The Name Game....The future of EU expansion? It all depends on what the meaning of the word "Macedonia" is.

BY THOMAS MEANEY, HARRIS MYLONAS
source: foreignpolicy.com

The European Union is a club with a long line out the door. Just ask Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, or Turkey. But for one Balkan country, the biggest problem is showing the right ID at the velvet rope. Seven former communist countries were able to enter both NATO and the EU by the end of the Bush years. But last year the Greek government blocked the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from joining NATO, citing bad neighborly relations, and is determined to torpedo its EU bid as well. The reason? It's all in a name.

FYROM, perhaps due to the unwieldiness of its acronym, has tried to enter as just "Macedonia," the name of the ancient empire of Alexander the Great. But Greece also has a northern province called "Macedonia" and worries that Skopje has expansionist ambitions.

The United States supports the eastward expansion of NATO in an effort to shrink the Russian sphere of influence and -- the name issue notwithstanding -- FYROM would seem to be a perfect candidate for membership. The Obama administration can help the United Nations solve the dispute by abandoning the Bush administration policy of stubbornly backing the "Macedonians" and talk its fledgling friend into a compromise that will push it over the Balkan hump.

But doing so won't be easy. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia understandably doesn't like to be known by its cumbersome post-Titoist tag. "Don't You FYROM Me!" is a favorite bumper sticker on the streets of Skopje. In the 1990s, foreign observers doubted the viability of this landlocked country with an explosive cultural makeup and powerful neighbors. Ethnic Albanians, Turks, Roma, Serbians, Bulgarians, and Greeks are all packed together in a state the size of Vermont. It's not surprising that such a fragile country would want to cling its oldest and most respectable heritage.

The largest minority in FYROM are Albanians, who desperately want to become members of the EU and NATO. Besides the obvious economic benefits, membership would ultimately allow these Albanians closer ties with their coethnics in the western Balkans. They are growing impatient with the recent surge in "Alexandermania" backed by the Slav majority that promotes an exclusively "Macedonian" identity for the country. Last month, the government unveiled plans to erect an $8 million, 72-foot statue of Alexander the Great atop his horse, Bucephalus, in the capital square. Never mind that the historical Alexander's actual capital was located inside modern Greece.

More troubling are the maps in "Macedonian" textbooks that show their ancestral homeland stretching far into present-day Greece (as well as Bulgaria and Albania) and describe Thessaloniki, the capital of the northern province of Greece, as occupied territory. These are irredentist claims that justifiably worry the Greeks.

Alexander the Great: how Slavic was he?

27 January 2009

The real question is not whether Alexandre trhe Great was Greek or not. He has. The real question is whether the Slavic invaders to the Balkans during the 7th century AD, more than one thousand years after Alexandre, can claim today any other nationality than Slavic and have the right to hold any other passport than Bulgarian. And the answer is simply NO.

by Prof. Paul Cartledge, Cambridge University

Nation-state building in its most urgent form was a particularly prominent 19th-century phenomenon. Small proto-states then were seeking to get out from under the stifling embrace of the big empires of the day - whether British, Turkish, French or Russian. But that process of political emancipation was not confined by any means to the 19th century; indeed, it continues, in places very strongly or even violently, to this day. And new nation-states that choose to base their essential identity on ethnicity, in order to determine who ‘the people’ are, tend to need heroes. Not least, they feel the need for founding-father type heroes from the past who can be seamlessly re-appropriated (and of course made over) as the nation’s living ancestors.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - or just plain ‘Macedonia’, as it is known officially to its inhabitants and, more surprisingly, to George Bush’s United States of America - is exactly one such emergent ethnic nation-state of today in search of retrospective founding-father ancestors. Unfortunately, one of its ‘ancestors’ of choice, Alexander the Great, is already very well spoken for - in fact, most vigorously claimed and appropriated - by the neighbouring state of Greece. Though Greece began the process of independent nation-state building as early as the 1820s, it did not achieve its present geopolitical configuration until the 1940s, well within the living memory of its oldest generations. Hence it too is still not a little sensitive about its founding-father ancestors; and though it has a far huger pool to choose from than does FYROM, it too chooses to make a song and dance about Alexander as a true-blue Hellene, because the area of northern Greece centred on Greek Macedonia with its capital at Thessaloniki is the most ethnically diverse and the most ethnically contested in all the present-day Greek state. Therein lie the source, and the cause of its intensity, of the conflict between Greece and FYROM over the question of Alexander’s true ethnicity - a fundamentally historical question, but one that has become twisted out of all recognition by politics: just how Greek or Hellenic was he, really?

It’s very difficult today to classify precisely the language of the ancient Macedonians, because so few examples of it have been preserved. But two things about it are reasonably certain, or at least agreed among the experts. It was basically a dialect of Greek, but so interlarded with words of non-Greek, mainly Thracian origin that not just because of accent but also because of vocabulary it could be incomprehensible to speakers of ’standard’ Greek dialects. For example, Alexander himself when under the stress of huge emotion is recorded as speaking ‘in Macedonian’. The issue of difference of customs is also complex, but two features may be salient. Unlike Greeks elsewhere, both in mainland Greece and in the diaspora, the Macedonians had not developed a civilisation based on cities (poleis), and correspondingly they had not developed a strong political notion of citizenship. To try to convey an idea of this difference, scholars speak - however misleadingly - of Macedonian tribalism, even feudalism. That traditional way of doing politics was not significantly altered until only a couple of generations before Alexander the Great, in the late 5th century BCE.

Apart from the lack of citification, what would have astonished all other Greeks - except the Spartans perhaps - was the practice of royal polygamy. King Philip II, Alexander the Great’s father, amassed a collection of seven wives in all, only two of whom were Macedonian Greeks. Alexander’s own mother Olympias was a Greek Greek, as it were, a royal princess from Epirus. Elsewhere, monogamy was not just required for all Greeks - but also regarded as a defining feature of Greek as opposed to barbarian culture.

These linguistic and cultural differences could be exploited politically, then as now. Demosthenes of Athens complained you used not even to be able to buy a decent slave from Macedonia (implying it was a barbarian territory) whereas now Macedonia under Philip II lorded it over the rest of mainland Greece including Athens as if its subjects were barbarian slaves themselves. At the battle of Issus in Asia Minor in 333, Alexander’s difficulties in fighting the forces of the Persian king Darius III were compounded by the fact that many Greeks had enlisted as mercenaries on the side of Darius precisely because they hated Macedonians so.

My point in reminding readers of these ancient contentions over the ethnicity and meaning of ‘Macedonian’ is to emphasise how far the disputes were manufactured and exploited for political reasons, rather than based on scientific historical knowledge and understanding of the facts (such as they are and were). The same seems to me true today. On October the 28th 2007 the United Macedonian Diaspora organised a protest outside Parliament House in Canberra against FYROM’s assertion that Alexander was a (non-Greek) Macedonian. It is vital, I believe, that the Greek-Australian community’s response is measured, well articulated and clear. It is my view that neo-nationalist perspectives on ancient history do little to generate cohesion or cross-cultural harmony - particularly in immigrant nations such as Australia. I am also of the view that it is somewhat irrelevant whether Alexander was Greek or Macedonian according to any modern, retrospective, reappropriating notion of those terms. What matters is that he was a hugely significant leader, imbued with Hellenic values, but blessed also with a global and no less importantly multicultural perspective on the world.

I say ‘Greek or Hellenic’, because in English the very term ‘Greek’ is itself the result of ethnocentrism, a very ancient ethnocentrism admittedly, since it goes back to the ancient Romans, the Americans of their day. The Graikoi were indeed Greek - or Hellenic, as the Greeks themselves would have put it. They lived in Thessaly, the region immediately adjoining Greek Macedonia on the south. But they were small fry, bit-part players in the major ancient dramas. The ancient Greeks as a whole, who called themselves collectively ‘Hellenes’, would no more have considered calling themselves all ‘Graikoi’ than all Australians would today consider calling themselves Darwinites. Perhaps that’s another, historically conditioned reason why Greeks today or people of Greek descent, when speaking Greek insist so strongly that Macedonia is, was and always has been Greek, I mean Hellenic.

Yet, thereby hangs another irony, and another ancient one. Because even in ancient times there was a debate in Greece over the ethnicity of the Macedonians, that is over whether they were - or all of them were, and had always been - Greek (Hellenic Greek). This debate surfaces in Herodotus, at a critical moment in his account of the Graeco-Persian Wars. Ancient Macedonia, including a part of what is today FYROM, was then a subject province of the Persian empire, that empire’s European toehold or bridgehead. That was embarrassing enough for patriotic Greeks - but perhaps their consciences could be salved by saying that the Macedonians weren’t ‘really’ Hellenes? Herodotus was on the case, though only in retrospect of course. His enquiries led him to confirm the report he was given by the Macedonians themselves - that they were indeed Greek.

However - and it is a big ‘however’ - honesty compelled Herodotus to add that, when the Macedonian king of the day, another Alexander (Alexander the First), had applied to compete in the all-Greek and only-Greek Olympic Games, his fellow- competitors had objected that he was a ‘barbarian’ (non-Greek). But the judges of the Games, who were known as Hellenodikai or ‘Judges of the Hellenes’, had decided in his favour - on grounds of descent, as follows. The royal family to which Alexander belonged called themselves Argeadai, descendants of Argeas, and their family tradition held that Argeas, the ultimate founding father of their family line, took his name from Argos in the Peloponnese - indeed that he had originally emigrated from Argos to Macedonia to found the line. The Olympic Judges accepted that tradition as true. But - and again, it is a big ‘but’ - they did not then go on to declare that henceforth all Macedonians were entitled, as Hellenes, to compete in the Olympics. Entitlement was extended only to the royal Aegead family, not to all other Macedonians as well ….

Why so? Put it another way, why was there such dispute and discord, even among ancient Greeks, over the Hellenic identity and authenticity of the Macedonians? Even though, it has to be added, this dispute and discord flew in the face of very ancient Hellenic mythic genealogy, according to which Makedon, the eponymous forefather of all Macedonians, occupied an exalted position high up in the family-tree agreed on by all Hellenes. There were I think two main reasons. First, language, and second, customs - remembering that Herodotus, when he placed a definition of Greekness in the mouths of the Athenians, singled out precisely those two factors as crucially definitional.

Paul Cartledge is a Professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, and a fellow of Clare College. A world expert on Athens and Sparta in the Classical Age he has been described as a Laconophile. He was chief historical consultant for the BBC TV series The Greeks and the Channel 4 series The Spartans, presented by Bettany Hughes.
He has published The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (2nd ed, 2002), the product of research into Greek self-definition; Kosmos: essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens (coauthor Millet, Paul.) (2002) Cambridge University Press; The Spartans: An Epic History (2nd ed, 2003); Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past (2004) Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures (2004) Center for Hellenic Studies.; Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World (2006). The Overlook Press.

source: hellenesonline.com

Was Alexander the Great a Slav?

This is a row I really don't get. Over the last few years FYROM (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) has been investing heavily in Alexander the Great. FYROM's main airport is now called "Alexander the Great Airport" (better than "John Lennon" or "Bob Hope" airports, you might think). A vast statue of Alexander (eight storeys high, apparently) is planned for the centre of Skopje. And the word on the street is that Alexander was a Slav.

This seems to me to be at best rather touching. It's nice to think that there is still enough symbolic life in this drunken juvenile thug that someone wants him for their nation. At worst, it is faintly silly. The antecedents of Alexander are a bit murky, but in truth there isn't a cat in hell's chance that he was a Slav. I can see also that it could be a bit annoying to some Greeks who might want to try to claim Alexander for themselves (this is a better claim than the Slavic one, but not exactly cast iron).

But what on earth has persuaded over 300 classical scholars (several of whom are good friends of mine) to sign a letter to President Obama (copy to Mrs Clinton et al.) asking him to intervene personally to clear up this FYROM historical travesty.

I hope Obama has got some more important wrongs to right. But supposing that he has had a minute to look at this missive, I trust that he won't be won over by the outraged arguments.

The territory of FYROM, they point out, is more strictly that of ancient Paionia, not Macedonia (fair enough, but so what -- we dont stop Northern Ireland calling itself part of Great Britain, even though it wasn't part of ancient Britannia). The other arguments in the letter are decidedly dodgier, and not the kid of thing that the learned signatories would (I hope) give high marks to in an undergraduate essay.

There is the usual stuff about how Alexander's ancestors must have been Greek as they competed in the Olympic Games (in fact there was originally some dispute at the time about whether they were, or were not, Greek enough to qualify). But the worst argument is the claim that 'the Macedonians traced their ancestry to Argos", and so were bona fide, not FYROM-style, Greeks. Well of course the Macedonians said that. It was a convenient and self-serving MYTH, no truer than the Athenians' claim that they were born from the soil of Athens.

By putting their names to this rubbish, I cant help feeling that my friends are stooping to exactly the kind of nationalsm that they are trying to oppose. If you really wanted to undermine the Macedonian claims, wouldn't it be better (and academically more credible) simply to laugh at them and just refuse to take them seriously?

by Mary Beard on July 03, 2009 at 12:16 AM
timesonline

A reader(iconoclast) answer to FYROM President claims

The Spiegel Online article is frought with misinformation and out right lies. Unfortunately, it seems that the reporter Renate Flottau does is not well versed with the subject that she is attempting to tackle, leading to Ivanov making false statements that she allows him to get away with without challenging him in anyway.

Ivanov is a blatent lier.

He says:

"Does anybody really believe that we would attack Greece and demand a union with "Macedonians" who have been living in Greece since 1913"

Greece has not stated that they see the instability manifest itself in the absurd notion that Ivanov is putting forward, but rather the propaganda that eminates from Skopje is creating instability, right now. This is not some sort of dream we are living. There are no "Macedonian" people living in Greece since 1913, these people are bi-lingual citizens of Greece. They chose to remain in Greece during population exchange that occured after the 1912-13 Balkan War, and thus asserting their choice to be Greek citizens. What Ivanov is asserting is his twisted propaganda, once again.

Ivanov says:

"These maps of the ethnic "Macedonians" from the 19th century, when all "Macedonians" lived together in one state."

What a load of absolute garbage. These people that Ivanov refers to "Macedonians" were Slavs who lived in the region of Macedonia that was a part of the Ottoman Empire, there was no such state of "Macedonia" that he is attempting to manufacture. Such a state, in the sense of a nation did not exist, but only in his delusional mind and in the delusional mind of the Slavs of the newly created nation state of the FYROM. In the geographical region of Macedonia, there was a "La Salade Macedeoineis" of ethnicities, Turks, Albainians, Bulgars, Serbs, Roma and Greeks. These Slavs of the FYROM had at that time an ethnic conscience of being Bulgar. So this rubbish Ivanov is espousing is just that rubbish.

He says:

"Many "Macedonians" who were forced to flee Greece, had to leave behind everything they had"

Yes, Mr. Ivanov but these individuals also were considered traitors of the Greek state. They were not forced to flee, they fled due to their prior traitorous actions against the Greek state that led them to flee on their own volition. If they had stayed they would have been charged as enemy combatants and traitors, and at that time, would have been put up against a firing squad and shot. So they fled to save their own skin!

Ivanov says:

"They were brought by the emigrants. As opponents of the communists, they were expelled and they returned after the communist regime fell."

These people fled on their own violition because they chose to fight with the communists and against the Greek state, not the rubbish that Ivanov tries to put forward, that they were "opponents of the communists." What a joke this guy is! These people, who were Greek citizens were traitors to the Greek state.

Ivanov says:

"Our constitution, because of pressure from Greece, prohibits us from doing that. But as a member of the EU, Greece must accept that European principles must be adhered to across Europe -- also when it comes to its minorities."

Which minorities is he refering to? He is attempting to create something that does not exist. There are bi-lingual Greek citizens that live in Greece, no one is denying this. Rather, Ivanov is with his acolytes attempting, to create a dynamic which results in social instability. This is what his failed propaganda is attempting to do. These people are simply delusional.

Ivanov says:

"It wasn't Macedonia, but rather Greece that evoked antiquity in order to prove its authenticity."

No, Mr. Ivanov it has been your nations state sponsored propaganda that has been attempting to establish a direct link to the Greek speaking Ancient Macedonians, who by themselves, considered themselves Greek. Your state sponsored psuedo-history is attempting to assert that the Ancient Macedonians were your ancestors. The Greek people are fully in their right to protest and protect and cherrish their history. One need only open their eyes to your actions, rather than to your words to see the reality. You Mr. Ivanov are a propagandist and a delusional lier.

Ivanov says:

"We fulfilled every reform, our people planned for the future, foreign investments were announced. Worst of all is the fact that up to today not a single NATO official has found it necessary to discuss it with us or to offer the prospect of a solution. My God, we have been treated unfairly."

No Mr. Ivanov, you have been treated fairly. You have not fulfilled every reform. The NATO was fully within its right to deny your nation an invitation to join the NATO. You were denied admittance for very legitimate reasons put forward by one of its members, Greece, in which the NATO thoughtfully considered, and agreed with Greece's position.

Maybe Mr. Ivanov, rather than acting like an immature child that spits its dummy when it doesn't get what it wants, which exactly what you have recently demonstrated by erecting all manner of ancient Greek statues, renaming your streets, buldings and anything else you could think of to names of ancient Greeks, you might want to be somewhat introspective, grow up, act mature, and take actions that demonstrates that you deserve to enter the NATO. Right now, the NATO itself doesn't think you are ready. It's really quite simple Mr. Ivanov, really, truly.

Ivanov says:

"If a train is standing on the tracks, the tracks will determine the direction. "

Yes, Mr. Ivanov your analogy is poignant, the one significant point in your analogy you seem to have taken for granted, is that the train is stopping at your station. This is not a given, which you do not appear to have understood. Mr. Ivanov, you can catch a cold standing at a train platform for too long, waiting for a train that never stops.

Ivanov says:

"The new general secretary of NATO will also be more creative -- NATO could even review its own decision again and could accept us as part of the alliance despite Greece's veto."

I don't think so Mr. Ivanov. This is what the current general secretary of the NATO said:

" QUESTION: Skopje New Information Agency. Secretary General, I must ask you, Skopje, as you know, has done a lot with the reforms to join NATO. We have our peace troops in Afghanistan and for the next year we’re going to enlarge the Skopjan soldiers. Don’t you think that in your mandate, you didn’t give us enough support to become a member of NATO, together with Albania and Croatia?

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER: No, I don’t think so because I think I’ve done everything which was in my power to bring that about and I’m telling you no news if I say that the decision at the Bucharest Summit a year ago was crystal clear, that the solution has to be found for the name issue. And I hope that there will be some more flexibility in Skopje than I’ve seen up until now.

Let me answer you openly, frankly and directly. I would like to see your nation in NATO. I’ve never made any, I’ve never concealed my own ambition and I’ve been to Skopje many times. But it also means quite honestly that I have to see flexibility and I think more than I have seen up until now. So the answer to your question is no, I do not agree if you say, Secretary General, have you done enough? I think I have done enough. My successor will also invest. I have invested in the relationship with Skopje. So will my successor.

So that is my answer to your question."
(see http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/06/26/secretary-general-of-nato-i-hope-that-there-will-be-more-flexibility-in-skopje-than-i-have-seen-up-until-now/)

Mr Ivaonv says:

"I am an optimist. US President Barack Obama just clearly stated that Macedonia must become a member of NATO."

Yes, Mr. Ivanov the POTUS Obama may have said this, but you must understand that this is not without you taking the required steps, unless you want to see your good selves once again leaving empty handed.

Ivanov says:

"It takes two to tango."

It seems Mr. Ivanov you have been reading my previous post, where I said "It takes two to tango, Greece is on the dance floor, but her partner has stood her up!"

by iconoclast

====================================================

In this link you can read FYROM President Gjorgje Ivanov interview

FYROM President Ivanov dreams the "Greater Macedonia"

FYROM’s irredentist policy towards Greece from 1944 to the present, a policy that is in flagrant breach of the Interim Agreement signed by the two parties in 1995 expressly calling on them to put an end to any mutual expressions of irredentism. The irredentist propaganda of FYROM, by which it essentially disputes Greece’s sovereignty over the northern part of the country, will be promoted with a barrage of advertisements on the American and European media

The last hit came from the FYROM President Gjorgje Ivanov with a delirium of Irredentism has expressed the real feeling as regards the FYROM State

This is the abstract from the interview in spiegel.de that shows clearly the FYROM Irredentism....


The historical dogma, taking shape in FYROM, backtracks the origins of this modern Slavmacedonians—the Makedonci— a full millennium to include the ancient Macedonians (5th century BC). This revisionist historical dogma, is not limited to encroaching upon the identity of a Hellenic people of the classical times.
It aims at expanding the boundaries of the historical “taktovina” (fatherland) of the “Makedonci” to include wide regions of Greece and Bulgaria. It is well known, that for decades the classrooms and school textbooks of history in FYROM have been adorned with maps portraying Macedonia’s “geographic and ethnic”, i.e. Slavic boundaries extending all the way to Mount Olympus and Chalkidiki, in Greek Macedonia as well as to the Pirin district of Bulgaria.
FYROM main headings were, are and will be...

-Renaming Greek Macedonia as ‘Aegean Macedonia’, and representing it as terra irredenta, as an integral part of FYROM.

-Claiming the existence of an oppressed ‘Macedonian minority’ within Greece.

-Appropriating emblems and symbols, and the Greek cultural legacy in general (with Ancient Macedonia as the focal point).

With the irredentist aspirations which Ivanov promotes with Nikola Gruevski (known as “trouble maker of the Balkans”), and this will have consequences for both himself and his country. The stigma of the dangerous nationalist does not disappear easily in the Balkans. This was a painful discovery for the Serbians who lived through the dismemberment of their country because Slobodan Milosevic started to play the nationalist card in 1989.

Ivanov as member of the extreme nationalist partie VMRO also stated that Serbs dream of a Greater Serbia but he forget to tell what the result of this dream was. Ivanov is trying to become a “hero” internally in his country without being concerned about the fact that externally he is beginning to be viewed as a pariah. Such irredentist statements are dangerous for "regional cooperation and stability in the fragile region of the Balkans". These statements are extremely provocative and totally unacceptable, and proved

-the correctness of the Greek arguments, stance and policy, which insists on the need for resolving the name problem

-that as long as the problem remains unsolved, it will serve as the tool and vehicle of an outdated and historically unfounded irredentism that is dangerous for regional cooperation and stability of the fragile region of the Balkans

-that the neighbouring country (FYROM), so long as it remains captive to irredentist rationales of the past, cannot look forward to a European and Euro-Atlantic future.

Aleksovska's False Claims

June 25, 2009

Alexandra Aleksovska's American Chronicle piece published on June 1st 2009 is fraught with historical inaccuracies (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/104453)

In her article Aleksovska attempted to lambaste Prof. Stephen G. Miller over a letter that he wrote to President Obama. In the letter Prof. Miller outlined several historical inaccuracies being perpetuated by The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M) in order to lay claim to the legacy of the Macedonian region, including Alexander the Great. By attacking Miller's position with regards to F.Y.R.O.M's state sponsored historiography Aleksovska is effectually defending the notion that the Slavic population of F.Y.R.O.M is linked to Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. Unfortuately for Aleksovska no credible and objective authority in the fields of Antrhopology, Sociology or Balkan History will lend any credence to a relationship between F.Y.R.O.M and ancient Macedonia. This is further bolstered by the fact that over 300 world class international Classical Scholars (Historians and Archaeologists), to date, have signed Miller's letter. (See http://macedonia-evidence.org/ for more details)

There are numerous points in Aleksovska's American Chronicle piece that perplex me. To begin with, I find it astounding that nationalists from F.Y.R.O.M and her diaspora insist on citing the historians Ernst Badian and Eugene Borza as being "supportive" of their "cause". In this case Aleksovska asks why "the most respected" scholars of ancient Macedonia, Badian and Borza, haven't signed Miller's letter with the implication that Borza and Badian somehow support her nationalist historiography:

"....Where on the list are respected scholars like Eugene Borza, Ernst Badian or Peter Green, who have written the most respected books on Ancient Macedonia...."

Evidently Aleksovska is not familiar with the published views of Badian and Borza. If she was familiar with their work she would know that much of what they have published is far more devastating to her cause than any statements in Prof. Miller's letter. As a matter of fact Borza made a point of stating that modern "ethnic Macedonians" have no relationship to ancient Macedonia. It seems that the misinformed nationalists from F.Y.R.O.M and her diaspora cannot see beyond Badian's and Borza's views of 4th century BC Macedonia and have taken to blindly citing them ad infinitum in any situation that they think suits their cause.

The following are some of the published positions of Badian and Borza. Perhaps Aleksovska should familiarize herself with their work instead of blindly promoting them as substantiators of her cause:

1. Borza claimed that the Royal house was regarded as Greek and regarded itself as Greek:

"There is NO DOUBT that this tradition of a superimposed Greek house was WIDELY BELIEVED by the Macedonians."- E. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus. pg 80

"There was a PERSISTENT, WELL ATTESTED tradition in antiquity that told of a group of Greeks from Argos-descendants of Temenus, kinsman of Heracles-who came to Macedonia and established their rule over the Makedones, unifying them and providing a royal house."- E. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus. pg 80

"There is NO reason to deny the Macedonians' own traditions about their early kings and the migration of the Macedones. [..] The basic story as provided by Herodotus and Thucydides, minus the interpoloation of the Temenid connections, UNDOUBTEDLY relfects the Macedonians' own traditions about their early history." - E.Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus. pg 84

2. Badian concluded that the Macedonians were regarded as Northern Greeks by Roman times. If we are to use Badian as an ultimate authority, as "Aleksovska" suggests, then we must conclude that regardless of what the perceptions of the Macedonians were in the 4th century BC the Macedonians were regarded as Greeks by other Greeks by Roman times:

"We have now become accustomed to regarding MACEDONIANS as northern GREEKS and, in extreme cases, to hearing Alexander's conquests described as in essence GREEK CONQUESTS. The former CERTAINLY became TRUE, in Greek consciousness in the course of the Hellenistic age; the latter may be argued to be true`ex post facto'." But it is an important question whether these assertions should properly be made in a fourth century B.C context." - E.Badian, Greeks and Macedonians (Studies in the History of Art)

Aleksovska should also acquaint herself with Borza's positions regarding F.Y.R.O.M's modern history before she implicitly associates Borza as a defender of her nationalist historiography. These are Borza's published views on F.Y.R.O.M's modern history and they are far more damaging to Aleksovska's political agenda and nationalist historiography than Prof. Miller's letter!

1. Borza asserts that the Slavic populace of F.Y.R.O.M have no relationship to ancient Macedonia:

"If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of a different order. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, CANNOT establish a link with anitquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. ONLY THE MOST RADICAL SLAVIC FACTIONS- mostly emigres in the United States, Canada, and Australia- EVEN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A CONNECTION TO ANTIQUITY." - E. Borza, Macedonian Redux(The Eye Expanded- Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity). pg 255.

2. Borza asserts that the Macedonian ethno/national identity is a relatively recent social construct and implies that history is being constructed in order to lend the new "Macedonian" nation a historical legitimacy:

"On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish a singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians." - E. Borza, Macedonian Redux(The Eye Expanded- Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity).

"Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation "Macedonia" and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival." - E. Borza, Macedonian Redux(The Eye Expanded- Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity).

Furthermore Aleksovska blatently lied to the readers by stating:

"..The ´elephant in the room´ in this argument has always been the fact that Modern Greece stole Macedonia from the Macedonians in 1913..."

Perhaps Aleksovska can explain how land that formerly belonged to the Ottoman empire for several centuries was stolen from "the Macedonians" by Greece? The geographic region of Macedonia never belonged to a "Macedonian ethnicity", never was a part of a "Macedonian" country and never was under the political control of a "Macedonian nation". The geographic name "Macedonia" had no more of an ethnic significance prior to the 20th century than the geographic name "Balkans" does today. The region was incorporated into the Greek state as a result of the Balkan Wars in which Ottoman territory was won by Greece. Perhaps Aleksovska can explain where all of the "ethnic Macedonians" were during this conflict and why the 1914 International Carnegie Commission did not record any "ethnic Macedonian" population in their detailed report.

Aleksovska also made the absurd and unsubstantiated claim that there were no Greeks in Macedonia prior to the Balkan Wars:

"..Prior to this there was not a single part of Macedonia that was Greek – ever.."

This is a very amusing statement in light of the fact that the 1914 Carnegie Commission report on the Balkan wars described Greek populations and made no mention of "ethnic Macedonians". The 1914 Carnegie Report on the Balkan Wars was authored by a team of investigators who went to the region to examine the conduct of the various combatants. How does Aleksovska propose that an international commission did not record any "ethnic Macedonians" in a region in which she would claim they formed the vast majority?

As a matter of fact a large number of contemporary writers from the 19th century, and before, recorded vast Greek populations in Macedonia while making absolutely no mention of "ethnic Macedonians". One such writer was George Finlay who spent time in the region during the Greek war of independence. Finlay, unlike Aleksovska, was in the region during the early 19th century. Aside from making no mention of "ethnic Macedonians" in his detailed accounts, he stated that Greeks formed the majority in the Pashalik of Thessalonika.

by Chris Philipou
american chronicle.com

Macedonian* self-identification

Ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom situated in the north end of Greece. It became the most powerful Greek state during the 4th century bc after the decline of ancient Athens and ancient Sparta. Under the leadership of King Philippos II and his son Alexandros III (known as Alexander the Great) the Macedonian army conquered most of the world and created the world's largest empire ever, including South-East Europe, most of Asia and North Africa. After the death of Alexander, Macedonia followed the fate of the rest of Greece. It became a Roman province, later a Byzantine province, it was occupied by the Ottoman empire and finally it became part of the indepented Greek state in 1912. Today the Slavmacedonia nation of the FYROM attempts to adopt the history and culture of Macedonia as their own and present themselves to the world as "ethnic Macedonians" and "descedants of ancient Macedonians".

This is a blatant attack against Greece and her Macedonian self-identification and its world wide respected history.

Slavmacedonians of the FYROM who claim to be "Macedonians" have no historical, cultural or linguistic relation with ancient Macedonia. They descended into the region not before the 6th cent. A.D. long after ancient Macedonia was homogenized with the rest of Greece. Their 'Republic of Macedonia' occupies less than 10% of ancient Macedonia. Therefore their claim on ancient Macedonia's name, history, culture and symbols can not be justified.

The real question is how you segregate a Greek Macedonian identity with a Slavmacedonian one?

Self-identification should be neither arbitrary nor at the expense of the right of self-identification of other groups. The existence of objective criteria as well as the historical and other special ircumstances of each ase are also taken into consideration when determining the existence of such groups. Antony D. Smith [NationaL Identity, Oxford,1991] remarks that there are two main kinds of ethnic extinction in the full sense: genocide and ethnocide, which is sometimes - at times misleadingly — called «cultural genocide». In one sense genocide is a rare and probably modern phenomenon. It includes those cases where we know that mass death of a cultural group was premeditated and the basis of that targeting was exclusively the existence and membership of that cultural group.

Greece does not recognise that a distinct ethnic or linguistic minority exists in Greece by the name ‘’Macedonian’’, since the name Macedonian(Makedonas) is used in the cultural and regional sense by Greek Macedonians living in the region. Thus, the use of the term ‘’Macedonian’’ to denote such an identity in Greece, not only fails to respect the Hellenic cultural heritage and the identity of the 2,5 million Greek Macedonians living there, but also threatens to create a serious confusion or even a potential clash over identities in the whole region.

Of course, Greek State fully respects the individual rights of those claiming to belong to a "’Macedonian ethnic minority", including their freedom of association. The non-registration by the Courts of one association using the name "Macedonia’" is now pending before the Greek justice. However, the use of the name ‘’Macedonian’’, without a qualifier which would denote that its founders are Slav oriented, creates confusion with hundreds of other associations formed by Greek Macedonians and using the same term, that is “Macedonian”. These references should not be interpreted as implying a determination that such a minority or language exists in Greece but as claims emanating from the individuals concerned.

Let me add that the political party (‘’Rainbow/Vinozhito’’), which claims to represent the so-called "Macedonian minority", obtained in the Europarlimentary elections of 2009 took in Macedonia only 2.500 votes . These citizens are free to manifest their traditions and culture. Festivities and cultural events are regularly held in the region of Florina. One from the head also is public employee.

326 world scholars in an letter [http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html] asked from US President Obama "to help the FYROM government in Skopje to understand that it cannot build a national identity at the expense of historic truth. Our common international society cannot survive when history is ignored, much less when history is fabricated."

Let's following theirs advice. Slav Macedonians need to realize that their newly conceived ethnogenetic dogma, extending to classical antiquity, encroaches upon the Greek cultural heritage and the identity of their Greek neighbours to the south. As such, it threatens to ignite a clash of identities in the region as a whole.

===========================
*A Macedonian according to several sources[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Macedonian][http://www.thefreedictionary.com/macedonian] is a native or inhabitant of the (Ancient or Modern) Macedonian region.

A question to professors Dan Tompkins and Victor Friedman.

Dear Professors

All these days you have posted articles and written to the academic community as regards the right of the “Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia” as you called them, to express freely theirs name determination(ethnically and linguistically).

By reading all these attempts I notice one thing as regards your positions. You didn’t say anything as regards the connection of the “Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia” with the ancient Macedonians. Eugene Borza and great supporter of the same view wrote in an article (Macedonia Redux) and make a clear thesis that the

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. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity.

My question is…..
Why avoid making a similar comment as regards this “link” in order to make clear your thesis if the “Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia” have any kind of connection with antiquity?

An academic response to Professor Joseph on Modern Greek Studies Association

The critical input by Professor Brian Joseph[1], a respected linguist and an authority on South Slavic Linguistics is greatly appreciated.

Let me state from the outset that I recognize the hard work behind the late Vasko Karadza’s dictionary. Obviously, this was a labour of love. It should be noted though that this dictionary which is promoted by Vinozhito, the self-described party of the “Macedonian minority” in Greece, compares the Greek language to the Slavonic language spoken in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in its standard form, and not to the local Slavonic dialects used by bilingual inhabitants in Greek Macedonia.

More to the point: It is indisputable that the Slavonic dialects, which are akin to (and are largely based upon) Slavonic Bulgarian, spoken by an unspecified number of bilingual indigenous inhabitants in Greece's northern hinterland, are different from the language codified in Skopje in November, 1944 by the linguist Blago Konev (later known as Blaze Koneski) under orders from Josip Broz Tito. I link this here:http://www.panmacedonian.info/NY_times_1965.htm [2] If this language was codified for political reasons in the 1940's (as one of the instruments of Yugoslav communist propaganda exploiting the bane of the Greek Civil War) why should we, the bilingual Hellenes of Greek Macedonia, accept this as a "Macedonian" language?

On the matter of identity, the people of FYROM have every right to a distinctive national identity and separate language distinct from their historically connected Bulgarian and/or Southern Slavic roots. No reasonable person will deny them their right to self-determination. What Greece (as a State) and most Greeks object to is the self-determination of citizens of FYROM and their Diaspora as being the bona fide "Macedonians." The monopoly of the terms 'Macedonians' and 'Macedonian' by Skopje underlies major political stakes. Despite nuanced claims to the contrary, this negates the collective memory and identity of Macedonian Hellenism, its history, its culture, its folklore and its symbols, all the way to its local/regional products and commodities.

Self-determination is defined as the free choice of a person's own acts and desires without external compulsion. This is the real reason why Greeks object to what Macedonism is attempting to accomplish in Greek Macedonia. Macedonism is acting as a pounding external agitator driven by a State-sponsored ethnocentric nationalist creed with 21st century irredentist visions. The Greek people see a spade and call the spade.

Let me make this clear: There is no pervasive support coming from Slavophone bilingual Greeks for self-determination as "Macedonians" with the connotation of the word that Skopje wants to give. Nor is there an overt expression of yearning by the local inhabitants to learn the Slavonic language of FYROM (in its standard form) – contrary to what Skopje and its Diaspora activists would like the international community to believe. "Macedonian" is not a language that we want to call our dialects, which we have been calling "Bulgarian (Voulgarika)" for generations. I am of the view that one can’t impose on a population something that the people don’t want. Along these lines, may I also submit that the dictionary promoted by Professor Friedman and Vinozhito does not represent our local oral dialects. What Skopje, Vinozhito, and by virtue of association Professor Friedman, are engaged in is tantamount to sheer political activism.

It is worth mentioning here that Vinozhito received a total of 4524 votes in all of Greece during last week's European Parliamentary elections. Only 2594 votes came from Greek Macedonia itself. That Vinozhito is free to hold associations, and promote their agenda throughout Greece is evident. However, their website is run by ultranationalist Macedonist circles from overseas (the people behind Maknews.com) who repeatedly engage in malicious expressions of rampant hatred and racist slurs while demonstrating virulent hostility against the modern Greek state.

If Professor Joseph so chooses to "distance [himself] from extreme nationalistic views on all sides, the debate, governmental and nongovernmental, Macedonian and Greek [because] they have no foundation in linguistic science and serve no useful purpose," then he should also choose to distance himself from the political operation of Macedonist propaganda with which some of his colleagues maintain strong ties.

It is high time for respected scholars to desist from speaking pedantically on politically sensitive issues, and to be aware of those hiding behind a veil of political expediency. Bilingual Macedonian Greeks have been able to preserve, cherish and celebrate their heritage and their oral local Slavonic, Vlach or Arvanite dialects, throughout the centuries. More importantly, they do not seek the intervention of outside patrons and saviours with political agendas. Yes, historically there were some isolated low moments of linguistic persecution but the people’s collective memories are a testament of endurance of their deeply entrenched Greek identity.

Let it be known in no uncertain terms that the vast majority of bilingual Macedonian Greeks have no interest whatsoever of accepting the codified standardized language of Skopje as their mother tongue let alone as the language of a purported "Macedonian minority” in Greece’s northern prefectures. Historically, the complete failure of Roumanian schools in Grecovlach communities in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia during the interwar years of the last century should be a vivid reminder to the patrons and champions of “ethnolinguistic minorities” in modern Greece.

Condemning the unacceptable behaviour of extremist thugs of Chrysi Avghi, I would like to point out that the people who reacted inappropriately to the presentation of the late Vasko Karadza’s dictionary in Athens were individuals from the fringes of Greek society. Suffice it to say that it is grossly unfair for the entire Greek nation to be vilified in this regard by the Friedmans of academia.

Greeks of the Metropolis and the Diaspora have shown that they have more mature ways of dealing with staged political provocations.

by Christos Karatzios MD
Modern Greek Studies Association


===========================================================
NOTES

[1]-On Mon, 6/15/09, at Modern Greek Studies Association Professor Brian Joseph wrote:

Finally, since Mr. Caratzas seems to want "meta-data" about those posting to the list, as well as various sorts of declarations, let me say for the record that Victor Friedman is a dear friend of mine of long standing and that he and I have been collaborating for several years on a book on the Balkan languages to be published in the next year or two (2010 or 2011) by Cambridge University Press.

With regard to the Macedonianlanguage and the Macedonians, I endorse the rights of the Macedonians to linguistic self-determination (as I do for all peoples and especially for all minorities). I do recognize that the names used for languages constitute a politically charged issue but would urge parties to loook beyond the name and embrace self-determination, difficult though that may be.

Professor Friedman's point about the pressing need to document under-described language varieties in Greece (including Macedonian, Arvanitika, Aromanian (Vlaxika), Romani, Pomak, Judezmo, and Turkish) cannot be overemphasized, and the same holds for under-described dialects of Greek itself (including Pontic, Tsakonian, and al regional varieties).

And, for the record, I distance myself from extreme nationalistic views of all sides , the debate, governmental and nongovernmental, Macedonian and Greek; they have no foundation in linguistic science and serve no useful purpose, in my estimation.

[2]-

Former FYROM PM Ljubčo Georgievski Blasts Pseudomacedonism and Denounces Historical Revisionism at a TV Debate

by Vasko

A reader comment Pr. Tompkins arguments as regards the known letter that sent and cosign from 315 world scholars.

iconoclast post some intresting points in Pr. Tompkins arguments.

Read them...

========================

I have posted my complete rebuttal to Daniel Tompkins post here http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/macedonia-from-bad-to-worse/#comment-39246.

Unfortunately, Alun did not post the last part of it.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"Responding to Prof. Miller’s presentation on “Paeonia,” a name that the Greek government itself is not, I noted, putting forward, I commented on the growth of modern Macedonian ethnicity"

Dan, the current political position of the Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic is neither permanent, nor binding. There is no binding treatyin place between the two sovereign nations, in this respect. So, you can assert that the name "Paeonia" is not the present position of the Hellenic Republic. However, you can not say anything about what the current or future democratically elected Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic may or may not do. The current stance does not procludes the Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic from altering it in the near future. The Greek Government, unlike the Government of the FYROM is not playing games, such as holding Referendums to deal with this matter, in which a number of EU member states have already critisized the Government of the FYROM for using such chutzpah tactics. Please note, what is being discussed here is completely hypothetical, and should not be construed or misconstrued, in any way, shape or form, to represent positions or opinions of the Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic. These are completely my own pesonal opinions.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"The best recent historians of this topic seem to agree that the term “Macedonia” has been legitimate since around 1900 for the region now including the Republic of Macedonia, applying to the combined vilayets of Kosovo, Salonica and Monastir. The historians also record the vigilance of the neighboring states and of the Great Powers in suppressing Macedonian aspirations."

Dan, I would assert that historians have a very different slant on the historical ethnogenisis of the Slavic people of the FYROM, than what you are putting forward. If you intend making references to higher authorities, if you are to be taken seriously, you need to cite the references. You have not done, so in this instance, so once again very little weight, if any can be given to your assertion. A note, to those who are genuinely interested in learning about this phenomenon of ethnogenisis I suggest they go to their nearest major library and seek out and read as many books from as many authors, and then make up their mind. Just as a primer, see the following two excerpts:

"The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians. (“The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World", Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.64)

Ferdinand Schevill, American professor of history:

"Although in some areas (of geographical Macedonia) the various groups were all inextricably intermingled, it is pertinent to point out that in other sections a given race decidedly predominated. In the southern districts, for instance, and more particularly along the coast, the Greeks, a city people given to trade, had the upper hand, while to the north of them the Slavs, peasants for the most part working the soil, held sway. These Slavs may properly be considered as a special “Macedonian” group, but since they were closely related to both Bulgars and Serbs and had, moreover, in the past been usually incorporated in either the Bulgar or Serb state, they inevitably became the object of both Bulgar and Serb aspirations and an apple of discord between these rival nationalities. As an oppressed people on an exceedingly primitive level, the Macedonian Slavs had as late as the congress of Berlin exhibited no perceptible national consciousness of their own. It was therefore impossible to foretell in what direction they would lean when their awakening came; in fact, so indeterminate was the situation that under favourable circumstances they might even develop their own particular Macedonian consciousness. ("History of the Balkans": From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 1922, reprint 1991)

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"The historians also record the vigilance of the neighboring states and of the Great Powers in suppressing Macedonian aspirations. So Iconoclast’s argument is really with contemporary historians, some of whom are Greek."

Dan, stop creating sophistry these people that you call "Macedonian", considered themselves Bulgarians at the turn of the previous century. To attempt to say other wise is deliberately conflating the facts.

Dan, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Slavs, of the FYROM, don't exist and should not be allowed equal rights of self-detemination, for this, self-evidently, be an oxymoron argument. However, when the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, in their act of asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic who assert their equal rights to self-determination and to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje then we have a problem.

The Greeks do not want to impinge on the self-determination of another people, in any way, shape or form. However, there is one undeniable caveat that must apply, vis-a-vis, to both parties when the act of self-determination is asserted by any one party. The caveat being, that the party who asserts their equal right of self-determination can not in any way, shape, or form, diminish or make diminutive the equal right of self-determination of any other party. That is, each party, vis-a-vis, must have *equal rights*, which is exactly the wording used in the UN Charter [1]. So, any decision made, vis-a-vis, by one party that is inextricably connected, mutually dependent on, and affected by, the counter-party can *not* be made in a uni-lateral manner. Each party, vis-a-vis, must appreciate the sensibilities of their counter-party. It needs to understood that the Slavs, of the FYROM, are not the only ones who have equal rights to self-determination. The Greeks also have that equal right.

By the way Dan, one of your own ambassadors Henry Morgenthau so the region of Macedonia a lot different than what your making it out to be:

Henry Morgenthau, American politician, ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War:

"The Greek War of Independence, which came to a successful conclusion in 1832, affected less than one half of the Greeks in the Turkish Empire. It did not bring freedom to the Greeks of Macedonia and Thrace, of Crete and the Aegean Islands, nor to the more than two million Greeks in Asia Minor and Constantinople […] When the Turks and the Bulgarians left, Macedonia remained a purely Greek region." ("I was sent to Athens", Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1929)

and

"Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian linguistic and national separatism, acknowledged that a ‘Macedonian’ national identity was a relatively recent historical development. ("The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World”, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.63)

Dan Tompkins, you say:

" So Iconoclast’s argument is really with contemporary historians..."

Speaking for myself, Dan, if I may, so as to set the record straight. That is not what I would conclude, using my own analysis. So, Dan, since you have come to such a conclusion, please, go ahead, and share your reasoning with the rest of us. I'm sure we would all be quite interested.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"(For an analogous case of recent ethnic development, consider the Palestinians, who like Macedonians emerged from the Ottoman Empire and progressively established their identity. Rashid Khalidi is worth reading.)"

I shall do so. No doubt the the above reference will be a worthwhile read, and I do not wish to question its relevance to this matter, before having read it, however, I am somewhat skeptical of its analogical strength, save that, I shall keep an open mind.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"The recent development of Macedonian ethnicity is dismissed by some Greeks, who are justly proud of using the oldest, or perhaps second oldest (Chinese writing is debated) continuously used written language in the world. But it’s hard to see a strong historical argument for denying that the inhabitants of a region called Macedonia are Macedonian."

Dan, your argument is entirely fallaceous and inparticular your arguments exhibits the following fallacies:

1. The fallacy of ambiguity, specifically, the fallacy of equivication.

Your argument cunningly asserts the word "region", rather than the word "country" as a means of asserting claim on the entire region of Macedonia, rather than just the FYROM. This is completely unforgivable, if this was intentional. I am sorry, Dan, but you are loosing your credibility with me.

2. The fallacy of relevance, specifically, an appeal to the people.

You are attempting to arouse emotions, by making a sweeping fallaceous statement in an attemot to portray the Greek character in a "bad light". Your assertion is offensive to me, and most certainly, to the majority of Greeks.

3. The fallacy of relevance, specifically, a straw man fallacy

In particular, you have attempted to distort the argument and then attacks the distorted argument. Sorry, but that is *not* what the Greeks are arguing about, but rather we are arguing on the points as outlined in the above post http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/macedonia-from-bad-to-worse/#comment-39253, dated 2009 June 15, and certainly not the above ludicrous and fallaceous assertion. I suggest interested parties read that post, although for convenience I have duplicated the argument below:

1. Present day inhabitants of a nation state are citizens of that nation state.
2. Citizens of a nation state have sovereign rights.
3. Citizens of a nation state have equal rights to self-determination.
4. Citizens of one nation state must not diminish in any way, shape, or form, the equal rights of self-determination of citizens of another nation state.

5. The Government and its citizens of a nation state must in no way support, particiapate in, and/or assist in any activities or propaganda that are deemed irridentist in nature to another nation state, and the Government of the nation state where such irredentist activity is taking place, must take all immediate steps to ensure that any such irredentist activity immediately ceases and desists against another nation state.
5. The citizens of the nation state of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have asserted their equal rights of self-determination and called themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but equally, a cohort of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic have the equal rights of self-determination and to assert their rights to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje.
7. Therefore, in conclusion:

WHEREAS, the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, in their act of asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic who assert their equal rights to self-determination and to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, by asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call their nation state by the appellation, the Republic of Macedonia, or simply, Macedonia, has instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic, who through their domicile and/or place of birth in the Province of Macedonia of Northern Greece assert their equal rights to self-dertermination and call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic, who assert their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, also assert their equal rights and that they must not be disadvantaged in the international community, or international fora, by having their Hellenic character in any way, shape, or form, diminished or made diminutive by the act of another nation state.

WHEREAS, the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, by monopolising the name Macedonia, in all the ways that they have done so, have diminshed the equal rights of self-determination of the Government and citizens of the nation state of the Hellenic Republic.

WHEREAS, the Government of the the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, must cease and disist in the use of pedagogic material that exhibts psuedo-history that has been developed by the Government of the nation state, whose capital is Skopje, and in which this material is neither supported, nor recognised, by the leading international scientific and pedagogic communities.

WHEREAS, the Government and the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, have shown by way of support, particiapation in, and/or assistance in activities or propaganda that are deemed irridentist in nature to the Government and the citizens of the nation state of the Hellenic Republic, and the Government of the nation state, whose capital is Skopje, where such irredentist activity is taking place, has not taken all immediate steps to ensure that any such irredentist activity immediately ceases and desists against the nation state of the Hellenic Republic.

The Greeks do not want to impinge on the self-determination of another people, in any way, shape or form. However, there is one undeniable caveat that must apply, vis-a-vis, to both parties when the act of self-determination is asserted by any one party. The caveat being, that the party who asserts their equal right of self-determination can not in any way, shape, or form, diminish or make diminutive the equal right of self-determination of any other party. That is, each party, vis-a-vis, must have *equal rights*, which is exactly the wording used in the UN Charter [1]. So, any decision made, vis-a-vis, by one party that is inextricably connected, mutually dependent on, and affected by, the counter-party can *not* be made in a uni-lateral manner. Each party, vis-a-vis, must appreciate the sensibilities of their counter-party. It needs to understood that the Slavs, of the FYROM, are not the only ones who have equal rights to self-determination. The Greeks also have the same equal rights.

Just like a Texan, is both a pround Texan and a proud American, equally I am a proud Macedonian and a proud Hellene (Greek). And no one, has the right to deny me of my God given right to self-determine myself as a Hellene (Greek) and a Macedonian, not you Dan Tompkins, not the Slavs, of the newly established nation of the FYROM, nor anybody else. I will not let it happen.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"And it is not a zero sum game. What Iconoclast calls the “soma of Greek society” is far more stable and resilient than he portrays it. It is not “impinged on” in any serious way."

Dan, I disagree with your conclusion. I have no idea on what grounds you have arrived at your above conclusion. Your conclusion is based on purely supposition. Have you lived in Greece, especially Northern Greece for any considerable length of time, to put yourself up as an authority, and to assert your above claims? What do you mean by "far more stable and resilient than he portrays it", how are you measuring this?

I assert that your argument is exhibiting the fallacy of weak induction, specifically the fallacy of appealing to unqualified authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), in this case yourself, and you have not demonstrated that you are qualified to reach such a conclusion. Furthermore, your argument is exhibiting the fallacy of relevance, specifically, the fallacy of appealing to pity, and the fallacy of presumption, specifically, the fallacy of begging the question. Dan, I am therefore begging the question to you?

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"As to the Absolut Vodka advertisement: it ran in Mexico for about two months, February – early April 2008, when American anti-immigration media (Fox News, Lou Dobbs) picked it up ...... scourge of reckless advertising copywriters."

Dan, you know better than me about the feelings of your country men and women. I do not live in the U.S., and the information I have received on the Absolut Vodka contraversey was through my local main-stream-media and via the Internet, as opposed to your good self living in the country, and thus you have a view of "the facts on the ground", to borrow a terminology coined by the Israeli Military, that I and others do not.

As someone from the outside, looking in, it was presented to us in the main-stream-media as quite broad demographic of U.S. citizens who felt sufficiently offended by such an advertisment to react in the manner that they did. I am not in a position to judge, nor do I believe I have any right to even suggest making such a judgement, since I am not a citizen of your country. Whether it was right or wrong, that is for the citizens of the U.S. to decide, and only for them to decide and no one else.

Dan, I would hope that you are not suggesting that your fellow U.S. citizens, who show their patrotism towards their country should be denied their right to voice their concerns about something that they consider passionate enough to raise in their own country. I am by no means an expert on the U.S., but from my limited knowledge of your country, I understand that you Americans cherish your freedom of speech, and that it is also engrained into your constitution, so that all U.S. citizens have their, God given right, to freedom of expression. I would hope, Dan, that you are not suggesting that this be in some way diminished or made diminuative any way, I don't think you would have a great deal of support in your own country to reduce peoples freedom of expression. Dan, your not really suggesting that are you?

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"Iconoclast performs a service by pointing to the irrationality of anti-Hispanic feeling in the US, and to the Miami-based rage against Castro of which Cuban-Americans are major victims. These are lousy models for productive interstate relations, but the Cuba parallel is instructive. It has prevented Cuban refugees here from communicating with their relatives, and has allowed corporations from other countries to steal a march on the USA in Cuba, while bringing no discernible benefit — prompting us to ask, what gain has accrued to Greece from its own economic blockades of a neighbor?"

Dan, it is not for me to say, whether such an act is right or wrong in your country. I do not have the right to judge, since I am not a citizen of your country. My interest in raising these two examples is simply to demonstrate that a Sovereign Government has the right and responsibility towards the protection of its interests and that of its citizens. The U.S. may be fully justified in taking the position it has taken against Cuba. As I have already said, I can not say, nor do I believe I have the right to say, or assert my opinion in the affairs of another freedom loving country, such as the U.S.

"Finally, American readers may want to ponder Iconoclast’s claim that the UN (only one of several groups that have criticized human rights violations in Greece) “is an organ created and established through a hegemonic power, that is, the US.” If he’s going to align himself with the critics of Absolut Vodka, he’ll find many of these believe the UN is run by foreigners and is completely opposed to US interests."

Dan, I'm really perplexed at your line of reasoning, it is by no way rational to reach such a conclusion about my thinking, it simply is not true! It is a fact that the UN is a political organ and that it was put in place, under the leadership of the hegemonic power, being the U.S. to replace the League of Nations. There is nothing ominus about that fact. Any interested party, can open a history book to realise this is a truism.

The remainder of your argument is fabricated rhetoric. As I have already said I do not think I have the right to take any position in your countries domestic affairs. This is for the citizens of the U.S. to decide, and not for any foreigner to give their opinon. A foreigner that does so, I suggest is overstepping their mark. So, I can't see how I could be taking sides, if I do not consider that it is in my place to interfere within U.S. domestic affairs. Dan, as I respectfully do not interfere or pass judgements on your countries domestic affairs, I would appreciate that you reciprocate that courtesy.

Dan, it appears that you are deliberately suppressing and omitting evidence. Rather than the Greece having been criticized for human rights violations, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has been heavily criticized for human rights violations towards its Albanian, Turkish, Serbs and Roma ethnic minorities. Relations between the FYROM government and the country’s large Albanian minority have been a persistent internal problem. Concentrated on the FYROM’s borders with Albania and the Serbian province of Kosovo (administered by UN), where 90 percent of the population is ethnic Albanian, the FYROM’s Albanians resent and resist what they regard as inferior status and discrimination. A law enacted in 1992 requires 15 years of residency for citizenship, disqualifying many ethnic Albanians who moved between Kosovo (administered by UN) and the FYROM, and the government has tried to suppress an Albanian-language university in Tetovo. However, the ethnic Albanian parties have had a high profile in the Sobranje, and at least one of these parties has participated in most of the governments formed since the FYROM’s independence, moderating unrest in the Albanian community. [2]

Lest we forget 2004, when the sizable Albanian minority (25%+) were on the verge of revolt due to fear of ethnic cleansing by the Slav majority, of the FYROM, please see here http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/10/20balk.html

Finally, I invite all readers from all countries around the World to stop for a moment, and really, critically think about the absurd assertions that Dan Tompkins is putting forward, and see it it what it is, simply propaganda. Dan Tompkins may have a PhD. in the Classics, but lets not forget that 250+ other scholars, and growing, right around the World, also have PhDs' in the Classics who have all chosen to sign Professor Millers legitimate letter to the POTUS Obama, and disagree with Dan Tompkins "view" of the World.

As Dan Tompkins is neither a Slav, nor a Greek from the Balkan region, nor a Scholar of Modern Balkan History, he can neither claim to have any Scholarly authority, with respect to the modern history of the Balkan region. In fact, given the evidence presented, he has very little, infact, to say about this controversy. So, Dan, I appreciate that you have your opinion on this matter, but the arguments and the conclusion that you posit, are your own personal layman controversialists opinions, and really nothing more.

So, all interested parties should not see Dan Tompkins talking with his "PhD hat on", but rather his "layman hat on." We can, therefore, only conclude that Dan Tompkins can also be placed within the cohort of foreign amateurs when he steps outside his area of expertise and talks about this dispute. The following quote, sums up, what a controversialists really knows about a subject, when they don't have a good handle on the facts.

"Something’s happening here and what it is ain’t exactly clear"

— Quoth the Buffalo Springfield circa 1966

Dan, and other interested parties, I recommend you visit the following web site here http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/, and here http://maktruth.blogspot.com to learn about modern macedonian history. This article is also worth a read http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Time%27s+up+for+%22Macedonian%22+Perverse+Nationalism-a01073904920

Regading the use of the word denizen. I have clearly stated the context I used it in. I provided this clarification due to the ambiguious manner it was interpreted. I don't think there is much value in others attempting to second guess, what I meant. I have stated what I meant, and it was not intended to be used in a manner that could be misinterpreted as condescending. Greek is my mother tounge, English is a second language for me. For those, who wish to make an issue of this are really only discrediting their credibility. Clearly, the medium of a blog does not deliver the same complete sensual experiences that would be available to the interlocutos in a face-to-face discussion, so word meaning can be misinterpreted. We just need to be a little bit more cautious when we use words that are vague. This harping has gone past its use-by-date.

Henry Kissinger, American diplomat:

Journalist: What is your opinion for the problem which Greece has to accept the name Macedonia which the Scopje Government is trying to implement? Henry Kissinger: Look, I believe that Greece is right to object and I agree with Athens. The reason is that I know history which is not the case with most of the others including most of the Government and Administration in Washington. The strength of the Greek case is that of the history which I must say that Athens have not used so far with success. (Management Centre Europe, Paris, 19 June 1992)

[1] Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

[2] Rusinow, Dennison, Hayden, Robert M., and Dyker, David. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Microsoft® Encarta® 2008 [DVD].

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"Iconoclast provides 4400+ words responding to me. mega biblion is not always mega kakon (“a big book … a big evil”) but wordiness does reduce readership. I’ll respond as briefly as I can. Unless some truly novel point comes up, this will be my last post on the topic."

Yes Mr. Tompkins, if you had bothered to read the post http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/macedonia-from-bad-to-worse/#comment-39254, where Noam Chomsky explains information asymmetry that exists.

As Noam Chomsky said that goes to the core of your propaganda is

"The kinds of things that I would say on Nightline, you can’t say in one sentence because they depart from standard religion. "

So, Mr. Tompkins if you want to not be flippant then yes such detail is required.

Alun, you have misinterpreted what I meant when I said "Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia". I stated a truism, this can not be denied.

In a face-to-face discussion Alun, We would have the ability to enunciate ourselves. You have made numerous cogitative leaps in your process of thinking, which I respectfully see as neither strong or cogent.

From my Slave neigbours to my North, I also respectfully agree to disagree with you, and Aleksandar, you have made your extraordinary assertions, now show us your extraordinary proof. Show us the money, as the Americans would say!

Aleksandar, I am still waiting for the money!

I'm done.

Rainbow, Victor Friedman and Xrissi Avgi (Golden Dawn) a Greek Neo-Nazi party

by Amarantos in AMAC forum

There is no need to repeat once again that everyone in Greece should have, and actually has the right and the liberty to express freely their views on different issues.

The case of the Rainbow party is a characteristic example of the fore mentioned statement, precisely because this particular party has been provided in the past and also today, not only with this liberty but when necessary, also with the adequate police protection (as in the case of its first congress that took place back on 2004, in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, in Greece), so that it could publicly and freely communicate its ideas.

Testimonies of the above are the following pictures, a courtesy of the Rainbow party:




Riot police forces protecting the Rainbow party's first congress and their right to free expression, by colliding with ultra nationalistic groups outside the hotel that hosted the event.

Note that recently (ex) members of the Rainbow party publicly supported that "the only activities of this party are concentrated in some provocative actions just before every election and nothing else...." obviously refering to the events that took place on June 2, 2009 during the presentation of the so called Greek-"macedonian" dictionary.




http: //www.maknews. com/ forum/general-discussions/ vinozito-election-results-t15465-200.html

Reading accusations and insinuations against the greek State and the police forces, as in the text quoted below, published on the Rainbow party's website, is somenthing that -considering a few points that will be made clear in the following lines with the help of the video spread in the net by the Raibow party- exceeds the point of grotesque.

Quote:

Attack of the Xrissi Avgi (Golden Dawn) a Greek Neo-Nazi party during the presentation of the Greek – Skopjan dictionary 12 June, 2009 Victor Friedman Professor of Balkan and Slavic Linguistics University of Chicago I went to Athens on 2 June 2009 for the promotion of the first Modern Greek-Skopjan dictionary to be published in Greece (by Zora [dawn], the publishing arm of Vinozhito [Rainbow] the ethnic Skopjan political party in Greece). The first part of the promotion proper was presented by Riki Van Boeschoeten, a Dutch Hellenist who has been teaching at the University of Volos for the past 10 years. Riki's speech alluded to the same verses in Daniil's Tetraglosson (1802) that I have also cited and that begin "Albanians, Bulgars, Vlachs, and all who now do speak/An alien tongue, rejoice!, prepare to make you Greek!/Give up your barbarian tongues, your customs rude forego/So that as bygone myths your children may them know." and so on. Then I began my speech, which concentrated on the Greek persecution of the Modern Skopjan language in the twentieth century. The speech was in English, which most but not all of the audience understood. Riki kindly served as my translator. It was a 5-page speech, and at the bottom of page four, just as Riki finished translating "On the one hand, we can note that dialects such as those of Florina and Edhessa in Greece are so close to those of neighboring Bitola and Gevgelija in neighboring Skopje that calling them separate languages does not have a basis in the linguistic data. On the other hand, if we accept the argument that the Skopjan dialects of Greece are a separate language or separate languages, then their documentation is all the more urgent, since they are on the very brink of extinction." and before I could begin the next sentence, which was "Either way, it is to be hoped that the Greek government will permit linguists to document these dialects before they disappear without the police harassment that, unfortunately, continues to instill fear in speakers and obstruct researchers." about a dozen thugs dressed in black and 1) wearing the kind of combat helmets that riot police wear burst into the room screaming and yelling. All but two of them took up positions by the doors so no one could escape. Two large louts were screaming at us on the podium and at the audience "Oli ekso!" [Everybody out], and "Prodhotes!" [Traitors] "Edo einai Ellada" ['Here is Greece' -- the same motto that was used on placards banning the speaking of Skopjan and Vlah that used to be all over Greek Macedonia] and other things I did not catch. One of them ripped the banner off the podium that had the name of the book in Greek and Skopjan. 2) Another ripped out the wires that the TV cameras were attached to. I decided that if they were going to beat me up I would try to get a picture of it and pulled out my camera. I took a picture but wasn't sure it worked so I took another.3) The bearded thug was about to hit me with a combat helmet when the fat thug stopped him. Apparently the dogs were under orders to bark but not bite. We did not know this at the time, however. They kept screaming and yelling and making menacing gestures, but did not actually come up onto the podium. One of them screamed at me 'sign me this book' in English using the intonation that one would use to scream 'I'm going to smash your head in'. After a few more minutes of screaming and yelling they left, taking the display copy of the dictionary with them. (They did not, however, actually destroy it in our presence.) After a few minutes of discussion we resumed the promotion and I finished my speech. I got one of the loudest rounds of applause I have ever had. After it was all over, we stayed in the building for quite a while until it was safe to leave. 4) There were riot police stationed outside the building, but they were probably the same people who let the thugs in in the first place. 5) They also got very angry when I photographed them. We later learned that a Greek fascist political party called Hrisi Avgi [Golden Dawn] had had a rally just before our book promotion. The police were present at the rally, and so the thugs could not have come to the Foreign Press Association building, where our promotion was held, without their knowledge. Unfortunately, such incidents can be connected directly to the Greek government's policy toward its ethnic Skopjan ""minority"". A clip of the beginning to the thugs' interruption can be viewed at http: //www. youtube.com/ watch?v=2hVZYz_gH5k

1) wearing the kind of combat helmets that riot police wear

It is not THAT difficult to distinguish a motorcyclist's helmet from a helmet that riot police wear.

MOTORCYCLE HELMETS



wore by the thugs that burst into the Foreign Press Association building

and

HELMETS OF THE RIOT POLICE



This photo was taken on a different occasion, but as we can see in the following pictures, they are the same helmets borne by the riot police forces that arrived in the Foreign Press Association building on June 2.

The difference between the two types of helmets is obvious and the initial allusion made by mr Friedman appears completely laughable in the eyes of everyone. Obviously the attempt to connect the thugs that tried to obstruct the book presentation to the police fails beyond any doubt.

2) Another ripped out the wires that the TV cameras were attached to.

We can all be satisfied with the fact that the "wireless" TV cameras worked at their best so as to have today in one single video (you can find in the bottom of this post), simultaneous footage of the event both inside and outside the building of the Foreign Press Association.

3) The bearded thug was about to hit me with a combat helmet when the fat thug stopped him.

It seams that noone of the hosts of the book presentation took the time to explain to mr Friedman that the "bearded thug" was NOT about to hit him with his "RIOT POLICE" helmet, but only tried to cover the lens of mr Friedman's camera so as not to permit to him to take pictures of the thug's faces. Of course the "fat thug" that stopped the "bearded thug" had a different opinion on the issue, since he had no problem with mr Friedman photographing his face. In fact in the video we see/hear him saying firstly to the "bearded thug" and then to mr Friedman "Astona. Vgale me fotografia, vgale me re, vgale me fotografia re vlaka, ti thes, what do you want?" [ Let him (take pictures). Take a picture of me, take a picture of me, take a picture of me *****, what do you want, what do you want?] just before asking him to sign the book.

4) There were riot police stationed outside the building













5) They also got very angry when I photographed them.

A quite reasonable reaction if we consider the fact that in the past the faces of policemen who were on service ended up as targets for the various anarchic, communist and far left-wing groups, in ambiguous internet sites as athens.indymedia.org, which awkwardly enough is used as a reference by another member of that panel, mrs Riki Van Boeschoten

http: //maillists.uci.edu/ mailman/public/ mgsa-l/2009-June/010930.html

At the end, there are always the Evzones for those interested in taking pictures of uniformed officers.



The video from which the snapshots are taken is in the following link:
http: //www.youtube.com/ watch?v= oon-Hc6AxU0