Slave Mentality

[vicsinad]

making pathetic anti-Macedonian claims such as Egej is a "legitimate" Greek entity and then "backing" them up with wild and unsubstantiated "evidence" that you may or may not have read in Risto Stefov's articles.

I'll work with the issues here in order to clarify some things.

First, I never claimed my readings of Risto Stefov's articles as support for Aegean Macedonia being a legitimate Greek entity. My support came from a comparison of the likely number of self-identifying ethnic Greeks living in Aegean Macedonia to the likely number of self-identifying ethnic Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia. I believe that the number of the former is significantly greater. I then made the assumption, based on this significantly greater number of people who identify as ethnic Greek, that, if given the choice by popular vote, the people of Aegean Macedonia would vote for the entire territory of Aegean Macedonia to remain within Greece. These are not wild claims or stretches of the imagination. Thus, because it is highly likely that the majority of people living within Aegean Macedonia would self-determine to stay within Greece, I believe that my claim that Aegean Macedonian constitutes a legitimate entity of Greece is justified.

Certainly, there is probably a disagreement as to what constitutes legitimacy. One can look to historical injustices, such as the territorial division of Macedonia in 1913 and the ethnic cleansing of Aegean Macedonians from well before that point to well after that point, and state that these are enough to de-legitimize the rule of Greece over Aegean Macedonia. I disagree because I don't think historical injustices (solely or mainly) are enough to override the self-determination and will of that land's current population. Though not exactly the same, but containing enough similarities to make the comparison valid, I look to the Native Americans (Indians) in the United States. The fact that tribes of Native Americans (be they the Iroquois or whomever) were cleansed from the land 200-300 years ago and now only form a small minority, in no-way de-legitimizes the self-determination of today's individuals living on former Iroquois territory. I understand the grievances of Native Americans, and I completely disagree with how their ancestors' lands were taken from them (just as in Macedonia's case), but I do not see this as sufficient enough of a reason to go against the will of the majority of the people and make the land I live on Iroquois territory.

However, some also use the justification of the ongoing suppression of Macedonians' rights in Greece to claim that Aegean Macedonia is not a legitimate entity of Greece. I also do not agree with this being enough justification to "free Aegean Macedonia from Greek rule" because a significant majority of the population in Aegean Macedonia would be against it. On the other hand, if Macedonians (or anyone) living in regions and villages of Aegean Macedonia use these current suppressions as their reasoning for wanting to be free from Greek rule, and if the majority of the people living in those regions and villages will to be free from Greek rule, then I would recognize and accept their struggle as legitimate. Further, saying that Aegean Macedonia is a legitimate Greek entity is in no way suggesting that Greece can continue to violate human and political rights and obligations to all of its citizens. The same applies to Native Americans in the United States. I believe that if the majority of the people living on current tribal land want to split from the US, then they should. However, the fact that there are still several ongoing injustices happening against Native Americans is not enough to justify unifying all former Iroquois lands when it would mean going against the legitimate rule and will of the majority.

Now, addressing whether my statement was anti-Macedonian or not: I assume that anti-Macedonian statements and actions, according to MTO members, would entail making statements that contradict and work against the definition of the Macedonian Cause as displayed on this website. The other two ways that I believe my claims can be considered anti-Macedonian by others are if a) the individual addressing my claims has a different notion as to what the Macedonian Cause entails than what's posted on this website; or b), there can be claims which do not circumvent the Macedonian Cause, but are still anti-Macedonian in nature.

Under my reading of the Macedonian Cause, as defined here, I believe my statements are not anti-Macedonian. Of course, a lot of this has to do with definitions and interpretations. When a goal of the Macedonian Cause is "Securing Macedonia as a free, independent and democratic republic," is MTO referring to the Republic of Macedonia, or geographical Macedonia? If it is referring to geographical Macedonia, then I concede as to how one would view my statements as anti-Macedonian and working against the Macedonian Cause...as our ideas of what the Macedonian Cause entails would vastly differ. But if it means the Republic of Macedonia, then my statement hasn't contradicted the Cause. For nothing in the Macedonian Cause, as defined here, suggests that unification of historical Macedonia is part of the Macedonian Cause.

Further, the definition of the Macedonian Cause on MTO distinguishes (though, not clearly) between historical Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia. As an example, Macedonia in the second paragraph likely refers to the Republic of Macedonia while "historical Macedonia" is used in the paragraph second from the end. Moreover, the Macedonian Cause on MTO states:

"The recognition of the Macedonian minorities in the neighboring states of Macedonia as well as the respect for the inalienable rights and freedoms of the Macedonian minorities, as provided for by natural law and as codified by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other universally codified human rights mechanisms..."

This, indirectly, suggest that Aegean Macedonia is within a neighboring state (as inferred from the use of Macedonia in this case as the "Republic of Macedonia"). Now, perhaps we will have a disagreement as to whether territorial integrity and legitimacy are the same thing, or whether territorial integrity can be a factor in determining legitimacy. However, I don't think it would be appropriate for the Macedonian Cause to invoke the UN Charter with regards to minority issues and then ignore the legitimacy of the UN recognizing the legitimacy of the political borders of countries. Further, I would assume that a non-contradictory view of "respect for the inalienable rights and freedoms of Macedonian minorities" should also entail the respect of the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples. Accordingly, then, we must respect the self-determination and will of the people living with Aegean Macedonia.

Finally, though, I understand where the loophole exists. My interpretation of the above clauses can be de-legitimized because of this paragraph in MTO's definition of the Macedonian Cause:

"The full and unreserved respect of, and the support for, the rights of all people of non-Macedonian descent living in Macedonia and around the world, who share a reciprocal full and unreserved respect for the Macedonian people, their homeland and their state;"

This sentence is probably the catch-all, and it's the one I probably take the biggest issues with. First, while it doesn't advocate a disrespect of all people of a non-Macedonian descent, it qualifies when respect should be given, suggesting that it would be permissible to not respect a person who do not respect us back. While I disagree with this in itself, probably due to "idealistic" (as some would define them) viewpoints, my disagreement is with how one can interpret "unreserved respect for the Macedonian people[s]...homeland." Does the Macedonian people's homeland include all of historical/geographical Macedonia? If it does, how does one disrespect Macedonia's homeland: by stating that historical Macedonia should not be united? by the majority of the people of one region of Macedonia being opposed to a minority's desire of that same region to see it either independent or united with another Macedonian region? I don't know -- it could be interpreted many ways. But what I do know is that as soon as one person disrespects someone else's interpretation of that phrase, it is allowable for the disrespecting party (under MTO's definition of the Macedonian Cause) to be subjugated to disrespect by a Macedonian; again, depending on how he interprets that phrase. So, when someone says Aegean Macedonia is a legitimate Greek entity, and believes he "respects" Macedonians and their state in all other aspects, it is possible for it to be okay for a Macedonian to disrespect that person to any extent he desires.

Thus, under the above view, my claims can be construed as anti-Macedonian, and anti-Macedonian Cause. I believe they are not.

On a side note, notice how I generally calling it "Aegean Macedonia" and not northern Greece. The fact that I use the term Aegean Macedonia should be enough to show that I'm not espousing an anti-Macedonian view. Whether it supports the claim that I'm dependable to advocate rigorously for the Macedonian Cause on MTO is another mater.

Finally, I think it's important to recall that my comments were made within the context of a "United Macedonia," aka uniting Vardar, Pirin and Aegean Macedonia into one political country.

[Risto the Great]

vicsinad, a lot of words to justify "legitimacy".
It may be a reality but it will never be legitimate. It is a reality now because the majority of the people in the region are now the offspring of former Turkish nationals of christian extraction. If RoMacedonia was a thriving homeland of Macedonians, the Macedonians in Greece would gravitate to it willingly in my opinion. And there are many more Macedonians in Greece than you might even dare to imagine.

I appreciate and welcome your analysis of the Cause as defined here.

It can be argued that Macedonia does not have a homeland. Consequently, Macedonians cannot respect anybody. But I am sure you would agree it means "you respect us, we respect you".

[vicsinad]

vicsinad, a lot of words to justify "legitimacy".
It may be a reality but it will never be legitimate. It is a reality now because the majority of the people in the region are now the offspring of former Turkish nationals of christian extraction. If RoMacedonia was a thriving homeland of Macedonians, the Macedonians in Greece would gravitate to it willingly in my opinion. And there are many more Macedonians in Greece than you might even dare to imagine.

I appreciate and welcome your analysis of the Cause as defined here.

It can be argued that Macedonia does not have a homeland. Consequently, Macedonians cannot respect anybody. But I am sure you would agree it means "you respect us, we respect you".

They may be the offspring of former Turkish nationals, but does that de-legitimize their will?

I'd venture to guess, from what I've read, that without those Macedonians who are not allowed to return to Greece, there is about 250,000 -- 350,000 self-identifying Macedonians (privately or publicly). I know the exact numbers are hard to assess due to the discriminatory policies in Greece. If Macedonians and/or their descendants were allowed to return to Greece, could we be talking about upwards of a half a million to 2/3 of a million? My range might be off, but even if it's at 1,000,000, we're still talking about almost 2/3 of the population of Aegean Macedonia who are non-Macedonian (most likely Greek) that would want Aegean Macedonia to remain in Greece.

[Risto the Great]

They may be the offspring of former Turkish nationals, but does that de-legitimize their will?

Let me get this right. I move 20 people into your house. They outnumber you, they legitimately claim your house. You give up without a whimper. You have solved the problem of war, congratulations.

[Vangelovski]

Victor, I agree with RtG - that is an awful lot of words to justify your view that Egej is a "legitimate" Greek entity.

Lets first dispel some of the myths upon which you are trying to make a case to justify your position.

On your first point, I repeatedly asked you about the Macedonian population within Egej and through your responses (which until now did not include your caveat about the total population regardless of ethnonational identity) you implied that it was the Macedonian population that would choose to remain under Greek rule.

On your point about legitimacy, you are engaging in a classic, 'what's done is done and we either cannot or should not change it'. Firstly, legitimacy means exactly what it means, particularly in this specific context. Regardless of how you try to define it, at its core it means just, lawful and/or right. The Greek occupation of Egej was and is none of these. The passage of time does not mystically remedy the situation and the fact that the demographic changes were brought about through forced expulsion and assimilation, makes it worse, not more 'legitimate'. While, as RtG points out, the Greek occupation of Macedonian territory may currently be a reality, the crimes committed to create that 'reality' in no way make Greek rule over Egej and its indigenous inhabitants (the Macedonians) 'legitimate'. It would be like a court ruling that a thief be allowed to keep property they have stolen from another just because it is currently in their possession. Such a proposition is ludicrous and contrary to natural and statutory law (in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of).

I agree in part with your American example. While the 'American people' are entitled to determine their own affairs, that in no way legitimises their actions (past or present) against Native Americans (or whatever the latest politically correct terminology is). At best its a case of competing rights. There are political consequences as to whether such actions are legitimate. Should the settler's actions have been deemed to be legitimate, i.e., just, right and lawful, then the United States owes Native Americans nothing. But this is not the case and the United States, has to a degree, recognised that their past actions were not legitimate. In fact, the United States, in an attempt to rectify this problem with legitimacy (though obviously this falls short) have provided Native Americans with limited autonomy in designated reservations where tribes are able to implement, to a degree, tribal law. Macedonians in Egej, or anywhere else in Greece, are not even allowed to identify as Macedonians, let alone exercise a degree of local autonomy. The political consequences of Egej being a "legitimate" Greek entity, as you claim include Greece's claim to Macedonian identity. If Greece's claim to Egej is just, right and lawful, then it has every right to claim the culture, history and identity of the land and people it possesses - Macedonia - and we should, in fact negotiate with them to come to some sort of "just" settlement. But this is the whole point - Greece's claim to Egej is not legitimate, it is not right, just or lawful, and therefore, they do not have a right or a claim to our land, culture, history and identity and we are under no moral, legal or other obligation to negotiate anything with them.

Finally, your view are anti-Macedonian because you usurp what is ours and hand it over to the Greeks. It is anti-Macedonian because you provide a foundation to Greece's house of lies. And it is anti-Macedonian because claiming that the Greeks have a legitimate claim to Macedonia denies us our inalienable rights.

[Vangelovski]

Voltron,

Your post has been deleted. Try that rubbish again and you'll be taking a holiday.

[vicsinad]

Vangelovski:

After reviewing my other posts, I tried to understand how one could have interpreted my statements as implying that I was talking only about the Macedonian population in Greece. Here are just a handful of my responses in other threads demonstrating that I implied the entire population of Aegean Macedonia, not just Macedonian people:

"But that does not indicate that the majority of the people living Aegean Macedonia would want to unite Aegean Macedonia with the Republic of Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia."

"I'm talking about Aegean Macedonia as a whole, not pockets of ethnic Macedonian dominated regions of Aegean Macedonia."

"The vast majority of the people living in Aegean and Pirin Macedonia do accept Greece and Bulgaria as the legitimate governing authorities over Aegean and Pirin Macedonia."

"I agree that the Macedonian minority is currently repressed in many regards...but that does NOT, in NO WAY, equate to even a substantial minority of the people living on those lands as wanting to become independent or to join with the other parts of Macedonia."

"As far as I know and study, most people living in Pirin Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia willingly accept the rule of Greece and Bulgaria."


If legitimate means lawful and right, what rights do the non-Macedonian people living in Aegean Macedonia have? Their ancestors, either forcefully or voluntarily, moved to that area. Why should I, as a Macedonian, have more rights to lands in Aegean Macedonia than someone who was born there? Just because I'm Macedonian? My roots are in the Tetovo and Prespa regions of Vardar Macedonia -- as far as I know, I have no known blood relatives from the Aegean region. Just because I share a cultural/ethnic bond with a minority group in Aegean Macedonia...does that mean that relationship gives me more rights than the self-determination rights of the people who live on that land? Why should any Macedonian who has no blood or property affiliation with Aegean Macedonia be entitled to some sort of rights there based on a common bond with which was at one time the cultural/ethnic majority of the region?

Your analogy about a thief stealing property is not the one I have in mind. The one I have in mind is more fuzzy and I think more in line with what I'm getting at: "X amount of years ago your ancestors kicked my ancestors off their property. Now I want my ancestor's property back, because it would have been mine had they not been kicked out. But you have nowhere to go if I do that, and you had nothing to do with what your ancestors did." What is right and practical becomes more blurry and complicated.

Sure, theoretically some sort of relocation agreement can be made with regards to finding new properties for these "settlers" so that individual Macedonians can reclaim their land. But would that include removing Greeks from the entire Aegean Macedonian region? No, that would amount to ethnic cleansing...and short of that, I still do not see the majority of the population being Macedonian and thus willing to split from Greece.

I'd ultimately support any beneficial Macedonian activity there (such as secession) and take the name of a hypocrite.. it's what I do for family, whether I agree or not, or whether I believe my family/friend's actions are violating some "principles". My focus in this discussion, however, has been rights of the people on the land, and not the rights of the state.

So with that, I'll rephrase the context of legitimacy to make it more clear (though, keep in mind, the only other type of legitimacy I hinted at aside from self-determination (which has been consistent this entire time) was UN recognition). It's not a legitimate Greek entity because the Greek government, the Greek state, or the Greek people south of Aegean Macedonia have any legitimate rights or claims to Aegean Macedonia. It's a legitimate Greek entity because the majority of the population there are ethnic Greek and probably will it to be part of Greece.

[Vangelovski]

After reviewing my other posts, I tried to understand how one could have interpreted my statements as implying that I was talking only about the Macedonian population in Greece. Here are just a handful of my responses in other threads demonstrating that I implied the entire population of Aegean Macedonia, not just Macedonian people:

"But that does not indicate that the majority of the people living Aegean Macedonia would want to unite Aegean Macedonia with the Republic of Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia."

"I'm talking about Aegean Macedonia as a whole, not pockets of ethnic Macedonian dominated regions of Aegean Macedonia."

"The vast majority of the people living in Aegean and Pirin Macedonia do accept Greece and Bulgaria as the legitimate governing authorities over Aegean and Pirin Macedonia."

"I agree that the Macedonian minority is currently repressed in many regards...but that does NOT, in NO WAY, equate to even a substantial minority of the people living on those lands as wanting to become independent or to join with the other parts of Macedonia."

"As far as I know and study, most people living in Pirin Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia willingly accept the rule of Greece and Bulgaria."

Yeah, its a little underhanded seeing as I specifically asked you about the MACEDONIAN population and it appears that you repeatedly refused to address that but still made it look like you were responding to it. However, I will note that you obviously believe that the majority of the population in Pirin are NOT Macedonian. Is that you or Risto Stefov talking?

If legitimate means lawful and right, what rights do the non-Macedonian people living in Aegean Macedonia have? Their ancestors, either forcefully or voluntarily, moved to that area. Why should I, as a Macedonian, have more rights to lands in Aegean Macedonia than someone who was born there? Just because I'm Macedonian? My roots are in the Tetovo and Prespa regions of Vardar Macedonia -- as far as I know, I have no known blood relatives from the Aegean region. Just because I share a cultural/ethnic bond with a minority group in Aegean Macedonia...does that mean that relationship gives me more rights than the self-determination rights of the people who live on that land? Why should any Macedonian who has no blood or property affiliation with Aegean Macedonia be entitled to some sort of rights there based on a common bond with which was at one time the cultural/ethnic majority of the region? ."

Who was talking about you and your individual rights? Are you trying to set up another ‘straw man’ to knock down like you did with the question of majorities?

There are at least two forms of property that are relevant to this case – individual and national. While you as an individual may not have any claim to any specific property in Aegean Macedonia, the Macedonian nation does. Even your own individually owned property in the United States (though I doubt you actually have any, you’ve proven to be nothing more than a child) is still the national possession of the American people in that foreign powers have no right or claim to exploit it in any way (i.e., collect taxes on it). The fact that the Macedonian people are indigenous to Macedonia and the traditional owners of that territory ensures them with additional rights under “international law”.

Your analogy about a thief stealing property is not the one I have in mind. The one I have in mind is more fuzzy and I think more in line with what I'm getting at: "X amount of years ago your ancestors kicked my ancestors off their property. Now I want my ancestor's property back, because it would have been mine had they not been kicked out. But you have nowhere to go if I do that, and you had nothing to do with what your ancestors did." What is right and practical becomes more blurry and complicated.

Sure, theoretically some sort of relocation agreement can be made with regards to finding new properties for these "settlers" so that individual Macedonians can reclaim their land. But would that include removing Greeks from the entire Aegean Macedonian region? No, that would amount to ethnic cleansing...and short of that, I still do not see the majority of the population being Macedonian and thus willing to split from Greece. "

Everything in your mind is fuzzy. Who’s talking about deportations? Is this another ‘straw man’ of yours?

I'd ultimately support any beneficial Macedonian activity there (such as secession) and take the name of a hypocrite.. it's what I do for family, whether I agree or not, or whether I believe my family/friend's actions are violating some "principles". My focus in this discussion, however, has been rights of the people on the land, and not the rights of the state.

So with that, I'll rephrase the context of legitimacy to make it more clear (though, keep in mind, the only other type of legitimacy I hinted at aside from self-determination (which has been consistent this entire time) was UN recognition). It's not a legitimate Greek entity because the Greek government, the Greek state, or the Greek people south of Aegean Macedonia have any legitimate rights or claims to Aegean Macedonia. It's a legitimate Greek entity because the majority of the population there are ethnic Greek and probably will it to be part of Greece.

Like I said from the beginning, and you have now admitted, your thinking is fuzzy. There are many towns in Western Macedonia where Albanians make up the majority population and, in your terminology, “will” it to be a self-governed Albanian “entity”. I know that in your mind and according to your logic this makes it a “legitimate” Albanian territory.

What is even fuzzier about your thinking is your childish attempt to separate the nation from the state. While they are two separate concepts in theory, the state is non-existent (i.e., its only a paper organisation) without a real life group of people to manage it. So to claim that you don’t think the Greek state has a claim to Egej while the Greek people in Aegean Macedonia do, is a fallacious and irrational concept. The Greek people of Aegean Macedonia are an integral part of the Greek state and the Greek Government. If they, as you claim, have a legitimate right to Egej, then by extension so does the Greek state and government.


No matter how much you try to backtrack, you're only digging yourself in deeper. In addition to this, it is the "Greek" settlers in Egej who claim they are the "legitimate" heirs of the ancient Macedonians and that the Macedonian identity, culture and history belongs to them. Now that you have made the claim that the "Greeks" in Egej (who consider themselves to be the "real" Macedonians) have a legitimate claim to Egej simply because they are a majority, then the question returns back to the name dispute. By your logic, and by your clarification of your original comments, the Greeks in Egej still have a "legitimate" claim to the territory and be extension to everything Macedonian!


I will return to my previous comment:

Finally, your view are anti-Macedonian because you usurp what is ours and hand it over to the Greeks. It is anti-Macedonian because you provide a foundation to Greece's house of lies. And it is anti-Macedonian because claiming that the Greeks have a legitimate claim to Macedonia denies us our inalienable rights.

[vicsinad]

Vangelovski:

Actually, you also stated this:

"which until now did not include your caveat about the total population regardless of ethnonational identity"

Which has been proven to be a false statement, for the entire time I was talking about the total population. I was never trying to make a statement about the will of the Macedonians there, it was always about the total population. So I found no need to respond to a question about the will of ethnic Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia when the points that I made weren't based on only the will of the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia. Instead, questions arose about whether I had met or talked to Aegean Macedonians, and I said no but that I read about their views. And you asked who, I said one was Risto Stefov, but because his views weren't academic enough, that Aegean Macedonian's source was discounted. Then I mentioned a book I read about Aegean Macedonians, and you also dismissed that as me not knowing what I'm talking about and insisted on more sources. Then I stated I do not to need to reveal more sources...not to escape any sort of argument, but because it's so far removed from any of the points I was making.

Maybe it's part of your agenda to Serbianize every Vardar Macedonian who doesn't agree with you. I don't know.

The rest of your comments are frosted with insults and I have no intention of addressing them until you can engage in some sort of intellectual discussion without the jabs.

[Vangelovski]

Victor, you've never had any intention of discussing any issue of substance. It appears your here to spread your Serbian views on Macedonia.

[vicsinad]

Victor, you've never had any intention of discussing any issue of substance. It appears your here to spread your Serbian views on Macedonia.

You caught me.

The profile of Vangelovski -- dividing and dividing the Macedonians until there is only left: Professor Tom Vangelovski.

[Vangelovski]

You caught me.

The profile of Vangelovski -- dividing and dividing the Macedonians until there is only left: Professor Tom Vangelovski.

Victor, anyone who's read anything that I've written is well aware that I'm not interested in shallow unity, particularly when its with people who subscribe to Serbian culture and the belief that Greeks have a "legitimate" claim to Macedonia. Those ideas are reminiscent of the "Yugoslav" mentality and are incompatible with the Macedonian cause as defined by the MTO.

[vicsinad]

Victor, anyone who's read anything that I've written is well aware that I'm not interested in shallow unity, particularly when its with people who subscribe to Serbian culture and the belief that Greeks have a "legitimate" claim to Macedonia. Those ideas are reminiscent of the "Yugoslav" mentality and are incompatible with the Macedonian cause as defined by the MTO.

I think using bold and italicize are really helping you make your point. If you also underline, use a larger font size and use a different color you might actually get it published in a peer-reviewed journal!

[Vangelovski]

I think using bold and italicize are really helping you make your point. If you also underline, use a larger font size and use a different color you might actually get it published in a peer-reviewed journal!

I have been published in peer reviewed journals Victor. Do you know why? Because I actually take the effort to research what I'm talking about and make my arguments based on evidence and reason. You seem to make stories up as you go and then refuse to continue once your flawed logic has been exposed.

[vicsinad]

I have been published in peer reviewed journals Victor. Do you know why? Because I actually take the effort to research what I'm talking about and make my arguments based on evidence and reason. You seem to make stories up as you go and then refuse to continue once your flawed logic has been exposed.

Yes, I read your Framework Agreement analysis...however, don't get me started on both your English and logic used in that paper. You're facts were pretty solid, though.