From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.bulgaria,soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Macedonia: What's in a Name? (was The New Greek Phobia)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:00:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras) writes:
: (Peter Nelson) writes:
: >  is this:  If a nontrivial number of people (i.e., "nation sized"
: >  whatever that means, but let's say a million or so since there
: >  are other countries with such populations) in some locale feel
: >  that they represent a distinct enough culture to want to form
: >  their own nation, why shouldn't they have the right to do so?
: >  And why shouldn't they have the right to call it whatever they
: >  want?

> And who told you that Greece is opposed to the independence of
> Skopje? As long as it doesn't bother me, I have no problem.

Wonderful.  After my last posting on this subject, I received several
pieces of mail asserting that the Macedonians wanted to annex the part
of Greece bearing that same name.  Aside from this rather dubious
assertion (something like claiming that Jamaica had plans to invade
the US), I have not heard of anything in Macedonia's petition that
would impact Greeks in any possible way except that they want to call
their country "Macedonia."  

This really seems quite reasonable to me.  After all, we could find
examples ad nauseum of places that bear the same names.  For example,
I'm posting this from Middlesex County in New Jersey.  But I have not
heard of any movements in Middlesex or Jersey to protest the local use
of these names.  By the same token, there are several places in the US
that have continued to use Native American place names although the
original inhabitants are now only a tiny portion of the population of
those places.  Should we tell them that they have to change the name
just because they are almost totally desecended from people other than
the original inhabitants?

It seems clear to me that "Macedonia" refers to a place name and also
to the people who are descended from the "original" inhabitants,
whatever that means.  It seems to me that both the people who
currently live in the place and the people who are descended from the
original inhabitants have a good claim to the name, and I don't think
that it causes undue confusion if both use the name.

> Greece is opposed to the use of the name "Macedonia", not
> because of the name, but of what this implies. 

It seems to me that you're making a distinction without a difference.

> Bulgaria
> recognizes a coutry under this name, but no Macedonian nation,
> etc.

Well then the Bulgarian position strikes me as being as absurd as the
Greek position.

> Perhaps somebody can explain, why Germany is opposed to the use
> of the word ECU for the EEC currency or even why Copywright
> Laws, etc  exist (e.g. why can't I set up a company in the USA called
> "Microsoft"). Think of the implications.

Since both claims to the name "Macedonia" predate any possible
trademark laws , I suspect that both claims would be grandfathered in.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc