Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient macedo
My argument goes like this: Ancient macedonians were not greeks.Up to 4th centuary they spoke their own language together with greek,and after that they were absorbed by Greeks and never again spoke Macedonian.So they intermarried with Helens and mixed their blood.This thing happened simultaniesly when slav macedonians were coming to the area, which overwhelmed the native macedonian population and intermarried with them too.So, slav macedonians mixed their blood with the ancient Macedonians. Seen in this direction both, greeks and slavic macedonians have ancient macedonian blood in their veins.So if they take some credit for their ancient macedonian anciestry, is not biologicaly false claim.So why Greeks should deny them this anciestry?They don't have more macedonian blood in their vains than slav macedonians have.Writte if you agree or disagree.Common sense arguments are wellcomed.
Senior Moderator
Posts: 5878
(8/14/07 6:38 pm) Reply
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
Who knows, maybe yes, maybe no, but is there any evidence that they have mixed blood?
What do our resident DNA experts say about the results of DNA tests? I know I saw some Macedonians once showing the results of some DNA tests which supported their claim.
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
why you need evidence?Evidence is there.Macedonians were there, slavs came,and build their villages.Later learned each others laguages,start talkig ,intermarried,majority survives, MINORITY LOST.For one thing greeks had more history with them, but not nessesary blood.
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
Quote:My argument goes like this: Ancient macedonians were not greeks.Up to 4th centuary they spoke their own language together with greek,and after that they were absorbed by Greeks and never again spoke Macedonian.So they intermarried with Helens and mixed their blood.This thing happened simultaniesly when slav macedonians were coming to the area, which overwhelmed the native macedonian population and intermarried with them too.So, slav macedonians mixed their blood with the ancient Macedonians. Seen in this direction both, greeks and slavic macedonians have ancient macedonian blood in their veins.So if they take some credit for their ancient macedonian anciestry, is not biologicaly false claim.So why Greeks should deny them this anciestry?They don't have more macedonian blood in their vains than slav macedonians have.Writte if you agree or disagree.Common sense arguments are wellcomed.
Hi Dandullah - this is an interesting but rather simplistic theory - one that could easily have sprouted from the mouths of our Slav friends. You, and they, make some underlying assumptions which are very shaky at best.
Your first such assumption is that the ancient Macedonians had their own distinct language rather than natively speaking a Greek dialect. You make this statement as if it is self evident fact when in actuality it is not based on any evidence that can withstand even the slightest of scrutiny. On the contrary, what evidence exists suggests very powerfully (in my opinion confirms) that the ancient Macedonians were in fact native speakers of what modern linguists call ï'North-West Greek' (a variant of Doric). They originally spoke a rough patois of this Greek dialect before ultimately becoming 'atticised' and speakers, eventually, of 'koine' (common) Greek like the overwhelming majority of the Greek world. The Slavs who later invaded 'Macedonia' certainly found the place inhabited by Greeks.
This is the view predominant in academic circles. I will not tire you (and myself) by recounting the linguistic, literary, archaelogical and other arguments supporting what is pretty much the accepted view, I will point out what I think is a common misconception that you - and others tackling this issue - seem to have. This is particularly the case when arguments about DNA and blood etc are carelessly thrown into the mix. The misconception I am referring to is the very incorrect view that the ancient Macedonians proper (let me call them the Makedones as they themselves did) inhabited the entire extent of their kingdom and thereby left an equal distribution - if you like - of their DNA throughout it. This is wrong ...
If we are to examine the area covered today by Greek Macedonia, the FYROM and Bulgarian Macedonia in terms of its population in ancient times we would see quite a complex situation. Before I proceed, I will ask you to remember that this is purely a convenient definition I have adopted - the fact is 'Macedonia' covered different areas and meant different things throughout its history.
