Hello people,

I am new to this forum, and I hope I will have the opportunity to have some interesting conversations with people from around the globe that care about finding the truth within an ocean of propaganda. I am Greek, born and raised in greece, studied and worked in the UK, holding two university degrees including postgraduate studies, and i am now working in senior management consulting somewhere else in the world, neither Greece or UK.

I approach this forum with respect and an open mind, and believe that in here I will find some truth on things that may have been miss represented in Greece and I am willing to discuss and receive opinions as well as be pointed into sources. I will also hope I will add some value since I will try to respectfully represent the other side’s perspective on arguments initiated and share my sources.

I respect people’s opinions and I expect people to respect mine, and that is the fundamental requirement for a forum to work and become or stay a point of reference not only for a bunch of people that belong to only one side of the argument but to people from both sides.

Unfortunately both Greek and Macedonian sites on the matter are plagued by fanatics. For your convenience the definition of a fanatic that I prefer is the following:
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

Meaningful Conversation cannot be carried between fanatics of opposing sides nor between fanatics and non fanatics simply because if someone has already decided that nothing you can show him can change his mind what’s the point of conversing with them?

Unfortunately for the fanatics and fortunately for the rest of the planet a solution to a dispute is always involving a little bit of compromise and that compromise can only be negotiated by non fanatics, through conversation and understanding. Is this solution going to come soon? I doubt it, but it will come when the majority will get tired by the dispute and they will naturally wish to coexist in peace with their neighbours.

A meaningful conversation is an exchange of ideas and beliefs, in this case it is also a case of exchange of sources.
Unfortunately many of these posts (coming to the form of quotations, scans of pages with highlighted texts or –my favourite- :P youtube links) are confusing to non fanatics.

It saddens me that people read books not for understanding what the book says but in order to find a sentence or word that in isolation will support their side, and ignore that in the next page a clarification or additional information will make their highlight obsolete.

Proof to that may be that some of the books that extracts are published from are used as “proof” from fanatics that belong to both sides. One fanatic will highlight text in page 72 and the other will highlight text in 84 and they both will present “their findings” (sometimes treated by the rest of their kind as being important archaeological excavations that need to be preserved) to their audience that will applaud them. It is also sad that sometimes on a scanned page a few sentences bellow the highlighted text there is a sentence or paragraph that contradicts their claim.

It is also characteristic that fanatics that litter the forums with their propaganda have the memory of a fly. They may present “findings” to support one subject, and then in order to support another subject they will post “findings” that they contradict some of their previous postings, and so the vicious circle of misinformation will continue with victims the non fanatics that will go to the forums for information.

I know I will not convince any fanatic on anything that it is not already their belief. Because the only thing they are interested at is “proof” of their rightness and they will blatantly ignore “proof” of their wrongness.

I on the other side I am interested to consider any point regardless if it is for or against me and i hope i can converse with like minded people. The truth in our case it’s not black or white but a big shade of grey. At the end it is people like us that will find a solution and will allow our countries to prosper and go forward together as allies and not as enemies.
So after a very long prologue that hopefully states my intentions and my perspective I will come to ask you.

Do you believe that one side is 100% wrong in their claims and the other one is 100 right?

Hello Amy,welcome.

"Do you believe that one side is 100% wrong in their claims and the other one is 100 right?"

Basically,one side is 100% right,since they only seek their fundamental rights and the other is 100% wrong since they seek to deny them those rights....im sure you know which is which.All of the other discussions are just used as diversions.

"I nie imame pravo da zivime kako i drugite zivot sto ziveat"

AmyQ, dobrodojde (welcome)

Nice first post. I agree that you will not be changing anyones mind in this forum or any others. The membership on these forums is comprised of people who are simply seeking more proof for their already made up opinions. Preaching to the converted so to speak. I for one do not use this forum to try and persuade anyone to change their mind, as I know it's a waste of time. I use this forum mostly to have some contact with Macedonians from all around the world, learn something new about our culture and language, and it's a great source for these things. Although I am interested in ancient history, I don't put too much stock into all the debates that go on in here.

To answer your question, is any one side 100% right ? If we are talking about history, then no way is one side even close to being totally correct. How can we talk about things that happened over two millenia ago and truly believe we are talking with any degree of accuracy. It's a scam. History is nothing more than chinese whispers. Governments are writing their own history as we speak, yet we have people believing word for word what a historian has written in great detail about something that happened over 2000 years ago. An exteme example would be the popular image of dinosaurs. The way we see dinosaurs is constructed totally from bones found in the ground. Scientists have since developed theories on what they think these dinosaurs would have looked like. Can anyone ever really KNOW what they looked like. No, they can't, yet I bet most people don't even question it, and think that, that is exactly what dinosaurs looked like.

If we're talking about the name issue, I'll go with what CND_MKD said above, as it's pretty close to the money.

No. At least I don't. I think that many Macedonians started or followed a myth about what happened to the Ohrid Archbishopric in 1776. This date is used to convey the belief that todays Greek (normally I don't write Greek without using " " but seeing as you have come on here respectfully I will treat you with respect) started a process of Hellenization against the Macedonians in order to make them all Greeks. Unfortunately for this myth and the people who continue to use it there was no Hellenes in order to begin this Hellenization and the majority of the Macedonian population (I believe the figure is somewhere between 96-98%) was illiterate and could not understand most of the liturgy spoken by the Rum bishops whether Romaika or Old Church Slavonic was used.

As for the otherside and their claims and arguements it seems really easy for them to assume that we are only Slavs whose descendents were Slavs and who had no history and are newcomers to the land However if we are to bring up the notions of ethnicity then it's easy to realize that the Republic of Macedonia's southern neighbor is just as Slavic as the Macedonians of today are (whatever the term Slavic would even mean nowadays).

What do you think AmyQ? Can either side be 100% wrong or right? There's so much to this than meets the eye.

Hi people,
I’ll respond to each of the people that replied to my post separately since their responses were quite different.

To CND



I sincerely believe that you sincerely believe that your 100% rightness is undisputable. But I also believe that this is a very simplistic approach. Because there are people on the other side that they believe that they are 100% right as well. So i invite you to extend your thinking. Why do those people, although to you it is so obvious what is right, choose not to recognise it? Is it because they are evil and try to steal your history? I don’t think so...that would sound like a simplistic George Bushian approach to the dispute where he named the Iraqi people evil in order to justify civilian murders. Is it because these people are so blind by misinformation and propaganda that they can not see the truth? Again it would be extreme, and what makes you certain that the opposite is not the case, since both sides are plagued with propaganda and political motivations. Are there any brainless fanatic morons among them that claim totally idiotic things? Yes there are..as there are similar types on your side. Don’t let these people drive your reactions and responses.

I believe you owe to try and understand the opposition, try and understand why there is a number of people that feel that your claims are offending something they believe. Hate unfortunately is the easy path many people take, but nothing good came out of hate ...ever. I will be very interested to see what you think. I will tell you what i have perceived, by simple Greek people...not politicians, not propagandists, not evil. They feel that there is an identity theft that is being attempted, and identity theft is something that makes them feel 100% right in opposing, since stealing their identity is something that is nobody’s human right. I don’t say i am 100% with them, there is truth in both sides of the story...we just need to work in order to merge them into one truth that is going to be common for both people.

To MakAus:



Trying to convince may be. Trying to understand though surely not.




Dismissing history all together is a very very very naive approach my friend, and I urge you to reconsider. We don’t live in a world where there is a constant re-writing of history. The vast majority is trying to understand history. Doing so with whatever has been left behind that is closer to the era that is being examined. Does historical findings and texts leave many gaps, especially for periods thousands of years before us? Yes they do. And thats where assumptions come into the play. Assumptions driven by logic and most probable scenarios in the case of good historians, and driven by political motivations and hate in case of propagandists. Re-writing although attempted, it is always revealed at the end, sometimes even within a few decades. Because history is what is, and no matter how strong the people that try to twist it are, it will always find its way to a logical balance, when the people or the circumstances that twisted it are long gone.



The dinosaur example is poor in supporting your “history invalidity” claim. The dinosaur bones may not allow us to know details like what was the colour of the animals or how good was their vision but it gives as thousands of other undisputable facts about what they were like (how tall, how strong, what where they eating etc) It most importantly allows us to exclude millions of scenarios about how they were. For example after the bones were found nobody in the right mind can claim that dinosaurs where the size of dogs, and thats the true value of the findings that is similar to how historical findings work. They allow us to exclude and include till the theory is so probable that it is considered to be reality.

To TM



That is an interesting theory. Can you point me to any sources in support of the above claim?



Here i agree with you. The characteristic of all the balcans including Greece is that they are a big pot where many many cultures and people mixed over thousands of years. Who came first and second and third to me doesn’t matter as long as a balanced perspective is kept between all the people. For example, and that may flare up some angry responses (maybe from Greeks as well), I don’t believe that the term Macedonia belongs to one people and one country since the region of ancient Macedonia is now part of three countries. Countries that mixed their cultures and their blood with the pass of time (Yes you got my hint.. i am not one of the Greeks that believe that todays Greeks are pure..and direct descendants of the ancient ones...that would be idiotic.. is there cultural and lingual continuity? That’s a totally different discussion we may open in the future..but lets not get distracted for the moment).

So what solution i would think as acceptable? I think a name such as Republic of North Macedonia would be fare to everybody, since it gives a geographical context to a region that belongs to more than one country. Please before you get angry with me, remember i am not driven by hate nor i endorse propaganda, i am just presenting my opinion. Anyhow as always i more than interested to hear what you think and more importantly why.


t

in terms of blood composition..depending on the region we may as well be, but i believe "Slavic" refers to something more than blood composition (in my opinion any referrals to blood composition and purity are nonsense, what makes the people what they are is their culture, how they are raised and where they live. Not some chromosome). So i disagree with you that modern Greeks are as Slavic as the Macedonians since we are not speaking the same language. Mind me, don’t miss interpet what i just said there is no superiority complex here, i believe we are equally good, Slavic or no Slavic.

AmyQ


It is indisputable.This isnt a matter of opinions....its a question of rights,equality.Either we all have rights and are equal or none are equal and no one has rights.

The issue is simple.

To deny someone their rights is the correct thing to do?Are Macedonians supposed to expect the hypocrisy and unfair treatment just because they are not as powerful as some?Are we less human than someone that says they are Greek?And why does my being Macedonian interfere with their being Greek?Should i kill myself to make others happy?

Why dont you tell me why they choose not to recognize.Could it be that my existence is a smack in the face to them?

Justice,equality......these are not people.For me,and this is just me....i dont care what Greeks call themselves or what they believe...its has no affect on me.Likewise...they should mind their own business.Telling others what to call themselves is kind of fucked up...dont ya think?

Are you serious lady?If my being offends them well,im not sorry for that.I will never understand someone who tells me my existence offends them.....i wont even try.

Hate is a disease,i dont hate Greeks...im angry at them.

What is their identity?Greek?I have never nor have i ever heard the Macedonian government claim Greek identity.Are Macedonians supposed to walk on egg shells now....worrying about how their actions will be perceived by Greeks and whether it will harm their psyche?Come on.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".....i know its very simplistic....but you cant expect much from an uneducated Jew who lived 2000 years ago.

Dear CND

I suggest you read again my post as a whole and not from line to line since it seems that you didn't understand my point. What I am saying is that you shouldn't assume that the other side has the same understanding of the situation that you have. To them you are not a Macedonian but somebody who pretends to be a Macedonian. How would you like it if Montenegro suddenly started to say that they are the true ancient Macedonians. Thats why their interference to their eyes is justified. Do I agree with them? No, you are from a part of Macedonia (as a region) therefore naturally you are Macedonian. The same region was also called Paeonia, and if you liked you could call your self Paeonian. The missunderstanding is based in mixing region with ethnicity (and bizzarly with blood origins) if everybody gets over that everything is going to be much simpler.

AmyQ;


The collective identity that the Patriarchate nourished has been a matter of intense debate. Greek cultural and religious “domination” led many to accuse the Patriarchate of being essentially an agent of denationalisation of the Slavs. But this view is coloured by a nineteenth-century nationalist context, and projects into the past current perceptions and ideas. The issue of“denationalisation” was a non-issue for the Church during the period of Ottoman rule. What the Patriarchate of Constantinople promoted was not a“national” Greek project, for such a thing did not exist. Most Greek-speakers in that period continued to refer to themselves, as we have seen, as “Christians”or “Romans” and had no conception of a “Greek” nation. As for thePatriarchate, what it promoted was the concept of the community of believers,the “Christian Commonwealth”, which was shared to varying degrees by allBalkan peoples, and made no reference to ethnic or national identification.35That said, the unity imposed in the Balkans by religion should not be confused with uniformity. Customs, regional fragmentation, the social organisation of households, language and divisions of labour, to name but a few factors, all pointed to obvious divisions within the Balkan Christian body, and even among the speakers of the same language. However, these cleavages did not have “national” content until well into the nineteenth century.

THE QUEST FOR HELLENISM:
RELIGION, NATIONALISM AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES
IN GREECE (1453-1913)
Dimitris Livanios

There are plenty of examples where Macedonians, during a time when they referred to themselves as simply Christians or in our language Pravoslav, where they are in between the warring churches of Bulgaria and Greece and have to choose a side where they simply don't care if the language used is Romaika or Old Church Slavonic (that example can be found in Mark Mazower's "The Balkans" page 39).



The problem I personally have with the Geographic denominator is that it doesn't rightly represent the Macedonians who have lived in the Pirin, Aegean, and Prespa regions. If this is ever accepted then what would I call those Macedonians in the Aegean part of Macedonia? North Macedonians? But they aren't in "North Macedonia". Furthermore the other issue with this is that Macedonians in the Republic and in the Diaspora (observation is from polls taken by international bodies) do not wish for a name change. Reasons vary. But mine is simple. So here it is;

One, Macedonians have predominately lived in Macedonia as a whole for centuries. Their identities are not in question here because for the last 1500 years Macedonians have been proud to use a religious identity. Greece decided to play the identity game in order to prove an unbroken 4000 years existance by utilizing a term invented by a German named Johann Gustav Droysen (Hellenism). Furthermore the propaganda was used to initiate the Megali Idea and it gave it legs to walk. I won't get into a full blown discussion on this because I'd end up writing a book instead of a post. But Greece made itself part of the so-called "Macedonian Question" in order to expand its Northern Borders.

Two, the new born baby states of the Balkans realized early on that the people in Macedonia lagged behind in the enlightenment era. So now it seems that today we are persecuted because we don't have a supposed 4000 year long history like some people do and that Macedonians did not proclaim themselves Macedonians by majority until the early 20th century. So new born baby Bulgaria jumped on it first and got a head start and now you had Bulgarian propaganda everywhere. Greece jumped on it and only made headway in the South of Macedonia but still met alot of resistance. Serbia (Servia) was effective as far as you could throw their ideal "Old Servia" and their myths of Stephen Dushan. So the West and the Ottomans watched these 3 baby states kill each other and in effect involve themselves in Macedonia's enlightenment. This is a problem not too many people have really examined. By the time Greece made it on to the scene their people just grasped the "Hellene" terms and started to understand nationalism. Much more is involved in this that needs further investigation. It's too simple to simply state that there was always "Greeks" and "Bulgarians" and "Servians" and that these were the races that inhabited Macedonia for eons.
I imagine what would have happened to Thessaly if the Vlachs there started talking about independence or autonomy. Greece would have been sidetracked of Macedonia in order to deal with the "Thessaly Question".

Three, I realize that ethnicity is not a question to you. That is fine. But what about residency? So now we have newly arrived Anatolian Christians and Pontic refugees and many new peoples come into Macedonia in the early 20th century. Are we to assume that they have a right to dictate to us what our country's name should be? And what our identity should be? And what our language should be called? This doesn't only apply to Aegean Macedonia. It also applies to the whole of Greece where many new peoples settled and now are somehow cultural descendents of Plato and Sophocles. The problem is that Macedonia fell into 3 or 4 working periphery nationalist agendas. Each agenda and each nationalist myth can be broken down. Now it seems acceptable to some that this was simple "nation building". Unfortunately for the Macedonian who is not allowed to call himself such in public for fear of persecution by Greek authorities this "nation building" effect has affected human rights. So now where are we? Where do we stand? How can we bow to peoples nationalist myths in order to appease them when they have done nothing but harm to the people and to the Republic of Macedonia? It's simple for someone sitting in Greece (are you in Greece or in some other country?) to just say "Republic of Northern Macedonia". But what if the shoe was on the other foot? What if there was pressure for you to change your country's name, identity, and language? What then? What if some world body forced you to call your country "The Former Ottoman Empire Colony of Greece" or simply The FOECOG and then to have my people call your people FOECOG's? I see where you are coming from. But the solution you seek is not a solution we want. All sides have nationalist myths. Our side included. But it seems that your nationalist myth is laden with hate and racism and denies we even exist as a people.

There is so much more involved. Too much. Volumes of books would be needed and teams of anthropologists ready to question everything are needed.

Can you name us some of your country's nationalist myths?

I tried to address each point you made and im going to do it again.



I dont expect them to have the same understanding...especially when the xenophobic blinders are on.



Why use the Crna Gorci as an example when there is a very real one you could've used?



2200 years ago it was called Paeonia.....if i called myself that...id be accused of "antiquisation"..is that the word?:)
Many Macedonians come from the part of Macedonia that is in Greece...not from the Republic...what should they call themselves?



Who do you mean when you write "everybody"...like everyone who believes they are part of an ethnic group?Or Greeks and Macedonians?Or just Macedonians?

No, there isnt a 100% right for anyone in this issue.
But now, most of the blame lies with Grujo and Co.
When he wises up...this will all be over.

Yea and Greece is the innocent victim of the big bad Slavs to the North....

Why didn't Greece object to the inclusion of the name Macedonia in 1945 when we became a republic in Yugoslavia? If Macedonia is historically Greek, why did Greece agree to split it between Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania? Why has there been a separate Macedonian people identified throughout history? Why is the term Greek all inclusive concerning the many different Greek tribes, but when relating to Macedonia it is always referred to in an individual and distinctly separate way?

Since when does Greece become exempt from internationally codified human rights laws?

For me, you Greeks can call yourselves what ever you want, but you have no right to tell me what I am.

I dont know Buktop...you tell me. Maybe cause of the simple fact you ppl werent acting like "morons "back then. Maybe there was never a reason given to cause tensions w/ Yugoslavia. Greece has always try to maintain good relations with yugoslavians. All of them. There army wasnt too shabby either. One of the biggest in europe if im not mistaken. There could be many reasons, but at the same time no cause was given.

As far as your remarks about Greek tribes, Historical facts show the truth.
Visit sites in Greece to get an opinion.

Great point. AmyQ, my grandmother was born and raised in Greece but she is not Greek. What is she? North Macedonian?

If you were born and raised in Greece and happy to call yourself a Greek then of what concern is something foreign i.e. Macedonia to you? I dont understand your fight..

Hello Golden, If she feels macedonian than she is. No problem with the name of the country.
South Koreans are called koreans. No change in their ethnicity. So i think its a little exagerated to say you will cease to exist. Macedonia is not a foreign element for us. Thats part of the problem.

So I guess the AmyQ character you queens came up with is dead now? Did this character and topic fail your expectations?

Sorry people, but i have been warned to quote the complete dialogue so I have highlited the quote i wish to comment on in red.

I sincerely hope that this is true, we would not want ur goverment claiming Greek identity at all. But I will point out that (& this is not me saying this) ur government has in the past said that, & I quote a once leader of ur government saying "We are not related to the ancient Macedonians. We are Slavs that came to this area in the 6th century AD"
Now I may have miss quoted here so if anyone wishes to correct me then please do so. Also, this may just be Greek propaganda & Gligorov never said this at all. Either way, please let me know if these words, or the like were in fact uttered by ur former prsident/leader.

TM, before u jump the gun here, i know that this was plastered on YT & like I said could just be propaganda & have no truth in it at all. This is why I have come to join forums & not waist my time with all sorts of BS (from both sides) on YT. You seem like a very intelligent person regarding the Ancient Macedonians so could u point me in the right direction in regards to the origins of the Ancient Macedonians & how their continuity has survived all these centuries. Please name some books &/or historians I can read & take view of.

Let's get something straight here; you have nothing to do with any ancient peoples let alone th ancient Macedonians.

1) Your government has politicized history in order to expand its borders (Megali Idea).
2) Hellenism is a political tool invented by a German.
3) Fugees and Pontis that were dumped in Aegean Macedonia are not anything Macedonian and are recent new arrivals.
4) 20th century forcible hellenization of Macedonia does not make Macedonia "Greek for 4000 years".
5) No continuation exists in modern "greece" from ancient times to modern.

1) Is that supposed to be deep? By 1860 Greeks were scattered in the area of today's Greece and the coasts of Minor Asia, Pontos and elsewhere in today's Turkey. As Ottoman Empire was trempling, you don't need any idea to see what's coming next.
2) You refer to the idea of Middle Ages Hellenism? Because Hellenism (=Greekness) was basically an... idea by ancient Greeks.
3) Correct. Yet, don't forget the Greek Macedonians (e.g my grandmother who according to you could not exist)
4) Macedonia was not exactly Greek for 4000 years. It wasn't even a particular area.
5) I can't think of anything uncontinual. Religion changed once. Administration changed... 110 times (there are basically 6 broad periods, including shorter intermissions). Language never changed. And thankfully it's all recorded in Greek literature. There's not a century without dozens of survived Greek texts documenting our History.

1) Really? Was that why the people being dumped into Macedonia spoke Turkish and were called Baptized Turks by my people? And the abuse the pontis received upon being dumped in Macedonia is nothing new to hear either.
2) This 'Hellenism' you guys speak of is it found in any ancient scripture during the time of Alexander III?
3) What "Greek" Macedonians do you refer to? The Hellenized people? The ones that went over to the patriarchate in willingly or forcibly in the 19th and 20th centuries? Surely you don't mean any ethnic "greek" Macedonians?
4) Glad you admit something many of your fellow drones cannot. Did someone re-do your wiring? However Macedonia as a place has existed for millenias.
5) Languages can be learned. Which is exactly what happened. And no language sustains purity. And let's go one step further with the fact that romaika was an international language used by many types of people and associating it with one particular group is nothing more than a philhellene creation in the 18th and 19th century.

I was hoping u wouldn't jump the gun TM but u did. I'm not here to convert anyone at all.

1) U warned me about quoting the whole dialogue & I did (& still do) yet this rule doesn't apply to u. Please try to understand my position on this as it is quite frustrating when there are 2 sets of rules.
2) I'll take it that these words were actually spoken by ur ex-leader, seeing as u or no one else stated that it is all a lie & Greek propaganda.
3) What u say here has nothing to do with what I asked u for, unless u miss understood. Maybe the way I shud hav posed the question is "... the origins of the Ancient Macedonians & how "UR" continuity has survived all these centuries. This is what I want to read about (anywhere), ur line of continuity from the ancient Macedonian not the Greeks "theories or propaganda" as u might put it.
4) all of the 5 above of what u say (except 3) are "here say", unless u can catagorically prove it with credible sources.
5) As for No. 5, there is overwhelming & credible proof by very credible anthropoligists (Brailsford, Ripley, coon & Lundman...to mention a few) that there is continuation of todays Greeks from Ancient times. They all have something to say about ur people too. (u shud read their books if u already haven't)

It's quite amusing how we can always come up with credible proof (historians) & not here say.
Please point me to ur credible sources that varifies ur 5 points above (with the exception of No.3)