From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Greece's 10 Mistakes
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:42:03 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.


In article <1992Sep22.154949.29418@cas.org> vkb57@cas.org writes:

[deleted]

>They did not call themselves Macedonians, everyone else called them
>Macedonians too, except for an occasional ruler of part of the area obsessed
>with ethnic purity.

If you have in mind the time before the end of the 19th century, it seems
that this is not the case. I've already browsed through several books by
myself, written by 'outsiders' and not by 'occasional ruler', and there is
no reference to Macedonians (or at least in the sense as to Turks, Greek,
Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Vlachs, Jews and Armenians).

>Such were the Serbs, who called the people southern Serbs
>and the Greeks who called them slavophone Greeks or muslim Greeks or whatever
>other kind of Greeks they can think of.

I've never heard 'muslim Greeks' as being a group on it's own. There is
common reference to Pomaks and they are always described as Bulgarian muslims.
As for the 'Slavophone Greeks', the real name of which was "Bulgarophone
Greeks" and only after WWI, it became 'Slavophone Greeks' !!!, I'll quote
again Arthur Evans (from "The Times", October 1st, 1903):

"One of the most comic results of this competitive ethnography was a map
published some years ago under Athenian auspices and circulated in this
country. According to this Macedonia was for practical purposes divided
into two elements - the Greeks and the "Bulgarophone Greeks" - as if
some Celtic enthusiast should divide Britain between the Welsh and the
'Anglophone Welsh!'. Macedonia, indeed, is full of artificial distinctions,
the true lines of ethnic demarkations being continually crossed by
classifications founded on religious adherence (for the time being) to the
Greek Patriarch or to the Bulgarian Exarch. A Bulgari village may for
political purposes be bribed or coerced into accepting allegiance to orthodox
Greek ecclesiastical superiors. ... But these artificial annexations do not
go very far. The language of the villagers remains Bulgar, and the deep
underlying instincts of race are only held in temporary suspense." .

> Thank God the Turks did not have the
>same obsession with ethnic purity; for as long as they were ruling the area
>there wouldnt have been neither Macedonians, nor Greeks nor Serbs nor
>Bulgarians now if they did.

I'm afraid you mix different definitions. The Turkish geographers and
travelers (from the 17th century !!!) Hadji Calfa and Evliya
Chelebi describe the main national element in Macedonia as Bulgarian.
It's true that for long time, the Ottomans 'counted' the population on
religious principle only and only 'Greeks' (and sometimes 'Slavs' - when the
language was taken into account) existed in the Ottoman Empire. But travelers
made a difference between different national groups when describing language,
traditions, etc.

>province before that, and an ancient kingdom before that. The only time that
>bears any historic meaning and has some continuity with todays political
>situation is the last century of the Tukish rule of the region and the period
>since then.

All times are of 'historic meaning' and it's clear that the same name has been
applied in a different sense during different historic periods. This includes
the last 100 years. But I can see nothing wrong if several countries share
the same name with 'different' meaning.

>Vasil Babamov

Luben