| Original Message |
Peperki (no login)
Posted Jan 27, 2006 1:10 AM
Petros, I would like to thank you for your effort - for writing such a long and thorough post. I appreciate the time and effort you took.
I will readily admit that I do not have such a detailed knowledge of ancient Macedonian history, so I will not try to dispute what you have written. On that same note, I am sure that what you have written can be found in hundreds of books, so how could I possibly dispute the historians? I will answer that later on.
So, what I will try to discuss with you is my opinion (that is what a discussion is, isn’t it?).
You clearly write that there was no Greek or Hellenic state/country, and that it was a “culture” instead, and yet that does not give you any basis for lumping the Macedonians in with the rest of the bunch. You cannot make the sweeping generalization that the ancient Macedonians were the same as the other Hellenic tribes just because they shared the same culture. That is like saying the Chinese and Japanese are the same. Well, which are they, Chinese or Japanese? Sure we can lump them all (with Korean, Thai, Laos etc…) together and call them Asian – but that doesn’t mean that they are THE SAME. Obviously ancient Macedonia outshined the others in conquering the Persians, just as the Athenians outshined everyone else in…., I don’t know…, geometry? To sum it all up, modern Greeks obviously would like to include the ancient Macedonians in their history – and have bits and parts of history to back them up, so the historians come to the same conclusions – but that is only one, GENERAL opinion.
Actually, at this point I want to change the discussion slightly. Have you read “The DaVinci Code”? If you haven’t, I’m sure I can still make my point. The controversy of the book is that Christian history is portrayed completely opposite to what we have been taught. The book gives logical and thought provoking reasons why we have been taught what we have and what the actual truth could be. The point the book tries to make is that what we have known to be true for 2000 years could actually be one big farce. I’m not talking about the spiritual religion ("Jesus Christ our saviour", etc…), I mean the actual story of Christ, Constantine, et al., the whole bible. The key theme is that Christianity as we know it was “created” for the financial gain of those in power (knowing that you are not religious, I am sure you already know that). Having said all that, my point is that if (and it’s a big IF, because the book is fiction) the book is true, then millions of people would have to re-evaluate their beliefs. Many would refuse to do so and many would embrace the new truth and many would be somewhere in between.
It is not in your favour to dispute what you/Greeks have been taught about the ancient Macedonians, you believe it to be true, you have a hundred books that prove it – how could you think otherwise? What I am trying to point out is that your perception of the truth is a little one sided.
Another point I would like to make about history, is that history has always been written by those in power. Those in power can easily influence what is recorded. It happens today, so why wouldn’t it happen 2000 years ago. Macedonians have not had power since Alexander’s time, Macedonians have been under a different rule since then and have NOT had their history recorded by themselves, but by others.
Let’s move on to modern Macedonian history. I am not going to go into much detail about the numerous wars and politics that happened over the past 100 or so years – as with ancient Macedonian history, the same can be said about “modern” history – the Macedonians (and I’ll call ourselves Macedonian, because I do not know any alternative), having been under various different rules for 2000 years, did not have the resources and support to establish a formal, organized leadership – and thus, could not write their own history. Clearly the most valuable aspect of our modern history is the Ilinden uprising. Macedonians wanted an independent Macedonia. Regardless of what a person spoke, or what they were "classified" as (ie: Greek, Vlach, Bulgarian, etc…) they wanted an independent Macedonia (independent of Greece, Bulgaria, etc…). That is my definition of a Macedonian. (the Ilinden uprising is just one example of Macedonian unity)
As you may (or may not) know, my parents come from northern Greece. Many of our customs and language has been taken from the Greeks, however, we are not Greek. Greeks think that we are all Bulgarians because our other customs and majority of our language is similar to Bulgarian. My parents came to Canada without even knowing that there was a province in Yugoslavia called Macedonia. They didn’t have a clue what Tito was supposedly trying to do. My parents are not historians or politicians – all they know is that they were discriminated against, forbidden to speak their own language, forced to learn Greek, etc… When they found out that a Macedonian church was being built in Toronto (and that the congregation was mostly Macedonians from northern Greece), they were ecstatic (in Canada they could worship in Macedonian freely!). When they met Macedonians from Yugoslavia (maybe not from Skopje, but from a village), and could understand them, they were ecstatic. When they first saw books written in Macedonian and not Bulgarian (yes, the languages are different – although a Greek wouldn’t be able to hear the difference), they were ecstatic. Thus, they embraced anything and everything that came from Yugoslavia. After the hardship they experienced in Greece, their Macedonian identity was finally being VALIDATED. Canada was able to give them that, whereas they would never have been able to experience that if they stayed in Greece.
So how can you tell me, when my great-grandparents fought for an independent Macedonia, that I am not Macedonian. If you want to keep your arguments based on your version of ancient Macedonia, then we really have nothing more to discuss.
In your last post you quote me and also wrote “Finally, you are really funny when you suggest that "...only 200 people in Greece think they are Macedonian..." In fact, your problem is that more than 2 million people in Greece declare themselves to be Macedonian, and more than 1 million are indigenous. They just have a different and more accurate meaning for that word...
I don’t disagree that you and 2 million others are Macedonian, however you do not agree that I am Macedonian as well. You seem to believe that only Greeks can be Macedonian. You have been taught the meaning of the word and you think it is accurate, just like in “The DaVinci Code”, maybe you have been taught something that only benefited the powers that be for financial gain. CAN you think differently just for a second? Or is it easier to keep the status quo? Changing the status quo would, in your mind, mean defeat – and yet, that is a very shallow way of looking at history. If you can't open your mind, we don't have anything to discuss.
As for the name issue, unfortunately for you, Greece has lost. We will either get a hyphenated name, or the name "Macedonia" will be spelled with a “j” and “k”. If and when this does happen, maybe then you will be able to alter your perspective of Macedonian history a little bit.
These discussions started because you thought I might have something to discuss, as opposed to me being someone who just wants to insult everyone on the forum. Like I said in the beginning, when I made any progress with anyone in the past on these forums, but then it got "too close to comfort" – because they didn’t want to alter their narrow minded perspective - they would resort to spewing off facts and quotes in defence, which meant the end of the discussion.
We’ll see how you respond now.
|
|