|
Post by Arxileas on Sept 18, 2008 18:24:20 GMT -5
What objective truth is there in the 'virtue' of the Macedonian name? FYROMians of F.Y.R.O.M adopted a Greek word to describe themselves. A tribal term that Greeks have been using thousands of years before the Slavs invaded the region. Next question ?
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 18, 2008 20:38:46 GMT -5
You didn't answer my question. So what if its derived from the Greek language? What is objective that makes 'Macedonian' virtous? How is it fundamentally any different than calling physical land 'Grand Canyon' or the 'Aegean Sea?' I don't see what there is to fight over.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 18, 2008 20:40:27 GMT -5
English, for example , has borrowed many words from Greek , Latin , German , etc. Does something called 'Greek' have property rights over part of the English language and does it give you the right to intiate force to prevent someone from using Greek rooted words that isn't 'Greek?'
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Sept 18, 2008 20:58:18 GMT -5
radiate It would be beneficial for you to stop TROLLING and go over the facts carefully on this topic, the evidence is over whelming. You should try it "educating your self" for a change.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 19, 2008 14:17:36 GMT -5
I'm not arguing the history. I'm arguing from first principles and you seem to be evading the basic logic in my premise.
Since 'Macedonia' is derived from Greek, then modern Greeks claim the right to deny, by use of force if necessary, the use of that word to others. Following that logic, Modern Greeks would also have to claim the right to initiate force against other people using Greek derived terms in everyday life ( i.e. Everyone that speaks English for example).
Do you believe the concept of 'Greek' has 'property rights' up to the use of force(violence),over everything derived from the Greek language?
I don't think its a difficult question.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 19, 2008 14:42:58 GMT -5
Consider this as well. Some people name their child 'Macedonia.' For real, its typically a female name. www.yeahbaby.com/baby-name.php?name=MacedoniaSo, would you as a 'Greek,' claim the right to initiate violence against a girl named Macedonia ( and she doesn't have Greek background) as a penalty for not changing her name?
|
|
|
Post by kartadolofonos on Sept 19, 2008 15:39:24 GMT -5
thats a bad example.....
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 19, 2008 16:02:57 GMT -5
Well isn't the principle the preservation(with force if necessary) of the Greek identity of the name? I don't see how its not universally applicable if it is objectively true.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 19, 2008 18:33:43 GMT -5
^Yes, they can keep the name in their museums, but in the world there is only one country named F.Y.R.O Macedonia! And it used to be a yugoslav republic!
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Sept 19, 2008 20:33:44 GMT -5
I'm not arguing the history. I'm arguing from first principles and you seem to be evading the basic logic in my premise. Since 'Macedonia' is derived from Greek, then modern Greeks claim the right to deny, by use of force if necessary, the use of that word to others. Following that logic, Modern Greeks would also have to claim the right to initiate force against other people using Greek derived terms in everyday life ( i.e. Everyone that speaks English for example). Do you believe the concept of 'Greek' has 'property rights' up to the use of force(violence),over everything derived from the Greek language? I don't think its a difficult question. Consider this as well. Some people name their child 'Macedonia.' For real, its typically a female name.
www.yeahbaby.com/baby-name.php?name=Macedonia
So, would you as a 'Greek,' claim the right to initiate violence against a girl named Macedonia ( and she doesn't have Greek background) as a penalty for not changing her name? These questions you pose are all completely irrelevant to us Greeks. We aren’t the ones who want to monopolise the name here. It’s the Greeks who are saying and encouraging them to use an acceptable name for both parties with a Geographical marker or other to distinguish them self’s as being separate from the ancient and modern Hellenic Macedonians, something like; Nova Macedonia = New Macedonia. SlavMacedonia = Slavs of Macedonia Etc; They don’t want these proposed names at all instead they are the ones who want to deny everyone else and to monopolise the use this name entirely and a name they have no right to, because they have nothing to do with that name in terms of Geographical location or culturally and ethnically, also falsely claiming to be from the Ancient Macedonians. So you ask them, why are they so ashamed of their Slavic / Bulgar heritage ? And why are they trying to deny the some 2.8 Million Greeks who are proud Greek Macedonians and actually live in the proper geographical Macedonia. So it’s not so much of being difficult questions, but that the wrong questions are directed at the wrong people. .
|
|
|
Post by Kassandros on Oct 8, 2008 16:25:30 GMT -5
Radiate "Since 'Macedonia' is derived from Greek, then modern Greeks claim the right to deny, by use of force if necessary, the use of that word to others. Following that logic, Modern Greeks would also have to claim the right to initiate force against other people using Greek derived terms in everyday life ( i.e. Everyone that speaks English for example)." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radiate you know very well that is something different to honour a name and to try to still a name. There is Athens,Georgia,US too. Americans named their city as Athens to honour.. Athens. Not to try to proove that Atheneans are of American descent lol lol I'm Macedonian. They dont try to honor me. They try to make me hate my motherland Greece and to feel like one of them. They even try to make me believe that I'm a "Grkman" lol lol.. Its unbeliavable... and funny silmutaneously. Dont mix up things. You know very well that is not just for the name. They have other plans as they had in 1904.... and we "teached" them how to forget them. Now Americans gave them new ideas. No problem... we'll "teach" them again. As far as 2,500,000 Macedonians exist... Fyromians will have troubles with their plans. They maybe succeed in some fields... but dont forget; 2,500,000 pairs of eyes will watch them until Americans stop to protect them.. Thats a promice. Ask the Tsams and their friends the Nazis.. The good.. always prevail. Dont forget that.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Oct 11, 2008 18:22:06 GMT -5
I've read it for first time,I think its very important, because its writen by a Greek of the late antiquity,a Christian one...Eusebius of Caesarea (c 263 – 339 A.D.)
In his book about Constantine the Great...The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine:
CHAPTER VII: Comparison with Cyrus, King of the Persians and with Alexander of Macedon.
"Ancient history describes Cyrus, king of the Persians, as by far the most illustrious of all kings up to his time. And yet if we regard the end of his days, we find it but little corresponded with his past prosperity, since he met with an inglorious and dishonorable death at the hands of a woman.
Again, the sons of Greece celebrate Alexander the Macedonian as the conqueror of many and diverse nations; yet we find that he was removed by an early death, before he had reached maturity, being carried off by the effects of revelry and drunkenness. His whole life embraced but the space of thirty-two years, and his reign extended to no more than a third part of that period. Unsparing as the thunderbolt, he advanced through streams of blood and reduced entire nations and cities, young and old, to utter slavery. But when he had scarcely arrived at the maturity of life, and was lamenting the loss of youthful pleasures, death fell upon him with terrible stroke, and, that he might not longer outrage the human race, cut him off in a foreign and hostile land, childless, without successor, and homeless. His kingdom too was instantly dismembered, each of his officers taking away and appropriating a portion for himself. And yet this man is extolled for such deeds as these."
|
|
|
Post by kartadolofonos on Nov 23, 2008 19:00:11 GMT -5
The "real" Macedonians were ancient Dorian Greeks who entered the area of Macedonia about 1100 B.C., long before the Slavs appeared in that part of the world later in the sixth century, A.D.. The name Macedonia came from the Dorian Greeks, who were called "Macedni." The language they spoke in ancient times was a Greek dialect. The Greek archaeologist Manolis Andronikos became convinced that a hill in present day Greek Macedonia concealed the tombs of the Macedonian Kings. In 1977, Andronikos undertook a six-week dig at the and found four buried chambers which he identified as hitherto undisturbed tombs. Andronikos claimed that these were the burial sites of the kings of Macedon, including the tomb of Phillip II, father of Alexander the Great in Vergina, the small town in northern Greece where the tombs are located.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Nov 23, 2008 19:15:27 GMT -5
This guy reminds me of my father...same style... ;D
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Oct 4, 2009 17:03:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Oct 4, 2009 17:18:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Oct 4, 2009 17:21:28 GMT -5
www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/macedonia-ideas-essays/442-new-discovery-persian-ancient-religious-texts-admit-alexander-great-greek.htmlIf we search at "Zand-i Vohuman Yasht" CHAPTER 3, 34 We will find the following passage. Quote: 34. 'And then Mihr of the vast cattle-pastures cries thus: "Of these nine thousand years' support, which during its beginning produced Dahak [Zohak] of evil religion, Frasiyav of Tur, and Alexander the Ruman, the period of one thousand years of those leather-belted demons with disheveled hair is a more than moderate reign to produce www.avesta.org/mp/vohuman3.html Lets see now what Prof. S. Eddy from University of Nebraska has to tell us about the above passage. "it must follow that at least a part of the Bahman Yasht, the detailed picture of the apocalyptic conditions brought about by a successful invasion of Iran by foreigners, existed before the time of Ardashir I. But the Bahman Yasht must therefore also have said something of the invasion. In fact it does, and twice names its leader as Alexander the Great. He was not at all a threat to Sassanid prophets living more than half a millennium after his death. The name Alexander, then, is further evidence of Hellenistic date. He is called "Destroyer of the Religion" and "Invader." The first epithet is a parallel to the tradition preserved in the Dinkard, the second to the Sibylline Oracle. Furthermore, the rank and file of the aggressors are once identified as Yunan, which is ancient Near Eastern usage for "Greeks," derived from the word for "Ionians." This word is a Pahlevi vocalization equivalent to Old Persian Yaunâ , Elamite Iauna, Hebrew Yâwân, and Hindu Yavanâ. Sassanid writers, however, usually referred to Greeks as Rûmi. It is true that the Bahman Yasht sometimes says that the invaders come from Rum. That is Sassanid editing. It sometimes indicates that they are Muslims. That is post-Sassanid editing. The apocalypse normally refers to them by the cryptic title, "The Demons with Dishevelled Hair of the Race of Wrath." This, from the old Persian point of view, was a good characterization" Conclusion: Ancient Persian Zoroastrian texts verified what we and the ancient people already know. Alexander the Great was Greek!!!
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Oct 26, 2009 17:02:33 GMT -5
cheap fyromian propaganda,LETS KEEP THIS HERE... www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118967435/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the GreeksAND the answer is here... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaiz-VillenaGreeks and Macedonians A paper on the genetic relationship between Greeks and ethnic Macedonians had concluded that "Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian and West African) people [6], which separate them from other Mediterranean groups."[7] The conclusions of the paper were related to the "Black Athena" debate and became embroiled in disputes between Greek and ethnic Macedonian nationalists.[8] Shortly after this, three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, argued that the scientific limitations of Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[9] They stated that "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.", making specific allusion to the findings on Greeks (among others) as "anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups."Arnaiz-Villena et al. countered this criticism in a response, stating "single-locus studies, whether using HLA or other markers, are common in this field and are regularly published in the specialist literature" [10]. No multiple-marker analysis has ever duplicated Arnaiz-Villena's results. In The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, 1994), Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza grouped Greeks with other European and Mediterranean populations based on 120 loci (view MDS plot[11]). Then, Ayub et al. 2003[12] did the same thing using 182 loci (view dendrogram[13]).[14]. Another study was conducted in 2004 at Skopje's University of Ss. Kiril and Metodij, using high-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 according to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology. Contrary to Arnaiz-Villena's conclusion, no sub-Saharan admixture was detected in the Greek sample.[15]
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Nov 1, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leandros nikon on Nov 1, 2009 18:04:20 GMT -5
|
|