Xiotis
07-20-2006, 07:55 PM
The FYROMian propagandist websites are seemingly covered with references to Ernst Badian, Eugene Borza and the anthropologist Loring Danforth.
Of course they only selectively cite and quote excerpts from these sources that adhere to their nationalist agenda.
Upon closer examination of the views asserted by these authors it is very appearent that they do not support the far fetched looney nationalist theories espoused by our FYROMian friends.
Lets start with L. Danforth. When Danforth's "The Macedonian Conflict" was released in 1995 the propagandists from the 'Macedonian World Congress' were advertising it all over usenet. Not only that, Danforth himself was actively advertising the book in one of the FYROMian mailing lists. I do not agree with many of Danforth's views and I do think he is biased towards the slavs from FYROM since much of his material in the subsequent chapters is derived from first hand accounts from the slavs themselves. Even so, many of his views completely contradict the theories espoused by the nationalists that selectively quote him all over their websites and in different forums.
Examples:
1. Danforth discussing the relationship between the slavs of FYROM and the ancient Macedonians:
The History of the construction of a Macedonian national identity DOES NOT BEGIN WITH ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BC, OR WITH SAINTS CYRIL AND METHODIUS IN THE NINTH CENTURY AD, AS Macedonian nationalist historians often claim - L. Danforth page 56
2. Danforth's opinion on the Greek character of the Macedonians. He takes the Borza/Badian view that it was during the Hellenistic era that the ancient Macedonians became regarded as Greeks:
"It was only after the death of Alexander the Great with the increasing Hellenization of Macedonian culture and the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that THE MACEDONIANS CAME TO BE REGARDED AS 'NORTHERN GREEKS'(Borza 1990:96, Badian 1982:33-35) THIS IS PRECISELY THE PERIOD DURING WHICH ANCIENT AUTHORS SUCH AS POLYBIUS AND STRABO DID REFER TO THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AS GREEKS" Danforth page 169
3. Danforth's opinions on the national consciousness of the slavs early last century. These views surely do not support the notion of a continuous 'Macedonian' ethnicity since the days of Alexander!!!:
Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his won personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian inguistic and national separtism, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A MACEDONIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY WAS A RELATIVELY RECENT HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. -pg 63
To support the above Danforth quotes Misirkov:
"Our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have ALWAYS been called BULGARIANS.. in the past WE have even called ourselves BULGARIANS"
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. -pg 64
Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is PERFECTLY CLEAR that the Communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for FOSTERING ITS DEVELOPMENT through a CONCERTED PROCESS OF NATION BUILDING, EMPLOYING ALL THE MEANS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE YUGOSLAV STATE. pg -66
The decision of the Yugoslav Communists to grant Macedonia a significant degree of autonomy in the CULTURAL sphere was a great impetus to the DEVELOPMENT of the Macedonian national identity-pg 66
So much for a continuous 'Macedonian' ethnicity since the days of Alexander! Surely Danforth, one of their favorite sources, does not agree with this position! So why do they selectively quote him?
Now, lets discuss Ernst Badian. Badian was a favorite of propagandists since I joined the internet in the early 90s. Badian asserts that there were political and cultural differences between the Macedonians and the Greeks during the fourth century BC that led many Greeks not to regard the ancient Macedonians as a Greek tribe. Of course our propagandist friends love to quote Badian's opinions of the political conditions of 4th century BC Greece! They completely disregard his statement that the ancient Macedonians came to be regarded as Northern Greeks at some point during the Hellenistic era:
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
What does this do to the slav theory that they are a continuous race derived from the Macedonians? Badian, one of their favorite historical sources, TELLS THEM THAT THE MACEDONIANS BECAME REGARDED AS GREEKS!
The favorite historical reference of the propagandist slavs is Eugene Borza. Somehow they believe that if they can show the ancient Macedonians were not a Greek tribe then they must be related to the ancient Macedonians by default. Talk about poor logic and national myth building at its finest! To bolster this theory they love to quote Borza.
This is Borza's view of the population in the modern region (where are the 'Macedonians'?):
The region abounded in enclaves and admixtures of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Jews, Turks, Albanians, Vlachs, other minority groups, those of mixed ancestry, and those of uncertain or even capricious nationality...[E.Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.9]
This is Borza telling the slavs that no nation today (this includes FYROM) is related to ancient Macedonia. The Macedonians were:
A UNIQUE PEOPLE IN ANTIQUITY WHO GRADUALLY BECAME **HELLENIZED**, AND WHO ARE UNRELATED TO ANY MODERN PEOPLE- E. Borza Before Alexander: constructing Macedinia pg 39.
Do these propagandists have no shame constantly citing Borza yet Borza tells them that the Macedonians eventually became Hellenized!!
Furthermore there is no doubt that the Macedonian royal house claimed Greek descent. Why do the propagandists completely overlook these views held by their favorite scholar! Can any one of the propagandists prove that the ancient Macedonian royal house did not believe their OWN claims of GREEK descent?
Borza:
There is *NO DOUBT* that this tradition of a superimposed Greek house was *WIDELY BELIEVED* by the Macedonians.." 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" 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" pg 84
As the quotes above show the favorite historians and authors of the nationalist slavs from FYROM DO NOT support their absurd theories! Please keep these quotes in mind next time one of them presents one of these authors in support of their looney claims.
Also keep in mind that these authors represent some of the least favorable positions when it comes to the Hellenic ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, that is why they love to quote them. Even the least favorable position states the Macedonians were fully Hellenized! :laugh:
Of course they only selectively cite and quote excerpts from these sources that adhere to their nationalist agenda.
Upon closer examination of the views asserted by these authors it is very appearent that they do not support the far fetched looney nationalist theories espoused by our FYROMian friends.
Lets start with L. Danforth. When Danforth's "The Macedonian Conflict" was released in 1995 the propagandists from the 'Macedonian World Congress' were advertising it all over usenet. Not only that, Danforth himself was actively advertising the book in one of the FYROMian mailing lists. I do not agree with many of Danforth's views and I do think he is biased towards the slavs from FYROM since much of his material in the subsequent chapters is derived from first hand accounts from the slavs themselves. Even so, many of his views completely contradict the theories espoused by the nationalists that selectively quote him all over their websites and in different forums.
Examples:
1. Danforth discussing the relationship between the slavs of FYROM and the ancient Macedonians:
The History of the construction of a Macedonian national identity DOES NOT BEGIN WITH ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BC, OR WITH SAINTS CYRIL AND METHODIUS IN THE NINTH CENTURY AD, AS Macedonian nationalist historians often claim - L. Danforth page 56
2. Danforth's opinion on the Greek character of the Macedonians. He takes the Borza/Badian view that it was during the Hellenistic era that the ancient Macedonians became regarded as Greeks:
"It was only after the death of Alexander the Great with the increasing Hellenization of Macedonian culture and the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that THE MACEDONIANS CAME TO BE REGARDED AS 'NORTHERN GREEKS'(Borza 1990:96, Badian 1982:33-35) THIS IS PRECISELY THE PERIOD DURING WHICH ANCIENT AUTHORS SUCH AS POLYBIUS AND STRABO DID REFER TO THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AS GREEKS" Danforth page 169
3. Danforth's opinions on the national consciousness of the slavs early last century. These views surely do not support the notion of a continuous 'Macedonian' ethnicity since the days of Alexander!!!:
Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his won personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian inguistic and national separtism, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A MACEDONIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY WAS A RELATIVELY RECENT HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. -pg 63
To support the above Danforth quotes Misirkov:
"Our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have ALWAYS been called BULGARIANS.. in the past WE have even called ourselves BULGARIANS"
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. -pg 64
Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is PERFECTLY CLEAR that the Communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for FOSTERING ITS DEVELOPMENT through a CONCERTED PROCESS OF NATION BUILDING, EMPLOYING ALL THE MEANS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE YUGOSLAV STATE. pg -66
The decision of the Yugoslav Communists to grant Macedonia a significant degree of autonomy in the CULTURAL sphere was a great impetus to the DEVELOPMENT of the Macedonian national identity-pg 66
So much for a continuous 'Macedonian' ethnicity since the days of Alexander! Surely Danforth, one of their favorite sources, does not agree with this position! So why do they selectively quote him?
Now, lets discuss Ernst Badian. Badian was a favorite of propagandists since I joined the internet in the early 90s. Badian asserts that there were political and cultural differences between the Macedonians and the Greeks during the fourth century BC that led many Greeks not to regard the ancient Macedonians as a Greek tribe. Of course our propagandist friends love to quote Badian's opinions of the political conditions of 4th century BC Greece! They completely disregard his statement that the ancient Macedonians came to be regarded as Northern Greeks at some point during the Hellenistic era:
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
What does this do to the slav theory that they are a continuous race derived from the Macedonians? Badian, one of their favorite historical sources, TELLS THEM THAT THE MACEDONIANS BECAME REGARDED AS GREEKS!
The favorite historical reference of the propagandist slavs is Eugene Borza. Somehow they believe that if they can show the ancient Macedonians were not a Greek tribe then they must be related to the ancient Macedonians by default. Talk about poor logic and national myth building at its finest! To bolster this theory they love to quote Borza.
This is Borza's view of the population in the modern region (where are the 'Macedonians'?):
The region abounded in enclaves and admixtures of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Jews, Turks, Albanians, Vlachs, other minority groups, those of mixed ancestry, and those of uncertain or even capricious nationality...[E.Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.9]
This is Borza telling the slavs that no nation today (this includes FYROM) is related to ancient Macedonia. The Macedonians were:
A UNIQUE PEOPLE IN ANTIQUITY WHO GRADUALLY BECAME **HELLENIZED**, AND WHO ARE UNRELATED TO ANY MODERN PEOPLE- E. Borza Before Alexander: constructing Macedinia pg 39.
Do these propagandists have no shame constantly citing Borza yet Borza tells them that the Macedonians eventually became Hellenized!!
Furthermore there is no doubt that the Macedonian royal house claimed Greek descent. Why do the propagandists completely overlook these views held by their favorite scholar! Can any one of the propagandists prove that the ancient Macedonian royal house did not believe their OWN claims of GREEK descent?
Borza:
There is *NO DOUBT* that this tradition of a superimposed Greek house was *WIDELY BELIEVED* by the Macedonians.." 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" 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" pg 84
As the quotes above show the favorite historians and authors of the nationalist slavs from FYROM DO NOT support their absurd theories! Please keep these quotes in mind next time one of them presents one of these authors in support of their looney claims.
Also keep in mind that these authors represent some of the least favorable positions when it comes to the Hellenic ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, that is why they love to quote them. Even the least favorable position states the Macedonians were fully Hellenized! :laugh: