From: varnavas@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (varnavas constantine)
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:05:05 GMT

Andy, you must be biased.  And don't be quick to accuse me that I came
to this conclusion because you disagree with my opinion.  I came to this
conclusion because of your arguments.

In your answer to a previous post, you had some quite funny arguments.
Since I am pretty sure you are a smart person, the only other explanation
that I can come with is that you are stubborn and biased.  It bothers me that
you selectively choose the kind of evidence that you use to draw your
conclusions.

You try to bring examples from all historical eras (the House of Windsor
to explain the Macedonian Dynasty - come on, is that the best you can do?)
to satisfy some big questions about your theory for a Macedonian nation.
You offer no explanation for the origin of the Macedonian people.  We know
where the proto-Greeks (for example).  Do we have any evidence for the
origins of Macedonians?

As far as religion is concerned, we know that the Macedonians worshipped 
the Olympic Gods, not because of a single claim (like the one of Tacitus
and German tribes - another fine exaple of extrapolation) but because
numerous statues and places of worship and inscriptions were found.  I
don't know of any culture that did not leave evidence of its religion.
Do we have any evidence of an alternative Macedonian religion?  The answer
is NO.  The reason:  because the Macedonians believed in the 12 Olympic
Gods.  All the historical and archeological evidence points to this direction.
To claim the opposite is dubious and preposterous.

As far as language is concerned, it is posssible that the Macedonian
language (if it existed) did not have a written form.  But isn't there
evidence left behind to suggest of a distinct language?  The claims of
Demosthenes tell me nothing.  He was a politician trying to make a point
and would say anything to make it across.  If the Macedonians had a
different dialect he could have easily exaggerated it to a "barbaric"
language.  Using the same kind of exaggeration, many Brittish
think of American English as a different "barbaric" language.

About the name issue:  You say that your name is French, Jewish, and Greek.
That by itself doesn't say anything.  Now if all (or the majority) of Brittish
people had French (or Jewish, or Greek) names that would mean something.
And all (or most of) the names of Macedonian people (both high and low class)
that we know, from inscriptions on tombstones etc., are GREEK.  Nothing can
change this fact.  And this should tell you something.  Choosing to
disregard this piece of information (as weel as the other information a
sample of which I presented) tells me something about the kind of
scientist you are.

You are reading between the lines of what Isocrates and Demosthenes said.
You disregard anything that doesn't fit in your theory (among them Herodotus,
and Isocrates himself).  Your critical selection process is odd:  you do
not accept what they say but you are ready to accept what they imply.

ANd finally:  LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE (or whatever part of the picture
is left in the 20th century).  And then draw your conclusions.  If you
do not do that, you are not convincing anybody.
-- 
Constantinos Varnavas
University of Illinois