Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Vangelovski]

I think the current "RAMKOVNA MAKEDONIJA" is in many respects LESS than what we had in SFRJ. For one, it is no longer a nation state of the Macedonian people and the title deeds are shared with the Ghegs. Only a VICTORIOUSLY waged WAR can alter that fact and provided the "IC", who are party to the "FA", stay out of the fray and don't come in to play judge and jury and decide our fate.

Additionally, the current "Ramkovna" Macedonia is a multi-national state with (theoretically) up to 5 constituent nations. If we were to fall below the 20 per cent mark, we would effectively cease to be a constituent nation, all thanks to the Framework Agreement and our morally/intellectually corrupt "leaders".

[indigen]

do you really think so indigen do you believe our government is that compromised and ineffectual.

Have a PROPER read of the Ramkoven Dogovor, it is available in English on MTO, and the 1991 Constitution and see what it implies.

I strongly view RAMKOVNA MAKEDONIIJA as the road to hell for Macedonians and the Macedonian nation/identity. It is a DECONSTRUCTION CAMP for deconstructing the Macedonian identity, the name of the state is only one of the few vestiges left to remind us that we were once a distinct nation with their own state.

[Mikail]

Mastika, it is officially documented that Greece carried out the first recorded form of ethnic cleansing in history I'll find you the doco on youtube mate. All lands under Ottoman rule had ethnic diversity. One was not more homogeneous than the next

[osiris]

thank you indigen i will look at it closer as you suggest

[indigen]

Additionally, the current "Ramkovna" Macedonia is a multi-national state with (theoretically) up to 5 constituent nations. If we were to fall below the 20 per cent mark, we would effectively cease to be a constituent nation, all thanks to the Framework Agreement and our morally/intellectually corrupt "leaders".

True!

Check the following stats from yesterday's NM:

Во учебната 2009-2010 година во државава осмо одделение вкупно ќе завршат 26.105 ученици, од кои 16.420 следат настава на македонски јазик, 9.037 на албански наставен јазик, 5.592 на турски, 28 на српски и 28 на бошњачки наставен јазик.
[The Turkish stats were screwed but I figure they should be around 2% and we can see below that in the primary school student numbers for year 8 for 2009-2010, Albanians = 34%. These numbers will only go up for the Shiptars and down for Macedonians in the years to come.]

Македонски - 63.1538461538
Албански - 34.7576923077
Турски - 21.5076923077 (592 = 2.26776479602?)


[По нова Рамковна форрмула обезбедени се вкупно 35.918 ученички места]

За средношколците 35.918 места Во јавните средни училишта за наредната учебна година обезбедени се вкупно 35.918 ученички места, од кои 24.092 за ученици кои ќе следат настава на македонски јазик, 10.976 за учениците на албански јазик, 816 на турски и 34 за српски наставен јазик
Македонски - 67.0750041762
Албански - 30.5584943482
Турски - 02.27184141656

Во гимназиско образование обезбедени се вкупно 11.758 места, од кои 7.984 на македонски наставен јазик, 3.400 на албански, 340 на турски и 34 на српски.
Македонски - 67.9027045416
Албански - 28.916482395

Во стручното образование ќе има 23.446 места, од кои 15.632 на македонски, 7.338 на албански и 476 на турски наставен јазик,
Македонски - 66.6723534931
Албански - 31.2974494583
Турски - 02.03019704854

во уметничкото 714 места, од кои 476 на македонски и 238 на
Албански наставен јазик.
Македонски - 66.6666666667
Албански - 33.3333333333

[Bratot]

This is not by my logic. Facts prove that there was no Macedonian state as it was annexed, issued foreign governors, and assimilated into the territory of various empires, it did not retain it's historical territory as it was assimilated into the various empires and it's borders were redefined. The WW2 example you gave does not hold water because they were not assimilated and stripped of their established institutions, they were only issued new governing officials.

If you had basic knowledge you would had more logic.

I advised you to look into the regulations of the international law in order to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

Look for the definitions of: annection and occupation.

too bad international law is a relatively new construct and holds no weight in a historical context.

If international law is relatively new construct than the form of a states can not be earlier than the regulation form of a one.

Put aside you arogant ignorancy and try to read something when discussing in here.

The foundations of modern international law were laid by the Christian Church in the ancient Roman Empire, surprised?


Learn who was Praetor Peregrinus for example

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Praetor+Peregrinus

or even better read the definition by Aristotel in his Politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)

Not true at all, where did you come up with this theory? and why are we applying a 19th century constructions to historical arguments?


irrelevant
do you know when the concept of statehood was even created? Would you care to give me which definition of State you are referring to so I can put this argument to bed already?

I wont repeat myself, read what I wrote before and look for the definitions of: annection and occupation.

The current Macedonian state was founded in 1944, in it's current capacity, the Republic of Macedonia has no existence before 1944. Where are egej and pirin? Are you suggesting that the current borders of RoM are the historical territorial boundaries?

If you are talking about the current state that logically doesn't include the other 2 parts(actually 3), so why do you put confussion in this matter?

But since you like playing a law executor than according to your deffinition and "facts" of assimilation the territories of Egej and Pirin are legally annexed and assimilated and NO more present a part of the Macedonian ethnic and historical region and we should not lay claims of our ethnic minority living there, right?

Please let me know what you feel the definitions of state/statehood/nation state are, and feel free to let me know when these concepts were created...

Why are you asking for the definitions of state/statehood/nation state if you think that international law is a relatively new construct?

[Mastika]

mastika if you look at greece and bulgaria its a similar picture the famous salada macedona was clever disinformation by the 3 amigos and it referred to the serb bulgar and greek inhabitants who were in fact all macedonians.

yes, however Macedonia was much more ethnically diverse then both the Bulgaria of 1878 or the Greece of 1830. As they expanded into lands further away from the core of their respective nations they took on a more multicultural atmosphere.

arent you stretching the truth with this comment

greeks are greeks and albanians albanians where were the bugari

I'm not going to deny that there were Bulgarians found in Macedonia at the turn of the century. Firstly there was the many school teachers, priests etc. sent from Bulgaria. Then there were the many guerilla fighters and lastly the people from Macedonia who considered themselves to be Bulgarian (which was only a minority, to everyone who is ready to pounce and attack me on this statement).

Mastika, it is officially documented that Greece carried out the first recorded form of ethnic cleansing in history I'll find you the doco on youtube mate. All lands under Ottoman rule had ethnic diversity. One was not more homogeneous than the next

All lands under Ottoman rule did have ethnic diversity. However some were more ethnically homogenous and some were less ethnically homogenous. Macedonia just happens to be more ethnically diverse. One could not find the great mix of ethnicities and religions which was found in Macedonia in say Morea, Central Serbia, Capadocia, etc.

I personally feel that the closest comparisons to the melting pot of cultures and languages which is Macedonia can be matched by say the Dobruja region, Bessarabia, Galicia, Vojvodina, Banat, Caucasus, for example (includes historical diversity)

If anyone wants to discuss the historical demographics of Macedonia they should start a new thread on it as to not hijack this one.

[Buktop]

Buktop, if you read my original post that you responded to, it included the additional UMD statement of shared history, culture and geography. These are a sample of many UMD comments that demonstrate their ill-thought out views when defending the cause (as they seem to define it).

And if you read my original post in this thread, I came in when the topic of the founding of a Macedonian state was being discussed, I did not reply to your original post, and I refuse to be dragged down into your UMD bashing. Why don't you tell us a little bit more about your theory of a continuous Macedonian STATE from antiquity?

[Buktop]

I already did repeatedly- nearly 20 of them (though that's a tiny sample) on Maknews - if I have time tonight I'll post them back up, but what would be the point, you would only ignore it and continue spilling an ocean of blood for the sake of your unity with Meto...or something like that - do you still use that Tito quote at Maknews?

I am not asking for a list of books, provide us with a definition of what you believe a Nation to be? And while you are at it, why don't you provide us with a quote that supports your theory about a continuous existence of a Macedonian state?

[TrueMacedonian]

Though yes its true that Macedonia was a formed republic in 1944, we must realise that the thought of becoming or eventually becoming a realised republic (when looking back at our elites or revolutionaries) went back much further, as we know.

What I'm saying is, people using words like "invented" or "created" in 1944, is misleading. As the "creation" was already established within the minds of our elites and thus began spreading among the people. Thus, more appropriately one should consider - a Macedonian nation being instead 'formed' or 'realised' in 1944.

Further did anyone actually read the book TM found, that is, the Myth of Nations? Because when one takes things into perspective Greek, claims, Bulgarian claims etc are fruitless (in other words we are all - generally speaking - in the same basket when considering our history and obscure origins, we just don't like to believe it, or some do others don't. However, this doesn't change nor should it change who we are and how we express ourselves today likewise in the more recent past) Further, though yes true we all share a history, culture etc we must realise that our history, culture etc (and like other nations and people) varies, by its strength, weakness, shape and form.

Editorial Review of Myth of Nations By Patrick J. Geary

In this compelling historical treatise, Geary (Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages) debunks the myth that modern European national and ethnic groups can be traced to distinct ancient or early medieval peoples. Eighteenth- and 19th-century philosophers like Fichte, Herder and Hegel, among others, famously developed an idea of nationalism that linked the present state to a people unified by political goals, language and culture. While much of this work has been reevaluated, we still take for granted that today's ethnic or national groups correspond to certain distinct forebears and territories. Yet Geary argues that ancient languages and cultures were too fluid to be mapped onto particular geographic regions, and that peoples like the Gauls, Franks and Lombards did not think of themselves as homogeneous. Using the classical histories of Herodotus, Livy, Tacitus and Augustine, Geary demonstrates that in antiquity there was a tremendous diversity of peoples who might have been united temporarily under one leader, but who were not united by what we would call ethnicity or nationality. Thus, he contends, there was no such quality as the "essential soul of a people or a nation" in Europe until 18th- and 19th-century philosophers invented it. Geary argues in a social constructionist vein that "peoples of Europe are processes formed and reformed by history." But his arguments are important in light of the nationalistic excesses of the 20th century, and his conclusions are sure to provoke controversy among scholars. (Jan.) Forecast: Although designed for a general audience, Geary's academic tone will turn away any but the most stalwart readers which is unfortunate, given the importance of this topic.

IofMacedon I think your post is revealing and educational for people with an open mind.

[Buktop]

If you can understand Macedonian, read below and see that the Referendum for independence in 1991 only asked whether one is FOR/ZA "Sovereign and independent state of MACEDONIA". "Republic" does not come into play at all as it is only a constitutional reference, much like you would use personal titles for your name, e.g. Mr or Sir, but "Buktop" remains unchanged.

This is not disputed, but the fact remains, this was the name of the STATE that was founded in 1944. Sovereign/independent state in relation to a continued participation in a federated Yugoslavia, in effect, asking whether Macedonians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. The state still continued it's existence.

[Buktop]

No, you will not. Meto advocated a 3-name solution, you dodged it like there was no tomorrow, coming up with all sorts of reasons why it should be re-interpreted to infinium.

Meto Serb danced his way into Australia's Macedonian community, and again, you were there on the merry-go-round to defend his inappropriate behaviour.

Now, all of a sudden, you are prepared to 'denounce' something from him? Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You're a UMD apologist, you have always been one. This facade that you put on here like some 'moderate' becomes more and more laughable with each lame attempt of yours to try and get your buddy out of the mud.

SoM, this conversation is not about UMD, and I have been avoiding it for nearly 8 pages now, you and Vangelovski keep pushing and pushing for an argument about UMD and then when I indulge you, I get accused for trying to spread propaganda on the issue. What is the point of even arguing it then?

If you have something to add on the founding or continuity of a Macedonian state, please feel free to add, otherwise leave me out of it.

[TrueMacedonian]

Vangelovski said;

it has been used as the name of our state (as it existed historically) and as the name of our homeland continuously.

Hmmm, that depends on what you mean by continuosly. In other words was the name Macedonia used continuosly officially by governments, Empires, etc? Or was it a term people, locals, natives in Macedonia used? Because there was an East Roman Theme system that used the term Macedonia,,, but geographically it was not centered in or around where Macedonia is to be found prior the theme system or after it. However there is evidence that suggests something different than the "official" empirical thematic system such as the synod records of the Ohrid archbishopric at the beginning of the thirteenth century that contain the words, "Ivan Ierakar by birth Macedonian" or the fact that there was a community of Macedonians who migrated from Macedonia (not the theme) and settled in what they called Macedonia village (Timis county)which is one of the first Macedonian settlements in Romania, documented by Catholic Church records in 1332-1337 under the name of Machadonia.

So the 'official' continuity of Macedonia as to the local sentiments of the time seem to differ in the examples I posted above.

[Buktop]

If you had basic knowledge you would had more logic.

I advised you to look into the regulations of the international law in order to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

Look for the definitions of: annection and occupation.

I know the definitions, you are trying to look at the past in the context of the present, and it just doesn't work like that. During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

If international law is relatively new construct than the form of a states can not be earlier than the regulation form of a one.

Put aside you arogant ignorancy and try to read something when discussing in here.

The foundations of modern international law were laid by the Christian Church in the ancient Roman Empire, surprised?


Learn who was Praetor Peregrinus for example

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Praetor+Peregrinus

or even better read the definition by Aristotel in his Politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)

The foundations may have been set, but once again, you are comparing MODERN international laws and concepts to an ancient context. The first thing you need to understand is that Ancient peoples didn't believe in ethnicity, nationalism or the concept of a unified race. For you to suggest that the entire Macedonian "state" has continuously existed since antiquity because you feel that it's annexation or occupation was against the wishes of the indigenous populace is absurd.

If you are talking about the current state that logically doesn't include the other 2 parts(actually 3), so why do you put confussion in this matter?

you are stating that the Macedonian state has existed since antiquity in a single unperturbed territorial entity, I asked you if the current state of Macedonia is the single, intact territorial entity that has been in existence since antiquity. The answer is no, it is a newly founded independent state based on a historical context.

But since you like playing a law executor than according to your deffinition and "facts" of assimilation the territories of Egej and Pirin are legally annexed and assimilated and NO more present a part of the Macedonian ethnic and historical region and we should not lay claims of our ethnic minority living there, right?

At the time of annexation there were no laws guaranteeing the integrity of a sovereign or non-sovereign territory, this is what allowed agreements such as the treaty at Bucharest to be struck. Was it right? No.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Did I say that we shouldn't associate with other Macedonians? Did I say we should forsake our ethnic brothers and sisters? No, stick to the topic at hand.

Why are you asking for the definitions of state/statehood/nation state if you think that international law is a relatively new construct?

So you can understand what a state is and that there was no continuous Macedonian one, I have provided the definitions in this thread on Osiris' request, perhaps you should read them.

[TrueMacedonian]

Buktop said;

I know the definitions, you are trying to look at the past in the context of the present, and it just doesn't work like that. During the Byzantine empire we were simply Christians, the general populace of the territory of Macedonia had no consciousness of a Macedonian nation, let alone state.

Not always true. Although Macedonians have consciously held religion as the prime self-identifier far longer than any other identity the examples I provided above show that there was some sort of identification with the land of Macedonia and in some cases ethnic identifiers (however we define what ethnicity meant to these people during their times as opposed to ours).