Exposing Bulgarian Myths and Lies

[Carlin]

In 1905, Mary Edith Durham claimed in her book, "The Burden of the Balkans" (pp. 77-79), to "have met people who believe in a special race which they call Macedonian" and who told her their language is not Bulgarian saying herself "the dialect... is neither Serbian or Bulgarian".

[Carlin]

URL:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazardzhik

- Pazardzhik (Bulgarian: Пазарджик) is a city situated along the banks of the Maritsa river, southern Bulgaria. It is the capital of Pazardzhik Province and centre for the homonymous Pazardzhik Municipality.

- Pazardzhik was founded by Tatars from what is today Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi in 1485 on the left bank of the river Maritsa, near the market of the region, an important crossroad at the middle of this productive region, and named Tatar Pazardzhik meaning "small Tatar market".

[Carlin]

URL:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=hyw...Tatars&f=false

Page 476:
"Under Ottoman rule in Bulgaria in the 15th through the 19th centuries, small groups of Tatars migrated to Bulgaria. The city of Pazardzhik was originally called Tatar-Pazardzhik because of the large Tatar population in acquired in the 15th century. After the khanate of the Crimean Tatars was annexed by Russia in 1783 and especially after the Crimean War (1853-1856), huge numbers of Crimean Tatars were settled in Dobrudja in northern Bulgaria."

[Carlin]

Gagauz people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_people

- The Encyclopedia of World Cultures lists the ethnonym of the Gagauz as "Turkish" and "Turkish speaking Bulgars". Astrid Menz writes this about the etymology:

Older ethnographic works such as Pees (1894) and Jireček (1891)—both covering the Gagauz in Bulgaria—mention that only their neighbors used the ethnonym Gagauz, partly as an insult. The Gagauz themselves did not use this self-designation; indeed, they considered it offensive. Both Pees and Jireček mention that the Gagauz in Bulgaria tended to register either as Greek because of their religion (clearly an outcome of the Ottoman millet-system) or as Bulgarian because of the newly emerging concept of nationalism. According to Pees informants from Moldova, the Gagauz there called themselves Hıristiyan-Bulgar (Christian Bulgars), and Gagauz was used only as a nickname (Pees 1894, p. 90). The etymology of the ethnonym Gagauz is as unclear as their history. As noted above, they are not mentioned—at least not under that name—in any historical sources before their immigration into Bessarabia. Therefore, we have no older versions of this ethnonym. This, combined with the report that the Gagauz felt offended when called by this name, makes the etymology somewhat dubious.

- The Steppe hypothesis suggests that the Gagauzes may be descendants of other Turkic nomadic tribes than Seljuks: such as Bulgars and Cumans-Kipchaks from the Eurasian steppes. In the 19th century, before their migration to Bessarabia, the Gagauzes from the Bulgarian territories of the Ottoman Empire considered themselves Bulgarians. Ethnological research suggest that "Gagauz" was a linguistic distinction and not ethnic. Gagauzes to that time called themselves "Hasli Bulgar" (True Bulgars) or "Eski Bulgar" (Old Bulgars) and considered the term Gagauz, applied to them by the Slavic-speaking Bulgarians (who they called toukan), demeaning. The Gagauzes called their language Turkish and accordingly claimed descent from early Turkic Bulgars who in the 7th century established the First Bulgarian Empire on the Danube. Indeed, one modern Gagauz surname is Qipcakli.

[Carlin]

Родина Македонија Политичка партија - НАТАША КОТЛАР, ТОМЧЕ ШИРКОВ И ВЛАДИМИР ТРАЈКОВСКИ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_8xERM8hE

Highly recommend watching Tomche Shirkov from roughly 5:00 to 14:20.

[Carlin]

Quote from "Description of the World" of John, archbishop of Soldania (Sultaniye in Persia) from 1404 AD



URL:
https://www.academia.edu/35879986/Cu...lgarian_Empire

[vicsinad]

Originally Posted by Carlin15

In 1905, Mary Edith Durham claimed in her book, "The Burden of the Balkans" (pp. 77-79), to "have met people who believe in a special race which they call Macedonian" and who told her their language is not Bulgarian saying herself "the dialect... is neither Serbian or Bulgarian".

I did an analysis of her work and about 3 other dozen works from 1900-1925 written by Western authors. Basically, the overwhelming consensus of these Western authors is that the Macedonians were neither Serbs, Bulgars nor Greeks, but just Macedonians...and more importantly, those that called themselves one or the other mostly only did so due to propaganda. These are things we Macedonians know, but I poured over these early 20th century books to examine the truth about what Westerners said about Macedonians and not what the Bulgarian/Greek propagandists claimed they said in isolation or out of context.

https://www.amazon.com/Defining-Mace...6776190&sr=8-2

[Karposh]

Originally Posted by Carlin15

Родина Македонија Политичка партија - НАТАША КОТЛАР, ТОМЧЕ ШИРКОВ И ВЛАДИМИР ТРАЈКОВСКИ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_8xERM8hE

Highly recommend watching Tomche Shirkov from roughly 5:00 to 14:20.

That was really interesting Carlin. Thanks for sharing. I watched close to an hour of it late last night and I really enjoyed it. I'm about to watch the rest of it tonight and I recommend others watch it too as it shines a light on a number of very interesting facts about the modern Bulgarians which, I imagine, they'd rather not speak of. Who knew that there are areas in north-eastern Bulgaria, especially the Dobruja region where there are still compact communities who are descendants of the proto-Bulgars and still speak the old Turko-Tatar language which they brought with them from Asia. That same Turko-Tatar language was in use well into the 16th Century in Bulgaria and known simply as Bulgarian by all who spoke it. And they have the nerve to suggest the Macedonian language is in fact a dialect of Bulgarian today. The point was also stressed that the fact of the matter is, the Russians had a significant role to play in constructing the Bulgarian national identity around 200 or so years ago as it helped to serve a Russian agenda in the Balkans.

What I found especially interesting was the point made by Natasha with regard to the Ohrid Archbishopric before it was abolished by the Turks. Apparently, when the Ohrid Archbishopric had jurisdiction over the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Montenegrins referred to themselves as "Macedonians". This shows us that the Ohrid Archbishopric was more Macedonian in character than we probably realise or tend to give it credit for. Often there's a Bulgarian cloud hanging over it but I think that's got more to do with Bulgarian propaganda rather than reality.

[Carlin]

Originally Posted by Karposh

That was really interesting Carlin. Thanks for sharing. I watched close to an hour of it late last night and I really enjoyed it. I'm about to watch the rest of it tonight and I recommend others watch it too as it shines a light on a number of very interesting facts about the modern Bulgarians which, I imagine, they'd rather not speak of. Who knew that there are areas in north-eastern Bulgaria, especially the Dobruja region where there are still compact communities who are descendants of the proto-Bulgars and still speak the old Turko-Tatar language which they brought with them from Asia. That same Turko-Tatar language was in use well into the 16th Century in Bulgaria and known simply as Bulgarian by all who spoke it. And they have the nerve to suggest the Macedonian language is in fact a dialect of Bulgarian today. The point was also stressed that the fact of the matter is, the Russians had a significant role to play in constructing the Bulgarian national identity around 200 or so years ago as it helped to serve a Russian agenda in the Balkans.

What I found especially interesting was the point made by Natasha with regard to the Ohrid Archbishopric before it was abolished by the Turks. Apparently, when the Ohrid Archbishopric had jurisdiction over the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Montenegrins referred to themselves as "Macedonians". This shows us that the Ohrid Archbishopric was more Macedonian in character than we probably realise or tend to give it credit for. Often there's a Bulgarian cloud hanging over it but I think that's got more to do with Bulgarian propaganda rather than reality.

No prob. Glad you enjoyed it.

Here is something else from https://twitter.com/UZI9mmmm/status/1337572644363747331




URL:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/d...81601/0308.pdf

Contemporary evidence: 16 August 1903 US newspaper The San Francisco Call reports that Bulgarian Premier Petroff regards uprising [Ilinden] in Macedonia as purely a Macedonian affair & nothing to do with Bulgaria. Petroff happy at Ottoman Turks brutally suppressing it.

https://twitter.com/UZI9mmmm/status/1337556552572489728



URL:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...arRange&page=1

7 April 1930 - US workingman's newspaper. The Daily Worker alleges that Britain has ordered Bulgaria to come down very hard on ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria.

[Carlin]

1941 British colonial press in Australia - front page headline:

BRITAIN WARNS BULGARIA ON NAZI AFFINITY

The Telegraph (Brisbane), Wednesday 19 February 1941

https://mobile.twitter.com/UZI9mmmm/...18966200406016

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...ulgaria%20Nazi