Risto Stefov´s historical revisionism of the Greek War of Independence in Macedonia

by Tymphaios
in American Chronicle
Historical revisionism is sometimes beneficial. One has to look at new evidence and in its light reinterpret events and challenge previously held beliefs. Historical falsification goes a step further, in that one falsifies original evidence or fabricates "facts" or even acts on personal belief. Though some of the arguments in FYROM, such as the arguments about the Miladinov brothers recording for the first time "Macedonian" folk tales can be considered revisionist and have attracted scholarly debate, reprintings of old ethnological maps with altered labels for the placenames and ethnicities lie firmly in the realm of falsification.

We have been accustomed to claims of Alexander the Great or the ancient Macedonians being not Greek but FYROM-Macedonian. A more recent online diatribe from Risto Stefov gives an account of the FYROM-Macedonian heroes of a 1821-22 uprising in Macedonia: The leaders of the uprising were Marko Bochvaro, Jovan Farmakis, Zafiraki, Anastas Karatasho, Angel Gacho, Dijamandi and the monks of Sveta Gora (http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov144.html). If you think you do not recognise who these were, Risto Stefov means with these names Markos Botsaris, Ioannis Farmakis, Zafeirakis Theodosiou, Anastasios Karatasos, Angelis Gatsos, Diamantis Nikolaou and the monks of Mt Athos.

His article "Macedonian Struggle for Independence Part 12: Turn of the 19th Century and the Negush Upris" (he means Naousa Uprising) reads like a comedy of errors in which all the Greek names (including placenames) have been changed into FYROM-Macedonian and the heroes of the Greek Independence have led an apparently FYROMian struggle against the Turks, judging from what Stefov writes. One has to use his imagination to try to identify the actual names of the Greek leaders. We are even being told that the leaders of the rebels took an army of Macedonians (he means FYROMians) with them to continue the fight in the Peloponnese when the FYROMian revolution in Macedonia collapsed. So the War of Greek independence, documented in history for nearly two centuries, in which many philhellenes, including Lord Byron died, has turned into a FYROMian uprising against the Turks for FYROMian independence. As if that was not enough of a historical falsification, Stefov refers to an earlier uprising of the Serbs around 1804-1807 in Belgrade and elsewhere, as FYROMian. The Serbian uprising led eventually to independence and the recognition of the new state of Serbia in 1817-1830. Perhaps the European powers made a mistake not to recognize FYROM instead. The European Powers must have also made a mistake to recognize a Greek Kingdom in the conference of London in 1832 and of course the Sultan repeated the same mistake in the Conference of Constantinople of 1832. They should have recognized FYROM, according to Stefov. Greeks of course, and seemingly also Serbs, do not exist for him. They can be turned into FYROMians by the clever trick of writing their names any way he likes.

The Greeks also misled, according to Stefov, European intellectuals such as Percy Byshe Shelley, George Gordon Byron and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, artists such as Peter von Hess and Eugene Delacroix and the numerous philhellene volunteers who died for the freedom of Greece, to think it was the Greeks who had revolted, rather than the FYROMians. Or elsewhere he accuses the philhellenes for promoting the idea that it was the Greeks who had fought for independence, rather than the FYROMians and Albanians. And yet elsewhere, that the Greeks did not speak Greek but had to learn it from king Otto and his administration, when the Bavarian prince was appointed king of Greece in 1832.

Among the sources currently freely available on the internet, Encyclopaedia Brittanica considers Markos Botsaris a hero of the Greek War of Independence: a Suliot who fled to Corfu in 1803 (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/75167/Markos-Botsaris). Encyclopaedia Brittanica also refers to Botsaris as a friend of Lord Byron. Markos's brother Kostas (Constantine) Botsaris, who fought at Karpenisi in a battle that led to the capture of Mustai Pasha and the destruction of his 4000 strong force, lived to become a general and senator in the Greek kingdom. He died in Athens on the 13th of November 1853. Markos' son, Demetrios Botsaris, born in 1813, was three times minister of war during the reigns of Otto of Greece and George I of Greece. He died in Athens on the 17th of August 1870. His daughter, Katerina "Rosa" Botsaris, was in the service of Queen Amalia of Greece.

Aside from contemporary accounts, the Suliotes were considered Greeks even by their enemies. Beli Pasha, son of Ali Pasha, sent letters to his father from April to December 1803 calling the Suliotes "Romans", "Romioi" and "Romegans" (Romegous), that is, ethnic Greeks. Ahmed Moufit, great-grandson of Ali Pasha's sister Siachnisa wrote angrily about how the Suliotes invited Ali Pasha's attack in 1789 because they called themselves Christian Greeks and had become tools of Russia.

Markos Botsaris in any case was an Epirotan. The Macedonian leaders of the revolution were all members of the Philike Etairia, and therefore were fighting by definition for the Greek cause.

Did the Europeans recognize this was a Greek cause? Shelley writes in his preface to Hellas in 1821:

"The modern Greek is the descendant of those glorious beings whom imagination almost refuses to figure to itself as belonging to our kind, and he inherits much of their sensibility, their rapidity of conception, their enthusiasm, and their courage… The flower of their youth returning to their country from the universities of Italy, Germany, and France, have communicated to their fellow-citizens the latest results of that social perfection of which their ancestors were the original source."

Byron who traveled to Greece twice and died in that war, had financed and led a force of Suliots. He wrote:

"Fill high the bowl with Samian wine!

On Suli's rock, and Parga's shore,
Exists the remnant of a line Such as the Doric mothers bore;
And there, perhaps, some seed is sown,
The Heracleidan blood might own."
George Gordon Lord Byron, The Isles of Greece, 1821

Byron in the same poem "dream'd that Greece might still be free". The Macedonians (Greeks) were fighting for the freedom of Greece not for FYROM.

Risto Stefov ought to appreciate that this kind of falsification of European history does not serve his aim to promote the image of FYROM. Stefov may rant as much as he likes about the greatness of the ancient and modern Macedonians, but it does not help when on inspection they turn out to be Greeks. He makes his own cause seem foolish. But it is not just that he himself and his uneducated followers seem foolish, rather it reflects upon his compatriots as a whole. Freedom of speech ought to come together with a certain degree of freedom of education and of social responsibility. FYROM needs to exist in the 21st century not just as an ever more bizarre invention in Risto Stefov´s mind. The men Stefov uses for his self-promoting propaganda sacrificed everything with the highest of ideals in their minds. It is an insult to Greeks and to any civilized person that their names are twisted about and their aims turned upside down, as if they had been victims of some indoctrinating campaign fighting for the enslavement of their people or whatever one is to think from Stefov´s un-history. If it were meant only as historical fiction, then Stefov should point this out to avoid misunderstandings. However, in view of his other writings, writing a piece of fiction was almost certainly not his intention. Stefov and his followers need to appreciate that to exist in modern Europe FYROM needs not falsified history but a respect for modern Europe and modern policies.

Ethnic Creationism: Risto Stefov´s polemics about Greece, Macedonia and FYROM

by Tymphaios
in American Chronicle

Ethnicity is not based on genetic make-up. In no country is one required to take a genetic test before he is accepted as a citizen. Even Hitler did not require any such tests. For Risto Stefov, however, and some of his colleagues, the fact that Greeks cannot prove a genetic identity to someone (not defined thus impossible anyway) who was Greek, means Greeks are not Greeks. Therefore the Greek word Macedonia and the Greek administrative district of Macedonia (in Greece) with its Greek history are up for the taking. The only merit of such an extreme form of racism is that it does not openly ask for the extermination of Greeks as it mercifully makes Greeks non-existent by an act of free will. Nevertheless, through this invention, part of Greece, Greek property (in the administrative district of Macedonia) as well as Greek heritage and history may be appropriated just the same.

Unfortunately for Risto Stefov and his friends, ethnicity is not decided by a set of genes and besides we know nothing about how genetically homogeneous the original Greeks (whoever Stefov thinks these might have been) were. This racial, or even racist, attitude towards the definition of ethnicity, ignores thousands of years of linguistic and cultural continuity and the self-definition at all times of Greeks as Greeks. Stefov conveniently also ignores the geographic continuity, for Greeks never lived just around Athens and Sparta by their own accounts and the accounts of others. A fuller case can be made elsewhere and others have responded to Stefov´s racist ideology. In this response, I will limit my reply to a one of his comments.

Risto Stefov in his essay #9 on Greek heritage writes:

"In the book "The Empty Cradle of Democracy" by Alexandra Halkias on page 59 we read "Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the average inhabitant of Greece called himself of herself Roman (Romios), and the (Greek) language Romeika."

"…though this was not articulated in racial terms but on the basis of a common language, history and consciousness. In effect, at this time, whoever called themselves a Greek was a Greek. It is because of this that many Greek-speaking Albanians, Slavs, Romanians and Vlachs were easily assimilated and became important players in Greek patriotism at the time. (Dakin 1972, 8)""

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/92784

Although these statements support the Greek position, that the Greek language has been spoken uninterruptedly since ancient times in Greece and indeed in Macedonia, it must have been what little Stefov could find that he might turn against the Greeks. There is nothing contained in his two quotes that says that Greeks were not Greeks or that the Romeika was not the Greek language. In fact the first quote explicitly says the Greek language was called Romeika. Since the Emperor Theodosius, the official language had been Greek and the culture was also Greek. Romioi (Romans) was a word Byzantines used and which is equivalent to Greek or Hellene. These three words were used interchangeably, sometimes in the same page or the same paragraph in Byzantine times.

Anna Comnena, the Byzantine historian, uses "Romaios" (Roman) interchangeably with "Hellene":

"Now the man [Bohemond] was such as, to put it briefly, had never before been seen in the land of the ROMANS, be he either of the barbarians or of the HELLENES". [Anna Comnena, Alexiad, Book 13, X]

and

"Throughout the whole of the day the Turks kept attacking the ROMAN army without any success, for they were unable to break it up either entirely or even partially, so they ran back to the hills without accomplishing anything and lighted a great many bonfires and howled all through the night like wolves and occasionally made jeering remarks at the ROMANS; for there were some semi-barbarians among them who spoke HELLENIC."[Anna Comnena, Alexiad, Book 15, XII]

Frantzis in his Chronicle (15th C) describes the events around the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. He refers interchangeably to Romans, Hellenes or Greeks and even expresses the idea of the "patrida" (homeland):

V.5. "Ioannes Justiniani … was appointed to guard with four hundred soldiers, Italian and ROMAN, the region of the Gate of saint Romanus…"

V.8. "Iakovos Kokkos the Venetian… having obtained three very fast light ships, placed four hundred courageous young men in them, GREEK and Italian"

VIII.11. "He wants to devour us and this city, that the thrice-blessed Constantine the Great that king dedicated and granted to the panagnos and yperagnos despoina Theotokos and aeiparthenos Maria, that she may be the lord and aid and roof of our homeland (patrida) and sanctuary of the Christians and joy of all the HELLENES, the most glorious [city] amongst all that are under the rising sun."

The second quotation where Stefov refers to the Vlachs and Arvanites of Greece is meant to "prove" that Greeks are no longer pure or ancient, for this is clearly part of his creationist principle. For the sake of the reader, there are in Greece two kinds of Vlachs, Greek speaking ones and Latin speaking ones, who are actually bilingual. The Greek speaking are the majority but are still referred to as Vlachs and as it suits Stefov, they become non-Greeks. It matters to Stefov little that the Vlachs themselves speak Greek and consider themselves more Greek than Greek. Many of the benefactors of the Greek State and society since the liberation of Greece were Vlachs. One of the founders of the Philike Etairia, Skoufas, was also a Vlach. Why are these less Greek than El Greco? Vlachs were people who used Greek or Latin in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Some may have served in the Roman legions, many traveled considerably or were nomadic, others were Greek fugitives or folk of the countryside. It is hardly surprising that they identified themselves with the Romans, later Byzantines, and with the Greeks. In any case a Greek in the Roman empire was not a matter of genes (as Stefov wishes it should have been) but a matter of language and culture. The same was true during Byzantine times and not so surprisingly during the Greek struggles for liberation from the Ottoman yoke. The very idea of political freedom has its origins in Greece, even if it has become a universal idea. However, the desire of bilingual people living among the Greeks (the latinisng Vlachs and Christian Arvanites) to be educated in the Greek language and the Greek culture so as to become a living part of Greece, that for Stefov is very very bad.

Unfortunately for Stefov, his ethnic creationism is an old myth he needs to resuscitate to save in his mind the macedonist ideology in FYROM: if no Greeks exist, then Macedonia is up for the taking. Greece has adhered to the ancient and Byzantine idea of a free society and had been proclaimed in this way during the revolution for independence. Some of the first Greek Ministers were Vlachs and one was a prominent Suliot revolutionary leader, by some regarded as half-Albanian in origin. The first Greek Constitution regarded everyone who was a Christian, or had struggled for liberty, and lived in Greece and those who might have not been but adopted the Greek nationality, as Greek citizens. What makes the Greek people is not a genetic examination - that makes nobody a citizen of any country. The principle is the struggle for the Greek idea, which is the idea of political freedom, of equality, of free education, of freedom of thought and of free enquiry, using the medium of the Greek language. This was the idea of Greece since the time of Isocrates in the 4th century BC. It is the same Greece, even if the Greeks of the 4th C BC died a long time ago. Greek language and the Greek idea were as alive in 1821 as they had been before.

The nationalistic principles of the nineteenth century, in which an ethnicity was genetically unchangeable through time, is a fossil of pre-scientific thinking. Thanks to Darwin and the scientific revolution he brought about, we know a little bit more now than people knew in the 19th century. Humans, like other species, are not static. The ancient Greeks had no special properties all of which disappeared with them when Demosthenes, or Alexander or someone or other died. Linguistic, historic and cultural continuity is what determines the survival of an ethnicity not a unique "blood" or an exclusive set of genes. Like species, so human "ethnicities" evolve over time. Risto Stefov´s quest is a constant search for a genetic contamination from Albanians or some other "impure" ethnicity, so that like a creationist he may say: aha, Greeks as known today were never created by God, or Greeks of the ancient times have no connection to today´s Greeks because they did not call themselves Romioi, presumably did not mix with Albanians, etc. So therefore they were a different "race". He cuts a lonely figure in such a quest, because this kind of thinking is more and more recognized as belonging to those racist theories promoted by the fascistic states of mid-20th century. Stefov´s ethnic principle is like that of Creationism in the sense of lines that are not evolving but can only stay or disappear. Today this is a thought rarely entertained even by ordinary laymen.

Risto Stefov and Slav-Macedonism

November 10, 2008

With great surprise I read the article [1] by the Slav-Macedonian Risto Stefov (Chris Stefou) which attacked my response to a previous article of his, particularly in regards to the Carnegie Commission Report [2]. The Slav-Macedonian writer calls me as "anti-Macedonian internet warrior propagandist" and then attempts to justify this accusation by once again making use of historical revisionism [3]. Disregarding some of the tangents gone off on by Mr. Stefov, I will attempt here to respond to some of the relevant claims.

I will begin my analysis with the term "Macedonian" and its meaning: A Macedonian according to several sources[4][5] is a native or inhabitant of the (Ancient or Modern) Macedonian region. I was born in Thessaloniki and my family's origin can be traced from that city, as well as Eastern Macedonia 150 years ago.

So am I Macedonian according Risto Stefov's historical revisionism process?

According to the known English dictionaries I am. How can I then be accused of being "anti-Macedonian"?

I'll try to explain to you why Mr. Stefov has denied the fact that a Macedonian in our modern era is also a Greek, a Bulgarian, an Albanian and anyone that lived in the region known as Macedonia.

Also, Mr. Stefov said that he knows "exactly what the Carnegie Commission report said and can show us a dozen more reports that say: 'No ethnic Macedonians existed anywhere in geographic Macedonia'". Yet, he avoids answering the question completely. Why didn't the Carnegie Commission report make any remark or in any way mention the so-called "Macedonian" nation, ethnicity or language? Why does this same report describe the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarians, rather than "ethnic Macedonians"?

Of course I do not deny that the Slav-Macedonian national identity begins in the nineteenth century. However, why did most Slav-Macedonians describe themselves as Bulgarians from 1870 to 1943?

Why do many still today identify as Bulgarians, having resisted being transformed into "Macedonians" by the dictatorial powers of a communist state for 75 years?

A.D. Smith wrote that "ethnic communities or 'ethnies' are constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population."Stefov attempts to establish a link between the Slavonic nation FYROM with the famous ancient Greek tribe, the Macedonians. Many writers mention that the modern FYROM Macedonians are Slavs[7][8] and have no connection whatsoever with the ancient Macedonians, who were Greeks and became world-famous in the fourth century BC under Alexander The Great whose conquests of the East began the Hellenistic Age.

Historian and Professor Eugene Borza who is credited as "Macedonian specialist" by the American Philological Association, and who has completed extensive studies regarding the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth analysis that the Ancient Macedonians were not Slavs (or mixture of Slav)s or Romans as some Slav-Macedonists claim. In his article Macedonia Redux [9] Borza explains:"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom".

Finally, the term "Slav-Macedonism" must be defined.

Slav-Macedonism is the political idea prevailing in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) which utilises historical revisionism to establish links between an ethnic group that formed in the 20th century - ethnic 'Macedonians' - and historical events and figures of the 19th century and Middle Ages. For example, Bulgarian Tsar Samuil, despite the overwhelming evidence, is portrayed as a "Macedonian" king. Further attempts are made to deny the Hellenic nature of the ancient kingdom of Macedon and to seek connections between present day ethnic Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians. Unfortunately for extremist Macedonists like Stefov, history bears witness to the fact that in the early 1940s the Bulgarian inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia were transformed into "Macedonians" for political reasons by communist dictators (Tito, Stalin, and Dimitrov) and infamous communist organizations (Comintern and the Balkan Communist Federation )[10,11].


REFERENCES
[1]- Modern Greeks like to Bend the truth to suit their Agenda, American chronicle (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/78874)
[2]- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, report of the international commission, to inquire into the causes and conduct of the Balkan wars, 1914[3]- http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...-his-lies.html
[4]- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Macedonian
[5]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/macedonian6]-
[6]-A.D.Smith 1991, National Identity, pages 21 and 29.
[7]- Igor Diakonoff, The Paths of History, page 229
[8]- Elisabeth Barker, "Macedonia, its place in Balkan power politics, page 10
[9]- The Eye Expanded Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, page 255[
10]-Palmer and King, Yugolsav Communism and the Macedonian Question, page 199.
[11]-Loring Danforth,The Macedonian Conflict, page 66.

I could never completed this article without the extence help and support of the macedoniaontheweb members.

FYROM Diaspora

As always it´s highly amusing to read another one of Risto Stefov´s articles.

Starting from the opening statement, one notes the factual distortion present. For an individual who allegedly doesn´t care about what Greeks may claim about themselves; he certainly seems to waste much time and energy intentionally distorting texts and manipulating history in his articles and books, and distributing his propaganda.

Right after his first bout of hypocrisy, Stefov continues by distorting his very own claims. While he intentionally misinforms us by claiming that he´s never supported some twisted direct descendance from the ancient ´Makednoi´ theory; he conveniently forgets about his article: “Evidence of the Existence of Macedonians Throughout the Ages” in which in his opening statement in the introduction is: “This document was prepared in response to Greek allegations that Macedonians do not exist and have ceased to exist since the so called “Slav invasions” of the fifth and sixth centuries AD.

The logical question of why would any individual who allegedly doesn´t, nor has ever supported the “continuity theory” ever waste time to gather and intentionally distort sources to prove that the modern day population of the FYROM has every right to title themselves and claim heredity from the Makednoi ?

Stefov’s opening statement which attempts to refute Greek allegations and the insinuation of providing proof that the Macedonians have existed, since Slavic invasions doesn´t do much for his case.

It is obvious that he is at the very least intentionally misinforming readers of his true objectives.
Stefov and his followers constantly insinuate that Greeks allegedly strive to present the FYROM population as Bulgarians (he should know the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians) and Slavs.

While this is partially true, what Stefov intentionally neglects to mention is that Greeks are simply reproducing what his ancestors themselves had stated.

We could take for example the organization called BMARC (Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committee) all members of which, today, are considered as fine FYROM patriots. It is this very organization, (their very own national heroes) which totally legitimize our reference to the true ethnicity which they detest.

In its 1896 statute BMARC states:
Art. 1. The goal of BMARC is to secure full political autonomy for the Macedonia and Adrianople regions.
Art. 2. To achieve this goal they [the committees] shall raise the awareness of self-defense in the Bulgarian population in the regions mentioned in Art. 1., disseminate revolutionary ideas - printed or verbal, and prepare and carry on a general uprising.

So the question asked must be, which is the population FYROM national heroes aimed to raise the awareness in and title Bulgarian; if not the forefathers of the population that today attempt to usurp a history and heritage which they have no connection to?

Stefov also accuses Greeks of titling the population of FYROM as Slavonic.

But what defines a Slav?

Slavs are an ethnic group connected by language, customs, traditions, beliefs.

We know beyond doubt that the population of FYROM does speak a Slavic language. We also know from their own authors like Tanas Vrazhinovski and Vladimir Karadzoski that FYROM folklore is predominantly Slavonic.

Both authors give numerous examples of worship of Slavonic deities and place names directly related to these deity´s names. Customs as any Bulgarian or Serb may confirm are also highly similar, if not identical.

So identical that we may safely conclude that the population of FYROM is indeed Slavonic and the attempt to present the use of the ethnonym ‘Slav’ as some form of insult, simply indicates the extent of propaganda aimed at (not to an international audience), but as its main target group has the FYROM youth. In some futile attempt to teach the FYROM population to hate their true origins and believe that their only true destiny is indissolubly connected upon usurping a history and culture which is totally alien to them is unacceptable.

Yet another fallacy promoted by Stefov for his audience is the case in which Philip of Macedon didn´t unite as so many true historians have accepted (see Thomas R. Martin, Lewis Vance Cummings, Richard Gabriel, Alan Fildes, Joann Fletcher, Robin Lane Fox…etc) but conquered. If that isn´t enough, he also resorts to fallaciously extending Philip´s empire further North to incorporate the lands of FYROM and by doing so legitimize his claims.

While it is true that these lands have seen various conquerors and settlers, what Stefov neglects to mention, is that while the above may have partially influenced the locals with their own culture, they never did manage to alienate them from their own. Something we clearly see in the alleged descendants of the Makednoi. Stefov and his believers have totally failed to provide a single logical explanation as to how any since trace of cultural connection to those they claim descendance from is non-existent.

During the last years the main FYROM offensive in the name debate is centralized on the following logic: “since we can´t prove a connection to the ancients, we´ll centralize on disproving yours”, which is exactly what we see Stefov doing today.

Unfortunately his attempts are caught either constantly celebrating ignorance or due to malicious intent, falsifying facts. Stefov claims that the name/term Greeks was ignored until after the Roman conquests which is when it was allegedly coined. Its puzzling how an alleged authority in history, who has published so many books about ancient history, could possibly ignore the reference of the eponym ‘Graikos’found in Hesiod´s Catalogue of Women or the village ‘Graia’ noted in Homer´s Catalogue of ships or even the later reference to the Graeci in Aristotle´s Meteorological. This is yet another well known quasi-historical attempts to approach the issue which Stefov is renowned for. Had he tried to tackle the issue on its factual basis, he wouldn´t centralize on the Latinization which has been passed down to the majority of language but the term which classicists acknowledge as the proper denomination and that is that of Hellenes (even though they have been used interchangeably). But even uttering the term ‘Hellenes’ is simply unthinkable for Stefov; for he would then have to deal with Hesiod´s reference to a ‘race of the Hellenes’ (works and days), a race of Hellenes which would disprove the very basis of his theory of various city-states alien to each other, not forming a single body of people.

While it is conveniently true that Greece wasn´t used by Ancient Greek geographers to describe the region in question, we know of several of them that use the term ‘Hellas’ (Agatharchides, Pausanias and Strabo being some of the more well known examples). If we were to look towards Roman writers with Pliny the Elder´s Natural History being one of the finest examples, we´d find that throughout his entire work and especially books 3-5 which are geography related, the term ‘Greece’ is constantly used to define the region.

One really has to wonder why Stefov tries to alienate an entire people from their heritage with such void argumentation. So the term ‘Rhomios’was used by the Greek population to define themselves, what does this actually prove?

While the term Rhomios may indeed be partly alien to their ancestors, one can´t neglect to note that it derives from the ‘Constitution Antoniniana of Caracalla’ which allowed all freemen of the Roman provinces to obtain Roman citizenship and that it is directly related to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) which they were subjects. A term forged to represent their citizenship but also their Greek ancestry (see Andreas Osiander´s Before the State), hence why it (and not ‘Rhomaios’) was also used to strictly designate the subjects of Greek ancestry and them alone. It is also interesting to note the perception of some of the empire´s neighbors. Armenians, Russians, Georgians, Jews and even Ottomans titled the subjects ‘Graikoi’, Yunan, Yavani , or the authors Theodorus Studitus, Anna Komnene, George Gemistos Plethon, Michael Psellus and Theophanes Confessor all used the ethnonym Hellenes; terms directly linked to their ancestral roots which they recognized then, but today this author (Stefov) with some highly questionable arguments tries to refute the facts.

Stefov continues to unsuccessfully tackle the demographics of Greece. If under his logic the Slavic presence in the Balkans gives the Slavic population of FYROM some right to usurp a history; heritage and claim descendance from the ancient Makednoi (even through their very customs, traditions and folklore) prove them totally alien to it. Then how can someone even try and attempt to alienate the Vlachs from the Ancient Greeks?

While theories on their origin vary and one could argue their autochthonous origin, doesn´t their presence in the region which is dated prior to the time when the Slavs were nothing but mere invaders(Procopius) give them the right to claim ancestry?

Stefov makes reference to the total population of Greece upon its liberation while exaggerating and distorting possible population statistics. There is no accurate account of the possible ethnic makeup of the population, therefore any argument either for or against homogeneity would be ridiculous. One would notice that while Stefov doesn’t make any reference of Greeks as being a part of the population, he adds Turks; which as it is well documented, were non-existent since in their vast majority had fled upon the rebellion and Slavs. Then again such claims by Stefov who has previously promoted the totally outdated and disregarded ‘Fallmerayer theory´, anything seems possible.

Finally, there needs to be a mention of the Albanians. Since the only census which provides us with data is that of 1928 we must take that into consideration. In a 1928 census we find that the total amount of self-identified Albanian-speakers (and not ethnic Albanian origin) is approx. 19,000. A population of 19,000 in 1928 when Greece had liberated its lands and had a total population of some 6.2 million. Stefov claims that the Albanians were obviously the majority in the region in the early 1800´s; hence his reference to them and no reference to the Greeks. One must ask of what happened to the Albanians?

Well, we could take into account the statements of the Albano phone population itself, who in 1836 Christophoros Perraivos recorded their self-identification as purely Greek and were recognized as such by Alexandros Ypsilantes; who in his letter makes reference to their ancestors that fought in the battle of Marathon.

Finally, it must be noted that people like Risto Stefov, while providing an entertaining read, continue to distort Greek history (in a way similarly described above) and must not be taken seriously.

by Australian Macedonian Advisory Council

Risto Stefov(aka Chris Stefou) vs Carnegie: Misrepresenting the 1914 Carnegie Report

Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) once more use his Historical revisionism (also but less often in English "negationism"). This term describes the process that attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate. It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviwed acedemic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history".
In his articles Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) used the most known forms , parts from the most common tactics of the Historical Revisionism-Negationism.

• The selective use of facts
• The denial or derision of known facts
• Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the importance of historical memory and historical studies)
• The assumption of unproven facts
• The fabrication of facts
• The obfuscation of facts

more in this thread.

Chris Philipou in his blog has written a great article that expose Stefov as about the Carnegie Commision Report "claims". Read the article and you will realize why this person is a expert of the Slavmacedonian (FYROM) Historical revisionism
..........................

In 1914 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a report regarding the conduct of the nations that participated in the Balkan Wars. The report was written by an international commission that was dispatched to the region in order to investigate the actions of the Balkan armies as well as to investigate the causes of the various conflicts that took place during the wars.


Risto Stefov, who also publishes books under the name "Chris Stefou", has used the 1914 Carnegie Commission Report on the Balkan Wars as a primary reference for many of his articles. He has written a whole series titled "Greek attrocities in Macedonia" which can be found on maknews.com

In these articles Stefov engages in a heavy dose of historical revisionism. He implies that the Carnegie Commission report describes atrocities committed against "ethnic Macedonians" when in fact the report made no mention of any "ethnic Macedonian" population. The fact that the report made no mention of "ethnic Macedonians" does not phase Stefov who shamelessly converts the Bulgarians the report described into "ethnic Macedonians". Stefov retrospectively molds the population descriptions found in the report to adhere to his nationalist historiography. He and his followers imply that the reason the report described "ethnic Macedonians" as Bulgarians was because the authors of the report were categorizing by religious affiliation. Their theory suggests that because 'ethnic Macedonians' attended the Bulgarian church (Exarchy) they were described as Bulgarians.

The report demolishes this theory in 2 ways:

The report makes it clear that those who attended the Bulgarian church were of Bulgarian nationality. If these people were actually "ethnic Macedonians" why would the authors of the report make the following statement?:

2. The report clearly states that the Serbs were amongst the first to categorize the Slavs of Macedonia as a distinct group from the Bulgarians for political purposes. The authors of the report clearly viewed the Slavic population as Bulgarian despite the claim of Serbian scholars who attempted to distinguish this group from the Bulgarians in order to diminish Bulgaria's claim to the region:
It should be sobering for Stefov's readers to actually read the pages of the report and to see for themselves how the "ethnic Macedonians" Stefov describes in his articles were actually recorded as Bulgarians by the international commisison. As an example Stefov goes into length describing attrocities committed in Kukush by the Greek army. This is how the actual report describes Kukush:

Regardless of Stefov's attempts to focus only on the actions of the Greek army in order to demonize the Greek state as much as possible, the fact is that the 1914 Carnegie Commission report also describes atrocities committed by the other combatants. As an example this is an excerpt from the report which describes the massacre of Greeks in the Greek town of Doxato:

The report was published during an era when the "Macedonian" ethno/national identity was still in it's infancy stages. The report provides the reader with valuable contemporary insight into how contemporary geopolitical dynamics fostered the notion that the Slavs of the region were a distinct ethnic group. Up to the period of the Balkan Wars the Slavic population of the region was largely regarded as Bulgarian. The 1914 Carnegie Commisison report was authored by an international commission that spent time in the region. Their observations of the Slavic population of the region concurs with a vast number of other contemporary first hand accounts . Stefov and his nationalist cronies engage in a dishonest practice when they misrepresent the commission's first hand observations and reconstruct the Bulgarians described in the report as "ethnic Macedonians".

Implying that the Carnegie Commission failed to record what Stefov et al allege was the largest ethnic group in the region is akin to a modern international commission going into Palestine and not recording any Palestinians!

FYROM pseudo-macedonism and Afrocentrism, brotherhood extreme ideologies

Importunely Afrocentrism is a big issue as about the Hellenic heritage. FYROM propaganda and some net-historians (Stefou or Stefov) adopted and contribute some points of the Afrocentric theory.

FYROM Diaspora propaganda (Chris Stefou) recently touches the Bernal Theories and the supposing connection of the ancient Hellenic Heritage and the African. When Bernal said African mean Egyptian. But when Stefou mean African mean African by skin colour. To the extent that Stefou (and his writers) has contributed to the provision of an apparently respectable underpinning for Afrocentric fantasies, he must be held culpable, even if his intentions are honourable and his motives are sincere. But not even he has dealt with the racial issue squarely.

Here some examples that post it from Chris Stefou (aka Risto Stefov) in maknews web site (Lubi Uzunovski) ……

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/digest_15.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov75.html

Some crucial points is the meaning of the Afrocentrist and Slavmacedonist.

Afrocentrists are extreme diffusionists who argue that black Egypt—and sometimes black Africa—was the sole intellec­tual catalyst for the development of most subsequent civilizations, no matter how geographically remote the latter may have been. Virtually all Afrocentrists are black, although there are a few white contributors such as Martin Bernal.
Slavmacedonists are extreme diffusionists Slavmacedonians who argue that the Slavonic people of the geographical Macedonia are the descents of the ancient Macedonians. Slavmacedonists attempt is to discredit the ancient Macedonians’ ethnicity, break the connection between present-day Greek Macedonians and the Greek Macedonians of antiquity, and establish a connection between FYROM’s Slavs with ancient Macedonia. The historically, linguistically and archaeologically incorrect challenge is that Macedonia was never part of Greece and the Macedonians were barbarians who spoke a language in comprehensible to the other Greeks.

Slavmacedonist view of "blacks" and the similar Afrocentric outlook appear with increasing frequency in current discussions of university curricula and internet forums, proposals for the revision of courses of study for elementary and secondary schools, and the popular press. I have space here to illustrate only a few of the consequences resulting from the Slavmacedonist -Afrocentrist approach to blacks in the ancient Mediterranean world. Not the least of these outcomes has been a failure of many Afrocentrists to give proper attention to Nubians and their experience in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, although Nubians were the only Africans whose physical characteristics, according to the ancient evidence, most closely resembled those of peoples described as blacks or Negroes in modern usage.

Slavmacedonists lately (as Afrocentrists long time) maintained that the history of blacks has been distorted or neglected in traditional curricula. Many historians and educators have agreed that this has often been the case, and specialists have pointed to "omissions and errors which have passed for the truth".

Many Slavmacedonists as Stefov, Uzunovski, and Boris Soposki however, continue to reject valid criticisms of their inaccuracies and denounce their critics as Eurocentric racists if they are white and as dupes of white scholarship and traitors to their race if they are black. It is neither racist nor traitorous, however, to insist upon truth, scholarly rigor, and objectivity in the treatment of the history of blacks.

The purpose of history as Arthur Schlesinger says is to promote not group self-esteem, but understanding of the world and the past, dispassionate analysis, judgment and perspective, respect for divergent cultures and traditions, and unflinching protection for those unifying ideas of tolerance, democracy, and human rights that make free historical inquiry possible.

