Part 1 - Introduction - Part 01

“This unique nation-state [Greece] would represent the ultimate achievement of the Hellenic ideal and, as such, would lead all Europe to the highest levels of culture yet known.” (Michael Herzfeld) In chapters 2 and 3 of this book we established that prior to and during the creation of the Greek state in the early 1800’s the majority of the population living on Greek lands was predominantly immigrant, mostly of Albanian, Vlach and Slav origins, which had settled in Greece to fill the void created by the disappearance of the so-called ancient Greeks. This leads us to the question “Why was this region not called ‘Arvanitovlachia’ which would have correctly represented the land’s demography? Why Greece, a Latin name, and not Arvanitovlachia an appropriate name to represent the two distinct ethnic identities which lived on those lands at that time?” Although a difficult question to answer, in view of the Modern Greeks who have for the last 200 years tried to bury all evidence of their true past, the best response would be to say that ‘the people living in Greece at the time of their independence were not given a choice to self identify’. When Greece was first created in the early 1800’s the population was neither asked nor involved in any kind of self-identification. Unlike the Macedonian people who in 1991 participated in a free referendum which enabled them to self identify and gain independence, the people of Greece were not given that choice! In essence the decision to call the newly created state “Greece” solely rested with foreigners and academics who, instead of calling the new state by its true representative demographic, opted for calling it “Greece” so that they could connect it with a world and culture that had died more than 2,000 years before. In this chapter we are going to discover the reasons why Greece was named Greece and not Arvanitovlachia or some other name that would have appropriately connected the land with the current people. We so readily use the word “Ancient Greece” and “Ancient Greeks” to refer to a place and a people in the classical period (about 600 BC to 300 BC) without realizing that the terms “Greece” and “Greeks” are of Latin origin which probably came into use sometime after the 1st century BC and were popularized during the 19th century. The reason I mention this is because today Greece, without any justification, objects to the Macedonian peoples’ use of the name Macedonia to refer to their country on the grounds that the name “Macedonia”, for historic reasons, belongs to the Greeks. To which Greeks does the name “Macedonia” belong? Is it to the so-called Ancient Greeks whose very name is not only of non-Greek origin but given to those people by the Latins after they disappeared from the face of this earth? Or does the name “Macedonia” belong to the Arvanitovlachs, the immigrants who over the centuries came to live on those lands? Or does the name “Macedonia” belong to the modern imposters who go by the name of “Greeks”? Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? To find the answers to this questions we will first look at segments of William St. Clair’s book, “That Greece Might Still Be Free” which appeared in my series of articles called “William St. Clair on 19th century Greece and the Modern Greeks”, at; http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/82531 and http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/82785) According to St. Clair “To be Greek was to be a drunkard, a lecher, and, especially, a cheat.” But later by the seventeenth century, as more information was uncovered about a people who once lived on those lands, a new picture began to emerge. In time Europeans, without ever having been to Greece, came to believe that the Ancient and Modern Greeks were one and the same. As more information came out, especially after Lord Byron visited Greece in 1809 and 1810, and, on his return, published the first two cantos of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, the legend of a place called “Ancient Greece” and a people called “Ancient Greeks” began to grow and spread like wildfire.

Besides experiencing Greece for himself, Byron had also read and drew on the many travel books in the works of dozens of earlier writers in prose and in verse which helped him compose some of his best work described as best-sellers. At least twelve editions of his poem were printed between 1812 and 1821 and it was translated into several European languages. Byron’s work prompted more travelers to visit “Greece” but very few were equipped to make more than superficial observations. That, however, did not stop them from making generalizations and expanding the myth surrounding these so-called “Greeks”. As the idea of a “Greece” and “Greeks” grew it was romanticized by more and more writers. Many without ever having visited “Greece” shamelessly drew on the work of others and raised this mythical “Greece” into legendary status. By 1770 the legend became so real that the few writers who questioned it were dismissed as cranks. Again according to St. Clair, “With the advent of Byron, literary philhellenism became a widespread European movement. Hosts of imitators copied his rhetorical verses, and travelers who visited Greece after the appearance of Childe Harold in 1812 were even more enthusiastic than their predecessors. By the time of the Greek Revolution in 1821 the educated public in Europe had been deeply immersed in three attractive ideas; 1. that Ancient Greece had been a paradise inhabited by supermen; 2. that the Modern Greeks were the true descendants of the Ancient Greeks; and 3. that a war against the Turks could somehow ‘regenerate’ the Modern Greeks and restore the former glories.” So even before the so-called “Modern Greeks” had a chance to discover who they truly were and to decide what to call themselves and their little country, the outside world had made that decision for them. They were going to be called “Greeks”, the embodiment of the “Ancient Greeks” and their little country was going to be called “Greece”. Not everyone however believed in these ideas but in Western Europe where philhellenism flourished the deed was done. But as St. Clair tells us, “The responsibility for turning philhellenism into a political programme belongs to the Greeks themselves. The impetus came from the Greeks overseas.” By late eighteenth century colonies of people who came from the region that later became known as “Greece” and settled in Europe had become largely integrated into Western European culture. It was these people who naturally embraced the literary tradition of philhellenism and later built on it. As Michael Herzfeld in his book “Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the making of Modern Greece” on pages 4 and 5 tells us: “By the nineteenth century, Classical scholars had come to pride themselves on a remarkable degree of academic perfectionism, but their views were clearly as much a matter of intellectual fashion as ever. A frankly critical American observer of nineteenth-century European scholarship decried not only the English scholars' ‘limp Grecism,’ as evidenced in the excessively ‘scented, wholesale sweetness of the modern aesthetic school in England,’ but also the Germans' use of Greek' ‘as a stalking-horse for Teutonic psychology’ and their grave concern with minutiae. Scholars of the two nations resembled each other, he thought, ‘in but a single trait–the conviction that they understand Greece’ (Chapman 1915: 12-13). Nor was this acid commentator entirely free of any such conviction about himself, to judge from the tone of these remarks. And so, presumably, it will go on. New truths will yield to still newer truths about the same basic idea, the vision of Classical Greece–the source, in a commonly held view, of the very practice of historical writing itself. Such changes in perception are of interest here for two reasons. First, they show that through all the divergent interpretations there runs a common theme: the idea of Hellas as the cultural exemplar of Europe. And, second, these same contrasts mark the progressive enhancement of that exemplar's authority, not its dissolution (as we might expect) in the bickering of the ages.

Whatever Greece is or was, the idea of Greece–like any symbol– could carry a wide range of possible meanings, and so it survived triumphantly. Similarly, the concept of European culture, so stable at the level of mere generality, has undergone many transformations through the centuries. ‘Europe,’ like ‘Hellas,’ was a generalized ideal, a symbol of cultural superiority which could and did survive innumerable changes in the moral and political order. It was to this European ideal, moreover, that Hellas was considered ancestral. Such is the malleable material of which ideologies are made.” What the Europeans saw in Greece they saw in themselves and as David Holden puts it “philhellenism is a love affair with a dream which envisions ‘Greece’ and the ‘Greeks’ not as an actual place or real people but as a symbol of some imagined perfection.” Whatever Greece is or was, the idea of Greece–like any symbol–could carry a wide range of possible meanings, ‘Europe,’ like ‘Hellas,’ was a generalized ideal, a symbol of cultural superiority. Europe needed a genuine noble European past, a source for its enlightenment and it found it in a mythical Greece, a Greece of its own creation. On page 5 of his book Michael Herzfeld goes on to say: “It is as an ideological phenomenon that we shall treat the twin concepts of Hellas and Europe here. They provided the motivating rationale for one of the most explosive political adventures of the nineteenth century, an adventure which claimed thousands of lives and brought many more under the control of a nation-state that had never before existed as a sovereign entity. This adventure was the Greek struggle for independence of 1821 to 1833. Its eventual success was by no means certain in the early stages. The Great Powers were reluctant to commit themselves to the Greek cause until, forced by public opinion at home, by the Greeks' own successes, and by the fear of each other's intentions, they began to take a more active part in bringing the Greek State into existence. That the Greeks did eventually prevail, despite the enormous Turkish armies with which they had to contend as well as their destructive internal squabbles, is some measure of the evocative power of the name of Hellas among their European supporters. To be a European was, in ideological terms, to be a Hellene. Yet the Hellas which European intellectuals wished to reconstitute on Greek soil was very different from the Greek culture which they actually encountered there, despite all the western-educated Greek intellectuals' efforts to bridge the gap.” If I interpret Herzfeld correctly, not only did Europeans invent and mold the concept of a “Greece” and “Hellenism” but by their instigation of the so-called “Greek Struggle for Independence”, with assistance from the Great Powers, they created a country where one never existed before! Yes you read it right! The Europeans instigated the so-called “Greek Struggle for Independence” in order to bring back the mythical “Ancient Greeks”! Further, they helped create a country based on a myth and shaped the character of its population on a culture that had died more than 2,000 years ago. And all this at the expense of the real, living and vibrant cultures that lived and coexisted on those lands for centuries. This reminds me of what the Greeks did in Macedonia nine decades later when they invaded, occupied, annexed Macedonia, destroyed its living and vibrant culture and turned the Macedonian people into mythical Greeks! Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? Because the Europeans, aliens to the so-called Greek lands, took it upon themselves to reshape the new country and its people into something artificial to suit their own desires. Which begs the question “Why did the Europeans need a Greece and how did the birth of Greece shape Europe?” a subject for my next chapter. Why give “Greece” a Latin name? The obvious answer is because the “concept” of a Greece was invented by the Modern Latins even before the “country” Greece came into existence.

Since the Latins invented Greece it was appropriate that they give it a Latin name? Part 5 - Why did the Europeans need a Greece?

In the first four chapters of this book we established that the people living in the southern region of today’s Greece in the early 19th century were predominantly Albanian, Vlach and Slav immigrants who had settled there over the centuries to replace the population void created by the disappearance of the so-called “Ancient Greeks”. Given the fact that this new population was predominantly not Greek, 18th century authorities decided to label it Greek anyway in an effort to connect it with a culture that once existed on those lands a long time ago. In this part we will explain why there was such a need to create a Greece and how it benefited Europe. It is not my intention here to delve into the various details or the rational involved in creating a Greece so I will present the reader with only a general overview to show why 18th and 19th century Europeans needed a Greece and how they proceeded in creating one. The reader must keep in mind that when 18th and 19th century authorities were contemplating the creation of Modern Greece and writing its history there were several overriding criteria that needed to be addressed. These were: 1. The belief that God created the world and that the world was no more than 5,000 years old. 2. The human race had descended from Noah’s Ark which was believed to have landed in the Caucasus after the great flood. 3. History began at the point when the world was created by God. No history was acceptable before that. 4. The history of a nation had to be based more or less on a “national myth” designed to support the “nation”, its people and particularly its rulers. 5. The writing of a nation’s history was usually sponsored by those in authority who during the 18th century were predominantly monarchs. So, as one can see, the history of a nation or of the world for that matter had to be written to fit the above criteria as well as to suit the desires and approvals of its sponsors. In order to understand why Europeans chose “Ancient Greece” after which to model their own culture, we need to examine Europe’s late 18th and early 19th century political, cultural and economic situation. The first and foremost reason for Europeans choosing “Ancient Greece” as their model to build on is because Ancient Greece was part of Europe. It was important for Europeans to show that the most “enlightened” civilization in the world originated in Europe. Europeans at the time were involved in all sorts of ventures including the occupation and colonization of various regions of Africa, Asia, Australia and America. They were also involved in enslaving people from Africa and Asia in order to obtain free labour for building their cities and transportation routes, operating their farms, serving as domestics, etc. All these “doings” had to be justified as “moral” and appropriate not only to the world but also to the European masses which supported the political systems and those in power. One way to justify them was to show examples of other civilizations doing exactly that; that it was okay to take other peoples’ lands and enslave them for the benefit of this new European civilization. In order to convince the world, particularly their own people, the Europeans needed a practicing example which they found in the “Ancient Greeks”. Europeans also needed precedence to show that they were not the first to condone imperialism and slavery and at the same time maintain the image that they were civilized. It was one thing to say that a “Greek” civilization existed 2,500 years ago in a savage world full of Barbarians however it would have been more convincing if such a civilization existed today, in this world. As mentioned in a previous chapter, certain Europeans, later referred to as Philhellenes, convinced that such a civilization could be re-created, decided to instigate an uprising against the Ottoman Empire. Believing that if the Greeks of today could be freed from the Ottoman yoke they would be politically and culturally capable of quickly progressing to the level of the so-called “Civilized Ancient Greeks” of some 2,500 years ago.

Be it by chance or by design, once the Western European Public found out about the merits of this so-called “Ancient Greek Civilization” it began to look up to it and accept it not only as a source of enlightenment but as a guiding light for Europe’s future. As it happened, the first step in re-creating this old civilization was to popularize it abroad among intellectuals and academics, especially in Britain and France. With the publication of the Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage and Lord Byron’s work, the British and French audience was quick to catch on and became very open to the idea of “bringing back the Ancient Greeks”. Once popularized, a movement started forming giving the “idea of re-creating Ancient Greece” life and impetus and later moral, financial and military support. The movement caught on much easier and faster in Western European countries than it did inside the Ottoman Occupied Greek Regions but with persistence from the Great Powers and British gold, Hellenism was reborn. Once the European public was in support of such a venture, it was time to convince the people living on the lands where once the so-called “Ancient Greeks” lived. Unfortunately, convincing the “locals” became a harder task than convincing the European public but in the long run persistence paid off and today we have pure Greeks, descendants of the Ancient Greeks. The primary reasons why Europe wanted a Greece can be summarized as follows; 1. Europeans needed to justify the use of slavery as a moral deed for the greater good of a superior and moral Modern European civilization. Because of its intellectual capacity, the so-called “Ancient Greek Civilization” was considered both superior and moral which not only condoned slavery but practiced it. As I have shown in previous parts of this book, more than half of Ancient Athens was populated by slaves who served the ruling elite. 2. Europeans needed precedence to justify their acts of colonization and imperial land grabs and found it in the so-called Ancient Greeks, particularly in the imperial ventures of Ancient Athens. 3. Besides 1 and 2 above, Europeans needed a “model” on which to build their own civilization and to show that European “knowledge” and “culture” were genuinely European and not imported from any of the “other” lands from which slaves were imported. They found this “model” in Ancient Greece and took from it what they deemed appropriate and discarded the rest. In other words, late 18th and early 19th century Europeans found in Ancient Greece a civilized people with a superior culture and intellect which at the same time practiced slavery, fought for booty and colonized other peoples’ lands; a behaviour worthy of emulation. What is most interesting, little known and needs emphasis is the fact that the so-called “Greek Uprising of 1821” was not at all a “Greek Uprising” but an uprising instigated by non-Greek Europeans outside of Greece. Also, another little known fact is that this uprising was mostly financed by Great Britain and fought with the help of Western European volunteers. The aim of this venture was not just to free the people from the Ottoman yoke but to turn them into something they were not. And thus the curse of Hellenism was born. Hellenism may have been viewed as “something wonderful” by outsiders who yearned to see the “Ancient Greek Civilization” re-born but it was a nightmare for the people directly involved who were asked to give up their true identities for something alien, foreign and long dead; to which they never belonged. Ninety-two years later, the Macedonians of Greek occupied Macedonia were asked to do the same; become Hellenes, something foreign and alien. One-hundred and seventy years later we are re-living the curse of Hellenism as the Republic of Macedonia is attempting to assert its identity. In the book “Entangled Identities Nations and Europe” edited by Atsuko Ichijo and Willfried Spohn on page 109 we read “It should be strongly emphasized, however, that this new image of classical Greece was constructed in Europe and was imported to the new born Greek state (Tsoukalas 2002).

Modern ideas touched the general Greek population only marginally, if at all.” After the Greek state was created for the first time in 1829 it was incapable of governing itself and was placed under foreign rule and a foreign administration. On page 110 of the book “Entangled Identities Nations and Europe” we read “Greece was governed by an imported young monarch, Prince Frederic Otto of Wittlesbach, the seventeen year old son of King Ludwig of Bavaria.” “The three men regency council which in fact was to rule [Greece] was also Bavarian and protestant. What came to be called ‘the protecting powers’ exercised such an influence on the newly-born state that the first political parties were named appropriately ‘the English party’, ‘the French party’ and ‘the Russian party’. Supporters of these parties represented nascent class structures in Greek society but above all these parties represented corresponding foreign influences and interests.” As we continue to read the book “Entangled Identities Nations and Europe” on page 111 we find “The political parties which existed, as we mentioned earlier, reflected the interests and the antagonisms of foreign powers.” “In reality, however, this utopian, irredentist idea [which the Greeks developed on their own] served as a smoke screen for corruption and severe socio-economic problems faced by the government and as an excuse for the even greater blatant intervention of the Great Powers in Greek affairs. (Clogg 1979: 76-79)” In the book “The Greek Phoenix” by Joseph Braddock on page 137 we read “Colonel Napier was seeing a lot of his celebrated guest, and paid him every attention, realizing that Byron, as a representative of the London Greek committee, might have considerable influence both in Greece and London in helping him obtain military command. So it was arranged that Napier should be given leave to go to London, furnished with a letter of introduction from Byron to the London Greek committee. He arrived in January 1824, carrying a letter written on the 10th of December 1823 in which Byron advised that a loan of 500,000 pounds should be raised to provide an army for Greece to be commanded by Napier. ‘Of his military character it was superfluous to speak; of his personal, I can say from my own knowledge’ Byron wrote ‘that it is excellent as his military -in short a better or a braver man is not easy to be found. He is our man to lead a regular force or to organize a national one for the Greeks. Ask the army; ask anybody! He is, besides, the personal friend of Mavrocordato, Colonel Stanhope and myself; and in such concord with all three that we should pull together, an indispensable as well as rare point, especially in Greece at present.’ Alas, the London committee was too preoccupied to welcome Napier’s services. At the moment they were busy devising acrimoniously the menu for their next public dinner, and were more interested in making plans for the cultural regeneration of Greece than in hearing about Napier’s military virtues.” In the “Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece” edited by Nigel Wilson, which so many Modern Greeks encouraged me to read so that I can “educate” myself on page 345 we read “Hellenization denotes the spread of Hellenic culture in non-Greek ‘barbarian’ society and the process under which ‘barbarians’ accept, adopt, and incorporate Hellenic culture.” “The first modern appearance of the concept of Hellenism and Hellenization occurs in Geschchite des Hellenismus, G. Droysen’s great three volume work published between 1833 and 1843” Hellenism, whatever purpose it was intended to serve should have died a long time ago along with Fascism, Nazism and slavery but unfortunately it has not. Instead, nurtured by the Powers that created it, it has flourished and swallowed and destroyed nations of people including part of my own; the Macedonians in Greek occupied Macedonia who to this day are struggling to get free. What is this phenomenon called “Hellenism”? Whatever it is, it has different interpretations to different people but as Macedonians that have been touched by it, while refusing to yield to it, for us it has been a nightmare.

Greece, after invading, occupying and annexing 51% of the Macedonian territories in 1912, 1913, in the name of Hellenism tortured, murdered and expelled all Macedonians who refused to become “Hellenes”. It then changed all peoples’ and place names to “Hellenize” them and make them Greek. If that was not enough, Greece then abolished the Macedonian language rendering it illegal to be spoken both in public and private, all this in the name of “Hellenism”. In other words, Hellenism for the Macedonians has been a relentless enemy whose aim has been to destroy what is real and replace it with something artificial which has no roots or a real past. Part 6 – On the way to Hellenism

“In 1821, the Greeks rose in revolt against the rule of Turkey and declared themselves an independent nation. Their goal was far more ambitious than freedom alone, for they proclaimed the resurrection of an ancient vision in which liberty was but a single component. That vision was Hellas–the achievements of the ancient Greeks in knowledge, morality, and art, summed up in one evocative word. What was more, the new Greek revolutionaries went one step further than their forebears had ever managed to do: they proposed to embody their entire vision in a unified, independent polity. This unique nation-state would represent the ultimate achievement of the Hellenic ideal and, as such, would lead all Europe to the highest levels of culture yet known.” (Michael Herzfeld, “Ours Once More”, page 3) What Herzfeld fails to mention above is that it was not the Greeks that rose in revolt against the rule of Turkey but rather the Philhellenes who instigated this so-called “rise” whose origin was anything but Greek. And who were these Greeks anyway? In this chapter will provide the reader with further evidence to show that not only did the so-called “Greeks” not exist but the architects of “Hellenism” could not care less if they existed or not. Their aim was to bring back Hellenism at any cost because after all, as mentioned in a previous chapter, “Hellenization denotes the spread of Hellenic culture in non-Greek ‘barbarian’ society and the process under which ‘barbarians’ accept, adopt, and incorporate Hellenic culture.” (“Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece” edited by Nigel Wilson, page 345) The Philhellenes neither thought nor cared what Hellenism could do to the living and vibrant cultures that existed on those lands. Like the Borg in the fictional Star Trek movie series, the Philhellenes wanted to create a race of “perfect” humans and model them in an image created of their own imagination. They did that not because they cared for the plight of the indigenous people whose cultures they destroyed but to achieve their own moral and political aims. And how did the Modern Hellenes came to know of “Hellenism”? Was it passed on from generation to generation? Did they come to know it from their parents and grandparents? NO! It was taught to them by foreigners! In the “Scottish Geographic Magazine” Volume XIII published in 1897 on page 370 we read “The Turks who came in at the time of conquest, and were mostly landowners, have almost entirely disappeared since the Turkish yoke was thrown off. The Vlachs, on the contrary, descendants of the Romanized people of the Balkan Peninsula, live in considerable numbers in the mountains of north and central Greece. The number of these people, called by G. Weigand Aromunes, is at most 50,000. Formerly, the Aromunes of whom there are 150,000 in the south-western part of the Balkan Peninsula, were champions of the Greater Greece policy, but since the Bulgarians have obtained their freedom, the Aromunes have also fostered a national feeling. In Greece however, the well to do classes are opposed to the movement, and here, too, the government has made great efforts to win over these people, which probably will be attended with success. Lastly, Gypsies must be mentioned, who are numerous all over the country. They are to a large extent Hellenized, and their numbers therefore cannot be exactly ascertained.” In the book “Greek Pictures” by J. P. Mahaffy published in 1890, on pages 20 and 21 we read “…in the Middle Ages, these Albanian mountaineers have brought both war like spirit, bright costume and beauty of person, to refresh the Hellenic race. There are still, even in Attica, districts where Albanian is the common language; there are Albanian names famous in Greek annuals, especially in the great War of Independence (1821-1831), and among the sailors of Hydra, so famed for their commercial enterprise and their deeds of war, the chief families were Albanian in origin.” Further down on page 21 we read “Before I return from the Albanian digression, I will say a word about the costume which has become the national dress of the Greeks.

The most characteristic feature is the ‘fustanella’, a white petticoat which like the Scottish kilt, gives its name to the whole attire. Wearing the fustanella in Greece is like ‘wearing the kilt’ in Scotland. This petticoat is however, more troublesome and exacting than its Highland brother; and this is the reason that the king’s guard in Athens, who wear it as a uniform, look so straight and well drilled.” In the book “History of the War of Independence in Greece”, by Thomas Keightley, Esq. on page 260 we read “Colocotronis was the son of the man, who, after giving the Turks most effectual aid against the Albanians after 1770, was put to death by them. Having with difficulty escaped from the murders of his father, he had served in the Greeks troops of the different powers who successively occupied the Seven Isles. He had frequently returned to Morea, and putting himself at the head of parties of Klefts, made the Turks tremble within the walls of Tripolitsa and purchased his departure with considerable sums of money. He had risen to the rank of Major in the Albanian regiment, in the pay of England when it was disbanded.” We now turn to the “The Atlantic Monthly: A Magazine of Literature, Art and Politics” volume XLIX, January 1882, to page 31 where we read “I have received an invitation to spend a September Sunday at Poros, a little island in the Aegean Sea, lying to the south east, and about five hours distant by steamer from the port of Peraeus. It is one of a group made famous in the Greek revolution of 1821 by bravery of its Albanian settlers, in defense of a country which they never adopted for their own until this moment of danger came. Some two centuries ago, Albanian fugitives, who had fled from their northern home on account of the oppression of their Turkish rulers, alighted like wild sea-birds on the rocky cliffs of Hydra, Speza and Poros. Here they built their nests high and secure above the reach of invasion, feeling themselves safe as long as they could keep control of the surrounding waters. Joined from time to time by small companies of their countrymen, they gradually increased in numbers, and formed themselves into a more stable community, with laws and habits of its own.” Later on the same page we read “At the time of the revolution, these Albanian settlements had developed into a colony of rich and imperious merchants, who lived in their island homes with a rude, barbaric luxury.” Further down the same page we read “Albanian Captains, Albanian ships, and Albanian gold became the strength of the Greek and the dread of the Turk. The successful close of the revolution found them as firmly allied with the Greek nationality as they had previously been alien to it, and there are now no names more honoured and beloved in Athens, no families more influential in its polite circles, than those of the Albanian leaders of 1821, the Tombazis, the Miaulis, the Coundouriottis.” In “The New Monthly Magazine” edited by W. Harrison Ainsworth, Esq. Volume 88 on page 480 we read “It is a singular fact that the Vlachs call themselves, in their own patois, Romans. Their total number in the provinces of European Turkey is supposedly to exceed half a million; and, during the Greek revolution, they furnished at least ten thousand armed men, under Zongas. This leader was formerly the protopalicar, or lieutenant, of their famous chief Catz Antoni who was put to death in the most cruel manner by Ali Pasha, for numberless acts of brigandage.” In the book “Race or Mongrel” by Alfred P. Schultz on page 90 we read “About this time the Avars came from Asia to Europe. Bajan-Chan, their leader, incited the Slavs to invade Greece in 578[AD]. They crossed the Danube, a hundred thousand men strong, invaded Greece, and extended their incursions as far south as the Peloponnesus. Manander states that Hellas was torn to pieces by the Slavs. A few years later Bajan Chan was at war with the Emperor and at his instigation other hordes of Slavs and Avars poured into Greece.

Evagrius writes that in 578 and in 593 the Avars conquered all of Greece and devastated it with fire and sword. After these invasions the Slavs and Avars did not again leave Greece. They remained as the lords of the lands with Huns and Bulgarians. When peaceful conditions were again established, a great number of the inhabitants were Slavs, who retained their customs, religion and language for a long time. Cities, villages, brooks, mountains now have Slavic names. Marathon is Vrana; Salamis, Kiluri; Platea, Kochla; Olympia, Miraka; Delphi, Kastri; and other places are named Goritza, Vostiza, Kaminitza, Pirnatsha, Chlumutzi, Slavitza. Names similar to these are found in Gelicia, Poland, and other Slavic countries. Hellenic they are not.” Avars, Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Gypsies? Where are the Greeks? On page 91 of the same book we read “In 1204, Venice, having a German-Frankish army at her command declared war on the Eastern Empire and took Constantinople. A Frankish army landed at Patras (Morea), and many of the knights received latifundia in the Peloponnesus and subsequently remained in Greece. In the 14th century the Albanians invaded Greece, and settled there. The influx of Albanians continued for a considerable time. In 1407, we are told, Theodore Paleologus settled ten thousand Albanians with their wives and children, in the Peloponnesus. Mazari, writing in 1446, states that the Greeks of this time were not a race but a debris of other races.” Then on page 351 of the same book we read “That environment is of little importance to the development of a race is clearly demonstrated by the fact that when Hellenes lived in Greece, Greece was great. Since their mongrelization, Greece has produced nothing.” Here I have given the reader evidence from half a dozen writers and authors who have published their work more than a century ago, writers and authors who lived much closer to the time when Greece became a country for the first time, to the time when Hellenism was invented and unleashed on the people of the Balkans. Who are the Modern Greeks? A fair and reasonable question indeed! A question that needs to be asked! Modern Greeks have placed the Macedonians in a precarious position regarding the Macedonian ethnic identity. Modern Greeks have systematically and relentlessly denied the Macedonian ethnic identity robbing both the Modern and Ancient Macedonians of their heritage. If that is fair then let us equally be fair in answering the question “Who are the Modern Greeks?” The best answer I can give you at this moment is that they are NOT who they say they are! I have been accused on several occasions of being a “liar” when it comes to answering such questions so I will use Mazari’s words; “Mazari, writing in 1446, states that the Greeks of this time were not a race but a debris of other races.” If the Greeks of 1446 were a debris of other races, then what are the Modern Greeks of today? 98% pure Greeks and 2% Muslim Greeks? I think not! The question that then begs to be asked is “What right do these imposters and charlatans have to meddle in Macedonian affairs and to question the Macedonian identity when their own identity is fabricated, false and fake?” To be fair then the world too should deny the Modern Greeks the right to self identify because after all, unlike the Macedonians, the Modern Greeks are NOT really who they claim to be! And now I leave you with this. “Is Hellenization a term that reflects the reality of an ancient society, or a term and concept created by modern scholars in the course of their study? Is it a tool, useful shorthand or a phantom? According to G. Bowersock ‘Hellenization is… a modern idea reflecting modern forms of cultural domination’.” (“Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece”, edited by Nigel Wilson, page 345.) Part 7 - Twenty Authors can't all be wrong!