The American scientist failed, to understand the importance of this link, which both South Slavic invalidate the current unit (and mounting from Belgrade), causing, of course, the discomfort of the old regime members, such as Kiro Gligorov, the other gave in the young Republic oldest and richest property titles of the Macedonia name.
Danforth also failed to understand that.....the historians of FYROM were already familiar and satisfied with the leading role in building the nation. Soon, from 1996 onwards, archaize dominated the education in the country.»
Source:Basilis Gounaris, The Macedonian Issue from 19th cent until 21st, 2010. Alexandria publications,pages 92-93
Gounaris' work is good and people would do well to read it but not just in order to confirm their already-held beliefs. I'm also generally against quoting short passages from works that discuss subjects in more depth than the quoted passages would have you believe.
ReplyDeleteFWIW here is a slightly better translation:
"The social anthropologist Loring Danforth wrote, in the beginning of the 1990s, that 'the serious national historiography [of fYRoM] rejected a direct connection between ancient and modern Macedonians'. The American scientist failed to understand the special significance of this link which, on one hand, rejected South Slav unity (and dependence on Belgrade), causing of course the dissatisfaction of members of the old regime, such as Kiro Gligorov and on the other hand, bestowed upon the young Republic older and richer property titles to the Macedonian name. Danforth also failed to understand that the historians of fYRoM were already familiar and satisfied with their leading part in nation-building. A bit later, from 1996 onwards, 'antiquization' dominated the education in the country."