From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: MIRacles No. 13
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:53:40 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <Bvrp4v.7pF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by pt8684@meibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis):
>>>  I heard such things before.  The area of the so called "Republic
>>>  of Macedonia" was given the name Macedonia after WWII.  This is
>>>  a creation of Communist Tito.  Before WWII this area was called
>>>  south Serbia, or banovina (=province) of Vardar.
> 
>>A few days away but things alas don't change much.
>>... it will call it Macedonia. Not surprising really as that's its name.
> 
>     Not surprising that your information is incorrect.  The above are things
> that have been proven.  Period.

I think the Greek poet Aristophanes accurately described the part of the
world you are living in - Cloud Cuckoo Land. If these things are proven
why not provide some evidence. If you are right, why do vast numbers of 19th century
travel books refer to the area occupied by the Republic of Macedonia as
Macedonia? Even irridentist Serbian books refer to the area as
Macedonia. Were their writers corrupted by some sort of prenatal ghost
of Tito?

 
> 
>>Perhaps the puzzle stems from the fact that Greek propagandists tend to
>>imply that the Republic of Macedonia does try to establish a claim to
>>ancient Macedon.
> 
>     Perhaps I'm so stupid that when people from this republic are telling me
> that they are the descendants of ancient Macedonians, I arrive at the
> wrong conclusion that they are trying to establish a claim to
> ancient macedonia.  

Yet as previous postings have shown, the president of the Republic of
Macedonia and plenty of individual Macedonians say they have no such
claim at all. Picking on the rants of a few extremists, and once again
we have an absence of proof here is not the way to characterise the
general attitude of a nation.


>     Or perhaps, when I see maps (circulating in many states), which show
> a great Macedonia with northern Greece included in it, I'm also soooo stupid
> that I arrive again to the wrong conclusion that there are territorial
> claims against Greece.

Who prints the maps? Not the Macedonian government which has changed its
constitution to state it has no territorial claims. I dare say in Greece
fascist groups circulate maps claiming parts of Turkey and all of Cyprus
as Greece, however it would be foolish to use these as evidence for the
intentions of the Greek government - in the same way you can't use
fringe propaganda material to deduce anything about the intentions of
the Republic of Macedonia.

> 
>> As for the use of the 'star' on the Macedonia flag.
>>Since the modern Greeks in Macedonia have a highly tenuous connection,
>>to say the least, to ancient Macedon and use the symbol too, I think it's a case of what's
>>sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As both groups live in the
>>area and neither has a direct link to the ancient Macedonians the symbol, if such it
>>is, belongs to both of them.
> 
>   You want an answer? 

Would be nice
> 
>   I have something to tell you Mr. Fear. And I will tell it as much politely
> as I can: Fuck you !!

Now wasn't this the chap who said the Greeks were a peaceful people?

>   I'm not going to allow you to tell me which part of the Greek history
>  belongs to the Greeks or not.  Got it?

Alas I'm not telling anyone anything, I'm merely trying to keep ancient history
out of modern political debates were it has no relevence.

> 
>> I have still to see any
>>proof that this 'star' was a symbol of the Macedonian state or the
>>Argead dynasty
> 
>   This is because you don't want to see it.  I'm not going to prove
> what's already proven.

Again all I'm asking for is some proof. The best so far is that this
motif is found on top of the Vergina larnaces. Now that might make it a
national sign, or the sign of the Argeads, and as I said these two
things need not be the same. However there are of course other things
you might want to put on top of your earthly remains as well as a
personal or national symbol. Religious symbols swiftly spring to mind.
Think of all those coffins with crosses on for example. 


>>I think I've suggested as a compromise on this issue that if
>>the Macedonians were to drop the emblem, the Greeks could drop their
>>insistance on the 'Slavic' tag for the Republic of Macedonia. This still
>>seems a good idea to me.
> 
>  Why is that?  These people are Slavs (to be exact they are
Bulgarians).

No some of them are and the tag would obviously stir up trouble, that's
one objection. Another is simply I don't think one country has any right
to tell another what to call itself.

> There should be something to differenciate them from the Macedonian tradition
> which is Greek.  The 'Slavic' tag is what makes them different from the
> Greeks.  You want this tag to be droped, in order them to be free to make their
> claims. 

Well surely the fact they are in a different country helps to
differentiate them. As has already been pointed out Belgium and
Luxembourg seem to manage with a province of Belgium just called
Luxembourg. As for the claims what are they?

> 
> 
>>>>By its very existence, the Greeks believe, 
>>>>the Republic of Macedonia resurrects the intention to wrest 
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>control of Greek Macedonia and its valuable port of Thessaloniki 
>>>>from their rightful owners. 
>>> 
>>>  So, are they admiting that the creation of this republic by Tito was
>>>  made in order to annex the northern part of Greece, which rightyfully
>>>  bears the name macedonia for 2,000 yeras?
> 
>>Of course the first posting says no such thing, it reports not a fact
>>but a Greek belief
>>which was probably false in the first place.
> 
>   It says that it "resurrects the intension".  You are saying that there was
> not such intension in the past.  This is wrong.  There were attempts, not
> just intensions.

In fact it says, thanks for reproducing the first posting, 'the Greeks *believe*
... it resurrects the intention' - once again this is a statement about
Greek belief not the admission by any one of a hidden agenda.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>> Moreover to project Tito's
>>plans whatever they were unthinkingly on the present day governemnt of the Republic of
>>Macedonia which has altered its constitution explicitly to deny territorial
>>claims is a non sequitur any way.

> 
>  Refresh your memory. The 50 year period is not that large.  Today's politicians
> were involved in the desicions of the post war era.

A week is a long time in politics. Mr Yeltsin I believe was a member of
the communist party in the Breschnev era, we can't infer from that that
he pursues Stalinist policies now.

 
> Secondly, stop the bullshit about the constitution.  The Greek goverment
> is refering to the part which says that 2/3 parliamentary majority is
> adequate to change the borders of this republic.  They are refusing to
> change this.  Do you know of any democratic state that has something like that
> in its constitution?

Actually it seems to me that very few countries have an explicit
statement against territorial expansion in their constitution at all.
Since this was done because of Greek pressure I think Greece should be
glad that its managed to interfere in the internal politics of another
country to such a degree already and maybe consider doing the decent
thing and recognise Macedonia.

>>Now let's see who are the provocateurs. A small nation with tiny armed
>>forces which has a constitution explicitly stating it has no territorial
>>ambitions or a much larger nation which tells it to change its name,
>>continually insults its people by telling them they don't exist and are
>>all stupid enough to have been brainwashed. Res ipsa loquitur
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>  You are omitting the Albanians.  The 40% (or even larger) of the population
> does not agree with your statements.

Who I suspect wouldn't be too happy with your suggestion to call the the
Republic of Macedonia by the ethnic title Salvic Macedonia. It would
seem a pity to attempt to destabilise probably the most stable part of
ex-Yugoslavia in this way.

 
>  Not to mention that you are twisting the facts.  Nobady can prove that there
> exists a Macedonian nation.  For, very simply, it doesn't.  These are facts.
> Everyone who claims that it exists, is simply ridiculous.

Well at least I present facts in some form, not simp[ly assertions. It
seems extremely hard to deny that there is a sense of nationality in the
Republic of Macedonia today. These people live in Macedonia and call
themselves Macedonians. It's difficult to think of what more could be
asked of them, unless we descend to racial purity arguments in which
case none of us belong to any nations at all, a rather sad outcome at
least to my way of thinking.

Andy
 
>  P.S.: This is the first and the last time I'm responding to Mr. Fear.

Well he's not going to go away...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek