Northern Epirus" Between Propaganda And Myth

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by TirAlb

http://members.aol.com/Plaku/toc.htm

If you take a look to the bottom of the page you will see:

All documents ©1998 Ardian Vehbiu & Tattoo Interactive Inc.

Both Dan Gjirokastiti and Plaku are nicknames.

Fair enough.. even though I don't get why he'd use a pseudonym only to reproduce it and link it to himself. Anyway.

Theres a phrase from a famous Albanian catholic priest,that says "Moj evrop moj Kurv e motit",literally meaning "hey Europe,hey old bitch".So none is saying that Greeks were the evil ones,or at least not the onlys.Greeks were the ones doing the dirty job,directly on the ground,the others were just playing dirty from their offices. Howevere the Albanian existence was recognised and its borders in general lines were decided,thats why your army withdrawed,from south Albania.

What office and can you honestly tell me you can't see whats attempted?

Weren't Italians (ready to set up their protectorate) on what is today Albanian soil, weren't the French also there protecting what they considered their interest?
And is this sentence:
"The historical purport of this expression got the upper hand on its descriptive meaning as soon as Albania acquired the independence and had its southern border recognized by the Great Powers."
Is it not a total fallacy intentionally written to mislead the historically ignorant reader on what took place, since as we've already clarified, your Southern borders were defined a decade after your recognition

This is the final document about Albania:

Final should include definition of borders which your version does not hence the later events like protocl of Corfu, "London Pact"...etc that all included border alterations.

I don't think its important if this theory is Greek or Serbian,he is obviously speaking about the today general perception or Greeks,toward Albanians.And you(im generalizeing) are eager to accept every theory that moves out roots away from the Balkans.

Its important simply because he's throwing whatever he can find against us to support this drivel. You can't attribute a theory to scholars that neither accept nor have cited it strictly to score points in this nationalistic dellirium of intentional misinformation.. As for me, a) I'm no respected scholar, not a scholar at all actually and b) its not about moving you outta here, but proving that the whole Illyrian theory which you've (generally Albanians) only recently came around to adopt, is problematic.

I wouldn't count to much on the numbers presented by Greece.

Didn't expect you to, but others that actually matter, saw them as important and worth noting.

So what?!We were part of the ottoman empire and we were forced to furnish the ottoman army with troops.Don't try to tell me that Greeks never fought side by side with Turks,or in the ottoman army.
What about the other Albanians that fought on your side,or their nationality isn't worth to be mentioned?

Noone said that they didn't exist nor that their contribution isn't worth mentioning, BUT that wasn't the author's objective.. Actually its simply further proof of the author's mentality and true objective. Through distortion and rejection of well documented historic facts, he attempts to present the Albanians as the victims of harsh Hellenic propaganda which was strictly promoted in order to justify our alleged interest of partisioning Albanians from their lands. (I remind you of Autonomous N.Epirus)
Read it again, notice the tone and phrasiology.

Greece is supposed to have fought for the education of these ungracious sons -- barbarous, illiterate and without a history as they were. Allied to the infidel Turks, they allegedly were among the cruelest in suppressing with blood the Greek revolution. Allied to the Italians and later to the Germans, they terrorized Greece, and slain its best anti-fascist heroes .

is this not clear denial of what took place, is it his interest to speak of the "others" you do or is his interest purely to make you appear as victims??

I think he just did it.

When intellectual midgets become the vast majority of those interested in this part of history and adopt and use his twisted versions as accurate, then indeed he has succeeded, but as long as some see it for what it is, he's achieved nothing.

[TirAlb]

Originally Posted by Orphic_Hymn

Fair enough.. even though I don't get why he'd use a pseudonym only to reproduce it and link it to himself. Anyway.

These were articles published in different times,and in various papers.That website is just a collection of some of his works.

What office and can you honestly tell me you can't see whats attempted?

Weren't Italians (ready to set up their protectorate) on what is today Albanian soil, weren't the French also there protecting what they considered their interest?
And is this sentence:
"The historical purport of this expression got the upper hand on its descriptive meaning as soon as Albania acquired the independence and had its southern border recognized by the Great Powers."
Is it not a total fallacy intentionally written to mislead the historically ignorant reader on what took place, since as we've already clarified, your Southern borders were defined a decade after your recognition



Final should include definition of borders which your version does not hence the later events like protocl of Corfu, "London Pact"...etc that all included border alterations.

Orphic your are making a big mess here.As i said the Albanian independence was recognised in 1913,and i think you already agreed with it.And the borders were decided as well,a special commission was created,with representatives from the 6 great powers and from the countrys sharing the border,so in the case of the Albanian-Greek borders there was an Albanian and a Greek delegate.Their work was based on a provisional line already decided in London,and their task was to verify it and to set the definitive frontiers.Im surprised you have never heard about,there are a lot of interesting stories related to their activity,for example the Italian delegate was killed by greek armed bands,very active in the area during those months.The Albanian candidate was Medi Frasheri and his months as a Delegate in that commission are very well described in his memories. However the borders were definitively decided within 1913,and obviously the autor of the article is not inventing anything,by saying that.
None of the following treaties changed the Albanias borders.The only change of frontiers we had, occurred when our “king” sold Shen Naum to Serbia (now Fyrom),apart from that our present borders are the ones settled in 1913.
In Paris there was a clear attempt to erase Albania from the map,where as always Greece and Serbia were the main actors,backed as usual by their allies.but this doesn’t mean that there was no Albania before,as i said we was a sovereign country with our borders recognised from 1913,the same borders we have today.

Its important simply because he's throwing whatever he can find against us to support this drivel. You can't attribute a theory to scholars that neither accept nor have cited it strictly to score points in this nationalistic dellirium of intentional misinformation.. As for me, a) I'm no respected scholar, not a scholar at all actually and b) its not about moving you outta here, but proving that the whole Illyrian theory which you've (generally Albanians) only recently came around to adopt, is problematic.

What scholars?I don’t get your point here,he is speaking about the vorio-epirote “doctrine” and how extremist(or simply nationalists) Greeks see Albanians. Just browse this forum that i,think might be considered a sample of the greek society and you will find all the stuff described in the first part of his article:


-the Albanians are not the descendants of Illyrians, but simply nomad Middle Age invaders
-Most of southern Albanians are indeed "Albanian speaking Greeks," who have not forgotten their attachment to their Hellenic motherland
- The ethnic Albanians, i.e. the Moslems, through all their known (short) history, have typically sided with Greece's enemies and fought for the destruction of the Greek nation
- Throughout the ages, Greece is supposed to have fought for the education of these ungracious sons -- barbarous, illiterate and without a history as they were
- Allied to the infidel Turks, they allegedly were among the cruelest in suppressing with blood the Greek revolution. Allied to the Italians and later to the Germans, they terrorized Greece, and slain its best anti-fascist heroes ...


So all the above points are just correct observation of the Greek point of view .And about us being Illyrians or not,it might be problematic,but proving the opposite is even more problematic.And however by questioning our Illyrian origins you are unconsciously proving that the author was right.

Didn't expect you to, but others that actually matter, saw them as important and worth noting.

Those are numbers made and used by Greece to justify claims in south Albania, claims that as I said were rejected in all the occasions they were presented

Noone said that they didn't exist nor that their contribution isn't worth mentioning, BUT that wasn't the author's objective.. Actually its simply further proof of the author's mentality and true objective. Through distortion and rejection of well documented historic facts, he attempts to present the Albanians as the victims of harsh Hellenic propaganda which was strictly promoted in order to justify our alleged interest of partisioning Albanians from their lands. (I remind you of Autonomous N.Epirus)
Read it again, notice the tone and phrasiology.

is this not clear denial of what took place, is it his interest to speak of the "others" you do or is his interest purely to make you appear as victims??

I think that the authors aim is quite clear,he is affirming that south Albania is Albanian and all the North Epirote thing is just a bunch of crap,can you blame him for this?And to make this even more clear that tone and phraseology is more than appropriate,sorry but the Greek propaganda,your alleged interests in partitioning Albania,and Albanians being victims are just mere facts.

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by TirAlb

Orphic your are making a big mess here.As i said the Albanian independence was recognised in 1913,and i think you already agreed with it.
And the borders were decided as well,a special commission was created,with representatives from the 6 great powers and from the countrys sharing the border,so in the case of the Albanian-Greek borders there was an Albanian and a Greek delegate.Their work was based on a provisional line already decided in London,and their task was to verify it and to set the definitive frontiers.

I see we're having a communication issue here since you're taking literally something that is indeed a retorical question...Let me rephrase a bit..

Did the protocol of Corfu alter your nation's sovereignity over its lands, favoring Hellenic Northern Epirotean demands, did the "London Pact" not award Italy parts of your "sovereign nation" allowing her to form a protectorate, was it not France, a signatory of the borders (I believe it was the Bucharest treaty, since London mentions the formation of a commision to determine the borders) that formed an "Independent Republic" at Koritsa... did all these events not effect your sovereignity over the lands defined in Aug.1913 and since they all did, all of them decisions which proved the original 1913 agreement void... exactly how can anyone claim that it was the Hellenes that contested your borders ?

None of the following treaties changed the Albanias borders.The only change of frontiers we had,

Seems like I have a problem distinguishing the "frontiers" you're refering to, care to ellaborate?

In Paris there was a clear attempt to erase Albania from the map,where as always Greece and Serbia were the main actors,backed as usual by their allies.

The two of the examples above (France, Italy) prove that the "always Greece and Serbia" is a fallacy.

but this doesn’t mean that there was no Albania before,as i said we was a sovereign country with our borders recognised from 1913,the same borders we have today.

Did I say there was no Albania? No, I simply stated that what is today Albania, was strongly contested until 1921 when the final decisions were taken.

What scholars?I don’t get your point here,he is speaking about the vorio-epirote “doctrine” and how extremist(or simply nationalists) Greeks see Albanians. Just browse this forum that i,think might be considered a sample of the greek society and you will find all the stuff described in the first part of his article:

The so-called Vorio-Epirote doctrine has little to do with Serb theories related to your own little quarrel about who is the rightfull heir of the Illyrian legacy and that is exactly what he has applied here.
As for this forum, it has little to do with the society of Hellas, that isn't its objective and trying to depict is as an accurate representation of it, is simply rediculous.. Its a forum in which mainly history is discussed, while you may detest it, theories are placed on the board, discussed, analyzed, arguments both for and against are presented and at the end, everyone is entitled to accepting what he/she believes. None expects you to accept anything hands down, so by all means do bring up your objections.

-the Albanians are not the descendants of Illyrians, but simply nomad Middle Age invaders

Is it not a theory (promoted by whom and for what reasons is indifferent) that can be discussed under the above mentioned mentality? If you disagree, (which you do) feel free to present your objections and your arguments (I believe you didn't even get into that part) and try to refute it.

-Most of southern Albanians are indeed "Albanian speaking Greeks," who have not forgotten their attachment to their Hellenic motherland

Noone claims they've forgotten anything, hence why they've underwent the well documented oppression they have throughout these decades.

- The ethnic Albanians, i.e. the Moslems, through all their known (short) history, have typically sided with Greece's enemies and fought for the destruction of the Greek nation

I do believe that neither you denied the fact that the majority of Albanians did indeed side with enemies of Hellas.

- Throughout the ages, Greece is supposed to have fought for the education of these ungracious sons -- barbarous, illiterate and without a history as they were

I don't recall us ever trying to "educate" other than our own breathen (who's existance, you insist to deny) as for the "without a history" part, is it not true that only recently you have come around to "remember" your ancestral origins and theorized ties with the Illyrians?

- Allied to the infidel Turks, they allegedly were among the cruelest in suppressing with blood the Greek revolution. Allied to the Italians and later to the Germans, they terrorized Greece, and slain its best anti-fascist heroes

Already proven to be true, even you accepted it in your previous post.

So all the above points are just correct observation of the Greek point of view .And about us being Illyrians or not,it might be problematic,but proving the opposite is even more problematic.And however by questioning our Illyrian origins you are unconsciously proving that the author was right.

So all the above points are simply gathered, exaggerated and put into one article which aims clearly to misinform.
And so I unconciously prove the author was right because I see the problems in a theory/assuption ... I see similar issues in various theories like God, human evolution, FYROMians being Makednoi, out of Africa theory, Hellenes came from Sirios....etc.
Does that make me a hard-head nationalist (as you and he support) or someone that prefers to percolate and analyze every idea prior to accepting or even adopting it ?

Those are numbers made and used by Greece to justify claims in south Albania, claims that as I said were rejected in all the occasions they were presented

Actually had they been contested and finally rejected, the protocol of Corfu would have never formed "Autonomous Epiros"

I think that the authors aim is quite clear,he is affirming that south Albania is Albanian and all the North Epirote thing is just a bunch of crap,can you blame him for this?And to make this even more clear that tone and phraseology is more than appropriate,sorry but the Greek propaganda,your alleged interests in partitioning Albania,and Albanians being victims are just mere facts.

