about actions, I presume), better?
I disagree that the name is less substantial than "words ..." because names
conjure up and project specific images (see Austing, Honey and Eagle,
"Human Geography", p. 72). Also, they tell us about the history of places and
nations (see Stoddard, Blouet and Wishart, 1986, Human Geography: people,
places, and cultures; Prentice Hall, pp. 132-133). Moreover, they are closely
related, as important parts of laguages, with territoriality which is a sense
of a group of people who share a feeling that a specific area `belongs' to
them" (Stoddard, Blouet and Wishart 1986, p. 135, 137).
That is why Greeks think that changing the name is important. It shows
that Skopjeans are willing to re-define their territoriality.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"This govenrment [F.D.Roosevelt] considers any talk of a Macedonian `nation',
>>Macedonian `Fatherland' or Macedonian `national consciousness' to be
>>unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or politcal reality ... a
>>possible cloak for aggresive intentions against Greece"
>>
>>Edward R. Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If you are using this as an argument, it is called "argument of authority", a
>classical logical mistake.
No, I use it as evidence to support my earlier claim stating that the
term "Macedonia" was chosen to promote political agendas against Greece.
I will be happy to provide additional evidence, if you wish.
(BTW sorry for the typos in the quote)
>Sven
Panos Lolonis
Dept. of Geography
the U. of Iowa
Andrej Brodnik (Andy)
> >From: ha...@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven hauptfeld)
>
>
> The right of the Greek state to protect its territorial sovereignty, and
> its cultural heritage.
Territorial soverignty. I assume that you know that this is not true
and only a typo. Otherwise all of us will be more than happy to see
any evidence of this claim which will support your claim (in
connection with current Macedonian authorities).
> The right of people who leave in Macedonia (Greece) to name themselves
> Macedonians and consider them a subset of Greeks. Those people have much
> closer geographical and cultural relationship with ancient Macedonians than the
> Skopjeans. They demonstrated that they do not wish to share their identity
> with people who consider themselves not Greeks (I assume that you are
> familiar with the demonstration of about 1,000,000 Macedonians in Salonika
> few months ago) and I think that we should respect their wish.
I did not see any (repeat ANY) violation of this right from Republic
of Macedonia. I'm sure again that you have a very good evidences of
this your claim, don't you?
> You state that "you [the Greeks] ... tell THEM what name to use."
> I said we tell them what name NOT to use. Clearly, the two statements
> are not the same. We do not impose a name to the Skopjeans, as your statement
^^^^^^^^^
> implies, simply we restrict slightly their choice set. There is a very large
> number of other names that they can choose from.
And who invented this name? God in heavens. Don't you see, that
however you are addressing them and this is not according to their
choice, you are imposing the name they don't want?
> >Change of name certainly does not appear to be a valid proof.
>
> Why not? The name was chosen and used to promote political plans against
> Greece.
Where is proof of this statement. I'm waiting for it for last year at
least on this net. All the time some kind of allegations and even
statements which prove exactly the opposite.
> As long as they use it, we cannot be sure that they have abandoned
> those plans. If they drop it, then there is some evidence that they do not
> endorse those plans anymore. They "distance" themselves from things that
> are considered to be part of Greece (e.g. province Macedonia) and Greek
> culture (e.g. relationship to ancient Macedonians).
Very well. But put it the other way arround. If they would have any
territorial ambitians against Greece, all what they would have to do
then is change a name, be recognized and proceed with their claims.
Hence this reason is not worth of a reasonable man, is it?
> As I stated in another posting on this subject, changing the name is
> a necessary condition to convince us that Skopjeans have abandoned their past
> designs and are looking for a peacefull co-existence in Balkans. Changing
> the name is not a sufficient condition, however.
Very strange: they explicitly (sic!) wrote that they have no claims
toward anybody and you don't believe them. You want them to change a
name (and who cares what they already wrote) to believe them. And you
still claim that the very name is not the problem. Hm, strange logic
and I thought that Aristoteles was a Greek.-(
> >If there are any ways in which Macedonia is threatening certain Greek rights
> >or legitimate Greek interests, you are free to oppose them. But that cannot be
> >the case with the name.
>
> We oppose all provocations and threats against Greek sovereignty. The name is
> one tool that has been used to carve territory from Greece and
> that is one reason we oppose such a use of the name
> (there are other reasons, but I will not discuss them here).
Then I'd better change a name myself and to my daughter Helena. Is
this what are you saying.
IMO all this campaign is pure emotianal nationalism from the Greek
side. They have valid reasons to think that Macedonia might claim part
of Greece. But this will not be changed by any change in its name nor
by writting by anything on any paper. Further, IMO the best assurance
for Greece to be safe on its side of border is to recognize new
country and establish good relationships with Macedonia. Otherwise
there will be allways tensions (with this or that name).
Regards,
Andrej
sven hauptfeld
>>From: ha...@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven hauptfeld)
>>>In article <1992Jun9.2...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu> lol...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Panagiotis Lolonis) writes:
>>>>From: ha...@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven hauptfeld)
>>
>>>>There is no connection at all, but I do think that every state has the right
>>>>to choose its own name. Period.
>>
>>>I aggree with this statement, only if the choice of the name does not violates
>>>the rights of other states. The rights of one state stop at the point where
>>>the rights of other states start.
>
>>So which right is violated?
>
>The right of the Greek state to protect its territorial sovereignty, and
>its cultural heritage.
How can that right be violated by a name? There is no copyright on geographical
names, and even if there were, it would not belong to the sphere of human or
national rights.
(Don't answer that "the name was chosen for anti-Greek political purposes, as
I am answering those claims below.)
>The right of people who leave in Macedonia (Greece) to name themselves
>Macedonians and consider them a subset of Greeks.
Does the Republic of Macedonia interfere with those rights? If it ever does,
I'll certainly oppose that, just like I oppose your interference with *their*
rights now.
>Those people have much
>closer geographical and cultural relationship with ancient Macedonians than the
>Skopjeans. They demonstrated that they do not wish to share their identity
>with people who consider themselves not Greeks (I assume that you are
>familiar with the demonstration of about 1,000,000 Macedonians in Salonika
>few months ago) and I think that we should respect their wish.
I am not familiar with the demonstration. They might not like that somebody
else is using the same name, but we could only respect their wish by
disrespecting somebody else's wish. Therefore tolerance is required. YOU HAVE
NO RIGHT TO INTOLERANCE. For example, you may not like my religious or poli-
tical views, but you have no right to prevent me from expressing them. You'll
have to apply the same kind of tolerance here.
>>>We do not tell them what name to use. We ask them NOT to use the term
>>>"Macedonia" to identify their country especially at the international level.
>
>>This is really childish, like "I didn't hit him in the nose! I hit him in the
>>eye!"
>
>The question is not whether my statement is childish or not (in my opinion it
>is not) but whether it is more accurate or not.
>
>You state that "you [the Greeks] ... tell THEM what name to use."
>I said we tell them what name NOT to use. Clearly, the two statements
>are not the same. We do not impose a name to the Skopjeans, as your statement
>implies, simply we restrict slightly their choice set. There is a very large
>number of other names that they can choose from.
OK, let me restate my initial statement, as you are stubbornly taking it
litterally:
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY TO CHOOSE ITS OWN
NAME. Satisfied?
>>Change of name certainly does not appear to be a valid proof.
>
>Why not? The name was chosen and used to promote political plans against
>Greece.
Maybe Tito used it in that context in the 40's, but the Macedonian people had
used it earlier. Actually, it is pretty obvious - considering the political
map of the world at the time of, e.g., Ilinden Uprise (1903), that at first
the name was used to promote political plans against TURKEY.
(You might start liking those Macedonians now ;-)
BTW, Turkey was the second country in the world to recognise Macedonia.
>As I stated in another posting on this subject, changing the name is
>a necessary condition to convince us that Skopjeans have abandoned their past
>designs and are looking for a peacefull co-existence in Balkans. Changing
>the name is not a sufficient condition, however.
So, suppose they do change the name, you'd find some other reason against
recognition? Fair, fair...
>We oppose all provocations and threats against Greek sovereignty. The name is
>one tool that has been used to carve territory from Greece and
>that is one reason we oppose such a use of the name
>(there are other reasons, but I will not discuss them here).
You might have to, if you want to make a point. So far you failed to convince
anybody who is not Greek.
>>>Words
>>>and statements made by politicians, as you know very well, do not suffice.
>
>>So why is the name, which is less substantial than "words and statements"
>>(about actions, I presume), better?
>
>I disagree that the name is less substantial than "words ..." because names
>conjure up and project specific images [...]
Sorry, I have already declined to discuss philosophical questions in this
thread. We are dealing with an urgent practical political (and thus economical
etc.) question - whether Macedonia should be recognised. When we settle that,
we can discuss more academic questions. (Although I would not be particularly
interested in this one.)
Don't answer that I am avoiding the issue. My point is, you can interrupt ANY
discussion of human/national/... rights by philosophically questioning the
basis for existence of those rights. Imagine, for example, the Supreme Court
doing that - they would never reach any decision...
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>"This govenrment [F.D.Roosevelt] considers any talk of a Macedonian `nation',
>>>Macedonian `Fatherland' or Macedonian `national consciousness' to be
>>>unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or politcal reality ... a
>>>possible cloak for aggresive intentions against Greece"
>>>
>>>Edward R. Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>If you are using this as an argument, it is called "argument of authority", a
>>classical logical mistake.
>
>No, I use it as evidence to support my earlier claim stating that the
>term "Macedonia" was chosen to promote political agendas against Greece.
>I will be happy to provide additional evidence, if you wish.
>(BTW sorry for the typos in the quote)
>
Well, it is poor evidence. It is a politician's statement (YOU expressed your
contempt for those) issued during the war, when pragmatic goals take even more
precedence over principles than usually.
As I claimed that acts are more important than words, I'll remind you that
very soon after that statement, the U.S. recognised the Democratic Federative
Yugoslavia (that was the official name at the time) and established diplomatic
relations with it, although there was a Republic of Macedonia in DFY.
>Panos Lolonis
>Dept. of Geography
>the U. of Iowa
Sven
Peter Antunovich
cannot restrain myself from sharing what I think about those
Serbian and Montenegrin scums in the hills of Sarajevo:
THEY ARE NOTHING ELSE BUT A BUNCH OF COWARDS !!!!!
Oh, yes, they are very good at killing children and old
people, at hiding behind women, burning homes and stealing,
but that is about all. Although they have an incredible
supremacy in all kind of weapons, logistics and not to
mention the air force they are not able to take Sarajevo.
However, they will probably have no problem glorifying this
cowardly crusade as a great victory for another 200 years or
so.
If nothing else we have to make sure that these Serbian and
Montenegrin terrorists will be remembered as the greatest
cowards of our time. I put up two photos on the wall in my
office. One of them shows the ruins of Vukovar and
the other bodies of dead civilians in Sarajevo (see Time
Magazine, June 8, 92). Over them I put a sign: THIS WAS DONE
BY SERBIAN AND MONTENEGRIN TERRORISTS.
If some Serbians or Montenegrins are offended by this,
that is just tough luck! By turning their backs to the
killing and the total destruction they have contributed
equally as their Fuhrer Milosevic to the atrocities in
Sarajevo.
My heart extends to the defenders of Sarajevo of all
nationalities. It is interesting to observe that after they
got hold of some artillery, and were able to shoot
back, the terrorists hiding in the hills are not so brave any
more. Suddenly Karadzic is even suggesting that U.N. takes
over the whole Sarajevo area. Are his 'heroes' maybe running
away?
No Pasaran!
Peter Antunovic
Andrej Brodnik (Andy)
>
>If some Serbians or Montenegrins are offended by this,
>that is just tough luck! By turning their backs to the
>killing and the total destruction they have contributed
>equally as their Fuhrer Milosevic to the atrocities in
>Sarajevo.
Well said Peter, but anyway I's like to write some thoughts I had in
connection with your words "tough luck" or better with international
boycott. Namely as it stays now, Serbs are not allowed to participaet
on almost none field in the World community.
I agree that this is very tough. We heard (also on this net) that the
science has nothing to do with politics. Let's say that this is true,
and hence (for example) e-net should be reestablished. Further, we
heard that sport has nothing to do with politics, and let's agree that
this is also true and re-establish sport contacts. Similar reasoning
can go with culture. With industrial connections is a bit more
difficult, but some kind of "partial list" of branches can be found.
And so on and on with other fields.
But finally we will have to answer what will remain under boycott and
even more why was that left or better, how it came to power to made
such a destruction. Who are these people who are fireing guns and
slatter people? If everybody knows who they are, why then Serbian
state doesn't do anything to stop them? They still go to see Red Star
(even Arkan is still (?) the leader of Red Star fans).
To resume; where to make a cut on boycott and why? These toughts are
very sincere and any reasonable comments are very much welcome.
Regards,
Andrej
PS:
>My heart extends to the defenders of Sarajevo of all
>nationalities. It is interesting to observe that after they
>got hold of some artillery, and were able to shoot
>back, the terrorists hiding in the hills are not so brave any
>more. Suddenly Karadzic is even suggesting that U.N. takes
>over the whole Sarajevo area. Are his 'heroes' maybe running
>away?
No, they are proudly retreating "as they don't want a piece a land",
though they "will fight to protect themselves (Copyright Milosevic)".
sven hauptfeld
>>> [Sven -> Panos]
>>>YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY TO CHOOSE ITS OWN
>>>NAME. Satisfied?
>
>
>
> If they were RIGHTS it would be possible to prove them unambigously
> from the United Nations Charter.
> Or are they after all Divine Rights revealed from God to Sven ????
You are wrong, those are rights. The right to choose a name is a subset of the
right of a country to write its own constitution and laws. I don't know what
the exact wording in the international documents is, but this right is
definitely granted.
>
> There is at least one incident in international politics where a big
> country blocks the recognition of a small one and forces it to
> participate in sporting events with a name other than that of its choice.
What incident is it? If it is Taiwan (you or some other Greek netter mentioned
them), you should know by now that I think it is unjust. You can't excuse one
unjustice by pointing to other unjustices being done.
>
>Euthymios Kappos.
Sven
sven hauptfeld
>
>I agree that this is very tough. We heard (also on this net) that the
>science has nothing to do with politics. Let's say that this is true,
>and hence (for example) e-net should be reestablished. Further, we
>heard that sport has nothing to do with politics, and let's agree that
>this is also true and re-establish sport contacts. Similar reasoning
>can go with culture. With industrial connections is a bit more
>difficult, but some kind of "partial list" of branches can be found.
>And so on and on with other fields.
>
>But finally we will have to answer what will remain under boycott and
>even more why was that left or better, how it came to power to made
>such a destruction. Who are these people who are fireing guns and
>slatter people? If everybody knows who they are, why then Serbian
>state doesn't do anything to stop them? They still go to see Red Star
>(even Arkan is still (?) the leader of Red Star fans).
>
>To resume; where to make a cut on boycott and why? These toughts are
>very sincere and any reasonable comments are very much welcome.
>
>Regards,
>
>Andrej
>
I think the boycott should be TOTAL. The only exceptions should be medicines
and essential foods (no caviar and champagne for Milosevic's breakfast :-).
And there should be a limited number of channels through which those essential
goods may be shipped into Serbia/Montenegro, so that there are fewer possibi-
lities for abuse.
One can argue that science and sport are not political, but that is exactly
the point. There are millions of people there (like anywhere else) who care
little enough for politics, their rights, freedom etc. that they are simply
not sufficiently motivated to express their dissatisfaction with the
government. BUT it has been a major shock for them that their soccer team was
banned from the European championship and it will be equally bad for them if
their athletes are banned from the Olympics. As "unpolitical" as it might be,
this might trigger their revolt.
BTW, I have fairly close relatives in Belgrade and the more strict the
sanctions, the more they will suffer. But without sanctions, they might be
forced to suffer indefinitely from living under a fascist regime.
Sven
Panagiotis Lolonis
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek
>Subject: Re: Where Macedonia is
>In article <1992Jun11.1...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>, lol...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Panagiotis Lolonis) writes:
>> >So which right is violated?
>>
>> The right of the Greek state to protect its territorial sovereignty, and
>> its cultural heritage.
>Territorial soverignty. I assume that you know that this is not true
>and only a typo. Otherwise all of us will be more than happy to see
>any evidence of this claim which will support your claim (in
>connection with current Macedonian authorities).
It is not a typo.
1) Please see some references bellow.
Those references are from the article:
"The policy of Skopje towards Greece"
by Dr. Kyriakos Kentrotis,
published in the magazine "Ellopia", 9, Feb.-March 1992.
Dr. Kentrotis is professor of Philosophy and Political Sciences in the
University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
I assume that they are accurate. A check must be made to ensure that
they are indeed accurate. Unfortunately I cannot do that check myself.
Kiro Gligorov, President of the Republic of Skopje,
in an interview to the Belgrade magazine "NIN", February 1991 issue
"We have a great struggle before us to let the world and the Balkans know the
truth for the parts of the macedonian people who live in Serbia, Greece,
and Bulgaria, a people which was divided and enslaved after the end of
the Balkan Wars. For the leading macedonian nationalist parties it is
only a matter of days before the macedonian power will retrace the
borders of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia". ^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
Lupco Georgievski, President of V.M.R.O. which is the largest nationalist party
in the Republic of Skopje:
"I support the spiritual and territorial unity of
Macedonia". Belgrade newspaper "Borba", November 31, 1990
"The Aegean Macedonia, the Pirin Macedonia, and the Vardar
Macedonia do not constitute the Greater Macedonia, but simply the
Macedonia. We will be talking about the Greater Macedonia when we ask
for Belgrade, Sofia, Thessaloniki, Avlon, etc".
TV Channel "Novosti", November 7, 1990
Vasil Tupurkovski, representative of the "Republic of Macedonia" in the
Central Committee of the Presidency of Yugoslavia,
Toronto newspaper "Macedonian Heritage", January 20th, 1991
"The Macedonian state will have as its
primary goal the liberation of the enslaved Macedonians and the
unification of the greater macedonian space".
I selected those quotes that were made from "current Macedonian
authorities", although I find your request very restrictive.
In a democratic country, "current authorities" can be replaced by other
authorities who may have different plans and ambitions.
Therefore, the aspirations of the people who vote cannot be ignored.
That's why I provide some additional arguments and facts about this
subject in the next paragraphs (see 2)
2) The name "Macedonia" has a territory associated with it. That territory,
(or a substantial part of it (~51%), if we adopt a commonly used
definitions) is within Greece's borders.
Given that (see [a], [b] bellow) there is an association between language
(and therefore place names) and territoriality, -territoriality is the
sense "of a group of people who share a feeling that a specific area
`belongs' to them" (quote adopted from [a] p. 135)-
we conclude that those who identify themselves as "Macedonians" have
the sense that the territory associated with "Macedonia" `belongs' to
them. Therefore, they have the sense that a part of Greek territory
belongs to them.
This conclusion, which results from the Geographical literature, is
consistent with facts (see quotes of politicians above).
[a] Stoddard R H, Blouet B W, Wishart D J, 1986, Human Geography,
Prentice Hall, London
[b] Ley D, Cybrwsky R, 1974, "Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers"
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(4), 492-505
*********************************************************************
The conclusion is that the use of the term "Macedonia/an" to identify
the country and the cultural characteristics of Skopjeans constitutes
(among other things) a territorial threat against Greece.
*********************************************************************
For more explicit claims against Greek territory, I include parts of Bob
Kaplan's article published in The Atlantic magazine, (Washington D.C),
June 1991:
"...on the walls near the Greek consulate in Skopje the graffiti reads,
`Solon is ours!' `Solon' is the Macedonian word for Salonika, now
Greece's second largest city."
In the same article Kaplan reports:
"During my last visit maps were thrust upon me depicting a leaf-shaped
bulge of territory much larger than the present-day Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia. Inside the thick black border lines of this ideal Macedonian
state were a third of mainland Greece and all of the Greek island of
Thasos, together called Aegean Macedonia; a chunk of southwestern
Bulgaria, called Pirin Macedonia after the Pirin Mountains there; a
slice of "Macedonian" land in Albania; and what is considered the only
liberated part of the country to date, Vardar Macedonia, named after the
river, corresponding to Yugoslav Macedonia."
I have a copy of such a map, published in THE SUN-HERALD, May 3, 1992 p60,
Sydney, Australia with the title:
"MACEDONIA - Land of legends! Land of glory! but NEVER Greek."
It depicts Macedonia, Greece, under the label:
" This part of Macedonia is under the Greek terror of occupation since 1913."
I will be happy to send you a copy.
**************************************************************************
All the above are very concerning (to say the least) about the intentions
of our northern neighbors.
***************************************************************************
>> a do not impose a name to the Skopjeans, as your statement
^^^^^^^^^
>And who invented this name? God in heavens. Don't you see, that
>however you are addressing them and this is not according to their
>choice, you are imposing the name they don't want?
Probably the Greeks, due to the lack of a more acceptable term. When
the Skopjeans choose an acceptable name to identify themselves then
we will be happy to use it and drop the Skopjeans.
>> >Change of name certainly does not appear to be a valid proof.
>> Why not? The name was chosen and used to promote political plans against
>> Greece.
>Where is proof of this statement. I'm waiting for it for last year at
>least on this net. All the time some kind of allegations and even
>statements which prove exactly the opposite.
1) In 1944-1945 there were communist designs for creating a state with the name
Macedonia. The territory of that state was extending into Greek territory.
Even the Greek communist party endorsed those designs (something that many
Greeks do not forget). Some of the architects of those plans (Tito)
created the so called "Republic of Macedonia". The connection is clear.
If they did not want to expand to Greek territory (and perhaps territory
of other countries) they would have chosen another name that defines
the geographical region of the Republic of Skopje more accurately (e.g.
Paeonia, Vardarska Ban., etc).
Why did they choose to name that republic "Macedonia" when a) the center of
the region that was considered to be Macedonia from ancient times was
clearly outside of the territory of the Republic of Skopje and b)
ethnologically there was no relationship between ancient Macedonians and
the people of that Republic?
2) Please see the statement of the former U.S. Secretary of State Stentinius
in one of my previous postings.
3) Please see my references about the connection between languages (place
names) and "territoriality" earlier.
>> As long as they use it, we cannot be sure that they have abandoned
>> those plans. If they drop it, then there is some evidence that they do not
>> endorse those plans anymore. They "distance" themselves from things that
>> are considered to be part of Greece (e.g. province Macedonia) and Greek
>> culture (e.g. relationship to ancient Macedonians).
>Very well. But put it the other way arround. If they would have any
>territorial ambitians against Greece, all what they would have to do
>then is change a name, be recognized and proceed with their claims.
>Hence this reason is not worth of a reasonable man, is it?
It would be more difficult to justify those ambitions to the rest of the
world then.
Besides choosing a new name, which is not associated with Greek
territory/culture, is not a sufficient condition for recognition.
Please do not forget that.
>> As I stated in another posting on this subject, changing the name is
>>a necessary condition to convince us that Skopjeans have abandoned their past
>> designs and are looking for a peacefull co-existence in Balkans. Changing
>> the name is not a sufficient condition, however.
>Very strange: they explicitly (sic!) wrote that they have no claims
>toward anybody and you don't believe them. You want them to change a
>name (and who cares what they already wrote) to believe them. And you
>still claim that the very name is not the problem. Hm, strange logic
>and I thought that Aristoteles was a Greek.-(
We care about what they wrote. The original version of the constitution (and
I think the current) has some "ambiguous" points about supporting "Macedonian"
minorities in other countries, conditions under which the constitution
can change, and conditions about how the boundaries of the new country can
change.
The logic is simple: If the Skpojeans want to identify themselves as
non-Greeks (which I think they do) then they should use non-Greek concepts
(e.g. names, territoriality, flag symbols) to identify themselves.
>>Weoppose all provocations and threats against Greek sovereignty. The name is
>> one tool that has been used to carve territory from Greece and
>> that is one reason we oppose such a use of the name
>Then I'd better change a name myself and to my daughter Helena. Is
>this what are you saying.
Personally, I have no problem with your name nor your daughter's name.
>country and establish good relationships with Macedonia. Otherwise
>there will be allways tensions (with this or that name).
Tensions will exist if there is conflict of interests. If Skopje gives
up territorial, minority, and cultural claims against Greece everything
will be fine. We are waiting to see Skopje working in that direction.
>Andrej
Panos Lolonis
Dept. of Geography
The U. of Iowa
(P.S. I have some deadlines to meet. I apologize if I do not respond
to comments made on this posting
Sven made some comments on one of my earlier postings. I will
respond when I will find some time.)