From: efstse@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu (Serafim Efstratiadis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.bulgaria,soc.culture.turkish
Subject: 2 points about the "M" thing [was Re: The New ... ]
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:13:42 GMT
Expires: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 05:00:00 GMT
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

In article <BtwuK8.IuG@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.154536.1915@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps somebody can explain, why Germany is opposed to the use
>>of the word ECU for the EEC currency or even why Copywright
>>Laws, etc  exist (e.g. why can't I set up a company in the USA called
>>"Microsoft"). Think of the implications.
>
>  Ok, I'll bite:  what *are* the implications?
>
>  Actually there are plenty of companies with the same name; in
>  the US the courts typically only object if it appears that 
>  there will be confusion or if one company appears to be
>  deliberately trying to gain commercial advantage by exploiting
>  the reputation of another company.
>
>  And even this doesn't apply to place names.  I'm posting from
>  Chelmsford, Massachusetts, a place *deliberately* named after
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  a town in England.  In fact on a recent visit to England I was
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  struck by the great many towns there with the same names as 
>  towns around where I live: Bristol, Portsmouth, Essex, Plymouth,
>  etc.   This part of the US is known as "New England" and we've
>  never received a complaint from the British Consulate.   The majority
>  of US states have Springfields.   The state of Maine was formerly
>  part of the state of Massachusetts.  If they get fed up with
>  the way things are going in the US and decide to secede from
>  the Union, and adopt the historical name "Massachusetts" why
>  should I care?   Maybe there would be confusion, but we'd probably
>  learn to live with it, and maybe we could even work it to our
>  advantage with cutesy advertising slogans to bring in tourists.
>  Certainly not worth fighting over. 

Dear Peter:

You have made the typical mistake that everyone who's not aware of the
real problem. I understand you completely. That is:
(1) You THINK that the problem is the name alone, and
(2) You do not realize that every case is particular/different; here
    we are talking about THE NORTH/MIDDLE BALKANS and not U.S.A or England
    or Switzerland or Australia. 

And I explain further:
(1) The objections of Greece to recognize a neighboring state by the
    name ``Macedonia'' lie on the fact that the government of Skopje
    has supported plans in creating what they call a "Great Macedonia"
    which means appending to their state a part of Greece and a part of
    Bulgaria. Also, they claim that they are an ethnicity so-called
    ``Macedonian'' and they speak a language so-called ``Macedonian'.
    Note here, that this people is of Bulgarian descent and they speak
    a Bulgarian dialect, therefore, a name such as this is not suitable
    to describe them. HOWEVER, the heart of the problem is that the Skopje
    government not only does push the false notion of a ``Macedonian''
    nation but it also claims that there exists such a minority in the
    Northern part of Greece, rightfully named Macedonia since that has been
    the name of this land for 4,000 years. What is dangerous here for the
    stability of the region is that by officially recognizing a state with
    such a name this propaganda, falsification of Greek history (they claim
    they are the rightful descents of Alexander the Great!), as well as,
    the blackmailing of Greece to give in on politico-economical issues
    in the region (such as, trade agreements, etc.) will only create
    problems in the future for Greece and for other countries in the region.
    Actually, the great majority of Albanians (around 35-40%) of the
    population of Skopje do not wish to be called ``Macedonians'' and they
    have protested strongly against that. In other words, this persistence
    of the SKOPJE GOVERNMENT to bear a Greek name has POLITICAL reasons and
    could cause instability in the region, while it has very-very little
    to do with the wish of the people to be called like that.
    I remind here that Greek is SUPPORTING the recognition of this state
    under a name that does not contain the work "Macedonia" for the above
    mentioned reasons.

(2) You gave an example of an american town that is called by the name of
    an English town. Fine. There are 3 or 4 towns in the U.S.A. alone that
    are called "Athens". No problem. Why? Well, it is obvious. The americans
    in those towns they do not claim that they are DIRECT descendents from
    the Ancient Greeks and therefore, they are entitled to append a part
    of Greece to that state! Impossible. That is why your example is not
    valid. Now, consider another example. Let's say that Iraq claims that
    there is a great number of Iraqis in Kuwait and that it is being
    suppressed, that Kuwait was an Iraqi province that it was stolen by
    an Arabic tribe, therefore, it should be returned to Iraq.
    I believe that you know the rest of the story. It is important to
    understand the level of potential instability at the Balkans just as
    in the Middle East. No better example than the on going war RIGHT NOW!
    The argument that the state of Skopje is not also NOT VALID at all since
    (history teaches) that almost all wars involve at least two parties as
    allies. Therefore, Greece is not taking any chances. WHY WOULD SHE????
    Turkey based on such claims occupied Cyprus in 1974. I'm sure you know
    that almost 40% of CYPRUS IS STILL OCCUPIED BY TURKEY!!! No?

>  How about New Macedonia (as in New Mexico) or North Macedonia (as
>  in North Korea, North Dakota, West Virginia)?

It won't do any good. I hope I cleared the issue once and for all.

Thank you for reaching this point of the article. At least I know I did
not this for nothing.

>---peter

Serafim.
______________________________________________________________________________
       M A C E D O N I A   I S   T H E   H E A R T   O F   H E L L A S
==============================================================================
_   ______   ____   ______   ____   ______   ____   ______   ____   _____    _
 | |  __  | |  _ | |  __  | |  _ | |  __  | |  _ | |  __  | |  _ | |  __  | |
_| | | _| | | |__| | | _| | | |__| | | _| | | |__| | | _| | | |__| | | _| | |
___| |____| |______| |____| |______| |____| |______| |____| |______| |____| |_
==============================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This government [F.D. Roosevelt] considers any talk of a Macedonian `nation',
Macedonian `Fatherland' or Macedonian `national consciousness' [in Yugoslavia]
to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality ...
a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece".
 
            - Edward R. Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.yugoslavia:8282 soc.culture.greek:8120 soc.culture.bulgaria:1231 soc.culture.europe:7824