Blame him... if his interest was purely in the Epirus question then he would have centralized on that instead of applying pathetic methodology, like that genetics crap.
But I hope you see that you quoted my question related to the validity of his outrageous claim that Albanians didn't side with Ottomans nor Nazi
To avoid any misunderstanding.. is this what you deem propaganda and whats this victim BS that you adopted.. did they not willingly side with the Ottomans/Nazi and in some occasions indeed terrorize Hellenic folk?

[Grace]

Originally Posted by Draco

I disagree with this. Culture is more important and religion is a significant component of culture. There are many examples of this: Muslim Albanians with their Arab names and weird customs seem alien to the Arvanites of Greece, who prefer to identify with Christian Greeks

was it always this way? Let's see:

One British traveler, Edward Dodwell, commented that there were classical
Greek parallels for the "respectable occupation of brigandage," and suggested that acts such
as "depriving people of their ears and noses is a practice common to most parts of Turkey."'
(The reference to Turkey is actually to the European possessions of the Ottoman Empire and their Christian subjects.)
Some of these men were romantics seduced by visions of ancient Athens, as symbolized y the Parthenon and other antiquities.
No doubt, they pictured themselves fighting alongside the descendants of Leonidas and the Three Hundred Spartans, or
as the successors of Alexander the (:rear pitting themselves against the barbarian Persians (as played by the Ottoman Muslims).
Others were adventurers who were attracted to any war for booty, fun, or simply because they were no longer welcome in their
own countries. Some of these so-called philhellenes were soldiers and officers in Napoleon's armies who had turned into
mercenaries after the demise of the emperor.

But most philhellenes who arrived in Greece after 1821, whether thev were in search of toga-clad Greeks discussing
philosophy in the ancient marketplace or simply the spoils of war, were disappointed. .As Col. Leicester Stanhope
observed, "All came expecting to find die Peloponnese filled with Plutarch's men and all returned thinking the
inhabitants of Newgare more moral.""

European aristocrats, flaunting their facility with ancient Greek, failed
to elicit any coherent response from the local inhabitants. The Greeks not only did not measure up to their
ancestors in the eyes of the Europeans, but also displayed singular Balkan and Turkish habits.

Indeed, they
appeared to lack any of the graces associated with classical Athens, as it was preached to young aristocrats
in European schools.

Even in the manner of their dress, the Greeks reflected the orientalism of the Ottomans. Greek fashion in the nineteenth century saw men dressed in the Albanian kilt while women followed the Muslim
tradition of covering themselves up, including the face and eyes.To the dismay of the Europeans, the Greeks were also marked by other negative characteristics inherited from
the Levant, such as the nasty habit of misplacing the truth, at least as truth was understood by Europeans.
Rumilh Jenkins has described the Greek notion of verracitv as observed truth versus "ethnic" truth.

Page 99 of André Gerolymatos's book

Turns out you became "Helene" after the Europeans told you what you should be so stop slamming Albanians

[Grace]

Originally Posted by Orphic_Hymn

I can do better?
Yeah whatever you say..

Anyway, for the Mirdites, the reason for the question is simple. Mirdites were well known to have intermixed in mass with Turks (well known for abducting and marrying Turkish women after having baptising them). So seeing the influence of Turkish language upon them is no real suprise even though, in reality, a loan either having intermixed or not shouldn't be.

Albanian Muslim, not Turkish. Since people were divided by the faith Muslims = Turks, Catholics=Latin, and Orthodox = Greeks.' What about the Vlachs, Albanians and Turks now "Hellenized" ?

Shall I quote this from the same source you got that ?

"It was an Albanian who led the Greeks in the War of Independence, and again an Albanian who commanded the Turkish troops sent to quell the rebellion"

[Draco]

The best way to find out what someone is or was is to review how they viewed themselves. How the leaders of the Greek War of Independence viewed themselves is crystal clear.

Maybe it's time for the Albanians to end prescribing what people "really" are.

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Grace

Albanian Muslim, not Turkish. Since people were divided by the faith Muslims = Turks, Catholics=Latin, and Orthodox = Greeks.' What about the Vlachs, Albanians and Turks now "Hellenized" ?

Shall I quote this from the same source you got that ?

"It was an Albanian who led the Greeks in the War of Independence, and again an Albanian who commanded the Turkish troops sent to quell the rebellion"

Care to clarify exactly what anything you've said is related to what you quoted ?

Vlachs, Turks, Albanians.. Hellenized ???

Lets see.. how you intend to explain your Hellenization crap in relation to your religious denomination argument when we simply note that throughout history, the Arvanites are titled as such, just as the Vlachs were.. PROOF of the the later's name continuously used is the very existance of Greater and Lesser Vlachia, the first settlement located in Thessaly and the second in C.Hellas..

But since you like throwing unsubstantiated claims.. I'd like to see some proof of Hellenization of Turks.. BUT this time.. no albanian.com, no topix.. I'd really enjoy a citation from some credible source.

[Grace]

Originally Posted by Draco

The best way to find out what someone is or was is to review how they viewed themselves. How the leaders of the Greek War of Independence viewed themselves is crystal clear.

Maybe it's time for the Albanians to end prescribing what people "really" are.

True, but if Alexander the Great "felt a Roman" what would you say if they said to you: "Look he does not want to be Greek /Mk so stop saying he is Greek"?

How the view themselves now it is, but how they did it isn't and with what I have read, it had nothing to do with "hellenic" ideals, as many had no clue what those were. To say that they did what they because of 'Greek culture' is a joke. When the Byrons came, they did not see what they thought they would.

Personally, I don't care, and I have read enough to know why they are ashamed of being Albanian. The Arbereshe in Italy are not.


However, it bothers me when some Greeks (and especially Serbs) say that "Albanians are trying to steal this and that" and "they have no history," etc etc. Albanians do it too, I know.

[Grace]

<< Vlachs, Turks, Albanians.. Hellenized ???

I have to go to sleep, but start here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ixc...Pc32gUG9OEAB3Y

Albanians settled in Athens, Corinth, Mani, Thessaly and even in the Aegean islands. In the early nineteenth century, the population of Athens was 24 percent Albanian, 32 percent Turkish, and only 44 percent Greek. The village of Marathon, scene of the great victory in 490 B.C., was, early in the nineteenth century, almost entirely Albanian."

The continuing impact of this new ethnic and cultural force is indicated in Hammond's comments that the Albanian incursions into Greece continued under the Turkish system and went on right into the eighteenth century, and that the descendants of these Albanian people were still speaking Albanian when he was in Greece in the 1930s. This is not a reflection on the national consciousness of these Greek citizens, for as Hammond explains, they thought of themselves as Greek. Indeed Hammond points out that the Albanian role in the resistance to the Turks, and in the formation of the Greek nation, was significant. Like the Slavs, the Albanians became attached to their new lands, learned the new language, and began to think of themselves as one with the other peoples living there.

According to anthropologist Roger Just, most of the nineteenth-century "Greeks," who had so recently won their independence from the Turks, not only did not call themselves Hellenes (they learned this label later from the intellectual nationalists); they did not even speak Greek by preference, but rather Albanian, Slavonic, or Vlach dialects." He held that their culture was similarly remote from the culture of the ancient Greeks. Their "customs and habits might seem to bear as much if not more relation to those of the other peoples of the Balkans and indeed of Anatolian as they did to what were fondly imagined to be those of Pericline Athens."

[Draco]

Originally Posted by Grace

True, but if Alexander the Great "felt a Roman" what would you say if they said to you: "Look he does not want to be Greek /Mk so stop saying he is Greek"?

That's a poor example because "nations" as we understand them today (and during the Greek War of Independence) didn't exist then. In any case, Alexander the Great described himself as a "Hellene", never as a Roman.

Originally Posted by Grace

How the view themselves now it is, but how they did it isn't and with what I have read, it had nothing to do with "hellenic" ideals, as many had no clue what those were. To say that they did what they because of 'Greek culture' is a joke. When the Byrons came, they did not see what they thought they would.

Who are you talking about? The Arvanites who participated in the Greek War of Independence were certainly well acquainted with the "Hellenic" ideals.

Originally Posted by Grace

Personally, I don't care, and I have read enough to know why they are ashamed of being Albanian. The Arbereshe in Italy are not.

That's funny because the Arvanites of Greece maintain contacts with Arbereshe who claim to be Greeks. The situation of the Arbereshe can hardly be considered as clear cut as you are presenting it.

As for them being "ashamed to be Albanian", there you are prescribing what people "really" are again. Why the Arvanites don't want to be associated with Muslim Albanians with their Arabic names makes perfect sense to me, especially considering the atrocities the Muslim Albanians inflicted on the Arvanites during the Greek War of Independence.

Originally Posted by Grace

However, it bothers me when some Greeks (and especially Serbs) say that "Albanians are trying to steal this and that" and "they have no history," etc etc. Albanians do it too, I know.

No one is claiming that the Albanians have no history.