kostas68
04-26-2009, 03:54 PM
For those deluded Scopians who believe their ancestors "called themselves Macedonians from time immemorable",even "Makedonska" wikipedia confesses the truth:They called themselves always Bulgarians,at least untill middle of the 19th century.Off course they try to justify it with some lame excuses,like "they were not aware of any ethnic or cultural unity with the Bulgarians" e.t.c.
"Since we know that we took the Macedonian name as the name of our nation as late as the middle of the 19th century..."
This is the first phrase of the article "The name of the Macedonian people" in "Makedonska" wikipedia.
http://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_name_of_the_Macedonian_people
The most interesting part is this below:
The arrival of the Turks led to the suppression of popular names, as the subjugated peoples were classified in accordance with their religion and social position (Christians and raya), but the Bulgarian name was still retained and propagated in the churches and monasteries under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid.(How come that???It was supposed to be a "Macedonian archbishopric" according to all the Scopian internet warriors!!!)With the strengthening of Russia (particularly in the 18th and early 19th century) and with the arousal of interest in the Slavic world and in the Old Slavonic language and its original homeland, the Bulgarian name once again started to be used through inertia for Macedonia as well, because the researchers found it in old documents written in the Slavonic and other languages.(Now that's one of the most ridiculous arguments!I'm pretty sure these old documents mentioned also the name of the Serbs,why didn't it prevail???)Therefore it was not surprising that in the Dictionary of Four Lan- guages (1802) of the Moskopole teacher Daniil the Macedonian language ap- peared under the Bulgarian name and that Hristofor Žefarovič from Dojran on occasion declared himself to be a Bulgarian, amongst other things. It is in this light that we must understand the statements of some Macedonians before Vuk Karadžić, in the early 19th century, that they were Bulgarians, as well as the writings of the first literary figures of our more recent history that their language was “Slavo-Bulgarian”. The title of Kiril PejčinoviÎ’s Ogledalo (Mirror), where he says that the book is written “in the ordinary and non-literary Bulgarian language of lower Moesia” is a good example of this.
Such or similar statements are to be found among all our writers and cultural workers from the first half of the 19th century, and even later. This, however, should not be explained as the result of Bulgarian propaganda, as we can speak of such propaganda only after the late 1850s, in the 1860s and especially in the 1870s, when the process of Bulgarian national revival was more or less completed and when the rise of national romanticism demanded the restoration of the former borders of Simeon’s Bulgaria.(There is off course a very reasonable explanation for this,but they are trying to fool themselves with such hilarious theories).Up to this period it can be assumed that the same name was used for two peoples who were no closer than the Czechs and Slovaks, or the Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians, and who during their history had much less in common than the peoples mentioned above. Just as the Slovaks, Slovenes, Belorussians and Ukrainians took their present-day national names only after the process of becoming nationally aware in the 19th century — without any links to the mediaeval period — so too the Macedonian people, in this same 19th century, raised their historical and geographical name to the degree of national name, formally attesting its independent existence.
Thus the Bulgarian name was used continually in Macedonia, but without awareness on the part of the people of any ethnic or cultural unity with the Bulgarians, from whom they were separated both geographically and historically as well as economically and commercially.(Really?They were separated to that extend,that they had the same language,culture,traditions,folk music e.t.c.) This does not imply that other names were not used for this purpose during that long period; numerous examples can be given of the use of the Slavonic, Serbian, Greek and, certainly, the Macedonian name for the designation of the people.(I'd really love to see evidence of people who prior to 1850 either declared themselves "ethnic Macedonians" and their language "Macedonian" or were described as such by foreigners who visited their country).But it was not until the historical conditions were fully mature that the Macedonian name developed as a national name as well, this time regionally, culturally and historically defined and sufficiently clearly distinguishable from the national names of the neighbouring peoples and territories which had become established earlier.
"Since we know that we took the Macedonian name as the name of our nation as late as the middle of the 19th century..."
This is the first phrase of the article "The name of the Macedonian people" in "Makedonska" wikipedia.
http://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_name_of_the_Macedonian_people
The most interesting part is this below:
The arrival of the Turks led to the suppression of popular names, as the subjugated peoples were classified in accordance with their religion and social position (Christians and raya), but the Bulgarian name was still retained and propagated in the churches and monasteries under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid.(How come that???It was supposed to be a "Macedonian archbishopric" according to all the Scopian internet warriors!!!)With the strengthening of Russia (particularly in the 18th and early 19th century) and with the arousal of interest in the Slavic world and in the Old Slavonic language and its original homeland, the Bulgarian name once again started to be used through inertia for Macedonia as well, because the researchers found it in old documents written in the Slavonic and other languages.(Now that's one of the most ridiculous arguments!I'm pretty sure these old documents mentioned also the name of the Serbs,why didn't it prevail???)Therefore it was not surprising that in the Dictionary of Four Lan- guages (1802) of the Moskopole teacher Daniil the Macedonian language ap- peared under the Bulgarian name and that Hristofor Žefarovič from Dojran on occasion declared himself to be a Bulgarian, amongst other things. It is in this light that we must understand the statements of some Macedonians before Vuk Karadžić, in the early 19th century, that they were Bulgarians, as well as the writings of the first literary figures of our more recent history that their language was “Slavo-Bulgarian”. The title of Kiril PejčinoviÎ’s Ogledalo (Mirror), where he says that the book is written “in the ordinary and non-literary Bulgarian language of lower Moesia” is a good example of this.
Such or similar statements are to be found among all our writers and cultural workers from the first half of the 19th century, and even later. This, however, should not be explained as the result of Bulgarian propaganda, as we can speak of such propaganda only after the late 1850s, in the 1860s and especially in the 1870s, when the process of Bulgarian national revival was more or less completed and when the rise of national romanticism demanded the restoration of the former borders of Simeon’s Bulgaria.(There is off course a very reasonable explanation for this,but they are trying to fool themselves with such hilarious theories).Up to this period it can be assumed that the same name was used for two peoples who were no closer than the Czechs and Slovaks, or the Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians, and who during their history had much less in common than the peoples mentioned above. Just as the Slovaks, Slovenes, Belorussians and Ukrainians took their present-day national names only after the process of becoming nationally aware in the 19th century — without any links to the mediaeval period — so too the Macedonian people, in this same 19th century, raised their historical and geographical name to the degree of national name, formally attesting its independent existence.
Thus the Bulgarian name was used continually in Macedonia, but without awareness on the part of the people of any ethnic or cultural unity with the Bulgarians, from whom they were separated both geographically and historically as well as economically and commercially.(Really?They were separated to that extend,that they had the same language,culture,traditions,folk music e.t.c.) This does not imply that other names were not used for this purpose during that long period; numerous examples can be given of the use of the Slavonic, Serbian, Greek and, certainly, the Macedonian name for the designation of the people.(I'd really love to see evidence of people who prior to 1850 either declared themselves "ethnic Macedonians" and their language "Macedonian" or were described as such by foreigners who visited their country).But it was not until the historical conditions were fully mature that the Macedonian name developed as a national name as well, this time regionally, culturally and historically defined and sufficiently clearly distinguishable from the national names of the neighbouring peoples and territories which had become established earlier.