ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 31, 2010 13:46:43 GMT -5
Actually, the sources state that a while bak Torlaks were known to have spoken a language which they referred to as 'simple Bulgarian'.
Get your facts straight.
Mig, yes Macedonians are their own people with their own image today, this is something that we haven't argued against. However, it was mainly external influences and recent politcs that have shaped the separate Macedonian identity over the past 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Mar 31, 2010 14:57:16 GMT -5
Lol, this Pazar must be the most stupid person in the Southern hemisphere. I guess his colleagues throw cups of coffee at him every break or at least stick some offensive notes on his back. Languages do not develop by coincidence, you jerk. Who on earth told you this stupidity? Your cangaroo mistress?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 31, 2010 17:54:26 GMT -5
^ no, no, its one who doesn't consider the WHOLE freaken story that is where you Bulgari fail embarresingly. Try to look outside from the period of Venelin to 1912.
PS, how does one take you SERIOUSLY when you preach that the Turkic Bulgars are the most PURE Indo-European, more so than the slavs they subjugated.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 31, 2010 20:24:11 GMT -5
Sources from way before 1912 and sources from way after 1912 all concur one and the same thing.. Macedonians identified as Bulgarians.
How many times are we going to tell you that the Turkic theory is just one of many, as is the Irannic theory. There’s a grand total of 5-6 theories or so of the origin of the Ancient Bulgars. The Turkic theory was popular during communism, while the Irannic theory is popular today. Regardless, the origin of the Bulgars is irrelevant when it comes to discussing the fact that the vast majority of Macedonians identified as Bulgarians until recently.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 1, 2010 8:15:56 GMT -5
"Sources from way before 1912 and sources from way after 1912 all concur one and the same thing.. Macedonians identified as Bulgarians."
and try before the fantasies of Venelin, could you do it?
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Apr 8, 2010 23:30:49 GMT -5
^ Pyrro, i've given MiG a historical reasoning above, l know he won't agree. What kind of historical reasoning is that though? It's because you heard it/read it from a guy, who knew a guy, that read a book from a guy that knows it for a fact because someone he knows said so? I'll tell you what. When you take a history book from every single nation in the Balkans, and compare them, you will have the most correct answer.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 11, 2010 9:50:05 GMT -5
^^^ as i said numerous times, books are made by humans, not rarely INFERIOR to you and me. example, Max Vasner was almost doomed as an anti-greek bastard, because in 1941 he wrote a book about slavic toponyms in Greece. (about 419 of them in my home land Epirus). Surprise, i already found 3-4 MAJOR STILL VALID official which are not included in his publication.
I am sure, any stupid greek like Kasorianos, will rush to condemn Vasmer's work as anti-greek and biased, while the plain reality is much worse than that.
Do you think that i stand 1/10000000000000 chances if i publicize this comment of mine on Max Vasmer's work?
Also, you say about comparing a lot of books???
surprise!!! in this case, i am talking about, Vasmer's is the ONLY book!!!!
Conclusion, History is written by biased idiots, and i feel i better do my own research about anything instead of reading their rubbish.
Or to put it in an other way.
Theorem:
NOT-reading history books, one has bigger chances of getting closer to the actual historical events than reading any random of them.
Proof: This is left as an exercise to the reader.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 11, 2010 20:03:18 GMT -5
^ Pyrro, what is funny is l have 99.99% of the times avoided serbian sources because l will most certainly be overlooked. MiG says that l now need to look at every nations sources from the balkans and make a conclusion?, but what l've done is mainly kept away from sources from the Balkans and used WESTERN sources (German, Austrian, Swiss etc....). Ruse about a month ago posted a Bulgarian source to claim that the Bulgars are an indo-european tribe, no comment from anybody.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 12, 2010 2:29:46 GMT -5
fuck them all Novi, they have a different axiomatic system of logic tools than you and me... Stop wasting your time. (besides, when and if a big power will want to crush them, they will do it much more easily and fast than you or i) (on the other hand, if the big power wants to endorse them, then i am sure they will fabricate smth better by themselves)
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2010 7:09:58 GMT -5
^ I really do feel like l'am wasting my time (sometimes).
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Apr 12, 2010 8:57:28 GMT -5
^ I really do feel like l'am wasting my time (sometimes). Arguing on the Internet is pointless Novi. You will never change their minds and they will never change yours. That's why I don't bother anymore (or at least try not to). I know that nobody here considers me a Macedonian so I don't care. Just move on and concentrate on the positive aspects of being from the Balkans.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Apr 12, 2010 10:58:12 GMT -5
Nikola, I consider you a Macedonian and I'm sure that all the Bulgarians on here consider you as such.
However, according to the independent sources, your predecessors only considered themselves Macedonians on a regional geographic basis only. You shouldn’t take this as an insult; ethnic identities are formed in different ways. The modern Macedonian ethnic identity is relatively new and the origin of this ethnic identity is easily traceable.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Apr 12, 2010 17:28:33 GMT -5
Technically, all ethnic identities in the Balkans are relatively new Asen. Nobody was part of an independent country for centuries. Even Greece has only been in existence for less than 200 years.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Apr 12, 2010 18:38:45 GMT -5
^ That's bullshit Nikola. Serbs are actually one of the oldest peoples in all of Europe. Also, living in an independent country hasn't necessarily got that much to do with ethnicity. Serbs & Bulgarians even had their own empire before becoming a part of other ones and they were still Serbs despite being a part of other empires. In any case Serbs were identified as a people/ethnicity long before they were even part of any Serbian state at the beginning of the Medieval Period. Macedonian slavs: now that is an ethnicity that appeared only last century.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Apr 12, 2010 21:46:14 GMT -5
Nikola, I’m not going to discuss Greece as they are way too involved in their dream politics of some supposedly direct 98% pure ethnic link to the Ancient Greeks. Hell, I’m not even going to get into who identified as what and when or how early. The Macedonian identity was a regional identity, which gradually shifted toward becoming an ethnic identity over the past 50-60 years or so. Even when Macedonia gained its independence from Yugoslavia, initially, the term ‘Macedonian’ was to be used to identify any one citizen of the Republic of Macedonia, be they of Bulgarian, Albanian, Serb, Turkish, Greek, Gypsy, Vlach, Armenian etc. ethnic origin. Though, somehow that initial outlook quickly reverted back to pursuing an ethnic Macedonian identity as it was preached in Yugoslavia. True that We even had two.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2010 22:48:27 GMT -5
"Arguing on the Internet is pointless Novi. You will never change their minds and they will never change yours."
Nikola, your right, arguing here is pointless, but what keeps me going is to show some people here another side to the story because Bulgarian propaganda has really flooded the internet, hence why people when they first come here they are really sceptical about my version but arn't with the Bulgarian version. The best way is to have a face to face debate where l would pull out sources and show it to their dumb thick heads....and the result would be much different.
"That's why I don't bother anymore (or at least try not to). I know that nobody here considers me a Macedonian so I don't care. Just move on and concentrate on the positive aspects of being from the Balkans."
Nikola, look, as l have said to you last time, having the name Macedonia implies encrochment beyond the current borders of Fyrom. Lets say if there isn't any ambition towards expansion today, what will keep the status quo tomorrow, l'm sorry dude but l cannot see it when l've seen maps that include Pirin and Northern Greece. Believe me, if you guys do decide to change your name, the Greek people will see you guys in the same light as your Northern neighbour, and to have the Greeks on your side also would be something to be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2010 22:49:50 GMT -5
"We even had two." Yes and half of those people were Serbs
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2010 22:52:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2010 22:54:33 GMT -5
"Technically, all ethnic identities in the Balkans are relatively new Asen. Nobody was part of an independent country for centuries. Even Greece has only been in existence for less than 200 years."
Nikola, thats after the independance from the Ottomans, Serbs got theirs even after the Greeks. You need to look before the Ottomans.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Apr 12, 2010 23:00:13 GMT -5
What sources? Dude, I never got even ONE link from you that I could click on in this thread.
Either way, this thread lost its essence too long ago.
|
|