From: rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: EDUCATION SPECIAL: MAP OF THE WORLD
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:34:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

rsakella@p4.cs.man.ac.uk (Rizos Sakellariou) writes:

>In <1992Aug18.195329.9777@sunbim.be> sk@groo.sunbim.be (Sasa Konecni) writes:


>>Great Britain for example. France has a province with the same name.
>Again the same mistake. Great Britain is the heart of what is known as
>British whereas Bretagne is just a small province.

Rather a good example for the other side, really. The name came
originally from the French province, but got "transferred" to
Great Britain (Perhaps transferred is the wrong word to use
here, but I can't think of a better one. I don't want to imply
that the French province lost the name, just that they lost the
exclusive copyright).

>Summary :
>1. All these names have arisen as a regular result and not suddenly...

But the Macedonian name for your slavic neighbours has been
used (by them, at least) for well over a generation.

>So what? There are a number of Athens in the States, there is Messini
>in Greece and Messina in Italy, there is Alexandria in Greece and
>Alexandria in Egypt, Tripolis in Greece and Tripolis in Libya, etc...
>All these names have arisen as a result of the normal flow of
>history and not because the will of a dictator decided so in order to
>imply territorial claims against neighbour countries...

>PS : In Italy there is a football team called "Hellas Verona",
>"Corinthians" is the name of another team in Brasil; names can be
>used freely but not in an attempt to falsify history and to
>cause problems where they don't exist...

This sounds very dark and ominous; fie on anyone whose sole
purpose is to imply territorial claims against neighbour
countries, falsify history and cause problems where they
don't exist.
But you do not provide any proof that this was the original intent,
nor (much more important) that it is the present intent. As for the
first part I would not be at all surprised if you're right (I would
like some references, even so), but when you tell me that a tiny sliver
of a formerly very much larger political unit is carrying on a policy
that the large former unit (backed by an even larger former unit) didn't
have the strength to achieve, and that this tiny new nation would be an
intolerable threath to the NATO-backed Greece, then I must say: I don't
reject your claim out of hand, but it sounds so unlikely that you have
to provide really heavy proof to convince me.

Now, one thing I hear is that your slavic neighbours' insistence on
using the name "Macedonia" is proof of their bad faith. So it might
be, but only if one couldn't suggest a believable alternate explanation.
Try this one for size: These people have been told for their whole life
that they are Macedonians. They have come to believe that this is so.
They resent other people telling them that they're wrong. And you know
what? I think they really have a right to resent that.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
------------
  "Free speech gives a man the right to talk about the
'psycology' of an amoeba, but I don't have to listen".
                  Elihu Nivens in 'The Puppet Masters'