![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've re-edited this article due to the fact that ,,Macedonism" is Bulgarian POV towards Macedonia. 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomac ( talk • contribs)
Yeah, tottaly fits in pro-Bulgarian 'bout Srbinovski. And the second one is a dictionary. Why the hell this word can't be included? Bomac 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
C'm on, so many books are written in Bulgaria about this issue and you claim that it's not most widely used in Bulgaria? Gimme a break. Bomac 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Who's to say? I guess I have... I'll say this again: de facto Macedonism is a word that is mostly used in Bulgaria (endoubled, trippled...) than in any other country. BTW, thank's for, er, ,,saving" my user-page. What an idiot and hypocrite can edit my user-page?... Bomac 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And, because it refers to non-Bulgarian origin, it is most surely overwhelmingly used in Bulgaria. Bomac 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not blaming anyone... I just had to say those words 'caus that user was one of those with short expiry date... Bomac 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So, when the Bulgarian nation was forming, there was some sort of Bulgarism? Bomac 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean the 3000 yeared one? Bomac 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I thought of your glorious Bulgarian 3000 yeared history. Do we steal that one? Bomac 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Samuil and others were active in Macedonia, so I really don't know who is stealing ;-) Bomac 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add to that list. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Good boy. Here's an A+ in the diary. Bomac 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. But, I don't have the intention to do so (for now) ;-) Bomac 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the ,,Macedonist" Misirkov, they weren't Tatars, but Mongols (still, it is close). What are you talking about? I'm speaking 'bout the Bulgarian name. BTW, as a ,,Macedonist", I don't support the non-mixing theory (which I've never heard of, though). Here on Balkans, it is hardly this theory to get in practice. Bomac 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No need of disapointments. Bomac 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in the following:
macedonism -wikipedia
:
753 results (only all websites)macedonism -wikipedia site:.bg
:
35 results (only in
.bg websites)macedonism -wikipedia -site:.bg
:
721 results (excluding
.bg websites)-- Telex 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, again. Please if you write about Macedonism, write generaly about the term, and all posible varietis that the term can mean, not only the bulgarian, thats just an apply of personal conviction. Thanx-- Vlatko 13:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You constantly revert the article about macedoniasm, the part of the term that points the political meaning, you have to realise that the written one is only bulgarian perseption and that wikipedia is here to inform, such an idea exist not in macedonia, but is a delusion of bulgarians, It must be added and this, "Bulgarian understanding of the term", "Macedonian respond to the bulgarian POV", you cant be so conformistic.-- Vlatko 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, primary or secodary, explain to me how do you distinguish what is what, is there some way I do not know to make some clasification like your's. Silly. Here the primary is obvious he macedonian cose there it wont be bulgarian point of view about the term if there was none macedonian culture, maibe the greeks and serbs view different on the creation of the macedonians , and macedonism has different meaning by them. But ok. primary meaning is the one I wrote, the secondary is the one that comes from the macedonian culture, logicaly?-- Vlatko 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There are definately multiple meanings:
R Astbury (1967) "Varro and Pompey" - The Classical Quarterly
"... He thinks that as Anaximenes' work was a satire on Greek democracy and anti- Macedonism, so Varro's similarly titled work was a satire on Roman democracy. ... "
FW Walbank (1943) Alcaeus of Messene, Philip V, and Rome (Concluded) - The Classical Quarterly
"... In the earlier period this philo- Macedonism had been the natural policy of the newly liberated Peloponnesian states- Messenia and Arcadia; in the later it was ... "
Although it only has 8 hits in total from Google scholar [2]. Although fourteen results from Google books [3]. And it seems that yes it is used by Macedonians: 'According to extreme Macedonian nationalists, "Slavism" is a destructive doctrine that "aims to eradicate Macedonism completely"' (Danforth 1997) The Macedonian Conflict.
Anyway, do the research yourself. It would hurt to try and write something NPOV in a while. - FrancisTyers · 19:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The connection is in the historical doctrine of the Republic. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what I mean and it is so, if you want to be logical in the artical that relation to RoM, please put and the other meaning of the term. Or explain to me please how is this article in the present form to RoM related. As I see it is related only to Bulgarian "history".-- Vlatko 11:08,16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's clear enough that Republicans dont endorse the term. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you haven't explained why my version is inaccurate or type of vandalism. Otherwise, following your logic, we can make articles about any nation as political ideology. I understand you have to follow Greek agenda, but surely you are not completely out of common sense. Cheers, -- Cigor 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you reverted an logical and real constatation? I do not agree with you The bulgarian POV about the term to be presented without showing the other part's meaning.-- Vlatko 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Text: "The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). A typical Macedonistic statement would be: "Those Slavs live in Macedonia, therefore they are ethnic Macedonians" [citation needed]. In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed. "
When a group of people decide to form a nation or a separate ethnos, this is caled self determination. I understand that to many nationalist, this is a novel concept, but that is how it works. Also " typical Macedonistic statement would be: "Those Slavs live in Macedonia, therefore they are ethnic Macedonians", is a blatant lie.
Therefore, why do I need to suport Claim 1 with a quote?-- Cigor 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Also consistent with the "Serbian Idea", see the letter. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, what's so important with the word not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary, so to be mentioned as the term's first and allegedly most important characteristic? Neither are leet and w00t listed there. 'Macedonism' is a very specific regional neologism, it's not a word you'd hear outside the Balkans topic, so this is expected. You may mention that Oxford Dictionary fact somewhere in the body, but please remove it from the most important part of the intro — it's as irrelevant as saying 'Macedonism is not a cow nor a bottle of Coke'. Todor → Bozhinov 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Umm, Macedonism is just another -ism. You can have NikoSilverism, Bomacism, Telexism, FunkyFlyism you name it. It's one of those Greek endings that go with everything. Check for more -isms (that wouldn't exist in ...Oxford Dict. either) below:
So please drop the dictionary quote alltogether from the article coz it means zilt. :NikoSilver: 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Here you go FF, just for you. Enjoy.
Part1 It goes like this, there is a tribe called Bulgars what forms a state around Danube after successful wars with Byzantine Empire. Its territory expands and reaches its peak under Simeon. Simeon was so powerful, that he proclaims to be Tsar, or an emperor a title available only for Byzantine emperor or HRE. In fact, he wants to replace the Byzantine Empire with a new one, but fails. In the Bulgar state, the Slavs are second-rate citizens, whereas Bulgars are the elite. To make the country more stable they adapt Christianity. There are pressures to revert to paganism as late as 893. Anyway, official Bulgarian view is that by then a new Bulgar-Slavic ethnicity was formed. Let say, for the sake of an argument that is true. Although, some claim that Gagauz people are direct descendant of Bulgars, so the process of assimilation was not completed in that case. Let’s even ignore the fact that Samuil creates a new state far from the traditional center of power of Bulgar boyars – Preslav and Pliska. Anyway, by 1018 Byzantine Empire finally recapture the entire Balkan peninsula.
Part2 It follows long occupation until the revolt in 1185.Now, by now we would think there is well formed nation, even though probably Hellenized at some level. So, who makes the revolt? Contemporary sources (Nicetas Choniates, are mentioning mostly Vlachs, although Kumans also play an important role. In crusaders chronicles the stare is referred as Wlachia. No Bulgarian yet. So what happen next? As any ambitious ruler they are calling on the legacy of the First Bulgarian Empire. So, now we have Bulgaria. Incidentally, there is not a single Bulgarian tsar who is not either with Vlach or Kuman origin, other than one Mongol and Konstantin Tih. After 1280, most of the elite is with Kuman origin. So, just like the first Bulgarian state, here, once again we have foreign elite establishing a state. By the end of the 14th century Ottomans conquered Bulgaria.
Part3 Under Ottomans, Bulgaria changes its religious and ethnic composition significantly. The Ottomans pretty much controls Christian raya trough the Greek church. Now, under Greeks, the word “Bulgarian” has a pejorative meaning: peasant, stupid, vulgar etc. (see B. Primov , Bugrite Sofija 1970 for a complete list). In Bulgaria class and ethnicity overlapped . When Slavs moved into the urban world or became members of the middle classes, they generally shifted their identity to Greek. In Belgrade, for example, Serbian townsmen dressed in the Greek style, the Belgrade newspapers included the rubric Grecia (Greece),and, at least according to Stoianovich (1994: 294), the local Christian“higher strata” were Grecophone until 1840. In South Albania and Greece during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thousands of Orthodox Albanians and Vlachs became completely Hellenized (Skendi 1980:187–204). In the Bulgarian lands, during the second half of the eighteenth century, the domination of cultural life by the ecumenical patriarchate led to the promotion of Grecophone culture in liturgy, archives, and correspondence (Markova 1980).
In 1762, monk Paius writes “Oh, unreasonable people why are you ashamed of your name… “ well, you know the rest. Now let elaborate this. Where does he gets information about Bulgarians? He reads this from some Latin monk translation of a short Greek history of Bulgarian Empires. So it isn’t that there some tales that transfer from generation to generation, no he get this from a foreigner. Anyway, his work is largely ignored until 1820s. At that time most of the intellectuals continued to be Greek, even their greatest prerodbenik Aprilov who was declared Greek. On the other hand, Petar Beron, the author of Fish Primer was declaring himself as – Thracian/Miziec! But none of that matter, because Russia was getting stronger while Turkey was getting weaker, so naturally it aspired to have an access to Mediterranean, and Bulgaria looked logical, from there capturing Constantinople and dismantling Turkish Empire should be easy. So they have sent their agents agitating for Bulgarian cause. It was after their works the whole process gain momentum. Russian first writes a grammar of Bulgarian language. And, after a short and unsuccessful uprising, it is the Russian army that liberates Bulgaria. They want to make large Bulgaria but essentially a Russian province. West complains, Macedonia stays within Turkey, and here we go after 150 years….
So, therefore what are Bulgarians? Slavs, Kumans, Vlahs, Tatars, Thracians, Turks, Gagauz, etc, etc… -- Cigor 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at five last sentence in "Claim 1" section. You asked, I provided. Sure, why not, give a critique.-- Cigor 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor, if you want theories that sound logical, I can give you some:
The Greek elite was almost ruling the Ottoman Empire by the early 19th century with the Phanariotes, who were the diplomatic body and had also regional titles. The same had already happened in the past with the Roman Empire, when Romans admitted "we conquered Greeks by the sword, they conquered us with the mind", and the whole Empire was eventually ruled by pro-Greek (or Greek) Emperors who even moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. With those infiltrating Greeks, (the Phanariotes) the re-enstation of a new fearful Byzantine Empire from within was once more imminent. An empire that would give new meaning to the Constantinian doctrine for free religion, since for the first time it would incorporate Muslim citizens. So the big powers of the time, had to figure out a way to divert this procedure. That way, ironically, came also from within: They inspired the lower classes of Greeks with romantic nationalism ( Lord Byron et al) and made them rebel against the Ottoman (soon to be Greek-ruled) empire. Later on, when the Greek War of Independence got out of hand, the Phanariotes had no alternative than to join the cause. So there we have it today:
I find the above to be a nice analysis. Unfortunately, there are very few things I can back-up with solid proof, so most of it is original reasearch. Much like yours. I would call it just another conspiracy theory. :NikoSilver: 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Funky, but I think you are coming harder than necessary on Cigor. I definitely understand that irrational opposition may cause irrational reaction. I myself have many Slavomacedonian friends in real life and I sense that many of them don't share irredentist thoughts. Please Cigor, help in making those extremists even fewer. And by all means help in reducing any extremist group from any other country. We only have one reasonable difference: That of the name and the history that goes behind it. Let us not generalise this. There is no excuse in over-reacting because the other side does so too. :NikoSilver: 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: What I mean about over-reacting is very simple: Asking for territories outside one's country is over-reacting. Greece doesn't do it. Bulgaria neither. So I'd think again about your quote "...I disagree that extreme nationalism is prevalent in Republic of Macedonia". It is another thing to dispute a name or a history and another to dispute sovereignity. Also, it is a boomerang (as you may understand). :NikoSilver: 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor? Care to comment again on "prevalence" of extreme nationalism? Can you please specify respective examples by users who declare other Balkanic ethnicities? Again, I repeat: I know off-wiki many Slavomacedonians and apart from here, I've never seen such a massive nationalistic approach. So I am not generalising, but please don't say that there is no "prevalence" (at least here)! :NikoSilver: 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me clear some things out with you to understand where you stand. I'll start by commenting your answer:
...and I'll finish with my personal thoughts: You are a small underfinanced country with un-homogenious ethnic composition. As a small target, you have many nationalistic predators around. You can't keep relying on their democratic sentiments and continue to piss them off with any chance you get. At some point, they may react as your (and my) fellow users here (ie get radicalised). You need friends. Gladly, you can have friends: You share common religion with both Greece and Bulgaria, common (or close or whatever) language with Bulgaria, common historic major enemies, common past, had lived harmoniously close to both for centuries. So, solve your (and our) silly issues with your neighbors. They DO want you to be autonomous, sovereign and prosperous. They DO want to help. Just demonstrate acceptance of two very basic things:
Please point where I deny Macedonians (Greek) anything. Or, where I make a territorial claim anywhere. The only person that I can answer about is I. The only thing that I can do about extreme nationalisms is finding some compromise version that will be acceptable to the overwhelming majority. As for Telex and FF, I beg to differ. I find Telex user page unbelievable stupid and insulting (NPOV + he talks slavenomakedonski=bugarski). As for FF, this very page is practically an attack page and you call them moderate? Obviously we have very different perspective. As for history claims, everything that I wrote in my Bulgarisam essay is true and I can back it up, I am just waiting for FF to ask me nicely, so is not that simple. Let me tell you something about GD and rest. If you look at their documents, proclamations, etc. you will have very hard time finding documents that are mentioning Bulgarians – it’s always Macedonians, Macedonian people and so on. There were people with separate conscience other than Bulgarians – Pulevski, most of the’ prerodbenici’ were linking us with Ancient Macedonians, the proclamation of Kresna Uprising, Slavejkov letters, T. Goluganov attempts for separate Macedonian churchs, etc, etc. And finally, my grand-grand father was according to this article “Macedonist” (this was during the Ottomans) so I really do not need lecture where I came from. -- Cigor 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor, I think there is a chance for us to finally agree:
By the way, you said that an ancestor of yours was tortured by Bulgarians. So? Many ancestors of ours were tortured by other Greeks! Should we hate each-other for that? Don't you understand that those times are thankfully well behind and we are well off not twisting the knife in the wound (Greek proverb)? What will be the benefit if we keep doing that instead of recognising that we have more things in common than different? Don't you understand that negating prior connection with them inflames the situation and gives nationalist Bulgarians more reasons to try and annex you? Wouldn't it be fairer to say: "Yeah, we were Bulgarians at some point, but we split and prefer it this way!"?
The only difference between the federation of ,,Greece, FYROM and Serbia" and United Macedonia is that people thought as one part, not different countries. Anyway, I am more offended from the FYROM irredentist inscription on that image, rather than anything else (at fisrst the name of the image was: Federation between Greece, FYROM and Serbia...).
As for what Bulgarians have done in Macedonia (one of many things): The Bulgarian occupation forces shot 12 young men from the village of Vatasha ( 16 june, 1943). Today there is a memorial near the village. Because of that event, there is a famous Macedonian folk-song Mi zaplakalo seloto Vatasha [14] (Vatasha is crying).
BTW, if some people were declaring themselves as Bulgarians in the past, that doesn't makes them Bulgarians. Macedonia was still under Ottomans then. Bomac 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
They've welcomed any force which they thought it can help them in their struggle for freedom.
BTW, Telex, if Kalasha declares as descendent of the Ancient Macedonians, does it really makes them so? Bomac 10:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you a descendent of ancient Greeks? ;-) Bomac 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No matter, until the arrival of Macedonian Slavs in Macedonia, wheter there were or there weren't ancients, was Macedonia a desolated land? I don't think so. Do you? Bomac 10:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, this thesis is good according to the ,,famous" genetic analyses, who state that Macedonians, Greeks and Bulgarians are the most similar people, rather than any other ethnic groups in the Balkans. Bomac 10:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Britannica claims that Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria actually quarreled with each other over how to divide up Macedonia among themselves. I find it very disruptive. Bomac 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that is brutal. As you've said, this world is a bad place. Bomac 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And do you know that these "Macedonians" suffered the most in those quarrels, being called Bulgarians, Serbs or even Greeks (for Mac. Slavs)? Bomac 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I DON'T want to mess with their authonomy, and I don't have territorial pretensions. What happened in the past - happened, now we have to concentrate on our everyday lives and future.
And - I really think that the prefix SlavoMacedonians is really not necessary, as I call myself Macedonian. Yes, there are Macedonians from Greece (=Greek Macedonians), but they are part of the Greek history, and they are Greeks (if you like include here the ancient Macs., I don't care). From today's point of view, the Macedonian Slavic ethnic group is the Macedonians, that is how we traditionally call ourselves. Bomac 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that questionnaire would look like this:
Noone will ever answer:
That's the problem. Macedonians are ethnic group, they call themselves Macedonians everywhere they go. Here's another dialogue, which I'm pretty sure noone ever made:
-- Bomac 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I could add more till tomorrow if you wish... :NikoSilver: 16:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
C'm on, isn't that tempting at least? Bomac 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Bulgaria is not in the list. You've mixed up with Βέλγιο, darling. Bomac 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Actually, my country doesn't have a steady develloped tourism, although I think it may be a good tourist destination. We have the beautiful Ohrid, Prespa and the now-revitalizing Dojran Lakes at least for summer tourism. Bomac 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1. To answer your first question, I would like briefly touch on Middle Ages. History of Macedonia and Bulgaria is different. While there Vlah and Cuman aristocrats were fighting for power, Macedonia was one of the last Byzantine provinces. Later, Skopje turned to be capitol of Serbian Empire. After that, Turks conquered all of Balkan, and here comes vacuum period for all Christians. Of all, Macedonia is affected most, because the Turks stay there longest. In the periods 1400-1800, there are many sources describing them as Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians. I think Serbian reference is strongest of all. So the real question is if we were Bulgarians, when did this happen? Let’s see the peasantry was for the most part Slav and its loyalty was primarily to their family, village, with the Christian Orthodox identity as the paramount spiritual affiliation. Ethnic identity could have been changed practically overnight. For example see this [16]. The intellectuals were Hellenophile. So the questions when did they turned to be Bulgarian? One of the first prerodbenik is D. Miladinov. Only after the meeting with the Russian Slavist Viktor Grigorovich in 1845 he becomes from “Greek” to “Bulgarian”. Kuzman Shapkarev for this writes “„Ot togava se prepravil beshe od Savel na Pavel, beshe se vzrodilo u nego edno nenasito rodolubie, do tolkova schoto duri do fanatizam dopirashe.” ( From then he turned from Saul to Paul, and a patriotism was born, almost limiting with fanatic). Russia was training other prerodbenici as well. And since I mentioned Shapkarev, he was working on a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language, this is true. But when this failed he wrote : He wrote "Edvam se oslobodivme od Grcite, sega pak Sopie li da staneme? ('We've barely freed ourselves from the Greeks-- are we to become Shopi in now? (Shopi are called people from Sofia region, but in wider sense meaning Bulgarians from Bulgaria). That Macedonian and Bulgarian language are same, is not true. We were beeing ridiculed by Bulgarians. Here is Editor's commentary On the language of another important prerodbenik: J. Hadzi Konstantinov - Dzinot As concerns the language of Mr. Jordan, anyone can see that it is so different from our written and spoken language, so that to a person reading it for the first time it will appear not only incomprehensible but completely different. And in truth his language, even though it appears to be Bulgarian, and its material, like that of our language, is also taken from the Church Slavic litei'ary language, has in its form, nevertheless, that is in the pronunciation of the words and in writing, so many properties and peculiarities that it can more easily be learned and spoken correctly by a foreigner, and not by a native Bulgarian. May the residents of Skopje forgive us, along with those who speak a similar language: since they also do not understand our language, nor can they speak it. "Bolgarski" (Bulgarian) in "Carigradski vesfnik" (Istambul Herald), No.55, October 6, 1851, p.19. They, do not understand our language, let me repeat that. Off course next Dzinot writes “tija prokletija Blgari”,(those damned Bulgarians) and subsequently tagged as a Serbian agent. Incidentally, there were many other scenarios the could have happened. For example you can read here where Bulgaria do not exist at all, but Macedonia do. If that was the case, by now Bulgarians would be something related to history. Read here for Greek Proposal for a Sovereign Macedonia: [17]
So why all this long intro in the first place? I am really hoping you read most of the text, to understand the key concept – Macedonians are not equal to Bulgarians. We have lot of thing to share in terms of history and culture but they are not the same. There is overlapping but we are/were not the same. We are closest to Bulgarians, but not the same. Now, typical Bulgarian would consider this as a regionalism, but we tend not to. So finally to answer your question. When would I place the timeframe , the answer is it depends. Obviously, the Macedonist would like to put the year as early as mid 19 th century, whereas Bulgarians as late as 1944. There were several events that shaped Macedonian thinkers – 1878 (failure of SanStefan), 1903 (failure of Ilinden uprising), 1913 Balkan wars/division of Macedonia. After WWI, things are pretty clear that Bulgarian option is completely discredited. But then, when we look at different writings, this may have happened much earlier. For example, in 1888, Temko Popov writes in his letter “..Don't fool yourself, Despot, the national spirit in Macedonia has attained such a state that Jesus Christ himself, if he were to descend from heaven, could not convince a Macedonian that he is a Bulgarian or a Serb, except for those Macedonians in whom Bulgarian propaganda has already taken root…” . We know earlier that in Kresna Uprising they are talking about Macedonians only. My point is, you can not tell when exactly the conscience shifted, because there was never option to be proclaimed Macedonian. When left to choose between Bulgarian and Greek, Macedonian opt for the first one, naturally.--Cigor
2. As for the image, I’ve placed to prove my point: IMORO is saying Macedonia to Macedonians, but Greek Macedonia is already in Greece. So, why should Greeks care for united Macedonia? Later, Bulgarians will complain “we never meant Macedonian people as real nation rather than congregation of different ethnicity”. Sure, whatever. --Cigor
3. Firstly, Americans are not largely from British ancestry, but German, but that is not the point. Nor Mexican=Spanish (although if you watch their TV you may think so, it’s very rasist, I know, I live in Texas). There is no reasons for shame because England is country that has been independent for centuries. There is no disambiguates there. Macedonia/Bulgaria is different, Bulgaria has an opinion that they are bordering with Bulgarians only. Bulgarian do this: [18], whereas Macedonian immigrants in USA before WWI write this [19]. Do you understand the difference, now?--Cigor
4. I never said we should hate each other. I didn’t say he was tortured. Actually he was supposed to be executed by the Serbs, but he survived, and here I am. It is a long story and the story has Turks, Greeks,Bulgarians and Serbs involved. If we should say we were Bulgarians at some time, than we should clearly understand what does the term Bulgarians at different timeframe means. Also, I would really like to know what exactly they are –Bulgars, Slavs, Vlahs, Kumans, Thracians, etc. So far in the history we find all these people using the name Bulgarians. Heck, I called myself Macedonian, but that doesn’t mean I am descendant of Alexander the Great.--Cigor
5. Actually, even today I still don’t understand what is the big deal about the naming. It is irrational to have a modern political dispute over a name, mostly because of the glory of Macedonian name that happened some 2300 years ago. I certainly don’t see problem between country Luxemburg and Belgian province Luxemburg (which incidentally, just like our case, they are neighbors) . It is irrational IMHO, but obviously you have a different opinion. I have absolutely no problem for the Greek Macedonians to be called Macedonians, but on the other hand, don’t except to change my name . Cheers. -- Cigor 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor, I intermingled my... wisdom inside your comments, adding short-sigs for both of us. I hope you don't mind. You will find that we agree in many things... :NikoSilver: 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This source does not say a word about the "Macedonian language". It talks about Macedonian local dialects. As for Claim 1, the statement is so vague that it needs to be expanded or backed up with a source. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
FF, I see you added rebuttal. So, how do we proceed? Do I do a separate rebuttal to your rebuttal. If so, I am afraid it's going to look like a Yahoo message board, but if that is your choice, fine. -- Cigor 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If the article starts as it is written with the main meaning of the term ,it expreses confusion, as there are critics about and supports for. It is better to be written so, becose in Macedonia the idea is not a consious thing with direct work against bulgarians (is this so or not it is not proven), thats why we should not state such quotes (it destroies wikipedia's relevancy policy). The nation feels as Macedonian, and it functions by that way. if you want the article to stay in the old form in the start, please prove that the macedonist are working against Bulgarians (do not missunderstand, I'm Macedonian) knowing that, and that the Bulgarians are working against the Macedonians not as Bulgarists. Sorry for the bad english.-- Vlatko 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've re-edited this article due to the fact that ,,Macedonism" is Bulgarian POV towards Macedonia. 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomac ( talk • contribs)
Yeah, tottaly fits in pro-Bulgarian 'bout Srbinovski. And the second one is a dictionary. Why the hell this word can't be included? Bomac 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
C'm on, so many books are written in Bulgaria about this issue and you claim that it's not most widely used in Bulgaria? Gimme a break. Bomac 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Who's to say? I guess I have... I'll say this again: de facto Macedonism is a word that is mostly used in Bulgaria (endoubled, trippled...) than in any other country. BTW, thank's for, er, ,,saving" my user-page. What an idiot and hypocrite can edit my user-page?... Bomac 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And, because it refers to non-Bulgarian origin, it is most surely overwhelmingly used in Bulgaria. Bomac 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not blaming anyone... I just had to say those words 'caus that user was one of those with short expiry date... Bomac 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So, when the Bulgarian nation was forming, there was some sort of Bulgarism? Bomac 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean the 3000 yeared one? Bomac 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I thought of your glorious Bulgarian 3000 yeared history. Do we steal that one? Bomac 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Samuil and others were active in Macedonia, so I really don't know who is stealing ;-) Bomac 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add to that list. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Good boy. Here's an A+ in the diary. Bomac 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. But, I don't have the intention to do so (for now) ;-) Bomac 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the ,,Macedonist" Misirkov, they weren't Tatars, but Mongols (still, it is close). What are you talking about? I'm speaking 'bout the Bulgarian name. BTW, as a ,,Macedonist", I don't support the non-mixing theory (which I've never heard of, though). Here on Balkans, it is hardly this theory to get in practice. Bomac 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No need of disapointments. Bomac 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in the following:
macedonism -wikipedia
:
753 results (only all websites)macedonism -wikipedia site:.bg
:
35 results (only in
.bg websites)macedonism -wikipedia -site:.bg
:
721 results (excluding
.bg websites)-- Telex 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, again. Please if you write about Macedonism, write generaly about the term, and all posible varietis that the term can mean, not only the bulgarian, thats just an apply of personal conviction. Thanx-- Vlatko 13:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You constantly revert the article about macedoniasm, the part of the term that points the political meaning, you have to realise that the written one is only bulgarian perseption and that wikipedia is here to inform, such an idea exist not in macedonia, but is a delusion of bulgarians, It must be added and this, "Bulgarian understanding of the term", "Macedonian respond to the bulgarian POV", you cant be so conformistic.-- Vlatko 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, primary or secodary, explain to me how do you distinguish what is what, is there some way I do not know to make some clasification like your's. Silly. Here the primary is obvious he macedonian cose there it wont be bulgarian point of view about the term if there was none macedonian culture, maibe the greeks and serbs view different on the creation of the macedonians , and macedonism has different meaning by them. But ok. primary meaning is the one I wrote, the secondary is the one that comes from the macedonian culture, logicaly?-- Vlatko 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There are definately multiple meanings:
R Astbury (1967) "Varro and Pompey" - The Classical Quarterly
"... He thinks that as Anaximenes' work was a satire on Greek democracy and anti- Macedonism, so Varro's similarly titled work was a satire on Roman democracy. ... "
FW Walbank (1943) Alcaeus of Messene, Philip V, and Rome (Concluded) - The Classical Quarterly
"... In the earlier period this philo- Macedonism had been the natural policy of the newly liberated Peloponnesian states- Messenia and Arcadia; in the later it was ... "
Although it only has 8 hits in total from Google scholar [2]. Although fourteen results from Google books [3]. And it seems that yes it is used by Macedonians: 'According to extreme Macedonian nationalists, "Slavism" is a destructive doctrine that "aims to eradicate Macedonism completely"' (Danforth 1997) The Macedonian Conflict.
Anyway, do the research yourself. It would hurt to try and write something NPOV in a while. - FrancisTyers · 19:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The connection is in the historical doctrine of the Republic. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what I mean and it is so, if you want to be logical in the artical that relation to RoM, please put and the other meaning of the term. Or explain to me please how is this article in the present form to RoM related. As I see it is related only to Bulgarian "history".-- Vlatko 11:08,16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's clear enough that Republicans dont endorse the term. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you haven't explained why my version is inaccurate or type of vandalism. Otherwise, following your logic, we can make articles about any nation as political ideology. I understand you have to follow Greek agenda, but surely you are not completely out of common sense. Cheers, -- Cigor 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you reverted an logical and real constatation? I do not agree with you The bulgarian POV about the term to be presented without showing the other part's meaning.-- Vlatko 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Text: "The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). A typical Macedonistic statement would be: "Those Slavs live in Macedonia, therefore they are ethnic Macedonians" [citation needed]. In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed. "
When a group of people decide to form a nation or a separate ethnos, this is caled self determination. I understand that to many nationalist, this is a novel concept, but that is how it works. Also " typical Macedonistic statement would be: "Those Slavs live in Macedonia, therefore they are ethnic Macedonians", is a blatant lie.
Therefore, why do I need to suport Claim 1 with a quote?-- Cigor 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Also consistent with the "Serbian Idea", see the letter. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, what's so important with the word not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary, so to be mentioned as the term's first and allegedly most important characteristic? Neither are leet and w00t listed there. 'Macedonism' is a very specific regional neologism, it's not a word you'd hear outside the Balkans topic, so this is expected. You may mention that Oxford Dictionary fact somewhere in the body, but please remove it from the most important part of the intro — it's as irrelevant as saying 'Macedonism is not a cow nor a bottle of Coke'. Todor → Bozhinov 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Umm, Macedonism is just another -ism. You can have NikoSilverism, Bomacism, Telexism, FunkyFlyism you name it. It's one of those Greek endings that go with everything. Check for more -isms (that wouldn't exist in ...Oxford Dict. either) below:
So please drop the dictionary quote alltogether from the article coz it means zilt. :NikoSilver: 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Here you go FF, just for you. Enjoy.
Part1 It goes like this, there is a tribe called Bulgars what forms a state around Danube after successful wars with Byzantine Empire. Its territory expands and reaches its peak under Simeon. Simeon was so powerful, that he proclaims to be Tsar, or an emperor a title available only for Byzantine emperor or HRE. In fact, he wants to replace the Byzantine Empire with a new one, but fails. In the Bulgar state, the Slavs are second-rate citizens, whereas Bulgars are the elite. To make the country more stable they adapt Christianity. There are pressures to revert to paganism as late as 893. Anyway, official Bulgarian view is that by then a new Bulgar-Slavic ethnicity was formed. Let say, for the sake of an argument that is true. Although, some claim that Gagauz people are direct descendant of Bulgars, so the process of assimilation was not completed in that case. Let’s even ignore the fact that Samuil creates a new state far from the traditional center of power of Bulgar boyars – Preslav and Pliska. Anyway, by 1018 Byzantine Empire finally recapture the entire Balkan peninsula.
Part2 It follows long occupation until the revolt in 1185.Now, by now we would think there is well formed nation, even though probably Hellenized at some level. So, who makes the revolt? Contemporary sources (Nicetas Choniates, are mentioning mostly Vlachs, although Kumans also play an important role. In crusaders chronicles the stare is referred as Wlachia. No Bulgarian yet. So what happen next? As any ambitious ruler they are calling on the legacy of the First Bulgarian Empire. So, now we have Bulgaria. Incidentally, there is not a single Bulgarian tsar who is not either with Vlach or Kuman origin, other than one Mongol and Konstantin Tih. After 1280, most of the elite is with Kuman origin. So, just like the first Bulgarian state, here, once again we have foreign elite establishing a state. By the end of the 14th century Ottomans conquered Bulgaria.
Part3 Under Ottomans, Bulgaria changes its religious and ethnic composition significantly. The Ottomans pretty much controls Christian raya trough the Greek church. Now, under Greeks, the word “Bulgarian” has a pejorative meaning: peasant, stupid, vulgar etc. (see B. Primov , Bugrite Sofija 1970 for a complete list). In Bulgaria class and ethnicity overlapped . When Slavs moved into the urban world or became members of the middle classes, they generally shifted their identity to Greek. In Belgrade, for example, Serbian townsmen dressed in the Greek style, the Belgrade newspapers included the rubric Grecia (Greece),and, at least according to Stoianovich (1994: 294), the local Christian“higher strata” were Grecophone until 1840. In South Albania and Greece during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thousands of Orthodox Albanians and Vlachs became completely Hellenized (Skendi 1980:187–204). In the Bulgarian lands, during the second half of the eighteenth century, the domination of cultural life by the ecumenical patriarchate led to the promotion of Grecophone culture in liturgy, archives, and correspondence (Markova 1980).
In 1762, monk Paius writes “Oh, unreasonable people why are you ashamed of your name… “ well, you know the rest. Now let elaborate this. Where does he gets information about Bulgarians? He reads this from some Latin monk translation of a short Greek history of Bulgarian Empires. So it isn’t that there some tales that transfer from generation to generation, no he get this from a foreigner. Anyway, his work is largely ignored until 1820s. At that time most of the intellectuals continued to be Greek, even their greatest prerodbenik Aprilov who was declared Greek. On the other hand, Petar Beron, the author of Fish Primer was declaring himself as – Thracian/Miziec! But none of that matter, because Russia was getting stronger while Turkey was getting weaker, so naturally it aspired to have an access to Mediterranean, and Bulgaria looked logical, from there capturing Constantinople and dismantling Turkish Empire should be easy. So they have sent their agents agitating for Bulgarian cause. It was after their works the whole process gain momentum. Russian first writes a grammar of Bulgarian language. And, after a short and unsuccessful uprising, it is the Russian army that liberates Bulgaria. They want to make large Bulgaria but essentially a Russian province. West complains, Macedonia stays within Turkey, and here we go after 150 years….
So, therefore what are Bulgarians? Slavs, Kumans, Vlahs, Tatars, Thracians, Turks, Gagauz, etc, etc… -- Cigor 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at five last sentence in "Claim 1" section. You asked, I provided. Sure, why not, give a critique.-- Cigor 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor, if you want theories that sound logical, I can give you some:
The Greek elite was almost ruling the Ottoman Empire by the early 19th century with the Phanariotes, who were the diplomatic body and had also regional titles. The same had already happened in the past with the Roman Empire, when Romans admitted "we conquered Greeks by the sword, they conquered us with the mind", and the whole Empire was eventually ruled by pro-Greek (or Greek) Emperors who even moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. With those infiltrating Greeks, (the Phanariotes) the re-enstation of a new fearful Byzantine Empire from within was once more imminent. An empire that would give new meaning to the Constantinian doctrine for free religion, since for the first time it would incorporate Muslim citizens. So the big powers of the time, had to figure out a way to divert this procedure. That way, ironically, came also from within: They inspired the lower classes of Greeks with romantic nationalism ( Lord Byron et al) and made them rebel against the Ottoman (soon to be Greek-ruled) empire. Later on, when the Greek War of Independence got out of hand, the Phanariotes had no alternative than to join the cause. So there we have it today:
I find the above to be a nice analysis. Unfortunately, there are very few things I can back-up with solid proof, so most of it is original reasearch. Much like yours. I would call it just another conspiracy theory. :NikoSilver: 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Funky, but I think you are coming harder than necessary on Cigor. I definitely understand that irrational opposition may cause irrational reaction. I myself have many Slavomacedonian friends in real life and I sense that many of them don't share irredentist thoughts. Please Cigor, help in making those extremists even fewer. And by all means help in reducing any extremist group from any other country. We only have one reasonable difference: That of the name and the history that goes behind it. Let us not generalise this. There is no excuse in over-reacting because the other side does so too. :NikoSilver: 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: What I mean about over-reacting is very simple: Asking for territories outside one's country is over-reacting. Greece doesn't do it. Bulgaria neither. So I'd think again about your quote "...I disagree that extreme nationalism is prevalent in Republic of Macedonia". It is another thing to dispute a name or a history and another to dispute sovereignity. Also, it is a boomerang (as you may understand). :NikoSilver: 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor? Care to comment again on "prevalence" of extreme nationalism? Can you please specify respective examples by users who declare other Balkanic ethnicities? Again, I repeat: I know off-wiki many Slavomacedonians and apart from here, I've never seen such a massive nationalistic approach. So I am not generalising, but please don't say that there is no "prevalence" (at least here)! :NikoSilver: 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me clear some things out with you to understand where you stand. I'll start by commenting your answer:
...and I'll finish with my personal thoughts: You are a small underfinanced country with un-homogenious ethnic composition. As a small target, you have many nationalistic predators around. You can't keep relying on their democratic sentiments and continue to piss them off with any chance you get. At some point, they may react as your (and my) fellow users here (ie get radicalised). You need friends. Gladly, you can have friends: You share common religion with both Greece and Bulgaria, common (or close or whatever) language with Bulgaria, common historic major enemies, common past, had lived harmoniously close to both for centuries. So, solve your (and our) silly issues with your neighbors. They DO want you to be autonomous, sovereign and prosperous. They DO want to help. Just demonstrate acceptance of two very basic things:
Please point where I deny Macedonians (Greek) anything. Or, where I make a territorial claim anywhere. The only person that I can answer about is I. The only thing that I can do about extreme nationalisms is finding some compromise version that will be acceptable to the overwhelming majority. As for Telex and FF, I beg to differ. I find Telex user page unbelievable stupid and insulting (NPOV + he talks slavenomakedonski=bugarski). As for FF, this very page is practically an attack page and you call them moderate? Obviously we have very different perspective. As for history claims, everything that I wrote in my Bulgarisam essay is true and I can back it up, I am just waiting for FF to ask me nicely, so is not that simple. Let me tell you something about GD and rest. If you look at their documents, proclamations, etc. you will have very hard time finding documents that are mentioning Bulgarians – it’s always Macedonians, Macedonian people and so on. There were people with separate conscience other than Bulgarians – Pulevski, most of the’ prerodbenici’ were linking us with Ancient Macedonians, the proclamation of Kresna Uprising, Slavejkov letters, T. Goluganov attempts for separate Macedonian churchs, etc, etc. And finally, my grand-grand father was according to this article “Macedonist” (this was during the Ottomans) so I really do not need lecture where I came from. -- Cigor 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor, I think there is a chance for us to finally agree:
By the way, you said that an ancestor of yours was tortured by Bulgarians. So? Many ancestors of ours were tortured by other Greeks! Should we hate each-other for that? Don't you understand that those times are thankfully well behind and we are well off not twisting the knife in the wound (Greek proverb)? What will be the benefit if we keep doing that instead of recognising that we have more things in common than different? Don't you understand that negating prior connection with them inflames the situation and gives nationalist Bulgarians more reasons to try and annex you? Wouldn't it be fairer to say: "Yeah, we were Bulgarians at some point, but we split and prefer it this way!"?
The only difference between the federation of ,,Greece, FYROM and Serbia" and United Macedonia is that people thought as one part, not different countries. Anyway, I am more offended from the FYROM irredentist inscription on that image, rather than anything else (at fisrst the name of the image was: Federation between Greece, FYROM and Serbia...).
As for what Bulgarians have done in Macedonia (one of many things): The Bulgarian occupation forces shot 12 young men from the village of Vatasha ( 16 june, 1943). Today there is a memorial near the village. Because of that event, there is a famous Macedonian folk-song Mi zaplakalo seloto Vatasha [14] (Vatasha is crying).
BTW, if some people were declaring themselves as Bulgarians in the past, that doesn't makes them Bulgarians. Macedonia was still under Ottomans then. Bomac 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
They've welcomed any force which they thought it can help them in their struggle for freedom.
BTW, Telex, if Kalasha declares as descendent of the Ancient Macedonians, does it really makes them so? Bomac 10:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you a descendent of ancient Greeks? ;-) Bomac 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No matter, until the arrival of Macedonian Slavs in Macedonia, wheter there were or there weren't ancients, was Macedonia a desolated land? I don't think so. Do you? Bomac 10:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, this thesis is good according to the ,,famous" genetic analyses, who state that Macedonians, Greeks and Bulgarians are the most similar people, rather than any other ethnic groups in the Balkans. Bomac 10:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Britannica claims that Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria actually quarreled with each other over how to divide up Macedonia among themselves. I find it very disruptive. Bomac 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that is brutal. As you've said, this world is a bad place. Bomac 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And do you know that these "Macedonians" suffered the most in those quarrels, being called Bulgarians, Serbs or even Greeks (for Mac. Slavs)? Bomac 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I DON'T want to mess with their authonomy, and I don't have territorial pretensions. What happened in the past - happened, now we have to concentrate on our everyday lives and future.
And - I really think that the prefix SlavoMacedonians is really not necessary, as I call myself Macedonian. Yes, there are Macedonians from Greece (=Greek Macedonians), but they are part of the Greek history, and they are Greeks (if you like include here the ancient Macs., I don't care). From today's point of view, the Macedonian Slavic ethnic group is the Macedonians, that is how we traditionally call ourselves. Bomac 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that questionnaire would look like this:
Noone will ever answer:
That's the problem. Macedonians are ethnic group, they call themselves Macedonians everywhere they go. Here's another dialogue, which I'm pretty sure noone ever made:
-- Bomac 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I could add more till tomorrow if you wish... :NikoSilver: 16:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
C'm on, isn't that tempting at least? Bomac 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Bulgaria is not in the list. You've mixed up with Βέλγιο, darling. Bomac 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Actually, my country doesn't have a steady develloped tourism, although I think it may be a good tourist destination. We have the beautiful Ohrid, Prespa and the now-revitalizing Dojran Lakes at least for summer tourism. Bomac 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1. To answer your first question, I would like briefly touch on Middle Ages. History of Macedonia and Bulgaria is different. While there Vlah and Cuman aristocrats were fighting for power, Macedonia was one of the last Byzantine provinces. Later, Skopje turned to be capitol of Serbian Empire. After that, Turks conquered all of Balkan, and here comes vacuum period for all Christians. Of all, Macedonia is affected most, because the Turks stay there longest. In the periods 1400-1800, there are many sources describing them as Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians. I think Serbian reference is strongest of all. So the real question is if we were Bulgarians, when did this happen? Let’s see the peasantry was for the most part Slav and its loyalty was primarily to their family, village, with the Christian Orthodox identity as the paramount spiritual affiliation. Ethnic identity could have been changed practically overnight. For example see this [16]. The intellectuals were Hellenophile. So the questions when did they turned to be Bulgarian? One of the first prerodbenik is D. Miladinov. Only after the meeting with the Russian Slavist Viktor Grigorovich in 1845 he becomes from “Greek” to “Bulgarian”. Kuzman Shapkarev for this writes “„Ot togava se prepravil beshe od Savel na Pavel, beshe se vzrodilo u nego edno nenasito rodolubie, do tolkova schoto duri do fanatizam dopirashe.” ( From then he turned from Saul to Paul, and a patriotism was born, almost limiting with fanatic). Russia was training other prerodbenici as well. And since I mentioned Shapkarev, he was working on a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language, this is true. But when this failed he wrote : He wrote "Edvam se oslobodivme od Grcite, sega pak Sopie li da staneme? ('We've barely freed ourselves from the Greeks-- are we to become Shopi in now? (Shopi are called people from Sofia region, but in wider sense meaning Bulgarians from Bulgaria). That Macedonian and Bulgarian language are same, is not true. We were beeing ridiculed by Bulgarians. Here is Editor's commentary On the language of another important prerodbenik: J. Hadzi Konstantinov - Dzinot As concerns the language of Mr. Jordan, anyone can see that it is so different from our written and spoken language, so that to a person reading it for the first time it will appear not only incomprehensible but completely different. And in truth his language, even though it appears to be Bulgarian, and its material, like that of our language, is also taken from the Church Slavic litei'ary language, has in its form, nevertheless, that is in the pronunciation of the words and in writing, so many properties and peculiarities that it can more easily be learned and spoken correctly by a foreigner, and not by a native Bulgarian. May the residents of Skopje forgive us, along with those who speak a similar language: since they also do not understand our language, nor can they speak it. "Bolgarski" (Bulgarian) in "Carigradski vesfnik" (Istambul Herald), No.55, October 6, 1851, p.19. They, do not understand our language, let me repeat that. Off course next Dzinot writes “tija prokletija Blgari”,(those damned Bulgarians) and subsequently tagged as a Serbian agent. Incidentally, there were many other scenarios the could have happened. For example you can read here where Bulgaria do not exist at all, but Macedonia do. If that was the case, by now Bulgarians would be something related to history. Read here for Greek Proposal for a Sovereign Macedonia: [17]
So why all this long intro in the first place? I am really hoping you read most of the text, to understand the key concept – Macedonians are not equal to Bulgarians. We have lot of thing to share in terms of history and culture but they are not the same. There is overlapping but we are/were not the same. We are closest to Bulgarians, but not the same. Now, typical Bulgarian would consider this as a regionalism, but we tend not to. So finally to answer your question. When would I place the timeframe , the answer is it depends. Obviously, the Macedonist would like to put the year as early as mid 19 th century, whereas Bulgarians as late as 1944. There were several events that shaped Macedonian thinkers – 1878 (failure of SanStefan), 1903 (failure of Ilinden uprising), 1913 Balkan wars/division of Macedonia. After WWI, things are pretty clear that Bulgarian option is completely discredited. But then, when we look at different writings, this may have happened much earlier. For example, in 1888, Temko Popov writes in his letter “..Don't fool yourself, Despot, the national spirit in Macedonia has attained such a state that Jesus Christ himself, if he were to descend from heaven, could not convince a Macedonian that he is a Bulgarian or a Serb, except for those Macedonians in whom Bulgarian propaganda has already taken root…” . We know earlier that in Kresna Uprising they are talking about Macedonians only. My point is, you can not tell when exactly the conscience shifted, because there was never option to be proclaimed Macedonian. When left to choose between Bulgarian and Greek, Macedonian opt for the first one, naturally.--Cigor
2. As for the image, I’ve placed to prove my point: IMORO is saying Macedonia to Macedonians, but Greek Macedonia is already in Greece. So, why should Greeks care for united Macedonia? Later, Bulgarians will complain “we never meant Macedonian people as real nation rather than congregation of different ethnicity”. Sure, whatever. --Cigor
3. Firstly, Americans are not largely from British ancestry, but German, but that is not the point. Nor Mexican=Spanish (although if you watch their TV you may think so, it’s very rasist, I know, I live in Texas). There is no reasons for shame because England is country that has been independent for centuries. There is no disambiguates there. Macedonia/Bulgaria is different, Bulgaria has an opinion that they are bordering with Bulgarians only. Bulgarian do this: [18], whereas Macedonian immigrants in USA before WWI write this [19]. Do you understand the difference, now?--Cigor
4. I never said we should hate each other. I didn’t say he was tortured. Actually he was supposed to be executed by the Serbs, but he survived, and here I am. It is a long story and the story has Turks, Greeks,Bulgarians and Serbs involved. If we should say we were Bulgarians at some time, than we should clearly understand what does the term Bulgarians at different timeframe means. Also, I would really like to know what exactly they are –Bulgars, Slavs, Vlahs, Kumans, Thracians, etc. So far in the history we find all these people using the name Bulgarians. Heck, I called myself Macedonian, but that doesn’t mean I am descendant of Alexander the Great.--Cigor
5. Actually, even today I still don’t understand what is the big deal about the naming. It is irrational to have a modern political dispute over a name, mostly because of the glory of Macedonian name that happened some 2300 years ago. I certainly don’t see problem between country Luxemburg and Belgian province Luxemburg (which incidentally, just like our case, they are neighbors) . It is irrational IMHO, but obviously you have a different opinion. I have absolutely no problem for the Greek Macedonians to be called Macedonians, but on the other hand, don’t except to change my name . Cheers. -- Cigor 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigor, I intermingled my... wisdom inside your comments, adding short-sigs for both of us. I hope you don't mind. You will find that we agree in many things... :NikoSilver: 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This source does not say a word about the "Macedonian language". It talks about Macedonian local dialects. As for Claim 1, the statement is so vague that it needs to be expanded or backed up with a source. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
FF, I see you added rebuttal. So, how do we proceed? Do I do a separate rebuttal to your rebuttal. If so, I am afraid it's going to look like a Yahoo message board, but if that is your choice, fine. -- Cigor 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If the article starts as it is written with the main meaning of the term ,it expreses confusion, as there are critics about and supports for. It is better to be written so, becose in Macedonia the idea is not a consious thing with direct work against bulgarians (is this so or not it is not proven), thats why we should not state such quotes (it destroies wikipedia's relevancy policy). The nation feels as Macedonian, and it functions by that way. if you want the article to stay in the old form in the start, please prove that the macedonist are working against Bulgarians (do not missunderstand, I'm Macedonian) knowing that, and that the Bulgarians are working against the Macedonians not as Bulgarists. Sorry for the bad english.-- Vlatko 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)