|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 9, 2009 21:26:00 GMT -5
Just to add to the SLAVA comment, Gilbert in der Maur quotes the following case:
"During WW1, the Bulgarian troops under the command of first lieutenant Protogerov were ordered to inflict reprisals upon the population east of Kumanovo for an attack made on some Bulgarian troops. Before the reprisal measures were begun, the entire population declared that it was Bulgarian, purely in order to avoid being punished. Protogerov was greatly perplexed. "Then Protogerov's aides had an idea: they asked who celebrated the *SLAVA*. Those who did so were shot, since the celebration of the slava is a sign that one is a serb: it is a custom which the Bulgars do not have."
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 9, 2009 21:31:29 GMT -5
^ since l have been doing some reading on the vardar question, l haven't yet encounted sources ever mentioning that the serbs had territorial ambitions upon the Bulgars.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 9, 2009 23:15:31 GMT -5
^ HD, l have posted some petitions from vardarians themselves describing the effects they were enduring because of the exarchos.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Feb 9, 2009 23:41:46 GMT -5
Sorry but those are absurd accusations. The shops have always been bulgarian. Why? Because the grammer is Bulgarian. They have always spoken that ANALYTICAL language as opposed to the SYNTAXICAL Serbian one. The Torlakians used to identify as Bulgarians till the early 18 century. The language is the biggest proove what a certain populace is! If its syntaxical its Serbian, if analytical: Bulgarian. Novi could not answer why the newphew of Samuel, in 1015, wrote on the Bitola inscroiption that: "In the year 6523 (1015) since the creation of the world, this fortress, built and made by Ivan, Tsar of Bulgaria, was renewed with the help and the prayers of Our Most Holy Lady and through the intercession of her twelve supreme Apostles. The fortress was built as a haven and for the salvation of the lives of the Bulgarians. The work on the fortress of Bitola commenced on the twentieth day of October and ended on the [...] This Tsar was Bulgarian by birth, grandson of the pious Nikola and Ripsimia, son of Aaron, who was brother of Samuil, Tsar of Bulgaria, the two who routed the Greek army of Emperor Basil II at Stipone where gold was taken [...] and in [...] this Tsar was defeated by Emperor Basil in 6522 (1014) since the creation of the world in Klyutch and died at the end of the summer" He could not give any logical answer why a "Macedonian" started the BULGARIAN NATIONAL REVIVAL Paisius of Hilendar some 100 years BEFORE THE ESTABLISHING OF THE EXARCHATE. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisius_of_HilendarNovi couldnt explain why SERBIAN SOURCES FROM THE PERIOD BEFORE THE EXARCHATE that describes fyroms as .... guess what? In 1822 the Serbian folklorist and linguistic, Vuk Stefanovich Karadjich (1787-1864), published the first work containing grammatical facts about the Bulgarian language. Interestingly Karadjich's analysis of the Bulgarian language was based on the Macedonian dialects. Prior to formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, there was a small, but influential group of Serbians, mainly politicians and some academics, who supported the concept of a "Greater Serbia". However, this was not the popular view and most Serbians saw Bulgarians as their Slav brothers and foresaw a close future relationship. In 1860, the Serbian Academic Society published Bosnian Croat, Stefan Verkovich's first volume of "Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarian" awarding him the Serbian "Uceno Druzestvo" (Scholar's Society), in his preface Verkovich said: Quote: "I call these songs Bulgarian and not Slavic, because if someone today should ask the Macedonian Slav "what are you?" he would be immediately be told: "I am Bulgarian" and would call his language 'Bulgarian'" No explanation why SERBIAN DEFENDS THE BULGARIAN CHARACTER OF THE FYROMS!!!! In 1873 Milojevich presented a paper to the Serbian Scholar's Society which characterised the Slavic population of Macedonia as Serbian - a basic repetition of Garashanin's beliefs. Milojevich's thesis was severely criticised by two other Society members, Stoyan Novakovich (1842-1915) and Milan Kujundjich. The latter described Milojevich as: Quote: "..a cheap, mischievous chauvinist, ignominiously condemned by his fellow countrymen for having committed an unfriendly act against a good neighbour."
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Feb 9, 2009 23:48:43 GMT -5
Of course we "adore" the Turks. Funny what the national propaganda would create so that its justifies the serbian ambitions over mainly bulgarian ethnic land. Funny what picture the Serbs see of the Bulgarians because of it and the funniest thing is, we are probably the closest to you (after the Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrins etc).
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 9, 2009 23:54:57 GMT -5
Karadzich in his "Srpski Kjecnik" mentions that the language of the vardarians is serbian.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 9, 2009 23:57:27 GMT -5
"The Exarchate was created by Turkey to antagonize Greece & Serbia, Turkey gave sanctuary to Vmro & Vanco Mihailov, Turkey encouraged bulgarizaton of Shoptsi & Macs because the passive Bulgarian mentality was preferable than the impulsive, idealist Serb mentality, Bulgaria even sided with Turkey in WW1 but their romance ended after WW2"
As mentioned by this quote:
"It is understandable that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime. This circumstance was widely exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed. In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian........during the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra. If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, than they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular among them that for example male children are sometimes christened "Srbin" [Serb]. the Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia."
Alexander von Heksch "Die Donau von ihrem Ursprung bis an die Mundung",Leipzig,1885,pp.636
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Feb 10, 2009 3:34:18 GMT -5
Yes, Novi, I did. Two years ago. Since then you post one and the same sources. Do you think I have to read them every time, provided that they are utter rubbish? ;D ;D ;D Are you trying to entertain us? You have. One petition signed by 10 men in a small village somewhere in macedonia and one petition signed by another 10 men in Belgrade. This is trully representative of the whole macedonia region. The Bulgarian Exarchate (Bulgarian: §¢§ì§Ý§Ô§Ñ§â§ã§Ü§Ñ §Ö§Ü§Ù§Ñ§â§ç§Ú§ñ Bylgarska ekzarkhia) was the official name of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church before its autocephaly was recognized by the other Orthodox churches in the 1950s. It was established as an independent Bulgarian ecclesiastical organisation on February 28, 1870 by the firman of Sultan Abd¨¹laziz of the Ottoman Empire. The foundation of the Exarchate was the direct result of the struggle of the Bulgarian Orthodox against the domination of the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 1850s and 1860s. In 1762, St. Paisius of Hilendar (1722-1773), a monk from the south-western Bulgarian town of Bansko, wrote a short historical work which, apart from being the first work written in the Modern Bulgarian vernacular, was also the first ardent call for a national awakening. In History of Slav-Bulgarians, Paissiy urged his compatriots to throw off the subjugation to the Greek language and culture. The example of Paissiy was followed by a number of other awakeners, including St. Sophroniy of Vratsa (Sofroni Vrachanski) (1739-1813), hieromonk Spiridon of Gabrovo, hieromonk Yoakim Kurchovski (d. 1820), hieromonk Kiril Peychinovich (d. 1845). The result of the work of Paissiy and his followers began before long to give fruit. Discontent with the supremacy of the Greek clergy started to flare up in several Bulgarian dioceses as early as the 1820s. It was not, however, until the 1850 that the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics in a number of bishoprics demanding their replacement with Bulgarian ones. By that time, most Bulgarian religious leaders had realised that any further struggle for the rights of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not succeed unless they managed to obtain at least some degree of autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As the Ottomans identified nationality with religion and the Bulgarians were Eastern Orthodox, they were automatically added to the ¡°Rum-Milet¡±, i.e., the Greeks. Thus, if the Bulgarians wanted to have Bulgarian schools and liturgy in Bulgarian, they needed an independent ecclesiastical organisation. The struggle between the Bulgarians, led by Neofit Bozveli and Ilarion Makariopolski, and the Greeks intensified throughout the 1860s. As the Greek clerics were ousted from most Bulgarian bishoprics at the end of the decade, the whole of northern Bulgaria, as well as the northern parts of Thrace and Macedonia had, by all intents and purposes, seceded from the Patriarchate. In recognition of that, the Ottoman government restored the once unlawfully destroyed Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The result of the work of Paissiy and his followers began before long to give fruit. Discontent with the supremacy of the Greek clergy started to flare up in several Bulgarian dioceses as early as the 1820s. It was not, however, until the 1850 that the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics in a number of bishoprics demanding their replacement with Bulgarian ones. By that time, most Bulgarian religious leaders had realised that any further struggle for the rights of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not succeed unless they managed to obtain at least some degree of autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As the Ottomans identified nationality with religion and the Bulgarians were Eastern Orthodox, they were automatically added to the ¡°Rum-Milet¡±, i.e., the Greeks. Thus, if the Bulgarians wanted to have Bulgarian schools and liturgy in Bulgarian, they needed an independent ecclesiastical organisation. The struggle between the Bulgarians, led by Neofit Bozveli and Ilarion Makariopolski, and the Greeks intensified throughout the 1860s. As the Greek clerics were ousted from most Bulgarian bishoprics at the end of the decade, the whole of northern Bulgaria, as well as the northern parts of Thrace and Macedonia had, by all intents and purposes, seceded from the Patriarchate. In recognition of that, the Ottoman government restored the once unlawfully destroyed Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The result of the work of Paissiy and his followers began before long to give fruit. Discontent with the supremacy of the Greek clergy started to flare up in several Bulgarian dioceses as early as the 1820s. It was not, however, until the 1850 that the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics in a number of bishoprics demanding their replacement with Bulgarian ones. By that time, most Bulgarian religious leaders had realised that any further struggle for the rights of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not succeed unless they managed to obtain at least some degree of autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As the Ottomans identified nationality with religion and the Bulgarians were Eastern Orthodox, they were automatically added to the ¡°Rum-Milet¡±, i.e., the Greeks. Thus, if the Bulgarians wanted to have Bulgarian schools and liturgy in Bulgarian, they needed an independent ecclesiastical organisation. The struggle between the Bulgarians, led by Neofit Bozveli and Ilarion Makariopolski, and the Greeks intensified throughout the 1860s. As the Greek clerics were ousted from most Bulgarian bishoprics at the end of the decade, the whole of northern Bulgaria, as well as the northern parts of Thrace and Macedonia had, by all intents and purposes, seceded from the Patriarchate. In recognition of that, the Ottoman government restored the once unlawfully destroyed Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The Exarchate re-established by the Sultan in 1870 extended over present-day northern Bulgaria (Moesia), Thrace without the Vilayet of Adrianople, as well as over north-eastern Macedonia. After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%), the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. The Exarchate was also represented in the whole of southern Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople by vicars. Thus, the borders of the Exarchate included all Bulgarian districts in the Ottoman Empire. The decision on the secession of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was far from well accepted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople which promptly declared the Bulgarian Exarchate schismatic and declared its adherents heretics. Although there was nothing non-canonical about the status and the guiding principles of the Exarchate, the Patriarchate argued that ¡°surrender of Orthodoxy to ethnic nationalism¡± was essentially a manifestation of heresy. The first Bulgarian Exarch was Antim I who was elected by the Holy Synod of the Exarchate in February, 1872. He was discharged by the Ottoman government immediately after the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78 on April 24, 1877, and was sent into exile in Ankara. Under the guidance of his successor, Joseph I, the Exarchate managed to develop and considerably extend its church and school network in the Bulgarian Principality, Eastern Rumelia, Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet. In 1895, the Tarnovo Constitution formally established the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as the national religion of the nation. On the eve of the Balkan Wars in 1912, in Ottoman Macedonian vilayets and the Adrianople Vilayet alone, the Bulgarian Exarchate disposed of seven dioceses with prelates and eight more with acting chairmen in charge and 38 vicariates, 1,218 parishes and 1,310 parish priests, 1331 churches, 73 monasteries and 234 chapels, as well as of 1,373 schools with 2,266 teachers and 78,854 pupils. Almost all of the schoolmasters had been born in Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace.[1] Novi, no offense, but if I were you, I would erase this ridiculous statement from my sources. I don't know why you persist posting it in such a masochistic fashion. First, Jantra is a river. It has never been a region. Or may be you mean the people found in the river itself only?! Anyway, I can be considered as someone from Jantra and I can assure you that I understand a macedonian absolutely fine. Could you also tell me how the hell then those revolutionaries communicated if they didn't understand each other? p.s. make no mistake to answer that Bulgarians from Jantra ;D didn't take part in the uprisals of macedonians. That would be a horrible own goal.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 10, 2009 6:37:43 GMT -5
Who deleted HD's posts, i'm extremely angry about this because he did not conduct himself in a way offensive Disapointing moderating, and l thought the SF was the forum everybody else looked up to. You know why l'm angry, its because: 1. The content of HD's posts were not off-topic 2. He not once used offensive language in this thread 3. The moderator who went on a deletion spree has now destroyed the flow of the debate 4. The moderator who did this *broke the rules* of the forum 5. This conduct was biasedly aimed toward a member of the forum Honestly this is one of the worst acts l have seen, inexcusable!!!!!!!.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 10, 2009 6:40:31 GMT -5
Find me info that will debunk my quotes, then perhaps l will discontinue using these facts. The 19th century was a time of mayhem.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Feb 10, 2009 6:52:16 GMT -5
You have never replied to a source so far, let alone disaproving it. Why should I do it here after having done this before in the fyrom forum? And what is there to answer to the claims of a german geologist who spoke neither Serb, no Bulgarian but somehow managed to differentiate between them and the dialect the macedonians spoke? Give me a break, will you? It would be the same if I come with a statement from a Vietnamese brothel owner that a Serb from Novi Pazar can not understand a Serb from Loznica, let's say.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 10, 2009 6:57:21 GMT -5
^ Tell me, what makes the people of vardar excusively Bulgarian prior to the events of the exarchos of the 19th century?
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Feb 10, 2009 7:03:52 GMT -5
Probably the fact that they were Bulgarian. Not exclusively, though, their majority. There were Serbs, Albanians, Turks, Vlahs, Greeks, gypsies as well.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 10, 2009 7:16:06 GMT -5
^ O.k, but Ruse my friend, l need solid evidence that tells me that these people prior to the events of 19th century are in fact Bulgars.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Feb 10, 2009 7:20:16 GMT -5
Who deleted HD's posts, i'm extremely angry about this because he did not conduct himself in a way offensive Disapointing moderating, and l thought the SF was the forum everybody else looked up to. You know why l'm angry, its because: 1. The content of HD's posts were not off-topic 2. He not once used offensive language in this thread 3. The moderator who went on a deletion spree has now destroyed the flow of the debate 4. The moderator who did this *broke the rules* of the forum 5. This conduct was biasedly aimed toward a member of the forum Honestly this is one of the worst acts l have seen, inexcusable!!!!!!!. antho was it you? just guessing.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Feb 10, 2009 7:25:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 10, 2009 7:26:38 GMT -5
Pyrro, this is biased moderating of Dijedon standards in the days of ezboard. You can't let personal feelings get in the way moderating, especially when one did not swear or post off-topic remarks, even a swear word in a post does not give the rights of the moderator to delete the entire content of the post.
I'm shattered Pyrro, l could never have thought this would have happened here in SF.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Feb 10, 2009 7:32:31 GMT -5
No prob Novi, its ok, its only a forum! Serbia will live forever with or without this forum! anyway, who deleted these posts?
P.S. Taking into account that in the past HD had bashed NP, criticizing him of being soft, we all can see how great a person NP is!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Feb 10, 2009 7:32:56 GMT -5
I don't mind where the source comes from, but its 19th century stuff from the link.
Look, Jordan Ivanov could only find a couple of sources in which the name Bulgaria was used in vardar. Do you want me to tell you?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Feb 10, 2009 7:38:12 GMT -5
We greeks, are very often dancing in the anti-slav tunes that the westies play. So in order to accuse FYROMaks we can use any term (Bulgarian, Russian, Slav all having a bad meaning in modern greek) (we only try to avoid the name "Serb" cause it spoils our friendship). Historical sources are doomed. Germanic sources are clueless and serving an agenta, while Slav sources are politically biased. The only possible reason to tell is: 1) biological study 2) ask the ppl what they are/like to be (in skoplje they play serb songs like 24x7, without any PROPAGANDA FROM THE BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BELGRADE forcing them to do so)
|
|