Maknews,

I am aware of the theories you present, but I am yet to see compelling evidence (which, of course, doesn't mean that such evidence does not exist), even though I have read most of the standard material that's been published in Macedonia on the "Slavic invasions" topic. In that regard, I stand by my previous comments. I am open to critically considering any hard evidence that you might be able to refer me to.

In relation to the ancient Macedonians having been viewed by others at the time as a 'race', have a look at the Penguin Classics from Arrian, Plutarch and Polybius. Whether the term 'race' meant the same thing to them as it does in the modern context (if anything), is another matter.

In relation to the theory that the ancient Macedonians, Illyrians and Thracians were proto-slavs (in a linquistic sense, which is the only sense in which the term 'Slav'/'Sloveni' has a definitive meaning in my view), I've read material from various German and Polish 'Slavists' (I don't remember the names, since it's been at least 10 years since I've researched the topic with any vigour), as well as Dr. Ilija Casule (see http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=15415). Dr Jacques Bacid, from Columbia University, is one person who I know is particularly committed to the theory, but I've only read articles from him. I don't know if he's published any books on the topic and I don't know how seriously he is taken by his peers. You guys in North America should know more about him. This theory hasn't been broadly tested yet, but that has a lot to do with the lack of interest among states and academic institutions. I would say that Macedonia has a special interest to invest in intensive academic research into the theory, but, unfortunately, it doesn't seem that MANU and the Macedonian Government share my view.

As far as editing your analysis, I am not sure how you want me to do that. Since you wrote it, I think it would best retain its coherence if you edit it, after considering the comments on this thread.

Did you see the original letter I wrote to the Editor of the Economist, which is posted above? Feel free to borrow from it if you find something that you think can fit into your analysis. In addition to that, here is what I sent to Edward Lucas yesterday, after reading his reply to Risto Stefov:

"In addition to my response to your article “Macedonian mess – Time to look past archaic disputes”, I note that in one of your responses to an aggrieved Macedonian reader, you have written: “Both the "muslims" (ie Turks) in Thrace and the "Slavophone" (or "Macedonians" from a Skopje viewpoint) population have a lot of grievances and grudges.” According to international human rights law, the identity of the indigenous ethnic Macedonian population in the part of Macedonia that is today under Greece is not something to be determined by anybody’s VIEWPOINT, including yours or “Skopje’s”, but by the individuals who belong to it. Others should merely respect their right to self-identification.

To avoid references to what you might trivialize as a ‘Skopje viewpoint’, I would like to draw your attention to the book “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia 1870-1990”, by American Greek anthropologist Anastasia Karakasidou, who has intensively studied the population of Guvezna (in today’s ‘Greek Macedonia’). In her introduction, on page 22, Karakasidou concludes that to refer uncritically to nineteenth-century Guveznans as “Greeks” or “Bulgarians” is to adopt national categories that were subsequently imposed on inhabitants of the area. She also admits that the inhabitants of ‘western Greek Macedonia today’ (her field research was undertaken in the late 1980s) employ the self-ascription “Macedonians” or “indigenous Macedonians”. In light of these facts, I find it difficult to understand how somebody who puts himself forward as an enlightened critic of Balkan nationalism has no problem referring to people who have had a Greek identity imposed on them in the 20th century as Greeks, yet he denies the same respect to those Greek citizens who continue to identify as ethnic Macedonians or indigenous Macedonians, despite the repressive discrimination by the Greek state against anyone who identifies as ethnic Macedonian. Are you suggesting that the indigenous ethnic Macedonians in Northern Greece who identify themselves as Macedonians (not ‘Slavs’ or ‘Slavophones’) are merely expressing a Skopjan viewpoint? What do you base this offensive suggestion on?

I belong to an Australian community of Macedonian ethnic origin, which consists of ethnic Macedonians who derive from all parts of the historical Macedonia, including the Republic of Macedonia and the parts that are today under Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Our ethnic community rejects the notion that Skopje, Athens, the EU, the UN or any state or historian should presume a right to tell us that we are ethnically something other than Macedonians. This position is consistent with international human rights standards and the fundamental tenets of Australian multiculturalism. We reject being identified by others as “Slav”, “Slavophone” or “Slav Macedonian”. We consider these terms to amount to racial insults and a denial of the only ethnic identity we bear. We are not interested in expanding the borders of either the Republic of Macedonia or Greece, but we do insist on respect for the human rights of Macedonians everywhere, as we insist on respect for the human rights of human beings in general. We feel that respect for the universality of human rights is a prerequisite for resolving the ‘archaic disputes’ of the Balkans, which have been historically instigated and fostered by other European powers for their own purposes. We would like to see Macedonians from the different parts of Macedonia interact with each other freely, in a prosperous Europe without borders. This cannot be achieved if reputable European publications that guide public opinion place Greece’s nationalist ‘sensitivities’ and interpretations of ancient history above universal human rights standards, which are supposed to take precedence over sectarian interests, opinions and ideologies."

Edward Lucas just sent me a reply to "my" letter. It is exactly the same as the reply he sent to Risto Stefov, which is written as if he is replying to a Greek, with the opening:

"Dear Mr Alexandrov

Thank you for your letter, which is one of a remarkably large postbag that my europe.view column has attracted. I am sorry if it offended you as I was trying hard to be impartial. I do sympathise with the Greek viewpoint in many respects: Greece was a valued NATO ally during the Cold War, and as a classicist by training I yield to no one in my admiration for the Hellenic contribution to philosophy and literature. So I do think it is a bit unfair to accuse me so readily of being anti-Greek. ..."

He must have been flooded by complaints from Greeks, to the extent where he assumes that every new complaint is from a Greek, so he sends everybody the same response.

This was my reply to him:

"Dear Mr Lucas,

It appears you have confused my letter with your letters from Greek nationalist extremists. I am of Macedonian origin - not Greek. I was not suggesting at all that you are "anti-Greek" or a "stooge of Skopje". My objection relates to your adoption of the racist language of Greece - "Slavs", "Slavophones" - to refer to ethnic Macedonians.

With respect, I suggest that you read my letter for what it is, instead of incorrectly assuming that it's another one for your "from Athens, with no love" postbag.

Regards,
Igor Aleksandrov"

I don't see the value in replying to The Economist. That exercise has been attempted many times over the years without success. I would much rather we begin a dossier of how European rags use racist language -- specifically in regard to Macedonians. Europeans exude a comfort level with racism that is worth noting.

That's a great idea Maknews.

But I don't see any harm in throwing a few punches at the Economist. At least make their editors aware of the racist remarks.

......

Letter:

I found your reference to the ethnic Macedonians of Greece as "Slavophone people" to be insulting and derogatory.

I would remind you that the Macedonians have a culture unique to the region and the world and that the only reason there is a dispute over the "name" is because modern Greeks believe they are ancient Greeks - and this point has been unanimously disproven (except in Greece and Greek ocuppied Macedonia).

It follows that modern Greeks have no right - at least on historical grounds - to subject the ethnic Macedonians any further, and yet they continue to do so.

I would add finally that this seemingly irrational modern Greek resistance to recognising the Macedonian ethnic group raises questions about the relative truth-status of ethnographic, archival and historical data produced by the Greek State.

There has been a climate of suspicion and fear in Greece over the status of their own origin, and no where has this been played out more than in Northern Greece - formally the 'New Territories' and in 1990 offically renamed by Greece for the first time as 'Macedonian Provice'. I would add that naturally, modern Greeks are sensitive about issues of their continuity and the existance of a long standing Macedonian ethnic minority only exposes questions of the modern Greeks apparent deep historical association to the region as superficial. The point is never lost on modern Greek nationalists, who continue to subject the Macedonian ethnic group, while contriving ways to either remove them from the map or make the region and name 'Greek' now and retrospectively supposedly for all time.

Regards,




..