Tweet
FYROM DIASPORA
[email protected]
American Chronicle
www.macedoniaontheweb.com
October 19, 2008
CA
Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
As always it´s highly amusing to read another one of Risto Stefov´s
articles.
Starting from the opening statement, one notes the factual distortion
present. For an individual who allegedly doesn´t care about what
Greeks may claim about themselves; he certainly seems to waste much
time and energy intentionally distorting texts and manipulating
history in his articles and books, and distributing his propaganda.
Right after his first bout of hypocrisy, Stefov continues by distorting
his very own claims. While he intentionally misinforms us by claiming
that he´s never supported some twisted direct descendance from
the ancient ´Makednoi´ theory; he conveniently forgets about his
article: "Evidence of the Existence of Macedonians Throughout the
Ages" in which in his opening statement in the introduction is:
"This document was prepared in response to Greek allegations that
Macedonians do not exist and have ceased to exist since the so called
"Slav invasions" of the fifth and sixth centuries AD.
The logical question of why would any individual who allegedly
doesn´t, nor has ever supported the "continuity theory" ever waste
time to gather and intentionally distort sources to prove that the
modern day population of the FYROM has every right to title themselves
and claim heredity from the Makednoi?
Stefov's opening statement which attempts to refute Greek allegations
and the insinuation of providing proof that the Macedonians have
existed, since Slavic invasions doesn´t do much for his case.
It is obvious that he is at the very least intentionally misinforming
readers of his true objectives.
Stefov and his followers constantly insinuate that Greeks allegedly
strive to present the FYROM population as Bulgarians (he should know
the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians) and Slavs.
While this is partially true, what Stefov intentionally neglects
to mention is that Greeks are simply reproducing what his ancestors
themselves had stated.
We could take for example the organization called BMARC (Bulgarian
Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committee) all members of
which, today, are considered as fine FYROM patriots. It is this very
organization, (their very own national heroes) which totally legitimize
our reference to the true ethnicity which they detest.
In its 1896 statute BMARC states:
Art. 1. The goal of BMARC is to secure full political autonomy for
the Macedonia and Adrianople regions.
Art. 2. To achieve this goal they [the committees] shall raise the
awareness of self-defense in the Bulgarian population in the regions
mentioned in Art. 1., disseminate revolutionary ideas - printed or
verbal, and prepare and carry on a general uprising.
So the question asked must be, which is the population FYROM national
heroes aimed to raise the awareness in and title Bulgarian; if not the
forefathers of the population that today attempt to usurp a history
and heritage which they have no connection to?
Stefov also accuses Greeks of titling the population of FYROM as
Slavonic.
But what defines a Slav?
Slavs are an ethnic group connected by language, customs, traditions,
beliefs.
We know beyond doubt that the population of FYROM does speak a Slavic
language. We also know from their own authors like Tanas Vrazhinovski
and Vladimir Karadzoski that FYROM folklore is predominantly Slavonic.
Both authors give numerous examples of worship of Slavonic deities
and place names directly related to these deity´s names. Customs
as any Bulgarian or Serb may confirm are also highly similar, if
not identical.
So identical that we may safely conclude that the population of
FYROM is indeed Slavonic and the attempt to present the use of the
ethnonym 'Slav' as some form of insult, simply indicates the extent
of propaganda aimed at (not to an international audience), but as
its main target group has the FYROM youth. In some futile attempt
to teach the FYROM population to hate their true origins and believe
that their only true destiny is indissolubly connected upon usurping
a history and culture which is totally alien to them is unacceptable.
Yet another fallacy promoted by Stefov for his audience is the case
in which Philip of Macedon didn´t unite as so many true historians
have accepted (see Thomas R. Martin, Lewis Vance Cummings, Richard
Gabriel, Alan Fildes, Joann Fletcher, Robin Lane Fox...etc) but
conquered. If that isn´t enough, he also resorts to fallaciously
extending Philip´s empire further North to incorporate the lands of
FYROM and by doing so legitimize his claims.
While it is true that these lands have seen various conquerors and
settlers, what Stefov neglects to mention, is that while the above
may have partially influenced the locals with their own culture,
they never did manage to alienate them from their own. Something we
clearly see in the alleged descendants of the Makednoi. Stefov and his
believers have totally failed to provide a single logical explanation
as to how any since trace of cultural connection to those they claim
descendance from is non-existent.
During the last years the main FYROM offensive in the name debate
is centralized on the following logic: "since we can´t prove a
connection to the ancients, we´ll centralize on disproving yours",
which is exactly what we see Stefov doing today.
Unfortunately his attempts are caught either constantly celebrating
ignorance or due to malicious intent, falsifying facts. Stefov
claims that the name/term Greeks was ignored until after the Roman
conquests which is when it was allegedly coined. Its puzzling how an
alleged authority in history, who has published so many books about
ancient history, could possibly ignore the reference of the eponym
'Graikos'found in Hesiod´s Catalogue of Women or the village 'Graia'
noted in Homer´s Catalogue of ships or even the later reference to
the Graeci in Aristotle´s Meteorological. This is yet another well
known quasi-historical attempts to approach the issue which Stefov is
renowned for. Had he tried to tackle the issue on its factual basis,
he wouldn´t centralize on the Latinization which has been passed
down to the majority of language but the term which classicists
acknowledge as the proper denomination and that is that of Hellenes
(even though they have been used interchangeably). But even uttering
the term 'Hellenes' is simply unthinkable for Stefov; for he would
then have to deal with Hesiod´s reference to a 'race of the Hellenes'
(works and days), a race of Hellenes which would disprove the very
basis of his theory of various city-states alien to each other,
not forming a single body of people.
While it is conveniently true that Greece wasn´t used by Ancient
Greek geographers to describe the region in question, we know of
several of them that use the term 'Hellas' (Agatharchides, Pausanias
and Strabo being some of the more well known examples). If we were to
look towards Roman writers with Pliny the Elder´s Natural History
being one of the finest examples, we´d find that throughout his
entire work and especially books 3-5 which are geography related,
the term 'Greece' is constantly used to define the region.
One really has to wonder why Stefov tries to alienate an entire
people from their heritage with such void argumentation. So the term
'Rhomios'was used by the Greek population to define themselves,
what does this actually prove?
While the term Rhomios may indeed be partly alien to their ancestors,
one can´t neglect to note that it derives from the 'Constitution
Antoniniana of Caracalla' which allowed all freemen of the Roman
provinces to obtain Roman citizenship and that it is directly related
to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) which they were subjects. A
term forged to represent their citizenship but also their Greek
ancestry (see Andreas Osiander´s Before the State), hence why it
(and not 'Rhomaios') was also used to strictly designate the subjects
of Greek ancestry and them alone. It is also interesting to note the
perception of some of the empire´s neighbors. Armenians, Russians,
Georgians, Jews and even Ottomans titled the subjects 'Graikoi',
Yunan, Yavani , or the authors Theodorus Studitus, Anna Komnene,
George Gemistos Plethon, Michael Psellus and Theophanes Confessor all
used the ethnonym Hellenes; terms directly linked to their ancestral
roots which they recognized then, but today this author (Stefov)
with some highly questionable arguments tries to refute the facts.
Stefov continues to unsuccessfully tackle the demographics of
Greece. If under his logic the Slavic presence in the Balkans gives
the Slavic population of FYROM some right to usurp a history; heritage
and claim descendance from the ancient Makednoi (even through their
very customs, traditions and folklore) prove them totally alien to
it. Then how can someone even try and attempt to alienate the Vlachs
from the Ancient Greeks?
While theories on their origin vary and one could argue their
autochthonous origin, doesn´t their presence in the region which
is dated prior to the time when the Slavs were nothing but mere
invaders(Procopius) give them the right to claim ancestry?
Stefov makes reference to the total population of Greece upon its
liberation while exaggerating and distorting possible population
statistics. There is no accurate account of the possible ethnic
makeup of the population, therefore any argument either for or against
homogeneity would be ridiculous. One would notice that while Stefov
doesn't make any reference of Greeks as being a part of the population,
he adds Turks; which as it is well documented, were non-existent since
in their vast majority had fled upon the rebellion and Slavs. Then
again such claims by Stefov who has previously promoted the totally
outdated and disregarded 'Fallmerayer theory´, anything seems
possible.
Finally, there needs to be a mention of the Albanians. Since the
only census which provides us with data is that of 1928 we must
take that into consideration. In a 1928 census we find that the
total amount of self-identified Albanian-speakers (and not ethnic
Albanian origin) is approx. 19,000. A population of 19,000 in 1928
when Greece had liberated its lands and had a total population of
some 6.2 million. Stefov claims that the Albanians were obviously the
majority in the region in the early 1800´s; hence his reference to
them and no reference to the Greeks. One must ask of what happened
to the Albanians?
Well, we could take into account the statements of the Albano phone
population itself, who in 1836 Christophoros Perraivos recorded their
self-identification as purely Greek and were recognized as such by
Alexandros Ypsilantes; who in his letter makes reference to their
ancestors that fought in the battle of Marathon.
Finally, it must be noted that people like Risto Stefov, while
providing an entertaining read, continue to distort Greek history
(in a way similarly described above) and must not be taken seriously.
--Boundary_(ID_5Wpq9KL1wtO/WzMBdOIHPg) --
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
[email protected]
American Chronicle
www.macedoniaontheweb.com
October 19, 2008
CA
Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
As always it´s highly amusing to read another one of Risto Stefov´s
articles.
Starting from the opening statement, one notes the factual distortion
present. For an individual who allegedly doesn´t care about what
Greeks may claim about themselves; he certainly seems to waste much
time and energy intentionally distorting texts and manipulating
history in his articles and books, and distributing his propaganda.
Right after his first bout of hypocrisy, Stefov continues by distorting
his very own claims. While he intentionally misinforms us by claiming
that he´s never supported some twisted direct descendance from
the ancient ´Makednoi´ theory; he conveniently forgets about his
article: "Evidence of the Existence of Macedonians Throughout the
Ages" in which in his opening statement in the introduction is:
"This document was prepared in response to Greek allegations that
Macedonians do not exist and have ceased to exist since the so called
"Slav invasions" of the fifth and sixth centuries AD.
The logical question of why would any individual who allegedly
doesn´t, nor has ever supported the "continuity theory" ever waste
time to gather and intentionally distort sources to prove that the
modern day population of the FYROM has every right to title themselves
and claim heredity from the Makednoi?
Stefov's opening statement which attempts to refute Greek allegations
and the insinuation of providing proof that the Macedonians have
existed, since Slavic invasions doesn´t do much for his case.
It is obvious that he is at the very least intentionally misinforming
readers of his true objectives.
Stefov and his followers constantly insinuate that Greeks allegedly
strive to present the FYROM population as Bulgarians (he should know
the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians) and Slavs.
While this is partially true, what Stefov intentionally neglects
to mention is that Greeks are simply reproducing what his ancestors
themselves had stated.
We could take for example the organization called BMARC (Bulgarian
Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committee) all members of
which, today, are considered as fine FYROM patriots. It is this very
organization, (their very own national heroes) which totally legitimize
our reference to the true ethnicity which they detest.
In its 1896 statute BMARC states:
Art. 1. The goal of BMARC is to secure full political autonomy for
the Macedonia and Adrianople regions.
Art. 2. To achieve this goal they [the committees] shall raise the
awareness of self-defense in the Bulgarian population in the regions
mentioned in Art. 1., disseminate revolutionary ideas - printed or
verbal, and prepare and carry on a general uprising.
So the question asked must be, which is the population FYROM national
heroes aimed to raise the awareness in and title Bulgarian; if not the
forefathers of the population that today attempt to usurp a history
and heritage which they have no connection to?
Stefov also accuses Greeks of titling the population of FYROM as
Slavonic.
But what defines a Slav?
Slavs are an ethnic group connected by language, customs, traditions,
beliefs.
We know beyond doubt that the population of FYROM does speak a Slavic
language. We also know from their own authors like Tanas Vrazhinovski
and Vladimir Karadzoski that FYROM folklore is predominantly Slavonic.
Both authors give numerous examples of worship of Slavonic deities
and place names directly related to these deity´s names. Customs
as any Bulgarian or Serb may confirm are also highly similar, if
not identical.
So identical that we may safely conclude that the population of
FYROM is indeed Slavonic and the attempt to present the use of the
ethnonym 'Slav' as some form of insult, simply indicates the extent
of propaganda aimed at (not to an international audience), but as
its main target group has the FYROM youth. In some futile attempt
to teach the FYROM population to hate their true origins and believe
that their only true destiny is indissolubly connected upon usurping
a history and culture which is totally alien to them is unacceptable.
Yet another fallacy promoted by Stefov for his audience is the case
in which Philip of Macedon didn´t unite as so many true historians
have accepted (see Thomas R. Martin, Lewis Vance Cummings, Richard
Gabriel, Alan Fildes, Joann Fletcher, Robin Lane Fox...etc) but
conquered. If that isn´t enough, he also resorts to fallaciously
extending Philip´s empire further North to incorporate the lands of
FYROM and by doing so legitimize his claims.
While it is true that these lands have seen various conquerors and
settlers, what Stefov neglects to mention, is that while the above
may have partially influenced the locals with their own culture,
they never did manage to alienate them from their own. Something we
clearly see in the alleged descendants of the Makednoi. Stefov and his
believers have totally failed to provide a single logical explanation
as to how any since trace of cultural connection to those they claim
descendance from is non-existent.
During the last years the main FYROM offensive in the name debate
is centralized on the following logic: "since we can´t prove a
connection to the ancients, we´ll centralize on disproving yours",
which is exactly what we see Stefov doing today.
Unfortunately his attempts are caught either constantly celebrating
ignorance or due to malicious intent, falsifying facts. Stefov
claims that the name/term Greeks was ignored until after the Roman
conquests which is when it was allegedly coined. Its puzzling how an
alleged authority in history, who has published so many books about
ancient history, could possibly ignore the reference of the eponym
'Graikos'found in Hesiod´s Catalogue of Women or the village 'Graia'
noted in Homer´s Catalogue of ships or even the later reference to
the Graeci in Aristotle´s Meteorological. This is yet another well
known quasi-historical attempts to approach the issue which Stefov is
renowned for. Had he tried to tackle the issue on its factual basis,
he wouldn´t centralize on the Latinization which has been passed
down to the majority of language but the term which classicists
acknowledge as the proper denomination and that is that of Hellenes
(even though they have been used interchangeably). But even uttering
the term 'Hellenes' is simply unthinkable for Stefov; for he would
then have to deal with Hesiod´s reference to a 'race of the Hellenes'
(works and days), a race of Hellenes which would disprove the very
basis of his theory of various city-states alien to each other,
not forming a single body of people.
While it is conveniently true that Greece wasn´t used by Ancient
Greek geographers to describe the region in question, we know of
several of them that use the term 'Hellas' (Agatharchides, Pausanias
and Strabo being some of the more well known examples). If we were to
look towards Roman writers with Pliny the Elder´s Natural History
being one of the finest examples, we´d find that throughout his
entire work and especially books 3-5 which are geography related,
the term 'Greece' is constantly used to define the region.
One really has to wonder why Stefov tries to alienate an entire
people from their heritage with such void argumentation. So the term
'Rhomios'was used by the Greek population to define themselves,
what does this actually prove?
While the term Rhomios may indeed be partly alien to their ancestors,
one can´t neglect to note that it derives from the 'Constitution
Antoniniana of Caracalla' which allowed all freemen of the Roman
provinces to obtain Roman citizenship and that it is directly related
to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) which they were subjects. A
term forged to represent their citizenship but also their Greek
ancestry (see Andreas Osiander´s Before the State), hence why it
(and not 'Rhomaios') was also used to strictly designate the subjects
of Greek ancestry and them alone. It is also interesting to note the
perception of some of the empire´s neighbors. Armenians, Russians,
Georgians, Jews and even Ottomans titled the subjects 'Graikoi',
Yunan, Yavani , or the authors Theodorus Studitus, Anna Komnene,
George Gemistos Plethon, Michael Psellus and Theophanes Confessor all
used the ethnonym Hellenes; terms directly linked to their ancestral
roots which they recognized then, but today this author (Stefov)
with some highly questionable arguments tries to refute the facts.
Stefov continues to unsuccessfully tackle the demographics of
Greece. If under his logic the Slavic presence in the Balkans gives
the Slavic population of FYROM some right to usurp a history; heritage
and claim descendance from the ancient Makednoi (even through their
very customs, traditions and folklore) prove them totally alien to
it. Then how can someone even try and attempt to alienate the Vlachs
from the Ancient Greeks?
While theories on their origin vary and one could argue their
autochthonous origin, doesn´t their presence in the region which
is dated prior to the time when the Slavs were nothing but mere
invaders(Procopius) give them the right to claim ancestry?
Stefov makes reference to the total population of Greece upon its
liberation while exaggerating and distorting possible population
statistics. There is no accurate account of the possible ethnic
makeup of the population, therefore any argument either for or against
homogeneity would be ridiculous. One would notice that while Stefov
doesn't make any reference of Greeks as being a part of the population,
he adds Turks; which as it is well documented, were non-existent since
in their vast majority had fled upon the rebellion and Slavs. Then
again such claims by Stefov who has previously promoted the totally
outdated and disregarded 'Fallmerayer theory´, anything seems
possible.
Finally, there needs to be a mention of the Albanians. Since the
only census which provides us with data is that of 1928 we must
take that into consideration. In a 1928 census we find that the
total amount of self-identified Albanian-speakers (and not ethnic
Albanian origin) is approx. 19,000. A population of 19,000 in 1928
when Greece had liberated its lands and had a total population of
some 6.2 million. Stefov claims that the Albanians were obviously the
majority in the region in the early 1800´s; hence his reference to
them and no reference to the Greeks. One must ask of what happened
to the Albanians?
Well, we could take into account the statements of the Albano phone
population itself, who in 1836 Christophoros Perraivos recorded their
self-identification as purely Greek and were recognized as such by
Alexandros Ypsilantes; who in his letter makes reference to their
ancestors that fought in the battle of Marathon.
Finally, it must be noted that people like Risto Stefov, while
providing an entertaining read, continue to distort Greek history
(in a way similarly described above) and must not be taken seriously.
--Boundary_(ID_5Wpq9KL1wtO/WzMBdOIHPg) --
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress