Hello everyone... I'm peruvian and I know most of you here would lable me as a person that doesnt need to be here but I feel I can contribute.

I'm married to a macedonian girl with roots from ohrid. I was going through my father in laws house and found lots of old pictures of his father durring war time. In some of the photos I noticed macedonian "graffiti" (not really modern day graffitti but you know what i mean) with macedonian heros written on the walls. (it's really an old odl picture like from 1905 or something). dam i wish i can scan it...maybe i'll take some of these photos to the library and try scanning it there. I'm wondering if anyone here knows how many ppl back then acknowledged macedonianism and what happened to the dead ones? did those macedonians recieve the same cruelty as the greeks or where they just as succeptable?

My wife is a hard core macedonian meaning she loves to brutally conquer weak greek girls mentality with historical facts and that turns me on. i love history as well. you should see us in the car driving around pin pointing out everyones race and how they look like animals. it's a funny site.

Anyway...any help would be appreciated..thanks

p.s.
found this site on one of the myspace groups and i love it.

Welcome Inca to our little place in cyberspace......

I would love to see those old pictures from your father in laws, is there a possibility to scan or photograph them with a digital camera and post them on this forum?

There are several image hosting services you could use, http://www.photobucket.com, http://imageshack.us/ and http://tinypic.com/ to name a few.......


I hope you will like it here!

You need to be here. Look at me. I'm not a Macedonian and I have been a contributing member of this forum for 3 years now. So welcome.
Plus, I never ever thought I would be posting to an Inca.

Hallo Inca, wellcome aboard !

I am Greek from Greek Macedonia, called by ethnic Macedonians Aegean macedonia.

I have been in Peru about 10 years ago.

I was told there that in Peru there exist -3- groups of people :
a) Descendants of what we wrongly call Indians, actually Quetsua people, or Incas (I believe Inca was the title of the emperor)
b) Mestizos, people of mixed origin : White (Spanish mainly) and Incas
c) Whites, predominantly of Spanish origin

The latter, I was told, despite being less than 10% own the 90% of the land.

Would I be indescrete if I asked you to which group you belong, if what I was told is true ?

Friendly Greetings, ANDREAS

actually i do have a digital camera and i'll try doing that sometime in couple of days. Good idea man!!!!!

Which Greeks do you mean ?

wow andrew your pretty smart

I actually belong in the mestizos category. ( my grandfather is actually from spain and grandmother is native )...

This might sound confusing to you but i'm not really related to inca leftovers..my grandmother is originally from central america and part of the pipil tribe but migrated to peru because of my grandfathers job as a lawyer. hence why i call myself a peruvian.

I would have to say pontic greeks?... found out about them on wiki.

This is true, and it is a long story.

There has been enmity between Greeks and Turks for centuries, culminating in the bloody War of Indepenence 1821-1832, that resulted in an independent Greece.

After that, there took place innumerable incidents between Greece and Turkey(*), and -3- wars : 1897 (Greece beaten), 1912-13(Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia victorious) and 1920-1922 (Greece beaten).

There were many civilian casualties in the 1912-13 Balkan War, between both Turks and Greeks. This war took place in the Balkans, and Greece faught against Turkey in Macedonia.

The War of 1920-1922, called rightly by the Turks War of Independence, took place in Asia Minor. Greeks were initially victorious, almost reached Ankara, but after that failed : It was an impossible war for a small country like Greece. During this war there had been casualties between Turkish civilians, since the war was faught on Turkish soil. But in Asia Minor (Turkey) there were almost 1.8 mil Greeks, scattered in many places, but mainly in :
a) Eastern Thrace
b) Istanbul (my parents are from there)
c) Pontus (the east coast of Northern Asia Minor)
d) Ionia (The west coast of Turkey along the Aegean Sea)
e) Kappadocia ( In central Asia Minor, the homeland of St. Basil)

During WW_I, the Turks devised a plan to get rid of the Christian populations of Asia Minor (1.8 mil Greeks and 1.5 mil Armenians). The plan was allegedly concieved by the German general Lieman von Sanders (known in Turkey as Sanders Pasha), a councillor of Imperial Germany to Turkey (in WW_I Turks were allied to the Germans).

The plan was effectively implemented against the Armenians : They were wiped out of Asia Minor (a well known fact, the Armenian Genocide of 1.5 mil).

It was less easily implemented against the Pontic Greeks, but nevertheless almost half the Greek Pontic population was wiped out : They were forced to move to the interior of Asia Minor, and en route they were killed by irregulars, by the Turkish Army itself, died of hunger or exposion etc. Victims : Between 200-350.000.

The numbers of the victims are contested by the Turks, who maintain that the Armenians and Greeks died in battles against the regular Army, a fact very hard to swallow.

Many Greeks died in the west coast also, in Ionia, may be 100.000 : It was an anticlimax for the Turkish civilian casualties. They were much-much less than the Greek ones, but the mentality of the time (almost 100 years ago) was very different : The Greek and the Armenian were seen by the Turks as the archenemies of the Turkish Nation, and their life as being of zero value.

If you search, you will find contradicting views on these issues, the Turks insisting they were they themselves the victims etc.

As for the civilian victims during the Balkan Wars, 1st (Bulgaria_Greece_Montenegro_Serbia against Turkey) and 2nd (Bulgaria against Greece_Serbia and Turkey against Bulgaria), they were Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks and ethnic Macedonians. The best known source on that are the Carnegie Reports. You will not find Macedonians mentioned in them, but as Macedonians maintain today, many people called Bulgarians in the Reporst were actually ethnic Macedonians.

I will not say more because my opinion may sound biased to you.

*******************************************************
(*) Actually The Ottoman Empire. The name Turkey appeared after 1923. That is why the Turks call the 1920-1922 War of Independence.

wow thank you andrew. I guess that's why almost every Greek i see has this depressed look on their face. They've been through alot i suppose. But my question was if Macedonians were being treated as cruel as Greeks were? Your last sentence says that back in the early 1900's Greeks fought Bulgarians that are ethnic Macedonians but were never documented as Macedonians. Why not? your telling me that there was never a mention of geneological continuity throught it's history? like macedonia was never an ethnicity that goes as far as alexander the great?and i never heard alexander say anything about bulgarians. Sorry andrew if I asked many questions. Most of you are probably laughing of my stupidity. I just want to learn. You dont have to answer all those questions. maybe others could help me understand this if they wish.


thanks!!

Welcome Inca, i don't see why you don't need to be here, you're as welcome as anyone else so please stay

#1
Not stupid at all. Just ask anybody in the Forum to say what he knows about Simon Bolivar, about the wars between Chili-Peru, Chili-Argentina, or Peru-Equador : The reasons of the wars, how they were conducted [ i.e. if JUS BELLI, the Laws of War, were infringed and by whom ] etc. You are far away from Europe and especially the Balkans. History in this continent is full of wars, both between nations and civil wars, blood and atrocities. This is why we built, at last, the EU : In ORDER TO FORGET THE PAST, having the worst possible experiences.

#2
All nations were treated cruelly by their opponents. Sad to say, but true. Macedonians, having no State to protect them, suffered more.

#3
Because the language of Bulgarians and Macedonians is very close. Greeks were not able to distinguish between the two.Please consult BRITANNICA on the matter. It was understood by the Greeks only in the 1920's.

#4
No, as far as I know. Ancient Macedonians were considered a northern Greek tribe untill the 1950's by most scholars. Intensive research after that has come to the conclusion that possibly ancient Macs were actually a Greek tribe ( OXFORD CLASSICAL DICTIONARY etc). But there is still a margin for doubt, so research continues. What is absolutely sure is that ancient Macs were not a Slavic tribe. On this all serious scholars agree.

#5
See above pls.

#6
Naturally. Bulgarians were possibly a Turcic tribe (or Iranian ? ) who entered the Balkans during the 7th century AD and vanquished the mixed Slavic-Thracian population near the Danube. Later they built a big kingdom, destroyed by the Byzantine Emperor Basil the 2nd Bulgaroktonos (=greek for "Bulgar Slayer") in 1025 AD. It is a long story.

#7
No problem, Inca.

Now a question of mine :
Have you gone to elementary and High school in Peru ?

What have you been taught there about ancient Greeks and Macedonians (in short, of course !) ?

Muchas Gracias !

So serious scholars agree that Macedonians were Dorians, Ionians or Aeolians? Or a seperate 'tribe' on their own, depending on how far back we are going?

I have quoted OXFORD many times, VENOM. The answers to your questions are there.

I am not a scholar, I have a mathematicians degree. So I believe scholars, since I cannot do research myself, and if I could, I would not have been qualified.

Inca, if I may give you a sound advice: do not be dogmatic. It doesn't matter who tells you what, because there are both Greeks and Macedonians on this forum that are dogmatic. Do not believe them. Try to understand it. That is the key to knowing things. If some scholars says something, consider it but don't believe in it blindly. But neither distrust them completely, but think that they might be right. You'll need knowledge of many things to understand history and it takes one step at a time, unless you want it all at once and then make unsustainable claims.

Hear my view (if you want): the western scholars make their claims that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe. They make their own points and evidence, but it is not that hard to see that they make many misconceptions due to lack of information. They themselves dogmatically believe in the Great Slavic Migration and take that as one of the facts. But the Great Slavic Migration (GSM) has never been examined scientifically, never seriously and completely. It is a mere theory on no solid ground. Because of this at the very beginning their theories are crumbling. But then there is more. They look at the past through their own eyes and interpret it through their own scope of knowledge. But their knowledge of facts is not perfect hence their theories have mistakes, it's not a issue of 'maybe they have made mistakes', it is definite they have made them.
People will say I'm arrogant because I call western scholars ignorant, but am I really? What is arrogance in the first place? Is it not being dubious of other people's beliefs? Is it not using common sense? You see, people will call these scholars 'serious' and 'authorities' because they themselves believe blindly into what these scholars are saying. It is easy that way, because they themselves have no obligation to think but let others do that for them. There is no difference between a western scholar or a scholar from China when it comes to theories and people believing them. The difference is in all the prejudice surrounding them. Some people will treat the western scholars as better ones because they claim they are not biased, but that is actually not a very good argument if it is an argument at all. There are no unbiased people when it comes to history. Neither western nor eastern. It is a waste of time choosing which side you will listen to because they are all the same.

And also, do not believe them only because your not a scholar yourself. That is a defeatist way of approach. If you are really interested into these things then do a research. History is quite simple really. It is those who don't understand it that make it so damn complicated. Hence the defeatist attitude.

My advice is that you listen to those which are modest and humble in their conclusions and who acknowledge their own ignorance of facts. Listen to those who give you an absolute 'maybe' and not say it with a tone 'this is true' or 'this is false'. Come to think of it, you shouldn't be listening to me either. My point is, you need to judge them. You say it to their face: 'I think you're theories are wrong' and after that they can eat themselves if they can't stand that you have your opinion. Being dogmatic in science is no different than being a fundamentalist Muslim. So think for yourself and don't take no one's arguments as true or false. Find out for yourself. And you can always count on us here to give you something to think about.

Thank you Slovak for your very profound point of view on history. You are right though. Unfortunately Andreas doesn't really get what you were trying to say and worse, he picks and chooses which scholars he wishes to believe.

Anyways. Thanks for the quick response Andreas. I am not a scholar either, believe it or not. And it was an easy question.

I repeat my view, you obviously have overlooked it :
"#4
No, as far as I know. Ancient Macedonians were considered a northern Greek tribe untill the 1950's by most scholars. Intensive research after that has come to the conclusion that possibly ancient Macs were actually a Greek tribe ( OXFORD CLASSICAL DICTIONARY etc). But there is still a margin for doubt, so research continues. What is absolutely sure is that ancient Macs were not a Slavic tribe. On this all serious scholars agree. "

So, I still have doubts. The opinion presently ruling is that Macs were Greeks, but THE SCHOLARS THEMSELVES THAT PRESENT THIS OPINION add that there is room for doubt.

So, I do not pick up those that say definitely "Macs were Greeks", neither those that say they were not. I accept the opinion of the majority, that in itself CONTAINS THE WORD DOUBT.

What is absolutely sure is that no serious scholar accepts the theory that ancient macs were a Slavic tribe.

Even Alinei maintains that MAY BE the Thracians were of Balto-Slavic origin, but carefully adds that Macedonians were not.

serious scholars i get a laugh out of that one , WTF does that mean.

it mean scholars who agree with me.

inca forget the history debate its about human rights for those of us born in the land of macedonia. it doesnt belong to us we belong to it.

greece has over 50 % of it bulgaria a bit and we have some left over which we share with albanians.

please understand what i am saying i am macedonian not because the land belongs to me we are all mortal and will die quickly human life is not even a breaths length. i am macedonian becuase i and all my family belong to macedonia.

andreas needs history of serious scholars to prove his claim because he is only 1st generation macedonian born. even the gringos of texas have been there longer than the greeks have been in modern macedonia.

Thank you andrew for giving me a very constructive answer. This is all very interesting to me.

Going through elementry school in peru we grew up learning that ancient macedonians were Greeks that spread their culture called the hellenistic age. My grandparents always taught us growing up the same thing. But we did not learn much about it. Peru has it's own great history too and we learn things a bit different I suppose. Our studies were very european influenced but never clouded our nativeiness.

Untill around 5 years ago when I first met my wife here in montreal(gf back then), I didnt know what a macedonian was really untill she enlightened me with her love for her people. Anyway, I grew to meet many macedonians within the family and grew to respect them as honest and hard working people. I've sat around dinner tables listening to "good old stories" of the country. Past couple of years it has me wondering, what is a macedonian. Is it an ethnicity or is it a geographical term based on an empires province or etc... I originally thought that it was a geographical term and the different ppl that inhabited the area was just strictly called macedonians, even though they were greeks or turkish or russians or whatever. Just like in america, a person calls himself a New Yorker and another guy calls himselfl a Floridian but they're still americans (america is a land of immigrants but you know what i mean) but I guess it's not the same. Who knows. That's what I'm trying to learn.


ps : slovak thanks for the wise words. I have an open mind yet I'm not naive. I have a great filtration system in my brain lol. Thanks!!!!

Does anyone recommend any good websites that document the whole continuity of macedonia? My wife says that current macedonian language still uses some ancient macedonian words. Is there a book you guys recommend were I can learn some stuff?