akritas
02-27-2006, 01:49 PM
From the time that the Bulgarian wars for national liberation achieved their first successes and created a separate nation-state, a new national movement emerged in Bulgaria's western neighbor.
A group of intellectuals, led by the Bulgarian Krste Missirkov, declared that the dialects spoken on this territory were not east Bulgarian dialects but rather a separate national language -- Macedonian.
They declared themselves the successors of ancient Macedonians and initiated a national agitation in an effort to transform the local or regional identity into a national one.
However, their attempt failed:
The Ottoman army squelched their upheaval, and not one of their neighbors recognized them as a nation.
Bulgarians regarded their vernacular as a west Bulgarian dialect, Serbs regarded them as Bulgarized Serbs, and Greeks refused even to accept their name, stressing that Macedonians are a part of the Greek nation.
During the interwar period, FYROMians in Yugoslavia were declared to be Serbs, and during the war their territory was joined to Bulgaria (which was an ally of Nazi Germany). The continuity of national agitation was, however, never completely severed.
With the establishment of socialist Yugoslavia, Macedonia was declared as one of the federal republics, with its own modern Macedonian language.
Fishman said that the link between language and ethnic identity differed according to the traditions of a given ethnic group and according to the political and cultural conditions in the Region in which it lived. According to the general political conditions, the linguistic situations of ethnic groups in the above-mentioned three multiethnic empires differed rather distinctively.
A people (SlavMacedonians) and their language (Bulgarian group)-- what could be more straightforward?
In the ideal case, it really is straightforward. But here we have the game of the propaganda and is known that 3 at least generation brainwashed continuiously.
Any comment ?
A group of intellectuals, led by the Bulgarian Krste Missirkov, declared that the dialects spoken on this territory were not east Bulgarian dialects but rather a separate national language -- Macedonian.
They declared themselves the successors of ancient Macedonians and initiated a national agitation in an effort to transform the local or regional identity into a national one.
However, their attempt failed:
The Ottoman army squelched their upheaval, and not one of their neighbors recognized them as a nation.
Bulgarians regarded their vernacular as a west Bulgarian dialect, Serbs regarded them as Bulgarized Serbs, and Greeks refused even to accept their name, stressing that Macedonians are a part of the Greek nation.
During the interwar period, FYROMians in Yugoslavia were declared to be Serbs, and during the war their territory was joined to Bulgaria (which was an ally of Nazi Germany). The continuity of national agitation was, however, never completely severed.
With the establishment of socialist Yugoslavia, Macedonia was declared as one of the federal republics, with its own modern Macedonian language.
Fishman said that the link between language and ethnic identity differed according to the traditions of a given ethnic group and according to the political and cultural conditions in the Region in which it lived. According to the general political conditions, the linguistic situations of ethnic groups in the above-mentioned three multiethnic empires differed rather distinctively.
A people (SlavMacedonians) and their language (Bulgarian group)-- what could be more straightforward?
In the ideal case, it really is straightforward. But here we have the game of the propaganda and is known that 3 at least generation brainwashed continuiously.
Any comment ?