But we the Greeks what must we do in order to protect our history and heritage from the Slavmacedonists and Afrocentrists?

One strategy is to ignore the geographer (Stefou) who teaches (Propaganda books and Internet) that the earth is flat (the Slav the continue of the Macedonia heritage) .

Of course, teaching false information about Alexander and Aristotle will not put anyone in immediate physical danger. But nonetheless these untruths do injustice, not only our Heritage ancestors (ancient Greeks) who have been falsely maligned, but and us, the modern Greeks.

Why deprive the Greeks of their heritage, particularly if the charges against the ancient Greeks can decisively be shown to be wrong? Why encourage hostility toward any ethnic group? Haven't we seen enough examples in this century of the horrific results of teaching hostile propaganda?
Probably Stefou forgot that skin colour and ethnicity are two different thinks. But what did the ancient Greeks look like? From portraits on seal-rings, paintings on vases, and sculptures in clay and stone, it is possible to get a good sense of how they saw themselves. Written texts describe a variety of hair color, ranging from brown to black, and skin color ranging from light to dark. Vase paintings, because of the limited colors available to the potters, give a more schematic impression. Women are usually portrayed with white faces. If the background of the vase is black, the men have black faces; if the background is the color of the clay from which the vase is made, men have reddish-brown faces. They distinguish themselves clearly from Egyptians and Ethiopian peoples in their art and literature. The Africans have flat noses, curly hair, and thick lips; their skin color is portrayed with black glaze or, on occasion, plain unglazed terra-cotta.

They regularly speak of the Egyptians' dark skin, and sometimes of their curly hair. Herodotus supposed that the Colchians (a people who lived on the eastern coast of the Black Sea were Egyptian because they were dark-skinned and curly-haired. He identifies a pair of doves as Egyptian in origin because they are "dark".

Slavmacedonists of course avoid cruising with Afrocentrists claims when the latter speaks for "black" Cleopatra theory and the stolen legacy of Aristotle .

In summary, despite abundant textual and iconographic evidence to the contrary, many Slavmacedonists have used "black," "Egyptian," and "African" interchangeably as the equivalents of blacks/Negroes in modern usage. According to this misinterpretation, ancient Greeks were blacks, and their civilization, an important part of the world heritage has been "covered up" by white racists.

Focusing on "black" Egypt, Slavmacedonists as also and the Afrocentrists have given insufficient attention to the Nubians, the black southern neighbours of Egypt, and their experience in various parts of the Mediterranean world.

It is unfortunate that Slavmacedonists fail to realize the serious consequences of their distortions, inaccuracies, and omissions, and the extent to which the phil-Afrocentrist approach to ancient Egypt has motivated many blacks to stir up anti-white hostility.

Substituting fiction for fact is a disservice to blacks. 20th century has already seen sufficient proof of the dangers of inventing history. What will be the effect on future generations, black and white alike, if the present "mythologizing" Slavmacedonist-Afrocentrist trend continues, and if the historical record is not rectified?

The time has come for scholars and educators to insist upon truth, scholarly rigor, and accuracy in the reconstruction of the history of blacks and whites in the ancient Mediterranean world.

What will be the effect on future generations, black and white alike, Slavs ,Greeks, Albanians, Turks e.t.c. if the present "mythologizing" Slavmacedonists trend continues, and if the historical record is not rectified?

The time has come for scholars , educators , common people like us to insist upon truth, scholarly rigor, and accuracy in the reconstruction of the history of Slavmacedonists like Stefou(Risto Stefov) and Afrocentrists like Bernal, in the ancient Mediterranean world and not only.

Greeks had demonstrated their own originality and creativity in the several sciences, philoso­phy, and mathematics, and that they had not stolen it all from some chimera of an Egyptian Mystery System, which has existed more in the fevered imaginations of Afrocentrists and Slavmacedonists than it has in physical and intellectual reality.

references

1. Macedonism
2. Black Athena Revisited, edited by Mary Lefkovitz & Guy Maclean Rogers
3. White Athena: The Afrocentrist Theft of Greek Civilization by Walter Slack
4. Macedonianism : FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece, 1944-2006.

Risto Stefov Big Lie # 20_The Final Answer in His Lies

The systematic counterfeiting of the history of Macedonia by the Slavmacedonians since 1944 and their attempt to monopolize the "Macedonia" name were considered by the Hellenic people as absurd and unworthy of their attention.

Chris Stefou (aka Risto Stefov) was one from the Slavmacedonians that use lies in order to expose his propaganda. He uses in the net name Risto Stefov but sell books with the name Chris Stefou. This article is an answer in his series book that supposed show Greek lies, produces nationalism and interism and of course has many historical un-accuracies and propaganda guide lines and can you read it here

Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) once more use his Historical revisionism (also but less often in English "negationism"), .This term describes the process that attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate. It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviwed acedemic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history".

In the specific article Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) used the most known forms , parts from the most common tactics of the Historical Revisionism-Negationism.

• The selective use of facts
• The denial or derision of known facts
• Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the importance of historical memory and historical studies)
• The assumption of unproven facts
• The fabrication of facts
• The obfuscation of facts

Of course the above techniques Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) used in the whole net-work and specially in the called "Greek Lies series"
Who is Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov)?
He is fun of the so call Macedonism. But what is Macedonism ?
Is the political prevalent in the FYROM advocates revising history in order to project an ethnic group that formed in the 20th century –ethnic Macedonians- in the context of the 19th century and even in the Middle Ages. For example, Bulgarian Tsar Samuil is denied the Bulgarian nature of his kingdom, despite overwhelming evidence supporting it, and is defined as a "Slavic" or "Macedonian" king. Further attempts are made to deny the Hellenic nature of the ancient kingdom of Macedon and to seek connections between present day ethnic Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians.
But Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) speak for ethnic Macedonians ?
Who are they ?
Loring Danforth quoted that "the history of the construction of a macedonian national identity does not begin with alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints cyril and methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the people's republic of macedonia in 1944 as greek nationalist historians would have us believe. It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like thessaloniki, belgrade, sophia, and st.petersburg. this period marks the beginning of the process of "imagining" a macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a macedonian national identity and culture."
In the last article Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) put some questions as about the Balkan wars and the Treaty of Bucharest. As Historical propagandists and clever user forget as usual to mention some historical facts.
Mark Mazower in "the Balkan"describes in equal distances the situation. He quoted(page 103)that the "Macedonia was a region with no clear borders and not even a formal existence as an administrative Ottoman entity. A bewildering mix of different peoples, hemmed in by newly created states - Greece to the south, Serbia and Bulgaria to the north - it became the focus for their expansionist ambitions at the century's close. Its ethnography, however, posed a challenge for the most ardent Balkan nationalist and had changed out of all recognition since the days of Alexander the Great. The peasantry of the region were predominantly Orthodox, and mostly Slavs; Greek-speakers fringed coastal areas and inhabited the towns.
Of course Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) as clever politically Historical Revisionist-Negationist abandoned the initial paragraph (the title of his thread) and in the rest of the paragraphs we have a delirium of cutting quotes from ancient and modern writers that describe the diffrneces between the ancient Greeks and Macedonians!!!
This tactic use the

• The selective use of facts
• The denial or derision of known facts
• Association fallacy
• Hasty generalization
• The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions
• The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts
• The two wrongs make a right fallacy
• Constant attack against those disputing their views (Ad hominem) (close to slander and libel)

Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) is a part of the Macedonianism System. Their people "These people speak a language understood by both Serbs and Bulgarians. They hate the Serbs because they [the Serbs] treat them as Bulgarians; and they hate the Bulgarians because they draft their sons to the army .... IMRO e.t.c.
Before 1944 Carter-Norris characterized the slavophones of geographical Macedonia as a "shapeless mass of Slavs with no particular ethnicity."One thing, however, is certain: ethnologically, Tito's new "Macedonian" republic was always a fluid country inhabited by six or seven ideologically contentious groups with ties to Albania, Bulgaria, or Serbia .The 1940 official Yugoslav census recognized only two large ethnic groups in Vardar Province, Slavs(some other said Serbs) at 66% and Muslims at 31 percent. In 1945, 3 years after the formation of the People's Republic of Macedonia, the Slavs disappeared from the census which showed 66 % t "Macedonians."
And I am ask you Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov).
Was this remarkable transformation process an en lnasse genetic mutation or a census falsification?"
How could a group of people (Bulgarians and Slavs) change ethnicity, becoming "Macedonians" in five years?
Disregarding the shrill campaign about the Macedonianism of the People'sRepublic of Macedonia, who was responsible for the transformation of the Slavs and Bulgarians into "Macedonians" and the appropriation of the Macedonian name belonging to a neighbour?
How did the egregious political decision to create a new Macedonian ethnicity emerge? There are many documents available now leading to an indisputable conclusion.Kofos quoted Tito's ideologically Marxist authoritarian regime was responsible. The Marxist revolutionary theory on ethnic minorities, cleverly adjusted by Lenin and Stalin to compromise communist internationalism with their own nationalist aspirations, was also responsible.
In the question as about the historical rights in the Treaty of Bucharest Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) as Historical Revisionist-Negationist forget to remmeber some historical facts. The British historian Dakin quoted that the trichotomy of Macedonia did not please the British foreign minister, Sir Edward Grey. He proposed revision of the treaty, strongly opposed by Greece, Serbia, and Romania. France and Germany also rejected Grey's proposal. In the end, Russia went along with France and Germany, with Austria-Hungary remaining uncommitted. Finally, England formally recognized the treaty in the spring of 1914. Most analysts of Balkan foreign and military policy of the early twentieth century would agree that the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest was an event of great historical and political significance. Temporarily at least, it settled the differences among the four Balkan allies and pushed the Macedonian Question to obscurity. George papavizas quoted that “it was a great event for Greece because it brought back a large part of Macedonia to Greece, all the way from the Pindus mountain range in the west to the River Nestos in the east. The end of the war and the withdrawal of the Bulgarian troops from sections of eastern Macedonia raised new hopes for cooperation and peace among the tired and devastated Greek Macedonian people, but the dreams were rapidly dashed. Peace was not to come soon in the land.
The Treaty of Bucharest would soon be challenged and undermined by Bulgaria with its great appetite for more Macedonian land and later by the columnists regimes of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. With support from Austria-Hungary, the Bulgarians would still hold firmly the relay of the struggle for Macedonia, not as Macedonians, but as pure nationalist Bulgarians. Perhaps a final solution of the Macedonian problem could have been achieved if the Treaty of Bucharest had forced an exchange of populations among the three sections of Macedonia as was done later by the Treaty of Lausanne between Greece and Turkey.
George Papavizas make a clever historical quote....After the Balkan Wars and World War I, many leaders, diplomats, groups, parties, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) became involvedwith the problem, exacerbating it rather than solving it. Finally I quote a Cappeli (Bosnia issue) statement that point out "international recognition by no means necessarily endows a state with legitimacy, especially when the recognition has been granted in such an impetuous manner in the midst of a crisis and if legitimacy is held to have any connection with a common history and a sense of common destiny as characteristics of the state's population, without which no state can surviveâ
Every word of the above statement on Bosnia applies to FYROM .
Of course I have and my finally question to Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov).
Why avoid any serious debate as about the Macedonian Question if you have as you claim the historical facts with your side ?
Source:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)
2. Mark Mazower,The Balkans.
3. Loring Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational Word.
4. Douglas Dakin, The Macedonian Struggle,1966
5. George Papavizas, Claiming Macedonia, 2004