Your Opinion On The Macedonian Issue

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by charlesmartel

Well I was very surprised to see the Macedonian letter "ѕ" which is pronounced "dz".

Hahaha, nothing is too sophisticated for the macedonian linguistic, you'll get more and more surprised. Get used to!

The other letters that are not used in Bulgarian are borrowed from Serbian. Are you able to answer my question on the pronunciation of ѓ (g with a line on the top)?

They ponounce it as soft g ~ gj . In that case the word is pronounced as[: lugje ]

This occurs in the Macedonian word for people, ie луѓе. But the text of the book shows that this letter is either a palatalised g or a palatised d. In other words, you either pronounce it as the Russians would pronounce a word written "луге" or like "луде"; in the second case it would sound like the Russian word "люди".

Exactly. In bulgarian it is pronounced as ljude, hence in macedonian it has to be different - lugje. Politics requires such articulatory perversions.

[Awar]

And in Serbian it's "Ljudi" ...so...?

Why is the main hobby of Balkanoids to dispute someone else's right to exist?
If you have the power to take someone else's land, then do it, otherwise, shuddup

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Awar

Why is the main hobby of Balkanoids to dispute someone else's right to exist?

I don't mind the biological existance of the macedonian or any other nation at all. Plain and simple macedonian pseudo-identity exists only in logical contradiction with that of the other balkan nations, particularly Bulgaria.

If you have the power to take someone else's land, then do it, otherwise, shuddup

We do have the military power to take macedonia, we simply don't have the will. We have enough "macedonians" here in the Republic. This is not about material advantages but about our culture.

[Vojvoda]

Sure, what would Bulgaria gain by taking over Macedonia except for some tobacco fields and goats? Would you really want Albania as your neighbor?

[Agrippa]

If its about ethnic borders, Macedonia should belong to Bulgaria, plain and simple...

Like Moldova should be Romanian, Austria German etc...

[Awar]

We're talking about some ancient issues which nobody living has a honestly clear idea about ( and it's not clear if these really are ancient issues ).

When it comes to Germany and Austria, it's more clear-cut,
but, when it's some other areas, especially Balkans, it's ridiculous to discuss these irrational statements.

I think countries like Bulgaria or Serbia, or whatever should focus on building roads,
removing corruption from their institutions, investing in healthcare, in science, technology, not dreams about conquering "some tobacco fields and goats".

It's not an issue of ethnicity anymore, but of rational thought and survival.

Of what use is beating such a dead horse? The only interest in such rivalries
could be found by Turks, or some other larger nation/empire/faction.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Awar

We're talking about some ancient issues which nobody living has a honestly clear idea about ( and it's not clear if these really are ancient issues ).

When it comes to Germany and Austria, it's more clear-cut,
but, when it's some other areas, especially Balkans, it's ridiculous to discuss these irrational statements.

I think countries like Bulgaria or Serbia, or whatever should focus on building roads,
removing corruption from their institutions, investing in healthcare, in science, technology, not dreams about conquering "some tobacco fields and goats".

It's not an issue of ethnicity anymore, but of rational thought and survival.

Of what use is beating such a dead horse? The only interest in such rivalries
could be found by Turks, or some other larger nation/empire/faction.

Thats certainly correct. I wouldnt say such things should have any priority for anybody on the Balkans, that was not what I wanted to say.
But from an objective point of view, ethno-linguistically speaking, its clear what the Slavic Macedonians are: A Bulgarian tribe.
Now its possible to complicate matters with details, but from if looking at the big picture things are clear and if Macedonia would have come to Bulgaria for a longer time they would have been fully integrated and except the Albanian minority almost indistinguishable probably.

What you do with this knowledge and how you make real policy now? Thats another question...
But to found artificial identities out of nothing in Austria, in Macedonia, in Moldova etc. is just joke, is just unnatural to me and of course it doesnt make any sense for the people there nor Europe as a whole to further split identities until you have just small regions left which then, on the other hand, should be open to global markets and migrations.
Of course serious disputes or even wars about such things, are the last things the Balkan needs at the moment or at any time probably, agreed.

[Zrinski]

I think claiming that Macedonians are Bulgarian tribe is going a bit too far in speculations. Bulgarians were nomadic people who came from the North and absorbed into Slavic populations that lived in Balkans giving them their name. Of course the complicated ethnological process involved high degree of Vlachs and other Thraco-Dacion remenants.

