THE MACEDONIAN ENIGMA by a diaspora Fyromian

[Dimitar. M]

Originally Posted by Draco

If is says "ETHNICITY", why do they put "Turkey" (or in some others, "White", "European" etc) in it?

That site contains no conclusive evidence.

As you saw everyone put the country from where they are first and then their etnicy(as what they think they belong to)

[Andrew]

Mitso ...We were Hellens from antiquity to Early Byzantine times . When the newly founded Christian church labeled "Hellen"=pagan= enemy of the Church (and you know what political power then the church had) we (newly Christians as everybody in the balkans) were forced to addopt the Term "Romans" , but continued being Greek Speakers and related to our past.In Late Byzantine Period the "hellenic" element was re-emerged (the church had no more fear about the Pagans) , but already the term "Ρωμιός" was let's say traditional . Then the Turks arrived and even they used the terms Rum and Yunan equally . We didn't expect any Bavarian for promoting a "greek" ethnicity on us . When we were the "Eastern Roman Empire" the Westerns were refering to us as "Graecorum" Empire. We haven't vanished from our lands when the Romans arrived ,they simply became a political authority.

[Draco]

Originally Posted by Dimitar. M

It says that the word ''Hellen'' was not known to the population ( 3/4 of it) exept to the 1/4 that was under the Bavarian Oto kingdom. That's what it says.

I'm talking about Britannica though, who say that the term "Hellene" had a Greek-speaking Christian connotations since the 12th century. Attempts to present it as a Bavarian creation are laughable. Independent Greece was and is a nation-state, not a theocracy. "Romans" was a religious term, one which people identified with nonetheless, but it never denoted ethnicity.

It may be remarked further that the Arabs of the present day call the modern Greeks ''ROMANS'' , and the ancient inhabitants of Greece ,,Jonians''
Romaic Grammar" E. A. Sophokles, 1842, page iv.

So that means we get to claim the heritage of the Byzantine and Roman Empires?!

Originally Posted by Dimitar. M

As you saw everyone put the country from where they are first and then their etnicy(as what they think they belong to)

What does country have to do with ethnicity, why is it in the ethnicity box? (bearing in mind that the country was then called "Ottoman Empire" and not "Turkey") You have only shown us two entries. I have yet to see the entries of the "ethnic Europeans"!!

[Truth Bearer]

We have proved all our facts and he is still in denial..He doesn't understand what Ionian or Romios means he thinks they are seperate identities??!! What a M.....!!!

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by Dimitar. M

Whell who is this guy?? A self proclaimed secretary of the Macedonian cometee? What about a biography or something so that we know about who are we talking about??

You know why, because Tsanoff easely can be a Bulgarian from Sofia puten in place of a imaginary cometee.

OK,Dimitar,if you don't trust Tsanoff look at this :
As i was googling,i found a very interesting Hungarian website which contains the diary and the memories of several western diplomats and foreign correspondants in Balkans of known newspapers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.They visited all the Balcan countries and off course Macedonia(including today's FYROM),when it was still under Ottoman rule and later after the Balcan wars and WW1.Thus,they had acquired a very good knowledge about these areas and their populations,nations,e.t.c. and their views are very important.
First of all i must clarify that these men can't be accused as biased in favor of Greece and that's something you can ascertain reading their texts.
One of them was an American diplomat and foreign correspondant of major New York newspapers like the New York Times and New York Herald in the Balkans and central Europe,during the last decade of 19th century and the first ones of the 20th.His name was Stephen Bonsal Jr. (1865-1951) and his view is very interesting.At first,let's take a look in his diary,where he describes a meeting with the known Serb historian Spiridon Gopsevich(one of the first who invented and promoted <Macedonism>)somewhere in today's FYROM territory(he doesn't tell us exactly where,he just mentioned the river Vardar(Axios).The interesting excerpt is in the 3rd paragraph below the date February 10,1919:
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bonsal/bonsal13.htm
<I did not commit myself, but I did tell him of an incident that occurred years ago when I was engaged in my early linguistic studies on the Vardar. I was walking along the noisy river with Spiridon Gopsevich. the apostle of Pan-Serbism in these parts. We met a poor peasant staggering along the path under a load of wood for his cabin fire. Thinking to do a little spot of propaganda, Gopsevich said: "My good man, what is your nationality?" "Ia sam Bougarin" (I am a Bulgarian), the thoughtless fellow answered. Gopsevich was nettled and blazed out: "My poor fellow! you are mistaken. By the very words that come from your mouth I can see that you are a Serb." I left them to argue it out and went on my bewildered way.>
Let's see now some more interest excerpts.
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/balkan/balkan.pdf
Page 154 :
“In the war-racked peninsula,” I continued, “we are confronted with racial
and cultural differences and above all by religious animosities and rivalries,
and as Bacon said long ago in his book on the vicissitudes that afflict humanity:
“The greatest of these is the vicissitude of sects. The Bulgars still
dream of the day of the great Czar Simeon, the Serbs hark back to the spacious empire of Stephen Dushan,and the Albanians are quite confident that
the blueprints of Scanderbeg are not outmoded. Unfortunately also the
churches are not very helpful to the peace-talker, although, of course, their
intentions are of the best. The members of the Greek Church look to the Patriarch in Stamboul, the Bulgars are beholden to their Exarch, while the
Croats and the Slovenes look to Rome for spiritual guidance; and this, as it
filters through to the mountain folk,is not always of a conciliatory character.”

Here are mentioned all the Slavic people in Balkans,except one.Guess who and why!

Another foreign correspondant was the French Henry Pozzi(1879-1946).For nearly thirty years, Pozzi was a member of the French and English intelligence services in the Balkans and Central Europe. For ten years following that,he worked as a foreign correspondent of the Paris newspaper <Le Temps>.
Now let's see the memories of Henry Pozzi and what he says about Macedonia and <Macedonians>.His use of the term <Macedonians> is at first confusing and a Scopian could believe that he describes ethnic <Macedonians>,but reading the whole text we can later find that he considers conspicuously these <Macedonian> refugees undoubtfully as Bulgarians.
Page 319
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/balkan/balkan.pdf
Henry Pozzi; 1935:
Excerpts from Black Hand over Europe; 1935 op. cit.
III. THE BULGARIAN SCENE: II. The Macedonian Question
In the heart of the Balkan peninsula, stretching from Lake Orchrida, which
washes the Albanian frontiers, to Drima on the Aegean Sea; from Salonika
to Mount Shar north of Skopje, lies Macedonia, a beautiful country nearly
three times as large as Belgium and inhabited by two and a half million
people who possess the same language, the same culture, and with few exceptions,the same religion. Of this people, seventy per cent, are pure
Bulgars.Behind this country lie twenty centuries of tumultuous and tragic history,Rome, the Barbarians, the Crusades, Venice, the Ottoman, Alexander and the Empire of the Old World. On of the most powerful efforts for liberty of
the Turks; always crushed, always regenerated, up to the victory of the Balkan Allies in 1912.A first distribution of Macedonian lands between Belgrade
and Athens after the first Bulgar defeat in 1913. A second in 1918 after the World War and the second Bulgar defeat.Today, a heavier servitude than the old one rests upon Macedonia,because the new master are stronger than the Turks,and more violent,and Europe,this time, supports and approves them. Five to six hundred thousand Macedonians (an entire people) have sought refuge in Bulgaria since the of their country by Greece and Serbia.
Those who were able to leave have left, since the peace of July 1913, and
since the Armistice of October 1918, rather than suffer foreign domination.
All the intellectuals, all the teachers, all those whom their antecedents or
their relations rendered undesirable or suspect, have been expelled since
the installation of the conquerors. Thousands more, before the frontiers
closed, fled and abandoned all their property, often leaving behind them all
or a part of their family.Of the same blood, the same language, the same traditions as the Bulgars,they have been received by them as brothers.

Tell me,Dimitraki,were these diplomats Bulgarians?

[TALOS]

Originally Posted by Truth Bearer

We have proved all our facts and he is still in denial..He doesn't understand what Ionian or Romios means he thinks they are seperate identities??!! What a M.....!!!

well if he bothered to open up a book and read about his lost Greek Heritage, he would understand more. now he is lost into the slav vardaskan "bourdel-ized" version of what they call history. He wants to be one of these confused mixed ethnic salad low self esteem vardaskans, so? He doesnt know what he is, do u expect him to praise Greek history? let him be in denial.. who cares?

We have all the facts with us and against them.. they are a joke and they know it

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by Andrew

that they regarded themselves as Hellens is sure ...what they were or not "pure" Greeks I'll tell you when I'll have a specific greek genetic marker on their DNA remains. BTW what makes a "pure ethnical" Greek ??..even the ancient ones were a mix of "pre-Greeks : Pelasgians,Carians,Lelegians etc" and "proto-Greeks : IE greek speakers at least divided in Early and Late Kurgans".

I believe that these proto-Greeks spoke a language not so simmilar to the Greek of classical era,i think a form of <pure indoeuropean> language without non-indoeuropean elements and influences.This happened later,after the mix of the Achaeans,Ionians,Aeolians and Dorians with the indigenous mediterranean peoples of Greek peninsula but we can say that the same goes for almost all the european languages,they were formed by a IE superstratum(language of the IE invaders) that overlaid a pre-existent substratum(language of the indigenous non-indoeuropean people).

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by kostas68

I believe that these proto-Greeks spoke a language not so simmilar to the Greek of classical era,i think a form of <pure indoeuropean> language without non-indoeuropean elements and influences.This happened later,after the mix of the Achaeans,Ionians,Aeolians and Dorians with the indigenous mediterranean peoples of Greek peninsula but we can say that the same goes for almost all the european languages,they were formed by a IE superstratum(language of the IE invaders) that overlaid a pre-existent substratum(language of the indigenous non-indoeuropean people).

Of course and the proto-Greeks didn't spoke the exact language with the post-mycenean Greeks ..I agree on that ...They brought the IE structure of the language (temporal verbs past,presence,future ..etc) and the Patriarchal society ("masculine forse" ,instead of the matriarchal pre-Greeks ("mother earth")). We speak about proper Greek language ..after the cultural mixing ..I agree with you on that .The greek lexicon has many many pre-Greek loans (-nthos,-ssos etc).

[kostas68]

I just read the whole text of mr.Philippov and i have some remarks :
1)Mr.Philippov says that the Greek people in Macedonia opposed the BMRO revolutionaries and sided with the Turkish authorities,but he <forgot> to mention that the Greek people was suffering many slaughters,murderers and other atrocities by these revolutionaries,due to his denial to get bulgarized.
2)The Greek army didn't assume a secondary role during the 1st Balkan war,as mr.Philippov claims.If it was so,how could the Greeks liberate the whole of western and central Macedonia,the Ioannina region in Epirus and the most important Macedonian city,Thessaloniki?Osa den ftanei i alepou....
As for the Bulgarian casualties,i consider this number(87.000) very exagerrated.
3)Mr.Philippov seems to ignore the fact that after the end of Balkan war1 the only who were unwilling to honour treaties ratified before were the Bulgarians and therefore they attacked simoultaneously Serbia and Greece.Greece had already liberated Thessaloniki and there wasn't any need to ask guarantee
for this city by anyone and the Bulgarians were the ones who wanted to re-negotiate a signed treaty.
4)Mr.Philippov claims that whereas Bulgaria continued engagement with the Turkish army,the Greeks and Serbs fortified their positions in the captured
territories and began cleansing them of Bulgarians. Responding to the Serbian and Greek actions, the Bulgarian army under General Savov attacked their emplacements on 29 June 1913.
Somebody must talk to mr.Philippov about the ethnic cleansing that was committed in eastern Macedonia by the Bulgarians against the Greeks at this time and a few years later(1916-17).Has he ever heard something about <dourdouvakia>(from the Bulgarian words trud voinik-auxiliary soldier.So were called the Greek hostages who were sent in Bulgarian concentrations camps and were forced to work hard under inhuman conditions.The most of them died due to the discomfort and several diseases.From my village were sent 120 men to Bulgaria as <dourdouvakia>,during the WW1(1916-17) and from them survived and retourned only 30.)
And,off course the Bulgarians didn't attack against Greeks and Serbs as a respond to the cleansing they were committing.Here mr.Philippov is trying to <justify the unjustifiable>,as we Greeks say.
5)Below mr.Philippov says:<In the diplomatic furore that followed,the Bulgarian government accused Savov of acting without authority and ordered a cease fire. The Serbians however refused to abide by this armistice counter-attacking the Bulgarians during the confusion and inflicting heavy losses.After several weeks the Bulgarians had regained the initiative and were manoeuvring to cut-off Serbian forces in Macedonia, and had encircled the Greek army in the Kresna Valley.At this stage, when defeat of the Serbian-Greek alliance appeared likely, Romanian forces, with Russia's approval, crossed into Bulgaria and advanced unopposed towards Sofia; the Turks reneged on their international treaty signed in London and recaptured Adrianople. Bulgaria had no option but to capitulate.>
Again he forgets some <annoying> facts.The Bulgarians requested armistice only when they suffered defeats with heavy losses themselves and the claim that they regained the initiative and the defeat of the Serbian-Greek alliance appeared likely,can be considered only as a joke.The big Bulgarian defeat in the Kilkis-Lahana battle and the subsequent liberation of eastern Macedonia by the Greek army are totally ignored by mr.Philippov and i wonder what kind of history was he taught.
Finally,nothing was given to Greece as gift by anyone,as mr.Philippov is insinuating,all what Greece gained was Greek soil and it was paid with much blood.Anyway,a Scopian is always a Scopian.That means,he is allways trying to falsificate a piece of Greek history.

[Tsontos]

Dimitar, given his reliance on Ellis Island records to confirm his belief that a "Macedonian ethnicity" has always existed, would like to congratulate the following "ethnicities" as recorded there by immigration officials on their new found nationhood:

Cypriot
Dalmatian
Black
Istrian
Herzegovnian
Zoroastrian