Macedonian Nationalism

[Soldier of Macedon]

But what I am asking is why is it that we have to be descended from ancient Macedonians in order to be Macedonian? What about someone like Pitu Guli? Where would he fit in?

TM, the answer to your question is self-explanatory if you consider the process of ethnogenesis and emegence of the Macedonians as a people has its roots in antiquity. Pitu Guli is an ethnic Vlach (for the most part, at least) and his kin are Macedonians in the geographical sense. They can be considered Macedonians in the national sense since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, due to their cooperation with Macedonians in their efforts to create a Macedonian state. They are not, strictly speaking, Macedonians in the ethnic sense, except those that have chosen to integrate into a more macedonian society, culture and way of life.

Do you view it any differently?

[aleksandrov]

I would probably have taken a different approach to the line of questioning used by TM, but I don't consider this an exercise where Macedonian origins are being disputed. I see nothing wrong in a critical discussion regarding what is possible and probable concerning Macedonian origins, if the purpose is to try and obtain greater clarity.

Greater clarity about what and for what purpose? How much clarity has TM provided or attempted to provide about his own assumptions?

[aleksandrov]

I don't have a fear. I have a belief that it is a futile exercise largely because our knowledge of history is far from perfect and always subject to interpretation. Why do you feel compelled to apply such rigorous testing against the Macedonian nationality that nobody else applies to their own identity? Forget about the Greeks with their limited connections, apply the same tests to any race and see what you come up with.

Don't underestimate how one "feels" by the way, if enough people "feel" a certain way, then it is real in my opinion.

You have stated the following:If Daskalot or someone finds a document online that defies one of your "breaks in between", you will have to re-assess that statement. Instead of merely identifying that almost all modern nations have had periods of great external influence.

You have answered your own quest when you identify there is no way of accurately pinning down specifically when the ethnicity became cognisant with what we understand as Macedonian now.

Perhaps it is worth the exercise for us to pick a (different) modern nation and see what we can decipher from their past in order to determine a connection. I like the Englishman example. They spoke many different languages and they had bad teeth. Hmmm, nothing has changed at all.

Seriously, I think your issue is more a definitional one relating to "nationalism" than it is with the Macedonian nation. But have no real idea where you are going with it. If you want to prove we danced around in circles and worshiped the Sun God, so be it. I don't see how it will help connect us to the ancient Macedonians anymore than a couple of people hanging around Stonehenge in funny robes connects them to Olde England nowadays.

Hear, hear.

[TrueMacedonian]

I don't have a fear. I have a belief that it is a futile exercise largely because our knowledge of history is far from perfect and always subject to interpretation. Why do you feel compelled to apply such rigorous testing against the Macedonian nationality that nobody else applies to their own identity? Forget about the Greeks with their limited connections, apply the same tests to any race and see what you come up with.

I wouldn't say that this is a rigorous test against the Macedonian nationality. This was my original post here;

There's people that say that an indigenous Macedonian culture exists today and has existed since the time of Alexander.

There are people who do not cater to such theories and feel that a Macedonian culture was something that eventually evolved generation to generation into what it is today.

And there are those who feel that this is a recent arrival to the playing field in Macedonia.


How much proof can anyone provide for any of the above?

I would say that I am all for applying questions to any of the above theory as well as any theory not mentioned above. Nothing against anything or anybody.

If Daskalot or someone finds a document online that defies one of your "breaks in between", you will have to re-assess that statement.

And that would be fine with me Risto. I am not against re-assessing my view nor against new finds when it comes to Macedonian history. I welcome it.

You have answered your own quest when you identify there is no way of accurately pinning down specifically when the ethnicity became cognisant with what we understand as Macedonian now.

Unless someone has another theory with evidence to back up what they're saying.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Greater clarity about what and for what purpose?

Greater clarity about the possible or probable origins of some cultural characteristics, where the point is not to prove or disprove, but to look at the arguments of both for and against.

How much clarity has TM provided or attempted to provide about his own assumptions?

It's becoming a high tensioned discussions where both of you are asking each other alot of questions but answering very little. I am positive you could come to a consensus, but the lack of iniative from either side will ensure that this doesn't happen.

[Pelister]

Oh geez not the UMD thing. Let's keep them out of this. Pelister there's alot of folklore out there. How old are these folktales and folksongs? 200 years ago? 300 years ago? Folklore is an important factor in Nationalism and Culture. But what I am asking is why is it that we have to be descended from ancient Macedonians in order to be Macedonian? What about someone like Pitu Guli? Where would he fit in?
As for our customs stretching back before the times of Filip and Alexander can you please provide the evidence so we can discuss this in further detail?

Pitu Guli was not a Macedonian and by that I mean an ethnic Macedonian. You can tinker with his identity all you like, and the identity of Macedonians all you like, but Pitu Gule was not a Macedonian in that sense.

As for customs, well I can point to one right now - the Macedonian Bridal Oro, which is said to be a Thracian dance, and we know that the Thracians had inhabited Macedonia long before late antiquity. But why do I have to prove my ancient roots?

But what I am asking is why is it that we have to be descended from ancient Macedonians in order to be Macedonian?

1. Because we are descended from people living in the region in ancient times
2. Because we have always been simply 'Macedonians'

I have observed that really the only people denying us this expression are our colonial rulers, the Greeks, and among Macedonians, UMD, and the Macedonian leadership. What do all three have in common ? They all question our historical identity, or have a particular revisionist interpreation of it would be more to the point. Consider, for example, the 'Pitu Gule' case you raised which is the 'linchpin' case in their 'arguement' about what Macedonian identity shoud be as opposed to is. This line of thinking is simply preparing the ideological groundwork for a political change in 'what it means to be a Macedonian'.

[aleksandrov]

I wonder how much of our pagan past can be found in our culture today, I would imagine it would make interesting reading and study...to place all of our eggs in the religious basket would be to dilute our rich culture and the very evolution of religion itself...i don't think you can have one (religion) without the acknowledgement of the other (paganism)...

The extent to which Christians in general have carried on or adapted pagan popular culture and philosophy, especially as Christianity developed into a movement completely separate from Judeism (well after the time of Jesus and the Apostles), is something that has been the subject of extensive critical study. But to get into that now might make this thread much more confusing and directionless than TM has already made it.

If TM ever gives some logical answers to the questions that have been raised about the assumptions he bases his own questions on, it may well be appropriate to start requesting evidence from him about the degree of evidence of contemporary ethnocultural elements that are distinctly Christian and can be traced back to the beginning of Christianity, as opposed to earlier or later periods, in the same way that he is asking for evidence of cultural elements that have originated from and survived since the ancient Macedonians. It'll be interested to see where that takes him and his theory of the 'Christian' origins and defining elements of the Macedonian nation or ethnicity or culture.

[aleksandrov]

Greater clarity about the possible or probable origins of some cultural characteristics, where the point is not to prove or disprove, but to look at the arguments of both for and against.
...

I think you are confusing your own curiosity with the assumptions and questions TM has based this thread on.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, the answer to your question is self-explanatory if you consider the process of ethnogenesis and emegence of the Macedonians as a people has its roots in antiquity. Pitu Guli is an ethnic Vlach (for the most part, at least) and his kin are Macedonians in the geographical sense. They can be considered Macedonians in the national sense since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, due to their cooperation with Macedonians in their efforts to create a Macedonian state. They are not, strictly speaking, Macedonians in the ethnic sense, except those that have chosen to integrate into a more macedonian society, culture and way of life.

Do you view it any differently?

No I don't view it differently SoM. If we may examine some documents though. The Macedonian Manifesto of 1880 - http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008...ian-army-1880/ does not once mention the ancient Macedonians. It mentions "Forget mutual disagreements for we are all it's (Macedonia's) sons regardless of faith or nationality. We are first and foremost Macedonians." as well as "We hope all true Macedonians will hear our call to bloody struggle."

And the Macedonian Manifesto of 1881 - http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008...acedonia-1881/

mentions Macedonia weeping for her children "You my loyal children; you that are my inheritors after Aristotle and Alexander the Great; you in whose veins Macedonian blood runs,,,,,,true Macedonians,,,,remember our origin and do not give it up".


It seems that in 1880 the manifesto called out to all inhabitants regardless of "faith and nationality". In 1881 this manifesto started making mention of ancient figures and ancient ancestors. Both manifestos called for a free or autonomous Macedonia. Both mentioned true Macedonians. We can see the clear development of Macedonian nationalism in the 1881 manifesto compared to the 1880 manifesto. Would it be fair to say then, in regards to Pitu Guli, that the 1880 manifesto would appeal more to him than the 1881 manifesto?

[aleksandrov]

...It's becoming a high tensioned discussions where both of you are asking each other alot of questions but answering very little. I am positive you could come to a consensus, but the lack of iniative from either side will ensure that this doesn't happen.

I have already indicated quite clearly why I refuse to answer his fallacious questions on his terms until he can adequately define and justify the premises on which he bases them and demonstrate a capacity to apply the standard of 'evidence' that he demands from others to his own assumptions. You may have missed the post in which my reasoning for that is stated. Risto has understood it pretty well and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to understand it, if you give it some close consideration.

[Vangelovski]

TM,

I highly doubt you are as widely read on nationalism as you claim, and if you are, you certainly have not understood anything you have read. Following your posts is almost impossible as you have made illogical and contradictory inferences to a number of key concepts that one needs to understand in order to engage in this particular debate.

Essentially, it appears you are making it up as you go. I think before you continue, at a minimum, you should define how YOU understand the following concepts AND how they relate to each other according to YOU:

Nation
Nationalism
Ethnicity
Culture
Identity

Maybe you could also tell us when, how and why nationalism developed and finally explain in unambiguous terms what on earth you are trying to determine in this thread…?

[TrueMacedonian]

TM,

I highly doubt you are as widely read on nationalism as you claim, and if you are, you certainly have not understood anything you have read. Following your posts is almost impossible as you have made illogical and contradictory inferences to a number of key concepts that one needs to understand in order to engage in this particular debate.

Essentially, it appears you are making it up as you go. I think before you continue, at a minimum, you should define how YOU understand the following concepts AND how they relate to each other according to YOU:

Nation
Nationalism
Ethnicity
Culture
Identity

Maybe you could also tell us when, how and why nationalism developed and finally explain in unambiguous terms what on earth you are trying to determine in this thread…?

Vangelovski I don't claim to know it all and I don't claim to know about this subject (Nationalism) as much as you. However I will define the above words for you later on when I have more time available.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I think you are confusing your own curiosity with the assumptions and questions TM has based this thread on.

I am aware of how our inquiries differ, but I still consider 'clarity' as the main objective of this exercise. There is no confusion, at least not on my part.

You may have missed the post in which my reasoning for that is stated. Risto has understood it pretty well and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to understand it, if you give it some close consideration.

No, I didn't miss it, and I did understand what you wrote. However, you don't appear to have any intentions to contribute to the development of this topic, so I think it best to agree to disagree and move on, if no resolution can be seen. What do you think?

[Soldier of Macedon]

It seems that in 1880 the manifesto called out to all inhabitants regardless of "faith and nationality". In 1881 this manifesto started making mention of ancient figures and ancient ancestors. Both manifestos called for a free or autonomous Macedonia. Both mentioned true Macedonians. We can see the clear development of Macedonian nationalism in the 1881 manifesto compared to the 1880 manifesto.

TM, those are just a few examples where a group of people have initiated a form of common action in Macedonia with the aim of liberation during the late 19th century. However, there are other examples that need to be considered, such as the manifesto of the Kresna Uprising which predates those cited earlier by a couple of years. In it, there is clear mention made of the connection to Macedonia's ancient heritage, the blood we shed all over the Macedonian fields and forests, we serve freedom, as the Macedonian army of Alexander of Macedon, and furthermore, a clear distinction as to who were the main ethnic groups in Macedonia at the time, Macedonian, Turk, Albanian, Wallachian.

We can see the clear development of Macedonian nationalism in the 1881 manifesto compared to the 1880 manifesto. Would it be fair to say then, in regards to Pitu Guli, that the 1880 manifesto would appeal more to him than the 1881 manifesto?

No, it wouldn't. The Kresna manifesto demonstrates that both the ethnic and broader geographical elements in Macedonia can co-exist, therefore, there was no 'conflict of interest' when Alexander was cited on the one hand and the Wallachians (in the case of Pitu Guli or his ancestors) on the other. Would there be, in your opinion?

[aleksandrov]

I am aware of how our inquiries differ, but I still consider 'clarity' as the main objective of this exercise. ...

And it is clarity about the ambiguous premises and standards of evidence on which the thread-starter has based his line of inquiry which some of us are trying to establish.

No, I didn't miss it, and I did understand what you wrote. However, you don't appear to have any intentions to contribute to the development of this topic, so I think it best to agree to disagree and move on, if no resolution can be seen. What do you think?

Your second sentence above indicates that you may not have quite understood the purpose of what I wrote. What I, along with Tom, RtG and a few others have posted encourages critical assessment of the flawed premises and assumptions on which this topic has been founded by the thread-starter. Without that, any 'development' of the topic would be fundamentally flawed and potentially counterproductive for the Macedonian cause of liberty and justice.