So all this brings us to the conclusion that Macedonians can't be Bulgarian tribe....especially since they don't see themselves as Bulgarians and that is what is important. Also Greece is not the only one who has the right to claim the rich heritage left by Macedonians. These people were not Greeks, were not seen as Greeks by the Greeks, didn't consider themselves Greeks, etc...

I think best would be to abandon chauvinistic viewpoints and to look at this issue more systematically and in more rational manner. After all such chauvinistic disputes never brought anything good and they never will. All Europeans need to learn to work toghether in order to ensure their own survivial.

Also I think Awar said it all anyway...

[charlesmartel]

Originally Posted by Bograchev Mahil

I don't mind the biological existance of the macedonian or any other nation at all. Plain and simple macedonian pseudo-identity exists only in logical contradiction with that of the other balkan nations, particularly Bulgaria.

Well the "logical contradiction" exists with respect to many nations, as for historical reasons not all nations have their logical borders. Austria and Germany? Serbia and Croatia? (maybe controversial that one!!) Romania and Moldavia? What about Australia and New Zealand? How different are Argentina and Uruguay? I have given examples from the white world, but numerous examples from the wider world could be adduced. Britain and Ireland!!!

[charlesmartel]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

I think claiming that Macedonians are Bulgarian tribe is going a bit too far in speculations. Bulgarians were nomadic people who came from the North and absorbed into Slavic populations that lived in Balkans giving them their name. Of course the complicated ethnological process involved high degree of Vlachs and other Thraco-Dacion remenants.

So all this brings us to the conclusion that Macedonians can't be Bulgarian tribe....especially since they don't see themselves as Bulgarians and that is what is important. Also Greece is not the only one who has the right to claim the rich heritage left by Macedonians. These people were not Greeks, were not seen as Greeks by the Greeks, didn't consider themselves Greeks, etc...

I think best would be to abandon chauvinistic viewpoints and to look at this issue more systematically and in more rational manner. After all such chauvinistic disputes never brought anything good and they never will. All Europeans need to learn to work toghether in order to ensure their own survivial.

Also I think Awar said it all anyway...

Nations don't have to follow linguistic boundaries, because they are as much cultural as linguistic. So take Scotland for instance. The Lowlands have historically been English-speaking, but Scotland is accepted by English people as being a "country". The United Kingdom is held to consist of 3 or 4 countries, depending on whether you count Wales as a country (it was part of the Kingdom of England before the Union). Macedonians are white, and white nationalists should have no axe to grind against any white country that wants to maintain its independence. The only thing wrong with Macedonia is the % of Muslims associated with the Turkish and Albanian minorities, but Macedonia is a powerless small country in a region with a US military presence eg in Kosovo. Macedonia is not in a position to start a civil war between Slavs and Albanians and is trying to muddle through somehow. It has my sympathies anyway.

[Awar]

[Agrippa]

So all this brings us to the conclusion that Macedonians can't be Bulgarian tribe....especially since they don't see themselves as Bulgarians and that is what is important.

I personally determine such thinks by looking at both entities and looking at the differences inside and between them.
If doing so its clear that in Bulgaria itself groups exist which are further away than Macedonians and the same is true for the Macedonian population.

Furthermore such identities can change and changed quite often, especially such people form a rather traditional society know the small group organisation (i.e. clan etc.) first and being dominated by them, so its rather a political question to form artificial identities.

If you look at the ethnic-linguistic background, you can just consider the Slavic Macedonians being nearest to Bulgarians, no matter how they define themselves at the moment.
There are stupid identities around born out of various political structures around the globe, as one correctly stated.
In Moldova they try to change the vocabulary and to invent new words either...dialect if just small differences are there, doesnt mean that the ethnic great group or folk isnt still there.

As I said, it wouldnt change to much if Macedonia would come to Bulgaria now. Similar with Austria, at the moment I wouldnt really care about the German-Austrian issue since there are political problems bigger than that and the BRD is so degenerated that it wouldnt be a pleasure anyway.
So there are two things: The nationalistic ideal of an ethnic state and the political and social reality.
Usually I can just agree that it makes more often sense to look at things from the second perspective first...with the exception of extreme cultural-racial differences, but I wouldnt see that on the Balkans with some exceptions...

[General Parmenion]

The Macedonians where Greeks of Dorian origin :

Herodotus:

"For in the days of king Deucalion it (i.e. a Macedonian tribe) inhabited the land of Phthiotis, then in the time of Dorus, son of Hellen, the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeians from this Histiaean country it settled about Pindus in the parts called Macedonian; thence again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into Peloponnesus, where it took the name of Dorian."

(Herod. I, 56, 3 [Loeb, A.D. Godley])


Arrian:

"He sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, save the Lacedaimonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia."

(Arr. I, 16, 7 [Loeb, P. A. Brunt])


"Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury; ... (and) I have been appointed leader of the Greeks ..."

(Arr., Anab. Alex. II, 14, 4)

Here is also what the Persians believed the Macedonians where....

The Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (καυσία) (Polybius IV 4,5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat”. The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguished the Macedonians, because the Macedonian speech was also Greek (Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37 [1988] 7).

Greeks....

[Endovelicus]

In my opinion, Macedonia is as much Greek as Sparta. The catastrophe of 1453 (The Fall of Constatinople) is something that we, as Europeans, should be ashamed of. Were it not for it, this question would not exist.

I take on the occasion to add some facts and lores about the sad event. The Sultan Mehmed II triumphed only for two reasons:
1. The Europeans built him a super-cannon.
2. The Byzantine (Greeks) generals were involved in discussing the sex of the angels.

This latter gave origin to the know expression 'to discuss the sex of the angels', well known today, and that means "to discuss about useless and futile things, while the importance of the world flows past you"

[General Parmenion]

I agree with you.
Even though our last Emperor ( Constantinos Paleologos ) died as a Hero during the siege of Constantinople by the mongol turkish [Ad Gentum removed]

Please refrain from making future remarks as the one above, if it occurs again the warning system will be used. The post violated this rule.

Ad gentums, racial slurs, and aspersions against any identifiable group, even if only in retaliation, are not permitted.

Thank you
Prussian

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Endovelicus

In my opinion, Macedonia is as much Greek as Sparta. The catastrophe of 1453 (The Fall of Constatinople) is something that we, as Europeans, should be ashamed of. Were it not for it, this question would not exist.

I take on the occasion to add some facts and lores about the sad event. The Sultan Mehmed II triumphed only for two reasons:
1. The Europeans built him a super-cannon.
2. The Byzantine (Greeks) generals were involved in discussing the sex of the angels.

This latter gave origin to the know expression 'to discuss the sex of the angels', well known today, and that means "to discuss about useless and futile things, while the importance of the world flows past you"

Where do you have the "angel story" from?

Urban of Hungary, who seems to have learned his trade in France. Urban designed and cast 70 great cannon. The largest piece, named "Basilica", was of cast iron reinforced with hoops, weighing in excess of 19 tons and firing a ball of some 800 pounds. The gun was something of a white elephant; it required 42 days for a team of 60 oxen to drag the thing 120 miles, despite the fact that the barrel was made in two pieces which screwed together, thereby making it theoretically easier to move. Morover, it took hours to load and its maximum rate of fire was no more than three shots a day.

http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Cannon_a.htm


After this and other sources it was a forgotten gate which made the victory easy finally...
http://www.zeit.de/2003/23/A-T_9frken
A good source in German.

[Endovelicus]

[quote=Agrippa]Where do you have the "angel story" from?[quote]

Actually I got it from my father many, many years ago.

Upon your request I found this http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/gro...ges/59177.html
http://www.paris.iufm.fr/article.php3?id_article=674

Nevertheless, if you are interested in the subject and wish some light but fairly reliable reading, I can recommend Finnish author Mika Waltari, The Dark Angel.

There's also the voluminous History of the Crusades, Steven Runciman, that I would vividly suggest. He is a specialist in Byzantine History, so I think our Macedonian friends could profit quite much from his other writings.

[General Parmenion]

"How highly should we honor the Macedonians, who for the greater part of their lives never cease from fighting with the barbarians for the sake of the security of Greece? For who is not aware that Greece would have constantly stood in the greater danger, had we not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honorable ambition of their kings?"

(Pol. Hist., IX, 35, 2 [Loeb])


Strabo:

"And Macedonia, of cou