Exposing Bulgarian Myths and Lies

[Carlin]

URL:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00360001-7.pdf


URL:
https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...1901660&isAv=N

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Originally Posted by Carlin15

Bulgars argue the establishment of an autonomous/independent Macedonia was either a provisional stage to full union with Bulgaria or "plan b" because the Great Powers would never allow for a San Stefano Bulgaria and that Macedonia would simply be a "second Bulgarian state", akin to modern Kosovo.

[Carlin]

Bulgarian military document from 1941 showing that Bulgaria occupied Macedonia

[Carlin]

Present-day Bulgarians carry genes of Thracians and Proto-Bulgarians, not of Slavs

URL:
http://bnr.bg/en/post/100729084/pres...s-not-of-slavs

A study of the genetic code of Bulgarians is about to eliminate the deeply rooted hypothesis of the Turkic-Altaic origin of Bulgarians. Recently, Bulgarian and Italian scientists teamed up for a project to decode the genes of present-day Bulgarians and the results have been stunning. The study has also raised a rhetoric question: will genetics as an exact science unburdened by emotion succeed in fighting ideological prejudice?

To be able to draw up a genetic map which suggests that Bulgarians are the heirs of Thracians and Proto-Bulgarians, the scientists had to go back 5 thousand years in time. First of all, they took bones and teeth found in Thracian necropolises. Genetic material from Proto-Bulgarians dates back to 8 to 10 c. AD. Further on, they compared samples from the past to the genes of 900 contemporary Bulgarians. The results were as follows, in brief: A European population with closest genetic similarity to Hungarians, Croats and Italians.

The major study exploring the origin of Bulgarians involves the Medical Genetics Chair of Sofia's Medical University, the Institute of Microbiology, the Institute of Anthropology, the National Archeological Institute at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and а state-of-the-art laboratory in Florence in charge of testing genetic material.

“Taking a look at the genetic map we can see that the Thracians are more detached from present-day Bulgarians and Proto-Bulgarians, while present-day Bulgarians and Proto-Bulgarians are more similar”, explains Desislava Nesheva, genetic expert at Medical Genetics Chair of the Medical University. “This is due to the great difference in time - the Thracians inhabited these lands millennia BC and there is little evidence about them. However, there is enough proof to claim that they are genetically close to contemporary Bulgarians and to Proto-Bulgarians, and the curious thing is that the Greek are more unlike them. We have found that Bulgarians have no genetic similarities with either Turkic or Altaic populations. We do not have genetic similarities with contemporary Turks either, though during the Turkish yoke (1396-1878) there was mixing of genetic material. Even Proto-Bulgarians have no genetic similarities with either the Turks, or Turkic and Altaic populations. Unfortunately, we could not explore ancient Slavs, because we had no access to genetic material from them - they practiced cremation. However, drawing comparisons with contemporary Slavs suggests that we have no similarities with them.”

What has necessitated the theory that Bulgarians are Slavs? Was it mere politics or the lack of trustworthy methods of research?

“It's both, in a way”, Desislava Nesheva admits. “You are aware that history is rewritten depending on political goals and interests. On the other hand, genetics has made remarkable progress in the last decades. We have used the best methodology and the results are first class. So, a discussion is now possible on how history has been distorted and manipulated - while genetics is an exact science.”

And once there is solid proof that Bulgarians carry the genes of Thracians, here is who they were in brief - they represented an ancient civilization that left a wealth of heritage in the Balkans, including amazing gold treasures from the time of Classical Antiquity.

The results in the genetic study will be published in a reputable scientific journal. Now scientists hope they could find financing to be able to go back to the eighth millennium BC and research even more ancient tribes who used to inhabit what is Bulgaria today.

[sydney]

Bulgars need to be careful they don’t lose in order to gain. They seem to be intent on proving themselves as autochthonous. Are they also intent on proving Macedonians are really Bulgarian using the same methods?

[Karposh]

Originally Posted by Om3n

If there was one person who is worthy of being credited as the biggest Bulgarian propagandist in internet history it would have to be this guy. He trolls Wikipedia articles relating to Macedonian history and the Macedonians, making sure that it conforms to the Bulgarian paradigm which he has inculcated in people to be the "neutral" view of international scholarship and that the Macedonian view belongs to Communist-influenced fringe theorists in the Republic of Macedonia. There is seemingly not a day that goes by that he doesn't make an edit and this guy has been active for over a decade...

It seems that over the years he has succeeded in virtually ridding Wikipedia of editors contributing information contrary to his beliefs, and he recently created and wrote an article titled "Historiography in the Republic of Macedonia" (July 5) which is little more than a polemic against Macedonian nationhood with a hodgepodge of the same rhetoric and sources he's been touting since I was a contributor back in my high school days.

It is for this these reasons that so many Wikipedia articles in this field read more like an agenda to prove what ethnicity someone was rather than objectively focusing on their merits. I wrote this so you that you may understand what kind of people we're dealing with and why Wikipedia is hardly a reliable place to derive information.

More on "this guy", AKA Jingiby, on Mario's History Talks. Omen masterfully picked up on this guy's sick obsession for editing anything to do with Macedonia on Wikipedia and now it seems Mario has picked up where Omen left off. Apparently this Bulgarian loser has been making, on average, ten Wikipedia edits per day continuously since 2007. Gotta hand it to the guy, that's dedication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QUMvkOTu38

[maco2envy]

Originally Posted by Om3n

The date in that picture is the same day the Wikipedia article I cited in my first post was created. Also compare the name of the topic to this edit(-war) he made on the Macedonian Wikipedia almost two years ago. Old mate can’t leave well enough alone.

Plot twist: he is actually notorious in the Bulgarian online community and is considered to be a paid gatekeeper of sorts. He has been accused of being a “Macedonian Pomak” spreading “Macedonian propaganda” about Bulgarians – allegedly, that the proto-Bulgars were a Turkic-Mongol tribe which was supplanted by Slavs after arriving in the Balkans – and suppressing Bulgarian editors from acknowledging that the proto-Bulgars were a Hunnic/Indo-Scythian people from whom the modern Bulgarians are direct descendants (as well as Thracians and Moesians). There is allegedly even a Facebook group with some hundreds of members dedicated to removing him from Wikipedia and has been reported to the authorities for “anti-Bulgarian propaganda” (I literally can’t help but laugh at that). Case in point here and here. The latter link has some lulzworthy debates between him and his detractors and one poignant observation reads: “After reading the history of this article I've noticed another things that are wrong.Why is wikipedia allowing certain people to monopolize articles like this guy...” Why indeed.

All I would say to him is, if he’s going to use a unique username, he probably shouldn’t use it exclusively on every website he signs up to, especially not on ones that contain his personal information and make it easy to find out everything about him with a simple Google search.

I seriously wonder who this guy is and what his agenda is, given that he is also against the idea that Bulgarians have a significant native ancestry. I've seen him also remove associations with Byzantines and Modern Greeks in some wikipedia articles. Very odd...

[Carlin]

URL:
https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/2342


Because of its mixed character, Plovdiv/Philippoupolis also became an arena of fervent nationalist conflicts, both at the level of discourses about civilization and barbarity and physical fights in the churches, especially towards the 1850s. Its eighteenth-century history is illustrative of a ruling stratum of a few families that constituted a “quasi-aristocratic lay elite” engaged in long-distance trade, enjoying protection by the Ottoman administration and the Orthodox Church, and holding titles of the Byzantine nomenclatures of ranks. Their social reproduction, including mixed marriages between the young ladies (kokkona) and Christian entrepreneurial migrants from the countryside, was maintained through Greek language and culture. Thus, the Greek teacher Georgios Tsoukalas in 1851 minimized the Bulgarian presence in the city by stating that since Antiquity most dwellers, according to their “religion, language, and mores”, had always been Greeks and the few Bulgarians there were “hellenized” (γραικιζουσι). His argument was based on the superiority of Greek culture, and most specifically, the preeminence of Greek literacy and education. Hence, one could find two brothers born by the same Greek mother and two different fathers and both are Greeks : one by birth because both his parents were Greek ; the other, in spite of having a Bulgarian father, was also Greek due to his upbringing, language, diet, behavior, etc.

By contrast, Konstantin Moravenov, a Bulgarian merchant, educator, and activist wrote a demographic memoir in the late 1860s. That decade witnessed a new phase of aggravation of the conflicts between the two ethnic parties in Plovdiv. The author himself personifies the transformation of auto-hellenism based on culture and class into ethno-nationalism based on language and ideology. He was born around 1810-1812 and knew only Greek until the age of 45 when he began learning Bulgarian. Like Tsoukalas, his nationalist ethos colors the entire text. It seems that Moravenov’s manuscript was written as a rejoinder to Tsoukalas’ book. While the latter tried to establish the Greek prevalence by using archeological as well as historical evidence, Moravenov employed a different approach; namely, a form of “oral history” by paying attention to people and their property relations in order to prove that the “pure” Greeks were actually “pure” Bulgarians who recently have adopted Greek language and lifestyle. In this respect, it is quite possible that both Tsoukalas and Moravenov were familiar with Jacob Fallmerayer’s arguments and addressed the issue of continuity between the ancient and contemporary Greeks from two opposing perspectives.

Moravenov described Plovdiv as consisting of Turks, Bulgarians, Gudilas (Hellelnized Bulgarians from Plovdiv), Armenians, Jews, Cincars, Arnauts (Albanians), Langeris (Hellelnized Bulgarians from Plovdiv’s surroundings), ethnic Greeks who came from Greece or other parts of the Ottoman Empire, and Gypsies. The hellenized Bulgarians were considered renegades, pejoratively called “Graecomans”.

[Risto the Great]

Greeks trying to prove modern identities by looking at archaeological evidence. That's something new .....

[Carlin]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

Greeks trying to prove modern identities by looking at archaeological evidence. That's something new .....

Good catch.



- Mikhail Madzharov, a Bulgarian politician, described in his memoirs that a young village newcomer to Plovdiv would learn from his master (who was himself a “Greek or hellenized Bulgarian”) the Plovdiv Greek language. Another reference to substandard Greek comes from Moravenov, who mentioned that a certain Bulgarian in Plovdiv « learned to jabber gudilski [Gudilain language] and therefore became a Gudila ». Both examples refer to language use with localized semantics as well as taxonomy of languages of which Gudilain language is not considered authentic Greek, but also the assumption that language itself can bring change to ethnic identity.

- In the 1850s and 1860s, with the intensification of the Bulgarian movement for an autocephalous church, the appellations Romaioi, Byzantines, Hellenes, and Greek blended and were filled with negative associations through reinterpretation of events from Antiquity and the Middle Ages. For example, publicists from the 1860s, and especially Petko Slaveĭkov, contributed to the dissemination of the legend that the Tŭrnovo Patriarchate’s library was put on fire deliberately by the Tŭrnovo’s bishop Ilariōn who was a Greek. In the 1870s and the 1880s, especially after the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, the relations aggravated : « The Greek national and historical imagination was accordingly recasted, and embarked on a process that would transform the Bulgarians from harmless peasants and good Christians into blood-thirsty barbarians ». Moreover, many Greek contemporaries perceived the rupture of 1872 mostly in terms of foreign intervention and not as development of phases of hostility.

- In Dobrudja, though, the threat came from Rumanian and Gagauz women : « Men were married to Gagauz women who not only hated Bulgarian language but also succeeded in assimilating [pretopiat] their husbands… The peaceful Bulgarian, being ignorant, preferred to sacrifice his father’s tongue [my italics] and even to forget it in order to keep peace at home ». Note the patriarchal component – unlike Grigorovich -- who referred to the mother language, the quote above expressed language as masculine attribute of the nation, albeit manipulated by foreign women. This angst, which implied an emaciation of Bulgarian national masculinity, seems to be perpetuated by the Bulgarian journalist and writer Slaveĭkov, who maintained a social column in his newspaper “Gaĭda”. His sarcasm was especially directed at Bulgarians who married Greek women. One of the common targets was the above-mentioned Gavril Krŭstevich. The contempt against him was not spared even from his mother’s obituary -- Ralou Krŭstides (Rada Baeva), which was published in Greek (1875). It said that her son : « Gavril effendi hellenized not only his own name, but also the name of his mother at her old age ». Another Bulgarian writer and journalist, Liuben Karavelov, also discussed the denationalizing role of Greek and Gudila women in Plovdiv who were changing the identity of their husbands and children.

https://journals.openedition.org/bal...ng=en#tocto1n2