From: ivrissimtzis@vax1.bham.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Some thoughts on the Macedonia issue
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:44:25 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.bham.ac.uk

Some points on the Macedonian question:

1. Macedonia major geographically designates an area that includes the northern
province of Greece (Aegean Macedonia), most of FYR of Macedonia (Bardar
Macedonia) and part of southwestern Bulgaria (Macedonia of Pirin). This area
prior to WWI and the population exchanges in the 1920s was the homeland of
groups of various ethnic origin, predominantly Turks, Slavs (Bulgars and
Serbs), Greeks and Vlachs. 

However, the ethnic identity, consciousness and attitude of those groups that
coexisted prior and during Othoman rule hardly could be determined and
categorized. Language and, possibly, religious beliefs might serve as criteria
in an attempt to classify ethnic origin and cultural trends during that period,
but with serious precautions for their reliability. Major groups were bilingual
and associating religious preferences to nationalities could lead to
contradictions: Slavs could be either Patriarchists and Exarchists, or even
Catholics and Musulmans, many of the Vlachs converted to exarchists, etc.

The Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek propaganda flourished in manipulating the
Hilmi Passa census in 1905 (perhaps the only credible document on Macedonia
population, which nevertheless referred to religious rather than ethnic groups)
and other statistics for their own political ends. The research by J. Larmeroux
[Le politique exterieure...; 1918] in an attempt to understand the ethnic
breakdown and the national identity of the Macedonian population showed that
the statistics are of little objective when attempting to answer the question
of the number of each ethnic group in Macedonia before WWI.

In any case, the term "Slavomacedonians" has been used by respectable
historians to define Slavs that inhabited Macedonia major over the last
centuries.

2. An attempt for political autonomy and independence of Macedonia appeared at
the end of 19th century with a predominantly Slavic (Bulgarian) movement: 
Interior Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Although many peasants
initially embraced the movement, before and during the Ilinden uprising in
1903, it degenerated its scope into terrorist activities and soon fell  under
the seige of Bulgarian supremists nationalism and served Bulgaria's interests
before the Balkan Wars. Thus, "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" were used among
Slavs and rooted in their minds well before Comintern and Tito, with a
geographic rather than an ethnic meaning.

3. Tito's policy in Balkans is still a matter of dispute. It is hard to
believe, nevertheless, that the use of the name "Macedonia" for the southmost
Republic of former Yugoslavia could support expansionist policies (if any) over
Greek territory, especially against the status quo of the post war era. There
should have been less ridiculous and more sensible ways, than persuading a
population to call themselves Macedonians. If Greece ever had territorial
claims over Albania would it have tried to convince Ipirotes to call themselves
Albanians? Further, it is interesting to note that Greek governments on the one
hand saluted its decision to cease his support to the Democratic Army of Greece
during the civil war and on the other hand never objected the use of the name.
Only minor disputes did occur over the past 40+ years over the recognition of
the Slav Speaking minority in northern Greece, but they could have been
resolved with no hatred, while never obstructed Greek-Yugo relations.

4. The policy of Greece pertinent to the recognition of the Skopjan State
wrongly focuses on the name issue. Since the name Macedonia has been used to
define a geographical region shared by several nationalities over the past
centuries (and still does), then a compromise (eg. Northern Macedonia or Bardar
Macedonia, etc.) with the Skopjan State was feasible and should have been
reached. Arguments from both sides on whom's ancestor is Alexander the Great
and any reference on ancient Macedonian history at the onset of 21st century
are at least absurd and, of course, have no effect in convincing any
intelligent human being. 

5. The Constitution of the Skopjan state poses indeed some problems that have
to be discussed. Extremist political movements within it (VMRO) and other
unprecedented nonsenses (like the use of the Vergina star as an emblem from
Skopje) could have been isolated or even blocked, should Greece have been less
reluctant in negotiating directly with the new state and Skopjan leaders less
keen and persistent in trying to discover the identity for their multinational 
state from ancient history. I am sure they have their own respectable history
and symbols to choose from.

Leonidas Ivrisimtzis
Univ. of Birmingham
Xref: sparky soc.culture.greek:12600 alt.news.macedonia:278