According to our earliest literary records, the Makedones - the Macedonians proper - inhabited a small and restricted area in the Pierian mountains; the northern foothills of Mount Olympus. This was the original heartland of the Macedonians and it was from here that they eventually expanded to rule so much of the ancient world. Only their very earliest conquests led to a physical expansion of the Makedones in terms of their wholesale settlement of conquered lands. They physically destroyed and/or evicted such neighbouring groups as the Eordi and the Almopes so that the actual ancient Macedonian people came to inhabit, in a compact mass, the area covered by the plain west of Salonika in addition to their Pierian homeland - all entirely within Greece. In terms of conquered land beyond this specific area, the Macedonian presence was largely that of colonies and garrisons ï- the Macedonians did not form the majority population of the countryside.
So, with respect to the conventional 'Macedonian' area we are examining, apart from the Greek-speaking Makedones, and the southern Greek colonies along the coast and in the Chalcidice peninsula, there were also the 'Upper Macedonians' - kinsmen of the Makedones and also speakers of 'North-West Greek'. This group of tribes was originally counted as belonging to the Epirotes/Molossians until it became politically part of the growing Macedonian kingdom and henceforth also counted as 'Macedonians'. Unlike other elements in the kingdom, the Upper Macedonians were organically absorbed into the Macedonian kingdom and their nobility largely survived to augment that of the Makedones proper � no doubt the common Greek they shared assisted in this regard. The Upper Macedonians inhabited the valley of the Aliakmon river (Elimeioi; Orestae; Tymphaeoi) and the Pelagonian plain around Bitola and Prilep (Pelagones; Derriopes) in the the FYROM as well as the plain around Florina (Lynkestai).
The remainder of the area we are examining was inhabited by various Illyrian and Thracian tribes. The Illyrians included the Penestae (around Kichevo) and the Dardanians (Gostivar; Tetovo; Skopje), that is the western and north-western parts of the FYROM - pretty much the areas inhabited now by the Albanian minority in the FYROM. By far the larger part of the FYROM (and much of the eastern part of Greek Macedonia) was inhabited by various Thracian peoples. I am including the Paeonians amongst these although this group is sometimes considered to have been Illyrian. In ancient times something like 60% of the FYROM's territory (the central and eastern parts) was Paeonian land. Thus the only 'Macedonian' blood within the confines of the FYROM was the south-western corner inhabited largely by the Pelagones. As already mentioned this group, although related to the Makedones proper, was essentially Epirote and only politically Macedonian. The only other 'Macedonian blood' in the FYROM is that of Macedonian colonists or garrisons whether 'Upper Macedonian' or Macedonian proper. Nicholas Hammond made this interesting observation concerning Paeonia:
'When we compare the inscriptions of the Paeonian area at first east of the Vardar and then on both sides of the Vardar by Skopje with great number of Greek inscriptions, many dated by the Macedonian era, on the west side of the Vardar from the Kavadarci district to the Babuna river, we make the deduction that the Paeonians were not given to the writing of Greek but tended rather to use Latin as an adopted language. It follows from this that the Paeonian tribes were not Greek-speaking. On the other hand there are pockets which indicate the survival of Greek-speaking groups. The most notable is that at Sveti Nikola, Here we may see the survival of a Macedonian colony, in which the Macedonian era was still used in the third century A.D. The occurrence of a few Greek inscriptions on the route from Stobi [Negotino area] to Pautalia [Kyustendil in Bulgaria] may be a sign that here too some Macedonian colonies had been planted in the period of the Macedonian kingdom.'
In other words, the Greek influence in the area is attributable entirely to the Macedonians. The Macedonian power was the essential hellenizing agent in the area. It was because of the Macedonians that historians can speak of the 'Jirecek line' that is taken to divide the ancient Balkans between the Greek south and the Latin north. No other Greek entity played that part in this area.
When the Slavs came to Macedonia in the late sixth century they found a land that was essentially Greek speaking, that is, as far as the area of today's Greek Macedonia and most of the FYROM is concerned. In terms of Macedonia, the Slavs settled most heavily in the FYROM but also in the northern areas of Greek Macedonia. It is almost as if, in the face of the Slavic onslaught, the Greek element - the Macedonians themselves - withdrew to their original line; the line held before the expansion of the old Macedonian kingdom itself. That is, as evidenced by the ethnography of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century, the Greek line snapped back to the northern foothills of Olympus and the Aliakmon river basin (in addition to the Chalcidice peninsula and the coast). This is where you will find your 'ancient Macedonian DNA'. Old sources also speak of 'certain mixed towns (komai tines amphimiktoi)' to the west of Salonika - an area apparently inhabited by a mixture of Slavs and surviving Greeks/Macedonians. Given that a majority of the Slav-speaking inhabitants of this area remained loyal to the Patriarch and were consciously Greek when it counted in the early twentieth century, any surviving Macedonian DNA also remains within Greece and the modern Greek blood-stream.
As already mentioned, the only sizeable area within the FYROM with any appreciable claim to ancient 'Macedonians' is Pelagonia the south-west corner around Bitola and Prilep. Ironically, our sources talk of the encampment in this specific area of a large group of the conquering Bulgars (apart from the Slavs) and the wholesale enslavement and deportation from the area of the 'Keramesians' ... the Greeks/Macedonians of the Prilep region. Sources describe the flight from the area of much of the native population that was not destroyed and its search for refuge in the larger towns such as Salonica. So many Macedonians fled towards, and settled in, the relatively safer environs of Constantinople, that later a new theme (military district) covering much of today's Turkish and Greek Thrace was named 'the theme of Macedonia'. Arguably the Greek Thracian refugees who were resettled in Greek Macedonia in the 1920s in the wake of Greece's disastrous war against Turkey, brought with them much of the old Macedonian DNA!
Elsewhere in the FYROM, the Slavs are sitting on Illyrian and Paeonian/Thracian DNA - assuming of-course that this survived to any appreciable extent.
When the Byzantines destroyed the power of the Bulgarians in the early eleventh century, the new military district which was created and which included the entire FYROM region, was called 'the theme of Bulgaria'. The Slavs of this part of the Balkans had well and truly adopted the Bulgarian name. In subsequent centuries it was as Bulgarians that they referred to themselves and as Bulgarians that they were universally seen by outsiders right up until a complicated interplay of events - largely of the early twentieth century - led them to decide that they were in fact 'the Macedonians'; to imagine glorious classical ancestors and to have the likes of Dandullah defend their ridiculous claim ...
The Slavic inhabitants of the FYROM have very little to do with the ancient Macedonians, and very little biological connection. The Greeks might be too arrogant for your liking Dandullah, but their connection to ancient Macedonia is immeasurably stronger. In particular, the indigenous Greek-speaking zone within Greek Macedonia is, at the very least, in precisely the right area and has continued to speak precisely the right language to point to this clear connection.
Edited by: BigBlackBeast at: 2/9/08 9:06 am
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
Quote:What do our resident DNA experts say about the results of DNA tests? I know I saw some Macedonians once showing the results of some DNA tests which supported their claim.
Sar,
If you are referring to the 'study' that I think you are ... ignore it. It is discredited, embarassing crap that apparently suggests Ethiopian ties for Greeks (and evidently also the Japanese)! Ludicrous self-serving 'science' from Skopje ...
Senior Moderator
Posts: 5892
(8/15/07 1:40 pm) Reply
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
BBB,
Yes, I think we are talking about the same study and I once had an argument with a family member about the study.
Unfortunately I'm not that well versed in all of this DNA stuff and he presented the study as though it was gospel. I would like to see some contradictory material on it, so that I can go back for round two!!!
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
To Bigblackbeast! All I know about Macedonia is the writting that a greek-american profesor of Colombia University in New YORK SAYS ABOUT THIS TOPICK IN HIS book about the Ballkans.In short he says,old Macedonians were not greek(they were learning greek to get a higher education for their kids)and they spoke their language up to 4th century a.d They were of Illyrian-Thracian stock. And after the slavs came,there is no evidence that old Macedonians were killed or expelled. So they after a time were mixed with slav macedonians,because they (slavs) were in bigger numbers(maybe in ratio 1/4) because all ballkans were hit by plague( a rat sicknes), that killed propably 2/3 of native Ballkan people.So the todays Macedonians have one part of their blood macedonian and four parts slav.Because my theory is simple it doesn't mean it makes no sense.As for DNA is hard to detect this dash of blood because slavs have Mongolian blood too(before they came to Ballkans they were invaded by Ghengis-Khan for quite a long time) and other bloods by Turks or Vlahs or Gypsis.That is true for other ballkan people too. Nobody has pure blood.So if they have a dash of ancient Macedonian blood biologicaly they can claim Macedonian ansestry.As for your way of explaning the situation,the writting is consistent with Greek goverment version, which is simply not true.This version is a politicaly cooked history book to suite greek goverment current policies in the region.It might be true that greeks have a little more macedonian blood but this is immesurable, because they have lot of Albanian,Persian,Egyptian,slavic,Gipsy,Indian,Pakistani, TURKISH,AVAR,hun, blood as well.So even I am not a macedonian person this common sense says to me that todays Slav macedonians have a little drop from ALEXANDERS blood.
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
Quote:All I know about Macedonia is the writting that a greek-american profesor of Colombia University in New YORK SAYS ABOUT THIS TOPICK IN HIS book about the Ballkans.
Dandullah … I’ve just read a number of your other posts and I must say I don’t think you know very much at all. I’m not trying to offend you, it is just a statement of fact. Who is this Greek-American historian on whose work you base all your knowledge? This man is very much going against the accepted view in academic circles.
Quote:As for your way of explaning the situation,the writting is consistent with Greek goverment version, which is simply not true.
My views are hardly the views endorsed by ‘the Greek government’. I have not read any source that details this particular matter (remnants of the ancient Macedonian ‘bloodline’) in any way resembling the account I posted earlier. I think resorting to this sort of argument to undermine my views is an easy way out for you. I think you will basically believe what you wish to believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary ...
Quote:Because my theory is simple it doesn't mean it makes no sense
My theory is much simpler and makes greater sense as it is based on far sturdier evidence and facts ...
The simple fact of the matter is that the only part of today’s FYROM where the local population was ‘Macedonian’ in ancient times was the Bitola/Prilep region. These ‘Macedonians’, however, were ‘Upper Macedonians’, that is, not exactly the type that actually ruled the kingdom. The rest of the FYROM was inhabited in ancient times by various Illyrian and Thracian tribes. So any ancient blood that may have made its way into ‘the veins’ of the Slavomacedonians is unlikely to include much ancient Macedonian blood. Simple as that …
because they have lot of Albanian,Persian,Egyptian,slavic,Gipsy,Indian,Pakistani, TURKISH,AVAR,hun, blood as well
Re: Macedonian slavs should take credit for their ancient ma
Quote:BBB,
Yes, I think we are talking about the same study and I once had an argument with a family member about the study.
Unfortunately I'm not that well versed in all of this DNA stuff and he presented the study as though it was gospel. I would like to see some contradictory material on it, so that I can go back for round two!!!
Sar,
Just like you my knowledge on the specifics of DNA-related matters is limited. However, I can see a phony from a very long distance. In reference to the particular 'study' in question so did many eminent experts in the field; authorities of far greater repute than the authors.
Speaking of the authors ... although the 'study' was commissioned in Spain, the authorship is shared between the Spaniard A. Arnaiz-Villena and one 'K. Dimitrovski'. There are also a number of other contributors from the FYROM. Little wonder then at the direction the work took ...
The rat starts to stink from the incredibly skewed and self-serving introduction by the authors of the history of Macedonia used as a framework that is to set the scene for the study. For example, the following is stated as unambiguous fact: "They (the ancient Macedonians) did not speak Greek but another language presently unknown and of which only proper names remain; nowadays, they speak a Slavic language". Hardly a balanced view ... a tad convenient in fact I would say. For these 'scholars' the ancient Macedonians and the modern Slavs of the FYROM are the same people ... no discussion.
Little wonder then that among their conclusions is this gem: "Our results show that Macedonians are related to other Mediterraneans and do not show a close relationship with Greeks; however they do with Cretans. This supports the theory that Macedonians are one of the most ancient peoples existing in the Balkan peninsula, probably long before arrival of the Mycaenian Greeks (sic) about 2000 B.C. Other possible explanation is that they might have shared a genetic background with the Greeks before an hypothetical admixture between Greeks and sub-Saharans might have occurred. The cultural, historical and genetic identity of Macedonians is established according to our results". Very balanced and thought out stuff!!!
No discussion is made at all about the bizarre fact that the FYROM sample comprises exclusively of 172 Slavs from Skopje itself. The most junior of historians could tell you that this area had very little to do with the ancient Macedonians. It was very much Dardanian territory (earlier Paeonian) so in fact such a sample would not be representing an ancient Macedonian blood inheritance at all but rather an Illyrian one (most probably) ... The blockheads can sort that out with the Albanians ...
Anyway, Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start if you are interested in this topic. The following link I foundholds an interesting account.
The bottom paragraph of that site discusses the Arnaiz-Villena controversy and lists a number of eminent authorities who took issue with the study's methodology. I quote it here:
Quote:The Arnaiz-Villena controversy
An often-cited study from 2001 by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al.[8] which maps 28 world population based on the HLA DRB1 locus, concluded that "the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and West Africa (Burkina Faso)." Later that year, the same data was used in another study by the same author published in a different journal.[9] This second paper dealt specifically with the relatedness of Palestinians and Israelis and was subsequently "deleted from the scientific literature" because, according to the editor-in-chief Nicole Suciu-Foca, it "confounded the elegant analysis of the historic basis of the people of the Mediterranean Basin with a political viewpoint representing only one side of a complex political and historical issue".[1
Erica Klarreich's report on the controversy further quotes Sucio-Foca as saying that the reaction against the paper was so severe that "We would have had mass resignations and the journal would have been destroyed if this paper were allowed to remain." [11] The controversy was further reported on in numerous locations including The Observer.[12]
Shortly after this, three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, argued that the scientific limitations of Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[13] 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."
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[14]). Then, Ayub et al. 2003[15] did the same thing using 182 loci (view dendrogram[16]).
I also found the discussion pages quite interesting ...
back to the topick of macedonians
I said it myself I am not a Macedonian historian.But my assumption of them having some ancient Macedonian blood is still true.Even if only 100 marriages happened on year 600 a.d,their blood is spread now all over.You are assuming that they have Albanian blood too. I could be.So because the present day Macedonians share with present day greeks, old Macedonian blood, I am enttitlet to say that you are biologicaly relatives.What do you think?
nb78 Registered User
Posts: 43
(8/22/07 7:41 am) Reply
Re: back to the topick of macedonians
Quote:So because the present day Macedonians share with present day greeks, old Macedonian blood, I am enttitlet to say that you are biologicaly relatives.
A Greek would never accept that because it would justify Macedonians calling theselves Macedonians. They instead choose to call us Slavs and blockheads, even though there are many Greeks out there with the very same type of heads.
Quote:A Greek would never accept that because it would justify Macedonians calling theselves Macedonians.
How on earth would it justify it?
Greeks and Albanians, for example, are 'biological relatives' ... but that wouldn't justify them (the Albanians) calling themselves 'Macedonians' nor 'Spartans' nor 'Thebans' etc ...
That all Balkan peoples are in some way connected biologically is another matter entirely ... this fact does not sanction cultural appropriation ... Skanderbeg is Albanian ... he does not become Greek because the Greeks are related to the Albanians ...
The simple fact is that there was a very limited and very small ancient Macedonian footprint in the area of today's FYROM in the first place, even in ancient times. The huge bulk of the ancient Macedonians lived in today's Greek Macedonia. So any ancient 'DNA/blood' in today's FYROM that may have survived the Slavic invasions is far more likely to be old Thracian (particularly Paeonian) and Illyrian blood. Only around Bitola was there any concentration of 'Macedonian' blood in ancient times, and this was actually 'Upper Macedonian' or 'Epirote' blood. And at any rate medieval sources talk specifically about the impact of the Slavic and later Bulgar inroads into this area (deportations; displacement) upon the native Greek-speaking dwellers of the Keramesian plain (ie Bitola/Prilep area).
nb78 Registered User
Posts: 44
(8/24/07 2:47 pm) Reply
Re: back to the topick of macedonians
Quote:So any ancient 'DNA/blood' in today's MACEDONIA that may have survived the Slavic invasions is far more likely to be old Thracian (particularly Paeonian) and Illyrian blood.
This type of speculation cannot be used to come to a final conclusion (which is what you have done with your post). There is no "slavic blood" in the Balkans. Racially, all European countries are as different and similar as the country next to them. Poles and Russians, Czechs and Slovaks, Germans & French, etc.
Northern Greeks and "FYROM's" are essentially the same race. All surrounding countries (Serbs, Bulgarians) are also very similar. Genetic tests have been performed which prove all of this.
Edited by: Magedon at: 2/3/08 10:32 am
Quote:This type of speculation cannot be used to come to a final conclusion (which is what you have done with your post). There is no "slavic blood" in the Balkans. Racially, all European countries are as different and similar as the country next to them. Poles and Russians, Czechs and Slovaks, Germans & French, etc.
Northern Greeks and "FYROM's" are essentially the same race. All surrounding countries (Serbs, Bulgarians) are also very similar. Genetic tests have been performed which prove all of this.
I don't necessarily disagree nb, ... and in truth I have always felt somewhat uncomfortable talking about 'DNA' and 'blood' - which is why I feel generally obliged to place these words within inverted commas. There is no doubt a good deal of similarity in 'race' between neighbouring peoples in the Balkans and this was certainly the case also in antiquity (perhaps more so). 'Racially' I am sure there was a close enough proximity between the various Greek, Illyrians and Thracian peoples inhabiting the Balkans so as to make the whole point nonsensical.
Having said that though, there is a tendency in these forums to consider the 'DNA/blood' of whatever ancient groups as something precious and highly desirable ... as if it were made of gold. The ancient Macedonians are one such case about whom modern nationalists argue as to how much of that particular 'gold DNA' flows through their veins ... Accepting this for a moment as a point of argument, I am always intrigued by the claims of the Slav Macedonians - particularly those specifically from the FYROM. The simple fact of the matter is that the ancient Macedonians, that is, the actual original conquering Argeadai Makedones who spread out from the northern foothills of Olympus - despite their probable close genetic relationship to their Thracian, Illyrian and other Greek neighbours - were pretty much confined within the boundaries of modern Greek Macedonia. That is, the ancient Macedonian homeland - the area where the locals were genuine Makedones - lay therein; their conquests further afield (such as the lands of the FYROM) were cemented through military colonies, vassalage; allies etc not through the wholesale expulsion of the local population and its replacement with Makedones. Accordingly, if we are to consider where the coveted 'gold DNA' of the Makedones might exist today, it is simple logic that it would be found amongst the population of modern Greek Macedonia - particulalry in those restricted regions that formed the original core of the Makedones themselves and where the Greek language survived down the ages. The fact of the matter is that the FYROM did not have any sizeable ancient Macedonian population (at least proportionally) to start of with. Secondly, the lands of the FYROM clearly sustained a far greater impact from invasions of the early middle ages - specifically the Slavonic invasions - an impact observable - if by nothing else - by the cultural/linguistic change that took place there - indeed in many ways centering on that land.
Quote:it is simple logic that it would be found amongst the population of modern Greek Macedonia - particulalry in those restricted regions that formed the original core of the Makedones themselves and where the Greek language survived down the ages.
But the problem with that is, in greek macedonia there are alot of macedonian slavs there as well many in Thesaloniki
Quote:But the problem with that is, in greek macedonia there are alot of macedonian slavs there as well many in Thesaloniki
Normalno.
That cuz thers no such thing in reality as gr or bg Macedonia.There is ONE and ONLY ONE Macedonia divided by the two occupiing forces/states and the part of the indigenuos population (that is that same Macedonian ppl you find in Salonika you so politely call Macedonian Slavs) that declared independence and managed to save at least that little bit for their place under the sun.
The moment we enter eu and nato - Macedonia will b reunited naturally. We will repopulate the area till you say 'smile'!It is only normal bcs thats our fatherland and homeland and land in wich we lived for centuries and centuries....While the Asia minor settlers are notrhing more than MAKETHONES (in the same sense that i am a Skopjan or Bitolcanec.) - aliens to the area.
Now they can play the crying baby game another 15 years if they so want, but they r battling a Sysiphean battle.An unwinable one by default.
Look even your bavaro/german creators are against you -
Germany's official position Macedonia in NATO
Munich, February 9 (MIA) - We completely understand not only the national values of the candidacies of the three countries that apply for NATO membership - Macedonia, Croatia and Albania - but also we understand the regional factor. We know that there's an issue with the name, because one NATO member country has risen the issue. Nevertheless, Germany's official position is that the countries from A3 Group should receive membership invitation at the Bucharest Summit, stated German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier at the meeting with Macedonian President Branko Crvenkovski in Munich.
He said that all of the three countries were very close if not ready in meeting the membership criteria, adding he hoped that they would complete the necessary reforms and obligations in the forthcoming weeks.
The German FM emphasized that it was strategically important for NATO to reinforce its presence in the Balkans.
When asked what were the chances to reach an agreement till April in terms of the name dispute, President Crvenkovski said they lasted for 15 years, thus it was impossible to solve it in only two weeks.
- It is our national identity. We have made several concessions regarding major national issues and we won't make any more. Given the issue, we have full state unity. We'll resume negotiating, but we don't have the political mandate to keep on making concessions for our national and cultural identity, underlined Crvenkovski.
The Macedonian President, who in Munich takes part at the 44. Munich Conference on Security Policy, held a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who reiterated Turkey's clear position that Macedonia's place was in NATO.
Crvenkovski is set to meet Saturday with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, MIA correspondent from Munich reported. Defense Minister Lazar Elenovski, who also participates at the Munich conference, will attend the meeting.
-----------------
"Being shocked and increasingly concerned, I struck the village mayor when I heard him speak Bulgarian, which he wishes to call Macedonian, and I recommended that in the future he should always and everywhere speak only Greek, and that he should recommend that his villagers do the same." Greek Infantry Lieutenant Dim. Kamburas, Armensko, January 25, 1925.
---------
"...I asked him what language they spoke, and my Greek interpreter carelessly rendered the answer Bulgare. The man himself had said Makedonski. I drew attention to this word and the witness explained that he did not consider the rural dialect used in Macedonia the same as Bulgarian, and refused to call it by that name. It was Macedonian, a word to which he gave the Slav form of Makedonski, but which I was to hear farther north in the Greek form of Makedonike". Allen Upward, The East End of Europe. London, 1908, pp. 204-205.
![0]](http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/alien.gif)
at: 2/3/08 10:32 am
Re: back to the topick of macedonians
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies