|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 30, 2011 8:34:03 GMT -5
I will tell you a little story about my friends grandfather, who left Aegean Macedonia as a refugee. He returned not long ago to his ancestral home only to find these 'Greek Macedonians' from Pontus living in his family home. When he told them who he was, they qucikly slammed the door and threatened to call the police. The man left not wanting to make any trouble. The issue is that this is still his family home. It was never sold to any one, and these were squatters from a foreign land living in his ancestral home. Now you tell me who the Macedonian is here?? Thank you for that … it is indeed a nice story. One that I don’t particularly care to explore as it hardly addresses the issue at hand. I do not doubt that on very many occasions reparations are due to the Slavic inhabitants of the area and personally I would have no qualms were Greece to recognise a minority in the region. However, for it to be considered a ‘Macedonian’ minority would be an absolute nonsense in Greek Macedonia … because others – not the Slavs – are the Macedonians. You must understand that in Greece ‘Macedonian’ means something else and can never mean your people. Sure you might make disparaging comments about the refugees but tell me, what is it that a Slav ‘Macedonian’ could say to a native Greek-speaking Macedonian inhabiting those very same lands as the ancient Macedonians??? ‘Kako si,’ we are the Makedonski, descendants of Alexander … please recognise me! At best, such an undiplomatic idiot would get a ‘”go f.uck yourself you stupid Bulgar” look from these Makedones … At best.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 30, 2011 8:24:17 GMT -5
African influences; On this Athenean funeral vase (c. 750 BC) the dead and Those who weep for him in this Geometric Style pottery have Negroid features Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001a) [1], figure 1. Dendogram constructed on the basis of genetic distances based on HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies. clyde.winters.tripod.com/chapter6.htmlLook at the s.hit with which you idiots console yourselves. LOL
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 30, 2011 8:22:25 GMT -5
Macedonia and Greece, John Shea, 1997 pp.77-96 THE GREAT ETHNIC MIX OF GREECE Just as Macedonia and other Balkan states were invaded by Slavs and other peoples from the north and from within the Balkans themselves, so were the lands that eventually were to become modern Greece. We need to examine this issue, since the modern Greeks repeatedly argue that they are direct ethnic descendants of the ancient Greeks and Macedonians. The fact is that the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural developments that these invasions created simply built upon similar movements of peoples into and out of the Balkans in the ancient past. THE MYTH OF GREEK ETHNIC PURITY Greek writers give a great deal of emphasis to the idea of Greek racial purity. For instance, in speaking of the movements of Germanic tribes in the Balkans before the Slavs, the writer of Macedonia History and Politics says that the Goths were beaten off and the invasions in the fourth century did not lead to "ethnological adulteration." In speaking about more modern times the writer says (p. 43), "Greece became involved in the 'Macedonian disputes,' because of political pressure from the Bulgarians and Yugoslavs, and because of the sensitivity of the Greeks towards the historical continuity of their race." Clearly this view about racial purity amongst the Greeks, presented here in a magazine distributed by the Greek government in English-speaking countries, is important to the Greeks. (gap) The Aryan model. The Aryan model, an alternative theory about the development of the ancient Greeks, first appeared in the first half of the nineteenth century. It denied any influence of Egyptian settlements and expressed doubt about a role for the Phoenicians. An extreme version of this model was propounded during the height of anti-Semitism in Europe in the 1890s, and then in the 1920s and 1930s; this particular explanation denied even the Phoenician cultural influence." According to the Aryan model, there had been an invasion from the north, an invasion not described by ancient writers, which had overcome the existing pre-Hellenic culture. Greek civilization was seen as the result of the mixture of the Indo-European speaking Hellenes and the older peoples over whom they ruled. (gap) Linguistic evidence and the ancient model. Bernal provides evidence in support of his view that Egyptian and Phoenician elements were powerful in the development of ancient Greek culture. He notes that it is generally agreed that the Greek language was formed during the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries B.C. Its Indo-European structure and basic lexicon are combined with a non-Indo-European vocabulary of sophistication. He argues that since the earlier population spoke a related Indo-European language, it left little trace in Greek; thus the presence of that population does not explain the many non-Indo-European elements in the later language. Bernal suggests that it has not been possible for scholars working in the Aryan model over the last 160 years to explain 50 percent of the Greek vocabulary and 80 per cent of proper names in terms of either Indo-European or the Anatolian languages supposedly related to "pre-Hellenic." Since they cannot explain them, they simply call them pre-Hellenic. (gap) INFLUENCES IN THE GREEK ETHNIC MIX Slavery in the ancient world. While it is difficult to gauge the intermixture that took place between the older established inhabitants and the infiltrating Greeks wherever they may have come from, the tradition of slavery in the ancient Mediterranean may have had an even greater impact on the physical nature of the people. It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in Attica was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000." In Sparta there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of Athens were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of Sparta all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented "special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline." (gap) Celtic Influence. In 282-280 B.C., a Celtic army of about 170,000 led by Brennos and Achicorius entered Macedonia and, with Bolgios, overwhelmed the country. The Celtic army swept into Greece, defeating the Greeks at Thermopylae, and went on to sack the temple of Delphi, the most sacred site of the Hellenic world, before withdrawing. The Celtic army eventually withdrew in an orderly manner, taking their loot with them. No Greek army was strong enough to attack them. The Celtic invasions had a lasting effect on Greek consciousness, being commemorated in Greek literature. (gap) Greeks as Slavs. In recent historical time other Europeans have held the view that the people of modern Greece have little ethnic connection with the ancient Greeks. Robert Browning, 32 a writer who is sympathetic to the Greeks, discusses the writings of the Bavarian Johann Philipp Fallmerayer, who in 1830 proposed that the Slav invasions and settlements of the late sixth and seventh centuries resulted in the "expulsion or extirpation of the original population of peninsula Greece. Consequently the medieval and modern Greeks ... are not the descendants of the Greeks of antiquity, and their Hellenism is artificial." Fallmerayer's view that not a drop of pure Greek blood is to be found in the modern Greek is often held to be extreme. A more moderate version of essentially the same idea was presented more recently by R.H. Jenkins. Browning concedes that the Slavic impact was considerable in the Balkan peninsula, and that there was great intermixture of races in Balkan Greek lands. He says Fallnierayer wits right in drawing attention to the extensive Slav invasion and settlement in continental Greece. Despite the great attention given by the Greek government to renaming towns, villages, rivers and other geographic locations, there remain large numbers of place names of Slavonic origin. Even so, Browning suggests, the majority of the Greek-speaking people lived in Constantinople and Asia Minor, and in these more distant locations were not so strongly affected by the Slavs. He says also that the original population was not extirpated or expelled, since many remained in coastal regions, cities, and inaccessible areas. Nicholas Cheetham is uncompromising in the language he uses to describe the Slav influence. He says that between the fifth and seventh centuries "a sharp and brutal revolution altered the whole character of Hellas... It also involved a steep decline of civilized life and an almost total rejection of former values... The most striking change affected the ethnic composition of the people and resulted from the mass migration of Slavs into the Balkans which began in the sixth Century.” (gap) Greeks as Albanians. Slavs were not the only groups to move into the southern part of the Balkan peninsula. Many Albanians came in also. Albanians settled in Athens, Corinth, Mani, Thessaly and even in the Aegean islands. In the early nineteenth century, the population of Athens was 24 percent Albanian, 32 percent Turkish, and only 44 percent Greek. The village of Marathon, scene of the great victory in 490 B.C., was, early in the nineteenth century, almost entirely Albanian." Nicholas Hammond a historian who is sympathetic to the Greek view that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe and who has had several works published in Athens, is unable to support the Greek view on this matter. He says that by the middle of the fourteenth and early fifteenth century the majority of people in the Peloponnese were Albanian speakers. The fascinating point is that the people with whom they were competing for land were overwhelmingly not the original Greek-speaking Roman citizens, but the new breed of Greek-speaking Slavs. As Hammond says, many Greek-speaking people at that point in time were probably ethnic Slavs. (gap) Greeks as Vlachs. Also quite numerous during the eighteenth century in Greek lands and in territories that were to become Greek were the Vlachs. Hammond says that the Vlachs came in with the Albanians and provided leadership. He suggests that the Vlach peoples probably originated in Dacia, an area that is now part of Romania. Hammond says that the Vlachs managed to acquire possession of the great Pindus area. In general, they stayed in northern Greece and were never assimilated in terms of language the way that other ethnic groups were, though some groups ended the nomadic life and settled in Macedonia and in Thessaly. (gap) Greeks as Turks. A recent issue that has engaged the vigorous attention of Greek politicians is the position and status of Cyprus. It is an area of conflict with Turkey, and one in which Greece has attempted to influence world opinion in its direction by fostering the theory of Greek ethnic purity. In 1964 German archaeologist Franz Maier argued that the Turkish Cypriots were a "people" and not a minority, and that Greek Cypriots and Greeks were not really racially Greek but a mixture. Similarly the Cypriot sociologist Andreas Panayiotou has been quoted as saying that Cypriots were not Greek, but were a synthesis of Greek, Turkish and other elements. He advocated that the Cypriot dialect should become the island's official language. Some external observers (perhaps with their own case to make) have come to similar conclusions: "Greece, while denying the presence of ethnic and religious minorities within its borders, tries to convince the world that the Orthodox people living in its neighboring countries are ethnic Greeks. But this is not true. In Cyprus, the Southern Cypriot Orthodox whom Greece presents to the world as Greek Cypriots, are not ethnic Greeks.” Shea is a pathetic mediocrity with self-evident motives; a cretin valiantly attempting to defend his wife’s people by resorting to half-truths and distortion in the process. His account of the Celtic invasion is a case in point as much for the fact that it hardly accords with events as recorded by the relevant sources and by its very inclusion which is apparently thrown in for good measure to further add to the brew he is cooking. I don’t recall reading any such comments from Hammond about the magnitude of Albanian settlement on the Peloponnese. No authority, in fact, other than those with a clear bias have ever contended that the Albanians formed a majority of the population of the Peloponnese. The areas where they settled, and their numbers are pretty well known. I do recall reading Hammond’s view that the Greeks of Epirus, if anything, were more likely to have Slavic rather than Albanian blood – but this statement was made to press his point about how little biological impact the Albanians had on Epirote Greeks rather than to emphasise how great any Slavic impact was. In any event Hammond is a brilliant historian and an unassailable authority on ancient Epirus and Macedonia …but not so on the later day history of the peninsula. And what does all this say about the fate of the indigenous pre-Slavic population in FYROM-land? If the Slavic invasions was of such magnitude that it managed to sweep away all Greeks what does it say about the fate of the indigenous inhabitants of your land (who were hardly Macedonians to start off with anyway)? What does it say that Greek-speakers somehow managed to survive, then thrive and dominate (complete with dialects containing elements clearly derivative from older dialects); while so much of the Balkans including your homeland become entirely Slavic. Given this, how is it possible then that the brick-headed Slavs of Macedonia managed to inherit ‘antique Macedonian’ blood not to mention the obvious – that they are not even in the territory of the ancient Macedonians? How is it that you feel you can use the Sunburst on your avatar when it has absolutely no connection to your people whatsoever? And for the record Romily Jenkins’s take on the Fallmerayer these was hardly ‘a more moderate’ version of it. No-one really denies the fact of all these people’s contribution to the modern Greek gene pool, and discussion about its extent is fair enough – generally played down by Greeks and exaggerated by their detractors. However, it is the height of delusion on the part of the Slavomakedonskis to persist with their laughable fancy that the modern Greeks don’t really exist as a genuine people – being made up entirely of other groups a la Frankesntein’s monster - while they (Bulgarians to the rest of the world only a few decades ago) are the progeny of Alexander’s Macedonians. Ultimately though it’s so very funny how all of these groups just somehow became hellenised … apparently via osmosis!
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 27, 2011 9:03:09 GMT -5
Obviously everything depends on what is meant by 'oldest country'. In terms of modern political entities in the Balkans, Greece is clearly the 'oldest country' in the Balkans given its birth as a sovereign state in the early 19th century. In terms of a recognisable people, again Greeks are the oldest in the region with a continued recorded existence harking back to Mycenae and beyond. However, prior to the independence of Greece less than a couple of centuries ago there was never a unitary Greek state per se despite very numerous sovereign entities through the ages that were 'Greek'. As far as current states in the Balkans who are clearly derivatives of earlier political entities proceeding the modern nation state, Bulgaria can easily lay claim to this (culturally, geographically, linguistically, biologically ... but of-course not politically). Ancient Macedonia was certainly a 'state' and therefore a 'country' although the same could be said of practically all of its contemporaries ... and it was certainly not the earliest in this regard. A lot of you here seem to have decided it is 'the oldest country' because of some connection in your heads between ancient Macedonia and the FYROM which pretends to take its name. The FYROM is neither a derivative - cultural, linguistic, geographical, biological - of the ancient kingdom nor indeed is it even ... Macedonia. In fact it is one of the newest states of the region and its people (former self-identifying Bulgarians) the newest ethnic group of the Balkans. Yes, but we have ancient Macedonian blood flowing in our veins which links us to our ancient Macedonian ancestors I can’t quite interpret your emoticon so I will assume you are joking. So where did you find this ancient Macedonian blood? In any event, if you do have it … that would make it Greek blood you have and would link you to the Greek world. Rejoice! But seriously Chento, if we were to ignore later additions [some of it relatively minor (Celtic raiders, Romans) some of it of a greater contribution (Serbs, Turks, Vlachs, Gypsies) and some of it the fundamental basis of the FYROM’s population today (Bursyatsi, Dragouviti etc; Bulgars)] and concentrate entirely on the ancient substrata in the FYROM we would have the following picture: (Epirote) Greeks (ie Epirotes = Upper Makedones) in the Pelagonian plain (Pelagonians and Derriopes); Epirote Greeks also in the lakeland (probably mixed with Illyrians in the case of lake Ohrid region) Makedones (who were of-course, actually native Greek-speakers but for argument's sake we'll keep them separate here) in the small sliver of land south of the Vardar/Axios extending from the Greek border near Gevgelia to about Negotino/Kavadarci, an area which the Makedones renamed - in their Greek language - to Emathia in deference to the more famous alluvial area in their actual homeland further south. This region was originally Paeonian and Paeonians still comprised a presumably diminishing but probably still significant proportion of the population from the time King Archelaos built his fortress town at Demir Kapu and started introducing colonists. Phrygians (only remnant groups even in antiquity) on the periphery of the Pelagonian plain whether in an enclave northwest of Prilep or in the lakeland region. Illyrians extending from lake Ohrid all the way to Dardanian territory around the Skopje plain and beyond and including the Treska river valley in its entirety. [Contrary to the commonly held view, the Skopje plain itself was actually originally Paeonian territory and over the centuries was fought over between them and the Dardanians]. Paeonians, the most important sub-stratum group, covering the remaining bulk of the FYROM's territory (about 60-65%) - including the Skopje region (mixed with the Dardanians) and the region around Demir Kapu(-ija) mixed with the Macedonian colonists.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 27, 2011 8:42:35 GMT -5
Blonde is meant to be good, right?
Silly thread.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 27, 2011 8:40:49 GMT -5
The Asiatic influence is more than apparent; I think papa-Kouber and his Bulgarians also left their mark in the western part of the Bulgarian world. At least, on the basis of the following observers from the turn of the last century. Just more evidence why you're one and the same: ‘Turkey in Europe’ Sir Charles Elliot, 1908pp. 321-322 Leaving the railway at Gratzko, a few stations south of Veles, I proceeded by road to Ochrida, through Monastir, across the centre of Slavonic Macedonia. Railways are generally supposed to stimulate and develop industry, but in Turkey, though they may have this effect on the larger centres, they have the special property of destroying roads in their vicinity and hence producing greater stagnation in remote districts. Formerly the road between Gratzko and Monastir was a great highway for traffic and one of the finest chausses in the country, but after the construction of the Salonica-Monastir railway it only served local needs and was allowed to fall into disrepair, and has in many places become almost impassable. The landscapes of Central Macedonia, though more picturesque than the scenery at the sides of the railway, are almost equally monotonous, and the same description will serve for half-a-dozen localities—a wide, dreary plain surrounded by wooded mountains and showing little trace of life except a few peasants struggling to till the soil with very primitive instruments. On the lowest slopes of the mountain straggle a few Bulgarian and Turkish hamlets, the latter easily distinguishable by their minarets. High up are one or two apparently inaccessible Vlach villages, and in some kind of gorge opening into the plain lies almost invariably the principal town of the district. Though the Bulgarians have become completely Slavised and can with difficulty be distinguished as a body from the Servians, yet the faces of the Macedonian peasantry have a look which is not European, and recalls the Finns of the Volga or the hordes of the Steppes. Lives of sullen obstinate labour and minds occupied ceaselessly with petty questions of household thrift, unillumined by any ideal or romance, have rendered the features of men and women alike flat, rigid, and stony. The Turkish peasant shares this capacity for continuous animal toil and indifference to distractions; but the conviction that he is naturally the superior of all Christians gives him the dignity which arises from a privileged position, whereas the Bulgarians after centuries of ignominy have only just succeeded in asserting their independent existence as Christians. Yet that labor improbus which specially characterises the race might no doubt produce as remarkable results in Macedonia as in Bulgaria. p. 332 We can hardly be wrong in considering that the original Bulgarian type is preserved in the somewhat Mongolian figure and features which are common in the eastern part of the Balkans, and are found as far west as Ochrida - heavy frames with broad, flat, stolid faces, small eyes, and straight, black hair. p. 338 The Slavonic population east of the Struma, and much of that between the Struma and Vardar, is mixed, but homogeneous with the population of Bulgaria, which is also mixed. It would appear that the original dividing line of language and customs between Servia and Bulgaria passed near Nish, and that before 1876 the people of that town, which is now thoroughly Servian, called themselves Bulgarian. Of the remaining Macedonian Slavs, an impartial observer can only say that they are intermediate between the Serbs and Bulgarians ; but I think that traces of Mongolian - that is, Bulgarian - physiognomy can be seen as far west as Ochrida. ‘Turkish Life in Town and Country’ Lucy M. J. Garnett, 1904p.250 The Bulgarians in Macedonia are to be met with in scattered communities throughout almost the whole of the province, occupying in some localities only isolated villages, and in others forming the bulk of the population of a district. These people are of two distinct types, the Slavo-Tartar and the Slavo-Greek. The former are distinguished by high cheek-bones, broad faces, small, sunken eyes, wide, flat noses, eyebrows thick and prominent, and dark complexion. The other type bears a strong general resemblance to the rest of the mixed Christian population of the Balkan provinces, some of their women being extremely pretty. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1911The Mongolian physical type, which prevails in the districts between the Balkans and the Danube, is also found in central Macedonia, and may be recognised as far west as Ochrida and Dibra. In general, however, the Macedonian Slavs differ somewhat in appearance and character from their neighbours beyond the Bulgarian and Servian frontiers: the peculiar type which they present is probably due to a considerable admixture of Vlach, Hellenic, Albanian and Turkish blood, and to the influence of the surrounding races. Almost all independent authorities, however, agree that the bulk of the Slavonic population of Macedonia is Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 27, 2011 7:42:27 GMT -5
I find it hillarious that when greece is on the edge of economic and social disaster, you still continue this dangerous game. BTW, the ancient Macedonian roots amongst Slavic Macedonians was first highlighted by Greek Patriachists 19th century Macedonia. They claimed we were Alexanders descendents, but merely spoke a Slavic language due to historical circumstance. I believe this propaganda still continues in Greece, and were are referred to as Slavophone Greeks, instead of Slavophone Macedonians. You talk as if they had access to some irrefutable evidence through DNA or linguistics. Simply the Greek aim was twofold: to divorce Macedonia’s Slavs from the Bulgarians (successful) and to bring them into the Greek fold (successful only in part). Using ancient Macedonians and Alexander was the obvious weapon to use in this regard (given the connection of these elements to Hellenism). The purpose was to align the region’s Slavs with the rest of the Makedones (Greek-speaking, Vlach-speaking etc) in common struggle against the Bulgarian hold. Ironically the old ‘weapon’ seems to have gotten into the wrong hands (those of the former Exarchists) and the whole things has gone awry!!
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 27, 2011 7:39:31 GMT -5
The problem I have is with the refugees from Turkey who claim to be ancient Macedonians, even though they settled in Macedonia less than 100 years ago. At the same time they deny the Slavic Macedonians their right to call themselves Macedonian, even though we have lived in Macedonia for centuries. You have obviously been taught to think only of yourselves as being ‘Macedonians’. The fact of the matter is, I have never met a Greek of refugee stock – especially a Pontian – who was not proud of his or her specific origins. And going back to a theme of yours detected through many of your posts, what exactly is it that you people have against Pontians … and what is this ‘Christian Turks’ crap you like to spread? Although in many respects they are perhaps the most distinct of the Greek refugees who made their way into Greece in the early 1920s, the Pontians represented barely 20% of total refugee numbers! You seem to think that all refugees were Pontians, that the terms are somehow synonymous (ie Refugees = Pontians). In fact almost half of all refugees were from western Asia Minor - essentially Greeks from the other side of the Aegean. A good proportion of these were of islander origin and did not differ in any great way from Greeks of Greece. About 25% of refugees were Thracians (including Constantinopolitans) – basically Balkan Greeks … For obvious reasons of geography most of them ended up in Greek Thrace and Macedonia. There was also a smaller number of Greek refugees (barely 8%) from Cappadocia (which usually incorporates the Karamanlides – who comprised about a quarter of the Cappadocian total). The Karamanlides, as your block-headed internet warriors (et al) gleefully like to point out, spoke Turkish. Turkish had also made significant inroads (to varying degrees) into the native Greek speech of the rest of the Cappadocians – hardly surprising for a group isolated from the rest of the Greek world and amongst Turks for almost 850 years. Finally there were a sizeable number of refugees from Bulgaria and other areas of the Balkans as well as form Russia. This ‘Christian Turks’ label you fucknuckles continually like to use is wearing a bit thin and hardly scores the points you think it does. Let’s just use the much-maligned Pontians to make a point here. The Pontians speak a distinct and in many respects archaic form of Greek that is practically unintelligible to speakers of modern Greek when in full flight. To be sure there were also some Pontians who spoke Turkish, particularly in the hinterland regions of western Pontus which was under Ottoman control for almost three centuries longer than the Pontian core further east. Indeed so intensely Greek was the region that even to this day, almost a century after the population exchange of1923, there are still many ‘Turks’ in the area who speak Pontic Greek (the so called Rumca/Rumja) and continue to enjoy most elements of Pontic culture (music; dance; food etc). From the early thirteenth century the Pontians were increasingly isolated from the rest of the Greek world although, of-course, the sea still enabled contact. The so-called ‘Empire of Trebizond’ – which was fated to be the last independent Greek political entity – nurtured the peculiar Greek culture of the area until it succumbed to the Turks. It was a kingdom with a distinct and recognised history and legitimate symbols. Although proudly and consciously Greek, in many respects Pontian culture is as unique a culture as the Pontian dialect’s uniqueness as a form of Greek. In comparison, your lot like to present pilfered (Bulgarian) heraldic lions representing some sort of supposed medieval Macedonia but in actuality represent no political entity what-so-ever – other than ones generated by your keen imaginations. This is hardly surprising for a group barely distinguishable from (and one that barely distinguished itself from) the Bulgarians of whom it formed a part until well into the twentieth century. The capital of the kingdom, Trebizond (Trapezounta), fell to the Turks in 1461 while resistance continued in the surrounding mountains to its south for the better part of the next two decades. So if we were to count the years during which the Greeks of the Pontus were amongst the Turks we would arrive at a figure of no more than 462 years (1923 – 1461). If we were to do the same for your lot we would find that this figure would be probably in the vicinity of 520-530 years. We’ll ignore the sizeable Turkish minority that continued to exist in your land after 1912. I n this regard you are about six decades more ‘Christian Turk’ than the Pontians.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_TrebizondThe fact of the matter is that Greeks of refugee origin in Macedonia are proud Greeks conscious of living in a proud historic Greek land and for this reason feel they can quite legitimately identify with the place of their birth. Amongst Greeks they would always refer to themselves as Pontians, Thracians, Mikrasiates, Cappadocians and so on while adding ‘from Macedonia’ … as there are just as many Pontians, Mikrasiates etc in other parts of Greece. They do not claim to be natives. However, while I don’t know the rate of intermarriage between locals and refugee Greeks in the last 90 years, there has certainly been a good deal of it further blurring the distinction. Yes, your people have been there much longer although no-where near as long as the native Greeks of Macedonia. It’s been fourteen hundred years since your grand-dedos violently invited themselves into the land they would later claim was always theirs. If the former Bulgarians of the land can call themselves ‘Macedonians’ and laughably claim exclusivity and possession of its history and culture (particularly the Greek aspects of the region’s history) … Greeks of refugee-origin, born and raised in Macedonia, and after four or so generations, can sure as hell also do the same while never losing track of their origins and the memory of their ‘lost lands’. No-one denies your people the right to refer to themselves as ‘Macedonians’, the label should be a regional one after all. However, things are different when they wish to be ‘The Macedonians’ from the 'Republic of Macedonia' which is in fact the issue.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 9:30:41 GMT -5
Obviously everything depends on what is meant by 'oldest country'.
In terms of modern political entities in the Balkans, Greece is clearly the 'oldest country' in the Balkans given its birth as a sovereign state in the early 19th century. In terms of a recognisable people, again Greeks are the oldest in the region with a continued recorded existence harking back to Mycenae and beyond.
However, prior to the independence of Greece less than a couple of centuries ago there was never a unitary Greek state per se despite very numerous sovereign entities through the ages that were 'Greek'.
As far as current states in the Balkans who are clearly derivatives of earlier political entities proceeding the modern nation state, Bulgaria can easily lay claim to this (culturally, geographically, linguistically, biologically ... but of-course not politically).
Ancient Macedonia was certainly a 'state' and therefore a 'country' although the same could be said of practically all of its contemporaries ... and it was certainly not the earliest in this regard. A lot of you here seem to have decided it is 'the oldest country' because of some connection in your heads between ancient Macedonia and the FYROM which pretends to take its name. The FYROM is neither a derivative - cultural, linguistic, geographical, biological - of the ancient kingdom nor indeed is it even ... Macedonia. In fact it is one of the newest states of the region and its people (former self-identifying Bulgarians) the newest ethnic group of the Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 9:04:16 GMT -5
the only prosfigas in the haimos are you i have no problem with serbs,bulgars but brainwashed slavs like you must be kicked to your place origin were you come from wannabe fake mac.... the problem for you is we are winning the name battle. the majority of the world recognises us as macedonia, and your own govt has conceded to a geographic qualifier...they will soon capitulate and recognise us a republic of macedonia as well. The geographic qualifier is hardly a concession. There is plenty of qualifiers to 'Macedonia' now in the term FYROM (which Greece has been happy to use for a good twenty years now). A new set of qualifiers will simply be more of the same. Oh, and you can console yourselves with recognition from Kiribati and Burkina Faso etc (for argument's sake, I don't know nor do I care whether they have actually recognised you) but the hard truth of the matter is that it will make little difference to life in your neighbourhood.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:58:55 GMT -5
Poor Alexander ... he looks lost.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:57:35 GMT -5
kartadolofonos, I really can't get you. Why do you try so much to troll each thread? because he is a prosfiga from turkey masquerading as some sought of 'greek macedonian'....sad and pathetic really Again with the doubts concerning the existence of some sought (sic) 'Greek Macedonian' ... as if there is no such thing. My God, what's become of the world (the Balkans anyway!). Some Slavs whose ancestors invaded the Macedonian region almost a millennium after Alexander, despoiled the land and displaced much of its original inhabitants (as per attested sources), brought in their Slavic toponymy, unsuccessfully laying siege to its medieval capital on numerous occasions ... eventually becoming Bulgarised like their Slavic brethren further east and being known by the Bulgarian ethnic name for centuries until very recently ... now feel they can claim Macedonia's heritage, fly the ancient sunburst, erect giant statues of its most famous sons... and decide they have sole right to her name without any sense of embarrassment (despite the universal derision they incur to which they seem largely blind). That's not sad and pathetic?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:40:26 GMT -5
i have more ancient macedonian blood in me, then you have prosfiga. go back to pontus you turk! How long exactly have you been living with this delusion? ... and by the way, there is every chance that a Greek of refugee stock - provided he is from certain specific regions of Anatolia and Thrace known to have taken ancient Macedonian settlers (parts of Anatolia) and medieval Macedonian refugees (Thrace) - has more ancient Macedonian blood than you. Granted, you most probably have more 'Macedonian' blood than Boris Yeltsin although being from Bitola you might find that any possible 'ancient blood' you carry is actually Epirotic/Molossian ... Greek-speaking cousins of the Makedones who eventually came to be known as 'Upper Macedonians'.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:32:34 GMT -5
True uz. Greece should drop the games. We have much more in common with each other, than we do with the western Europeans. These artificial problems between us should not exist. There are no games being played by your side, right? No giant stalinist era statues of Alexander atop Bucephalus rearing on its hind legs (as if getting ready to take one giant dump in the centre of Skopje) so that you can try and convince the world and yourselves of who you are?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:26:25 GMT -5
actually the history taught in communist macedonia is not the same as that taught today. in yugoslav macedonia, we were taught that today's macedonians are descendents of slav tribes that settled macedonia in the 6th century. nowdays ancient macedonia is studied and the official position is we are descendents of slavs and ancient macedonians, which i believe is more accurate. Some Macedonian nationalists go a step further and say were are direct descendents of ancient Macedonians, with little or no Slavic influence. I disagree with this, and this is not the official stance of R.Macedonia. I think if our problems with Greece and Bulgaria were resolved, then other aspects of our history could also be incorporated. Do tell ... how did this happen? Where precisely did your Slavic great-grandfathers find these ancient Macedonians and what language were they speaking? When did the new momentous mixture realise it was something special and distinct and that it should call itself 'Macedonian'? Why is there nary a mention of this development in any primary source such that it is left only to the fertile imaginings of FYROM 'academics' and their lunatic diaspora to peddle this convenient fantasy?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:18:27 GMT -5
True uz. Greece should drop the games. We have much more in common with each other, than we do with the western Europeans. These artificial problems between us should not exist. ... talking of 'artificial problems' ... ;D
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:16:15 GMT -5
ancient macedonians hate you so much they will never united with fake mac ... i have more ancient macedonian blood in me, then you have prosfiga. go back to pontus you turk! How long exactly have you been living with this delusion?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 8:03:11 GMT -5
btw, aegean macedonia is populated by ethnic macedonians, bulgarians, vlachs, albanians, christian turks (pontian refugees). which one are you? Kindly explain the term: 'christian turks (pontian refugees)' ... dear Slavobulgar son of Alexander. So, evidently, you don't believe that there could be any indigenous Greek-speaking Macedonians; an item of faith in keeping with the fairy-tales you retards seem to be telling yourselves all over the net. No doubt your wilful ignorance on this point greatly helps your 'we are descendants of the ancient Macedonians' delusion ... doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Oct 29, 2008 8:59:59 GMT -5
Ah yes ... Risto Stefov. Now there's an academic of unimpeachable credentials! Just a few moments alone with this half-wit …. that's all I ask...
While I don't buy into this jingoistic "4000 years of Greek civilization" business, the direction of Stefov's thesis and that of the mindless monkeys who wish to follow these views (largely, one might add, to compensate for some serious problems with their own identity) is so incredibly, hopelessly misguided.
The quotes about the non-existence of a Greek nation-state until the 19th century for example, are utterly irrelevant with respect to one of the main themes running through Stefov's 'article', that is, the continuity or otherwise of a Greek ethnic group through history. The one does not relate to the other and this fact applies to most every single ethnic group. The nation-state, after-all, was a creation of the modern era; a lack of a nation-state prior to this era does not mean a lack of an ethnic group. There were Serbs before the creation of a modern Serbian nation-state; Bulgarians before modern Bulgaria, Albanians before Albania, 'Germans' before Germany and countless other ethnic groups that either vanished at some point in history, or that survived to modern times but never achieved a nation-state (eg Kurds; Vlachs).
The Arvanites were of-course eventually drawn into the 'Greek' body as were Vlachs and some Slavs etc and these groups at a given time in history were perhaps at various stages of acculturation into Greek culture. However, despite this, and prior to the nation-state, relevant historical sources are just as likely to refer to these groups as Albanians, Vlachs, Bulgarians etc and invariably to also describe/discuss their neighbours the Greeks (using whatever label may have been applicable at the time (Romioi, Greki etc) who were also very much in existence. The idiotic notion apparently espoused by this overfed non-entity, that the Greeks ceased to exist and came into being in modern times solely as a product of the miraculous amalgamation of numerous other groups (a la Frankenstein monster) is laughable. It basically serves its purpose as a useful tool of abuse towards Greeks amongst internet warriors who have a dislike for them (mainly Slavomacedonians but also Albanians and others) and gives them a sense that they have somehow got one over the Greeks.
Stefov says, through his selection of quotes, that the Greeks, before they learned from westerners that they were 'Hellenes', didn't know who they were! Wow. What other peasant societies had such crystal notions about their origins that Stefov expects the Greeks to have had at those times? (Mind you there were always educated Greeks who understood their connection to the Greeks of old - generally a small minority especially in the darker periods of Greek history).
The fact is that regardless of the name that may have been used to describe them, there were always 'Greeks' still living in the very soil of the ancient Greeks and still speaking clear derivatives of the ancient Greek tongue. Blind Freddy can see that obvious connection. These 'Greeks' themselves were at least conscious of belonging to a separate group (whether or not they also chose to also include some non-Greek-speakers in their number).
The irony is that even if the 'Greeks' did not know of the connection themselves with their ancient forefathers, outsiders who had travelled to their lands usually did ... They saw them as 'the Greeks' - a distinct and recognizable group very much alive and dynamic*. Depending on the particular contemporary observer their number may have also taken in other groups on their periphery, a point that the observer would invariably comment on.
Simply put, other groups were absorbed because there were 'Greeks' there - a unique and identifiable group (call them Romioi call, them Hellenes call them Yunan ... call them whatever the f.uck you want) - to do the absorbing and to pull those other peoples into their orbit.
The obvious question, artfully avoided by Stefov, is whether the points he thinks he has scored against the Greeks do not actually better apply to his own people. Has anyone ever noticed any reference in historical sources (travelers accounts for example) to a distinct ethnic group in the land of the Block-heads – even by another name? No, of-course not. Even late into the twentieth century the Slavs of Macedonia were seen as forming a constituent part of the Bulgarian people. Yet bear in mind that in other articles he has written Stefov regards his ‘Macedonian’ people as a very ancient one convinced as the moron is of their direct connection to the ancient people whose name they now dare to use… hypocritical ignorant retard that he is.
He resuscitates the Falmerayer thesis that has well and truly been put to rest in its purest form (his indirect quote is from 1963) not realizing what it actually does to his own view about the connection of his people to the ancient Macedonians. If the Slav invasions were of such magnitude as to wipe out the old Greeks so that the modern Greeks are nothing but hellenised Slavs, then surely, by this inference, his own people who actually speak a Slav language, who inhabit areas of some of the thickest known Slav settlement in the Blakans following the invasions and who were historically indistinguishable from other Slavs and then Bulgars in our sources, are completely unlikely to have any connection at all to the ancient Macedonians whose land they came to devastate.
The above quote that Stefov chose to include within this article in support of his views reveals his pathetic level of ignorance and his crude lack of capacity for research and analysis. Apparently he thinks that the kojabashis were in fact Turks who happened to be Christians. Even a rudimentary reading of this quote makes it clear that the any Christian (in this case a Greek called Yanni, for example) who lords it over other Christians like the Turkish ‘masters’ was considered as good as a Turk himself in that respect. No reference to the ‘blood’ of the person was ever intended ... but then the theme of Greeks being Christian Turks is a favourite amongst the Slavs of Macedonia (not to mention of others also … hey Rexxy?).
R. Just was a one-time colleague of mine (no … I’m not anywhere as old as him). He is a social anthropologist and like so many academics belonging to this particular theoretical discipline he was not very good with details and figures. There is absolutely no way that most of the nineteenth century Greeks were non-Greek-speakers!!! This is simply an ill-researched comment and I recall telling Just as much. I believe he just shrugged his shoulders!
Incredible … absolutely incredible! This guy is seriously saying these things without an ounce of self-deprecation. He really can’t see how his observations here in fact apply so perfectly to his own people’s situation.
So the Greeks today, speaking a form of the ancient language as they do and inhabiting the very same lands of the ancient Greeks … are in no way connected to them yet the Slavs of Macedonia who speak the language of those invaders who brought destruction to the ancient Macedonians and who at best inhabit only a very small portion of the land of the ancient Macedonians are in fact their descendants. What an utterly stupid fool this guy is.
A similarly constructed sentence can apply to most every ethnic group in the world. This is much more relevant to the case of the Slavomacedonians who were not even seen as a separate group until very recently – neither by outsiders nor indeed by themselves.
One other point is that the peculiar continuity of literary in the Greek world has meant that there has been continued focus on the Greeks so that we can talk of the various non-Greek strains that may have entered their ‘blood-line’. A similar spot-light simply does not exist in relation to most other groups and we therefore do not have anywhere as clear an idea of the elements that may have contributed to their ‘genetic’ make-up. With what groups had the Slavs, Romanians, Hungarians, Albanians etc intermingled before the light of history shone their way?
By the way, what in God’s good earth is a Pontian Orthodox Turk? How are speakers of a very distinct and archaic form of Greek whose origins and ‘credentials’ can be traced quite readily in the sources to well before the arrival of the Turks into their land … Turks? Stefov is simply f.vcked in the head. It might surprise him to know that of all Greeks the Pontians are the ones that retained clear references to the ‘Hellenes’ in their folk culture. Theirs was the last independent Greek political entity to fall to the Turks and that compact masses of Greek-speaking Pontians survived in their mountain fastnesses until the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey in 1923. A quick reckoning will also show him that the Pontus was subject to the Turks for a smaller length of time than were the Slavs of Macedonia (462 years compared to about 530) and that the Slavs still have the Turks (admittedly in much reduced numbers) in their midst. So much for Pontian Turks…
Do me a favour and please do not reproduce this cretin’s work again in cyberspace. He is the author of the pathetic and patently wrong 'until 1986 the word Macedonia was prohibited in Greece' argument. This man is not worthy, he has really not said much at all in this article and I have wasted too much energy on him already.
[*Interestingly Mehmet II the conqueror of Constantinople argued at one point that his campaign was also a continuation of the Trojan saga and that his victory against Byzantium was punishment for the Greeks’ sack of Troy. Clearly, outsiders could see the obvious connection.]
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Oct 28, 2008 7:25:38 GMT -5
Nikolaa you'll notice that I used the plural not the singular in my sentence. I was not addressing the insult directly to you but rather to anyone who holds the view that there can be such a thing as Macedonian, Hellenic, Illyrian etc genes. I actually consider you one of the more balanced members of your people that I have met in cyberspace ... The simple fact of the matter is that there are probably a huge number of genetic patterns in an area such as the Balkans (in fact in most every place of the world) ranging from the individual or family level to larger grouping such as hablotypes etc. I will not pretend to be an expert in genetics but it seems quite obvious to me that everything boils down to the interpretations and assumptions - too often mistaken ones - of the conductors of a given study as they try to make sense of the resulting data. Although - despite repeated requests by many of the posters on their site - Igenea doesn't provide details of the specific areas to which its supposed 'Macedonian' group relates. The claim that antic Macedonian DNA featured in the study in some way is entirely ludicrous for a number of reason including the unlikelihood that enough viable DNA from ancient bones can even be extracted. The pattern supposedly detected by Igenea as representing 30% of the Slavomacedonian population and 5% of the Greek can just as easily represent remnants of countless other peoples or combinations of peoples both known and unknown to history. It seems that Igenea has a very limited knowledge of the history of the region on the basis of which to draw deductions based on its findings. Because some pattern appears to be centred in the general 'Macedonian' region it is labelled, with foolish confidence, as representing ancient Macedonian DNA!!! It could just as easily represent the remaining imprint of groups such as the Bryges/Phrygians for instance or of the Paionians in antiquity or the Bulgars of Kouber who settled in Pelagonia and the surrounding area in late antiquity or some other strain brought in by one of the large Slavic tribes (the Dragoviti or Bursyatsi for example) that invaded and settled in Macedonia after the 6th century AD etc etc. Basically it all falls to interpretation. My point is that in order to determine a genetic pattern that might have belonged to the ancient Macedonians (although I don't believe that they were ever isolated enough for there to have been a specific one to them) one MUST include as central the results from the area in the map below covered by the red circle pattern. This is the original homeland of the ancient Macedonians from where they burst into history. It is the Pierian mountain range and foothills extending south to mount Olympus. It was an area at one time known as Makedonis. As far as can be determined it has remained continually Greek-speaking since antiquity.
|
|