From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: Re: Why Macedonia - Part I - 1), 2) and 3)
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:46:15 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Dec10.211059.5465@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes:
>
>In article <6997@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov) writes:
>
>
>First of all I would like to say clearly that I do see that Luben is
>a rational and goodmannered active member of the net, and as such I
>never ment to create a personal hurt.

As a matter of fact I never found an attempt in your postings to hurt me or
the Bulgarian people. That is why I took a lot of time to answer you. You
might have remembered that I do not answer and consider any more posting of
some of your countryfellow who create intrigues and behave in a dishonest
way on the net - i.e. liying, clipping texts, and thus forging meaning of
thoughts, etc, etc. Whether the discussion is a bit more 'emotional', I
find nothing wrong in it. I found your responce very emotional, so was
probably mine. And what that we have differences - that's why the
discussion is to try to find a common understanding, or to see that it's
difficult to find such on particular matters.

>Secondly, I would like to clarify that when I say slav-speakers I do mean this
>and nothing else. I know that between 1850 and 1950 these people were
>by far Bulgarians and I have often said this before.

Thank you very much. However, I'm still 'unhappy' when somebody speaks for
those years and substitues 'Bulgarians' with something else.

> But there were
>also greek slav-speakers and so I feel that the term is a meaningful one.

True, but this is a matter of a more delicate discussion, but it's clear
that the majority of the people were with Bulgarian national consciousness,
or those who had no national consciousness (uneducated) spoke Western
Bulgarian (i.e. Macedonian Bulgarian) dialect. This is also claimed beyond
any doubt by all famous Slavist, before the Serbian pretentions on
Macedonia, but even by many of the experts, after the Serbian propaganda.

>And of course the dialect of Slavic which these people speak is a
>Bulgarian one. (The same way which I use the term turkish-speakers
>and of course I don't mean Turks because otherwise I would be one
>of them too!)

Well, when this is the one and only language, and is your mother toungue,
matters are slightly different :-)

>>animosity - you never ever expressed it during the so many Bulgarian
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>bashing on the net. Is this the same standard? Or is it OK when so many
>>unfriendly to the Bulgarian people words and postings are presented?
>
>
>Luben you forget (naturally since so many things happen); several
>times I have expressed pro-Bulgarian positions in the net, even in
>contrast to other greek netters.(A small detail: I voted for the
>creation of this group too :-))

On the contrary - I never forgot that you are well mannered and never
expressed any ridiculous statements and never wanted to hurt the Bulgarian
people. Due to this reason, I put a great deal and time to answer you.
Ditto for Lambros (I had very, very friendly exchanges with him). I have no
time whatsoever, but I honour you a lot and regard you as one with whom we
can all have a dialogue. This is by no mean that we can;t have differences
or that we can't say some facts, etc. As you noticed, I never tried to say
that the Slavs/Bulgarians/etc. were "angels" and that the Greeks were the
bad only. I agreed with so many points you raised in your last posting.

>>>   (no slav-speakers
>>>   were left since 1926 exchange of populations),
>>
>>I'm not sure why you insist on this point, when it's absolutely wrong. At
>>least 81.000 Bulgarians and not 81.000 "slav-speakers" (there were another
>>90.000 "others - incl. Serbians !!) were according to the data
>>which even the Greek Gov acknowledged. This means nothing from a present
>>point of view, but why change the simple undisputed fact?
>
>
>I spoke for the *Eastern* Macedonia only, not all of it.

Oh, that`s changing the matter.

>Let's make the point clear. Greek modern Macedonia is divided into three
>parts: Western, Central and Eastern. Administration for the Eastern
>Macedonia was handed out to the Bulgarian state from the Germans during
>WW II. The western and central (eg Salonica) remained under German control. 
>The eastern Macedonia didn't have one single slav (Bulgarian if you wish)
>speaker; only the western and central.

Well, that makes matter quite different. Alas, I'm not well informed and
haven't read a lot on that period (I have read a Greek book + heard a lot
on USENET), but from what you say, your points is very clear now. Thanks
for that.

> Is it clear now? Kavala deportations
>are famous and there were no slavs there whatsoever after 1926.

Yes. It's all fine. The bulk of my info is for the period before 1870 and
also for the period 1878 - 1913, and these are going to be the strongest
(backed by factology) parts of my posting "Why Macedonia" which is supposed
to tell the ... Bulgarians, what was Macedonia for Bulgaria and why things
have changed, and why also we all (Bulgarians) don't know all this on the
subject. As for existing myths  - I posted another article 2 days ago. But
I don't believe in those myths,

>Greetings,
>
>Gr

Likewise and thank you for all clarification and the correct and good way
you express towards the Bulgarians.

Best regards

Luben
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria