|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 4:28:17 GMT -5
^ Toski, this has only occured during the Exarchos influence. Travellers who have passed through vardar during exarchos influence, state that these people are Bulgarians, which is wrong, and today many 21st century references are fed from the works of these travellers, travelling through the region in the 19th century. You need to look before the 19th century.
Tihomir Georgevitch, as l have mentioned in the paragraph above, says that when the travellers passed by they knew neither the history, nor the lanuguage, nor the customs, nor the mutual relationships of the peoples they were describing. "Only a small number of books on Macedonia," he says, "has been written with a real knowledge of the subject, truthfully, independently and without bias."
Tihomir R. Georgevitch, Macedonia, London, 1918, pp.7 and 1.
The next couple of quotes, l just want you to think about.
Karl Oestreich, "Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien," Geographische Zeitschrift, Vol. XI, No.1, 1905, p.273:
"A considerable part of the rural population, although it then felt itself to be Serbian, seized the first opportunity of obtaining Slavic priests and so declared itself to be Bulgarian.......Whoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was registered in the Turkish population records as *bulgari-milet* and to the world at large was a Bulgar."
Spomeni na G'orche Petrov (G'orche Petrov's Memoirs), Skopje, 1950, pp.20 and 26:
He writes of Serbophile villages in Bitolj, and that, when they began to organise the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation, they were undecided whether to include the "Serbophiles" in their organisation because they feared that these "serbophiles" will betray the cause to the Greek bishop.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 20, 2009 4:34:19 GMT -5
In the 19th century the identity seems to have been more confused for a number of possible reasons which I don't feel like taking the time to address nor care enough to. However we have always called these people Bulgarian, even before the Exarchate, and besides a number of which acknowledge the confused character of the region, most of the period writers connect them with Bulgaria with strong Serbian influence.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 4:37:06 GMT -5
^ could you throw in so quotes for me to see?
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 20, 2009 4:40:02 GMT -5
^^ I dont care enough to rummage through my books nor any school library books... thats for you guys to chase. Your not under any real obligation to go by what I say, Im just stating the general of what Ive read in the past. But if it will please you Ill hunt around JSTOR and see if I can find any of my old articles.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2009 4:44:44 GMT -5
No need. I trowed u enough quotes, including from Samuels nephew who describes himself as "Bulgarian by origin", but its never enough. Tnx for the Albanian friend who see the truth. So do our Greek and Romanian friends. Only the Serbs see Serbs in Macedonia. The strong Serbian influence is due to the Serbian rule for over a century. Macedonian language=Bulgarian language, typed on Serbian typewriter.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 4:51:34 GMT -5
Toski, if you can do better than Jordan Ivanov who was the chief Bulgarian authority on the Bulgarian character of Macedonia, in which he was only able to *gather* a couple of cases in which the name "Bulgarian" was mentioned in Southern Serbia (Vardar) before the Exarchists began their work.....do you want me to mention them for you?
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 20, 2009 5:22:14 GMT -5
Korcabre and Novi show one and the same pattern. No wonder why Serbs and Albanians fight. The reason is the common ignorance. Althought I see no point in proving who is sillier, there might be a reason for thht I am not familiar with. Kastor, I never liked you so far, but you make sense, no doubt about this. Why do you generalize us Albanians Ruse? Most of us are aware that Macedonians are de facto Bulgarians. But that they share, currently, a closer relationship with Serbia cannot be disputed. This has been the pattern these last decades. It might have changed with the Macedonian recognition of Kosova though. Either way, this map tells something about the Macedonians; Dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Why isn't "Macedonian" included there? Probably for the same reason Slovenian isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 5:27:17 GMT -5
^ Ah, Donnie, Donnie, Donnie, your a disapointment. Don't you know anything about the Exarchos?
Anyway my family originates from both the Zetsko-juzhnosandzhachki and prizrensko-juzhnomoravski regions ;D.....thats all l will give away to you.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2009 5:30:09 GMT -5
So Novi u are showing evidences of mentioning Bulgarians in Macedonia pre 19 century. And this is "proove" there were no Bulgarians in Macedonia pre 19 century. Do I get this right? What a logic. Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 20, 2009 5:34:09 GMT -5
If in fact the Exarchate was a short Bulgarian interlude to a greater Serbian history then it wouldnt have had such a great affect Novi... it wouldnt have changed the whole sway to Bulgarian like this. It would naturally have reverted with time to a more Serbian stance based simply on the greater heritage which the people would have naturally followed. The Exarchate lasted like what 30 years at best? And even that wasnt its period of height... so the people would have seen everything happen within their very lifetime... that's not long enough to affect it, it takes generations to do that.
Whats more how does it explain the Muslims being Bulgarian in sway?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 5:35:46 GMT -5
42 years, Toski.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 20, 2009 5:39:16 GMT -5
Thats still within range of a single life time, meaning people could remember its beginning and end. That means it was artificial. Like I said, for a significant change you need around two-three generations to lose previous memory.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 20, 2009 5:43:10 GMT -5
LOL. The people of Macedonia switched linguistically in 42 years?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 5:46:07 GMT -5
^ Toski, just refer to my very first quote on page 1. I'll add more here very soon.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2009 5:47:23 GMT -5
"LOL. The people of Macedonia switched linguistically in 42 years?"
Read the petition on pg.1.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2009 5:48:12 GMT -5
If in fact the Exarchate was a short Bulgarian interlude to a greater Serbian history then it wouldnt have had such a great affect Novi... it wouldnt have changed the whole sway to Bulgarian like this. It would naturally have reverted with time to a more Serbian stance based simply on the greater heritage which the people would have naturally followed. The Exarchate lasted like what 30 years at best? And even that wasnt its period of height... so the people would have seen everything happen within their very lifetime... that's not long enough to affect it, it takes generations to do that. Whats more how does it explain the Muslims being Bulgarian in sway? Exactly! Add to this the fact that THE SUPPOSED SERBS FROM MACEDONIA voted with over 95 percent for freely joining the Exarchate and u have the answer what those people considered themselves to be. Add to this that Vardar Macedonia was: in Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as South Serbia (1913-1929) - 16 years in Yugoslavia as Vardar Banovina (1929-1941) - 12 years So 28 years those BRAINWASHEDby the Eharchate SERBS live in mother Serbia and they do not "remember" their true origin. They are even renamed Southern Serbs (=Bulgarians).
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2009 5:50:44 GMT -5
LOL. The people of Macedonia switched linguistically in 42 years? No only that. Their WHOLE GRAMMER STRUCTURE change. The language, if we believe Novi, have switched from LEXICAL (Serbian) to ANALITICAL (Bulgarian) for 42 long years. They ve changed their whole grammatic rules for 42 years.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 20, 2009 5:54:30 GMT -5
"LOL. The people of Macedonia switched linguistically in 42 years?" Read the petition on pg.1. One simple petition with half a dozen names is supposed to sway me? So a group of the whole didnt agree, should I generalize the rest? And Selective source quotation is worthless in my eyes since it barely gives any context. A proper historical argument goes beyond simple words. Hence why I refuse to be drawn into Highduke style quotation wars.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 20, 2009 6:16:46 GMT -5
Basing whole arguments around out of context quotations is a Highdyke & Novi Pazar speciality. The fact that it is illogical to any normal and critically thinking individual that a population can switch linguistically in less than fitfty years does not bother them.
Hey Novi, if the Bulgarians succeeded in "Bulgarizing" the "Macedonian Serbs" within less than fifty years, how come that the Serbs couldn't revoke the whole process during the many years (ca 81 years) it was part of Yugoslavia? The Serbs were as much interested to make the Macedonian Slavs "their own" as the Bulgarians were.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2009 6:40:08 GMT -5
donnie u are totally right but u know Novi is trying to convince himself the fyroms were Serbs, because he is Torlakian (whose dialect is also close to Bulgarian
|
|