Talk:North Macedonia/Related disputes

Feeling sorry about Slavs

To claim someone's history, symbols and culture is bad enough, but ask yourself why they have to do it - the answer to that question gives me sympathy for them. Archimedes was born in Sicily, do you hear any Italians claiming him as Italian? LOL, of course not. Other Greeks have been born around the world but stayed Greek and encouraged Greek culture, non more than Alexander the Great who spread Hellenism across the known world at the time. That is called background Politis - little lesson for you, if some slavs who came down in the 5th Century AD want to take this history - it is going to take more than 2 liberals and 20 slavs to change it on this site. Even if the UN, EU, Nato, all organisations did not agree with Greece - we would still fight. If they claimed to be the spiritual descendants of Alexander fine, let them have everything. This little American puppet state let me tell our viewers has claimed Greeks to be Africans in DNA tests, have said Greeks are not in anyway responsible for the Macedonian empire of the 3rd Century BC but only them - a bunch of Bulgarian Slavs who came down in the 5th Century AD and after. I say let them have their day in the sun, many on here have not even heard the Greek side or aknowledged the horrors of what their state claims about Greeks, a race that has given more to the world then any other. When this issue is ressolved, those who built this page or encouraged it who are non slavs will scratch their heads or maybe read for once in their lives and see what this state was claiming - they were never going to get away with the biggest cultural fraud of the century since Hitler claimed his race were the true descendants of the Arians. The FYROMs have also tried to prove their case through DNA (like the Nazis)accusing the Greek people of being closely related to Africans not connected to Macedonia and them ofcourse...direct descendants of Alexander the Great's people themselves, I know this is hard to believe for someone not from Greece or the Baklans but this was actually the country's most famous recent propaganda (look at the names of the researchers..no bets on which little state they are from): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11260506&dopt=Abstract

Luckily this paper was laughed out of the academic community due to the fact the gene they were looking at had nothing to do with descent - according to them the Japanese are also more african then modern Syrians, LOL: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b_r.html

and Greece could only sit back and laugh at the audacity of the attempted pure race and eugenics card used on them ala Nazis propaganda. Now we have liberals on this site who think Greece is an old Monster, lol, but have not even attempted to research the dispute which is very clear with huge assumptions declared. Greece has been the victim in history many times and now is the case far more than this small band of slavs everyone is confused at including the Bulgarians who see them as confused Bulgarians paradoxically. I feel sorry for them. Their culture and modern state is built on denying who Greeks claim to be and then inserting themselves in the hole conviently created.Reaper7 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad, because I've seen Arnaiz-Villena's original work and I've realized that it has been massacred by the Slavic propagandists. The original Spanish paper simply observed genetic patterns between "old" and "new" mediterranean peoples. Old and new are used here in metaphorical sense, as the author's definition of an Old mediterranean people is being native to his region before 2000BC. The Greeks, as genetics showed, were a "new people" since the proto-Hellenes migrated in the region between 2000-1500BC (as history also verifies). The Cretans on the other hand (mainly of minoan ancestry) are an "old people". The author mentions absolutely nothing on "Macedonian Slavs", it doesn't classify them and it doesn't mention them. Obviously it mentions nothing about Ethiopians nor sub-saharan ancestry. This propaganda was later added by the Slavic scientists who massacred the original paper, recompiled a hoax paper from scratched and cunningly used the Spanish research (which in reality was alien to that). I bet the non-Slavic scholars who got their names involved should be pretty pissed off by now. Miskin 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of this slavic propaganda is a load of garbage Alexandros o megas said himself he was greek For I (Alexander III) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." (Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb])

"Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably." (Herod. V, 20, 4 [Loeb])

"Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know." (Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 99,3 (Loeb, C F Smith)

and the list goes on and on :)Heraklios 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can a Skopian please answer this question for me? Where in Ancient History does it say Thessaloniki was called "Solun"?? Heraklios 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing for you Skopians to steal our name, but our flag too? I take it originality is not the Skopian Forte?

Dear Skopians, Pick up an ancient stone inscription (by ancient before 6th century AD) in your country and try to read it. You cant because Surprise! It is in Hellenic (Greek) now go over to Greece and pick up another inscription can you read it? NO because it is also in Hellenic!!!Heraklios 11:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong - it is Ancient Macedonian. Bomac 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what he's been saying, but with a synonym. In any case, let's not begin endless discussions that will expose your side with the pseudoscientific validity of your arguements, to the other readers of this talk more. Anyone who wants to see discussions about if Ancient Macedonian is part of Hellenic can browse back the archives, or can read the related articles: Greeks, Names of the Greeks (featured), Macedon, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian language, Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon etc. etc.

I also co-sign the comment of Reaper7 above, but clarify that I address it only to those users from your side that claim such inaccuracies, and NOT to all FYROM nationals in general:

Their culture and modern state is built on denying who Greeks claim to be and then inserting themselves in the hole conviently created. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very melodramatic. Bomac 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more of a comedy to me. Miskin 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Melodramatic"... Mmmm ... Very strong arguments! I'm now convinced you're right! Now, whether you like it or not, ancient Macedonians were writing and speaking in ancient greek. Any person who knows a few things about the ancient greek can understand that. The similarities between the ancient Attic dialect and the ancient Macedonian are more than obvious. They are dialects of the same language: the ancient greek.
And a silly question: Since the Greek Aristotle was the teacher of the "non-Greek" Alexander, in what language were they speaking? Mmmmm... Probably they had a translator, ehhh?!!! Or maybe Aristotle knew the "non-greek" "ancient macedonian dialect". And you know what's the most interesting? The Greek Aristotle was from Thrace, next to Macedonia, but in Thrace they were speaking Greece, whereas in Macedonia, which is closer to the metropolis of Ancient Greece, Athens, they weren't speaking Greek, but another dialect! That makes perfect sense!
In Epirus, they were speaking Greek (Olympias, Alexander's mother was from there and you recognise she was Greek!)! In Thrace they were speaking Greek (Aristotle was from there and you recognise he was Greek!)! But in Macedonia, the place closer to the heart of ancient Greece, more than Thrace or Epirus, they weren't! No!! Not at all!!!! They had a COMPLETELY (I repeat COMPLETELY) different language (probably a slav dialect before even the arrival of the Slavs!) and there are no ancient epigraphs in greek! Ok! Now everything makes sense! And I ask again: "Melodramatic" you said? Mmmm .... --Yannismarou 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting to see "Solun" reference:) dont know why though because THERE ISNT ANY!!!! oh and Yannismarou is right!! Phillips tomb in Vergina was written in a slavic language!! we are so stupid not to realise it!!!! ;) Heraklios 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to mention here that the Slavic civilisation is immense and has given so many wonderful contributions to the world. Why can't our northern neighbours just accept themselves as part of this great civilisation (with whom traditionally Greeks had the strongest of ties). This silly dispute artificially brings us farther than what we should be. --Avg 17:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! completely! there is nothing wrong with being Slav. As Avg said the slavs have done many great things in the history of the world. Greeks want to help you not fight you why do you think Greece is the #1 investor in your country? Just STOP CLAIMING FALSE HISTORY!!!!!! Heraklios 17:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and still no "Solun" referance:) Heraklios 17:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've studied I can say this: Ancient Macedonians were a mixture of Thracs and Greeks. Later eastern and western Romans had been trying to win them on their side. One part were romanized /by the western/ and other - hellinized. From what we study, the romanized ones are called Karakachani, and the hellinized - vlass. After a series of wars the were hardly any local inhabittants left. Then slavs came to the region. Karakachans were totally assimilated /in the 8 century/ and vlass moved north and settled in nowadays Romania/and were later assimilated by other tribes/. /./././ Bulgarians call Thessaloniki Solun. :) It's just the way we call it. I'm sure that noone in Bulgaria will say that Thessaloniki was a Macedonian town /if this is what you are arguing/. Actually there is an interesting story. One of the creators of the Slavonic /not Macedonian/ alphabet, also governed the town. Now... Macedonians say, that he was a Macedonian. The real thing is that his mother really was a Macedonian, but not an ancient one, but more a slav. An arguement in favour of this is the alphabet itself, because it show knowledge of the slavic language. But this does not make him Macedonian or slav. He was a Greek. First of all - his father was a Greek, which, even in modern times, is a good arguement. Secondly, while the town was mainly populated by Greeks, the region was 99% slavic and, believe me, the Emperor would not hire a slav to govern the region :) 82.199.193.217 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)yavor (bg)[reply]

There are no 'Macedonians'. There are Bulgars!

"Let me begin by correcting an almost universal fallacy. There are no 'Macedonians'. There are Bulgars. There are Roumans - the relics of the Latin-speaking provincials of Rome's Illyrian provinces, who still hold their own in the Pindus range and in the neighboring towns. There are Greeks, including more or less superficially Hellenized Roumans. There are 'Turks,' including Mohammedan Bulgarians, and some true Turkish villages in the Vardar valley representing a settlement earlier than the Ottoman conquest. There is an infusion of Skipetars or Albanians on the western and northern fringe. Finally, there is the large Spanish Jew population in Salonika. But there are no 'Macedonians'." --Sir Arthur J. Evans. English archaeologist.

Vergina/Macedonia 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did a British archaeologist of 100 years ago, whose assumptions and frameworks are increasingly being doubted and challenged, have anything interesting or relevant to say about modern history? Nobody else gives a fuck about what happened 2,500 years ago when we have so many problems in this century. Without the EU to finance it, Greece would look something like Egypt with this ridiculous mentality.--87.202.23.151 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply untrue. There are a very large number of Slavs who identify as Macedonian only. The "Bulgar" population mixed with the Slavs they conquered and died out in the Middle Ages, even in Bulgaria. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 @ 21:51 UTC

The Bulgar population mixed with the Slavic one, as historic records say. is there any record saying that those Slavs who identify today as 'Macedonians' mixed with the ancient Macedonians, as they want to believe? --Hectorian 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not important even if they were a Japanese/African combination, conceived in Transylvania. People are brought up to acquire an ethnicity, by sharing religion, culture, language, tradition etc, rather than blood (see Janissaries et.al). Any other relevant talk discriminates people on racial standards which borders with fascist theories of the past about inferiority/superiority of certain races. The only thing that matters is self-identification.

In this field there is a controversy: Greek Macedonians self-identify as Macedonians and at the same time, Macedonian Slavs self-identify as Macedonians. The Greeks are accused of restricting the self-identifying term of the Slavs, and the Slavs are accused of monopolising the self-identifying term of the Greeks, with obvious historical and cultural claims (also in their school text-books; very evident from their edits in WP). Nothing more, nothing less. Talk for race is disgrace (by both sides). NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Greek's arguement relies on history and the FYROMian arguement on dubious eugenics and the 'Greeks fled Macedonia and we stayed' arguement. Reaper7 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where it says 20% for the language to be used as municipal level, it is actually 50% to my knowledge, it was changed.

Fyromian slavisation of the Macedonian history

It is the slavisation of the Macedonian history of Greece.

Vergina/Macedonia 06:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION

STALIN:That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account.

Otecestven Vestnik (Sofia daily), 19 June 1991

STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION

(G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, T. Kostov)

The Kremlin, 7 June 1946

"Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework of Bulgaria. Tito has shown himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic state and has had to give equal rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the unification of Macedonia, but in view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get the criticism. You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account. No such consciousness existed in Byelorussia either when we proclaimed it a Soviet Republic. However, later it was shown that a Byelorussian people did in fact exist. ..."

Vergina/Macedonia 05:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]