From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: IRA-OSE, British behavior, and a "clean sheet for Paeonia"
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:16:40 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <BvC4HD.68I@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

[deleted]

>> at that was duly exposed by Luben Boyanov who demonstrated
>> that Mr. Fear's own sourse talks about a Bulgarian, not "Macedonian",
>> uprising in 1903

>I disagree with Luben here.

But you must make your point on what exactly you disagree. This is very
important !!! Not that there is anything wrong in that. I fear that you've
read only one book on the contemporary events in Macedonia, and you are not
used with the terminology of the authors from that time, who talk about
'Macedonians' - what they meant in those years is completely different from
what you mean now. 

> Brailsford book, which I urge you to read,

Yes - it's very interesting. However, it's very dangerous to pick up
selected quotes and not to read the entire book carefully !!! Brailsford is
not the only one who wrote on Macedonia, but in general (in his book, there
are some 'racists' attmepts to distinguish pure and mixed races and it
looks to me that this was a modern trend at that time) many of his descriptions
match other authors descriptions on Macedonia and it's people. He tends to
generalize some of his impressions, but whatever it is, the book is very
interesting and informative. For those interested, I can send a list with
more books on the subject.

>talks about a Bulgarian movement, but goes on to state that the majority
>of this movement in the 1903 uprising wanted an independent state not
>annexation to Bulgaria,

Yes - in case you think that I've stated something else - you're wrong. I
still haven't heard by you or anybody else what is wrong that Bulgarians
may ask for an independent state and not an Union with Bulgaria. After all
Switzerland's Germans (who are the majority there) don't want a union with
Germany, but does that makes them non-Germans? Or at present, Moldovans are
a separate state, and despite that some of the people want a union with
Romania, this is not the wish of the entire population - does the fact that
Roumania and Moldova are different states makes 'Moldovians' (the majority0
not ethnic Roumanians? I don't think this kind of discussion was raised at all.

>that sounds like national consciousness to me.

It may sound, but it WAS not. Otherwise how would you explain the
ethnic map drawn by Brailsford himself? Or who he describes in the chapter
in question (the Bulgarians, of course, and not the 'Macedonians').

Maybe the clearest and most concise sentence on the matter was provided by
the historical section of the committee of imperial defence (the British
one) and published by His Majesty's Stationery Office in 1933:


Page 1.

"Ancient Macedonia was first a kingdom, then a Roman province; but the
district to which we now commonly apply the name HAS NEVER BEEN A NATIONAL
ENTITY [emphasis is mine], though its natural boundaries are well enough
defined." [1]


I don't have the time to put many other sources like this, and even if I
had - I see little reason for doing it. If one is really interested - there
are so many books and materials on the subject.

Let me state again that this is not the case at present time, but I can
see no reason to try to prove that it was in the past. If we want to
discuss and talk what was and wasn't, let us be fair and do it in the
proper way.


>Andy

 
Luben



[1] "History of the Great War, Military operations: Macedonia (from the
outbreak of War to the spring of 1917)", first volume. Compiled by Cyril
Falls. The edition is based on official documents by direction of the
historical section of the committee of imperial defence,  Published by His
Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1933.