CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE TREATY OF BUCHAREST WAS DRAFTED - Part 02

If the people incorporated in Ancient Macedonia by Philip II indeed came from these same tribes, and we know they did, then they too must have been the ancestors of the modern day Slav speakers. This raises the possibility that the Ancient Macedonians may also have been “Slav speakers”. We know that the most prominent Ancient Macedonians including Alexander the Great were bilingual and we have many historic examples to prove it. We also know Alexander’s Macedonian soldiers spoke an “unknown” language unique to the Macedonians. The only thing, as of yet, is that we don’t know if that language was Slavic. But with time, that problem too will be solved. So, without knowing all the facts, why would we opt for “accepting” the Ancient Macedonian heritage while rejecting our “Slav” culture when there is a possibility that one is a progression of the other? If I had to guess, I would guess that the “Slav culture” of the 9th century AD is the revival of the Ancient Macedonian Culture of the 4th century BC but with a Christian twist. And now to answer the second question, “my definition” of what is a Hellene? I believe I answered this question before but I guess not to the satisfaction of at least one reader. A Hellene is a 19th century mythological being that encompasses all the desired qualities that the 19th century Western European culture craved. Trying to define what a Hellene is, is like trying to define who Santa Claus is. The word “Santa Claus” conjures up an image of a white bearded man dressed up in a red suit who gives away presents; an image of happiness. But is Santa Claus real? It depends who you ask! Most children will say that he is! But does Santa Clause exist? Yes he does, you can find him in practically every mall around Christmas time. A Hellene is like Santa Claus in many ways. Conditioned over the years many people believe he or she exists. Any ordinary person properly dressed in red and white attire can unmistakably be Santa Claus, similarly any person who speaks and feels Greek can qualify to be a Hellene. The story of the Hellene is something like the story of Santa Claus. They both started somewhere back in Ancient times and borrowed something from this culture and something from that. The case of Santa Claus, evolved into what we know today as “the white bearded man in the red suit, living in the North Pole, making toys for little girls and boys and delivering them to all the children in the world on Christmas Eve on his sled pulled by his flying reindeer”. The case of the Hellene also evolved in a similar fashion borrowing from the ancients what was attractive then mixing it with Christianity and what was desirable we then have “a Hellene who is a Christian Orthodox,

speaks a bastardized ancient Language and claims to be a descendent of a race of people that died 2,000 years ago”. Will the “Santa Claus” of modern times survive the scrutiny of science if so examined? Will we find that he is real, exists and flies a sled pulled by reindeer? No! We believe in Santa Claus because he is a powerful symbol of our traditional values which today is exploited and utilized by merchants to sell their wares and make money. Similarly Hellenism (for some) is a symbol of a “perfect culture”. It does not really exist and will not survive scientific scrutiny but is tolerated by people because it benefits a certain and powerful segment of our society. Like ordinary people who put on cheap red suits and fake white beards, pretending to be Santa Claus in order to sell merchandise, ordinary people who speak Greek can also be Hellenes in order to improve their social status in society. Does a Hellene exist? Does Santa Claus exist? It all depends on who you ask! Is a Hellene real? Is Santa Claus real? No, because they both exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them! “To be a Modern "Hellene" one must be a liar. One has to lie about their ethnic heritage. One has to lie about their mother tongue. And one has to lie about their history. And so it goes, a Hellene is a person who is faking their ethnicity, mother tongue and history.” (Maknews from www.maknews.com ) “The British, French and Russians demanded that the modern Greek identity be Hellenic and respond to the Europeans’ nostalgia…” (“Blood Lines from Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism”, by Vamik Volkan, page 121) “Thus, the recourse to the new image of Hellas (both as cultural construct and as social system) began immediately upon the brief rule of governor Kapodistrias and became efficiently implemented with the takeover of the Bavarian monarchy and its explicit desire for centralization and Hellenization. In fact, the cultural image of Greece was put into production with much greater urgency than was a political-economic infrastructure, despite the obvious importance of the latter in a newly constructed state.” (“Dream Nation Enlightenment, Colonization and the institution of Modern Greece”, Stathis Gourgouris, page 87) “It should be strongly emphasized, however, that this image of classical Greece was constructed in Europe and was imported to the newborn Greek state (Tsoukalas, 2002).” (“Entangled Identities Nations and Europe”, edited by Atsuko Ichijo and Willfried Spohn, page 109)

“The adjective ‘Hellenistic’ not, significantly, existing in any Greek original – was first coined in its French form ‘hellenistiques’ by J.B. Bossuer, in 1681 as a term for the Greek of the Septuagint, the ‘Hellenized’ version of the old Testament.” (“The Hellenic Age a Short History”, Peter Green, page xvi introduction) And now I leave you with this; “And thus, I call upon the western intellectuals in general and the western philhellenes in particular to separate their personal sentimental attachments to Greek history, to do the only honorary thing left and treat Macedonia and Macedonian history as a separate and comprehensive study that it is, and that it certainly deserves to be. The conflicting statements left strewn in the literature in the past hundred or so years—are the result of biased and subjective influences—and have not only caused political discourse and confusion, but bring about contradictions, fuel tensions and cause unnecessary hateful speculations. For instance, when some nineteenth century unsuspecting authors depict events in antiquity and describe the ancient Macedonians as Greeks, it was done not because the evidence left from the ancient biographers would support such an act but because the western media and the western academia in particular, would allow dissemination of historically inaccurate information. Such supposedly "harmless" omissions—read desirable proliferation of myths—would seep easily into the readers´ consciousness for whom the built up historiography of the artificially created Greek nation, lay in tandem with the envisioned fundamental grand scheme of things in the regional geography designed for Balkans. It is morally wrong, ethically inadmissible and scientifically incorrect to lump the ancient Macedonians under Greek umbrella, simply, because today’s Greece—the creation of the western powers— enjoys sentimental support of many western intellectuals. Truth does not need lobbyists. Truth is not a tradable commodity and cannot be conditionally used and selectively applied. Appropriation of Macedonian history is not an acceptable act; portraying ancient Macedonians as Greeks is an outright fabrication.” (Gandeto -http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/97381)

Essay 23 – On to Macedonia

Modern Greeks, who were educated through the Greek educational system, seem to think that Macedonians did not exist prior to the 1940’s. In fact some are so sure that they are willing to stake their own reputation on it, so they say. One Greek, who claimed to be a Professor of History, not long ago wrote and told me that there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of Macedonians prior to Tito’s “alleged” creation of Macedonia. In fact, he said that he was so sure that Macedonians did not exist he was willing to accept everything I said at face value if I could only show him a single piece of evidence that proved Macedonians existed before 1940. Believing he was sincere, I had no reason to doubt him, I took up his challenge and put together a document which can be found at this link; http://www.oshchima.com/Historical%20Documents/hdoc1.pdf After reviewing the document the good professor was kind enough to write back to me but it wasn’t what I expected. The only thing he wrote was “Macedonia is Greek”! Nothing else! I never heard from him again. I used to believe that Greeks were sincere in their quest for the truth but experience has taught me differently. I used to believe if one laid the facts on the table all arguments could be resolved through reasoning and logic but unfortunately I was wrong! As I have found out over the years, Modern Greeks, at least the ones I have dealt with, are not interested in finding “the truth” unless the truth serves their purpose. The only thing these Greeks are interested in, as I have found, is covering up all evidence that might challenge their claims on Macedonia and expose their lies. Facts, evidence, or logic do not matter and no Greek can be convinced of the truth unless it serves his or her purpose or supports his or her claims on Macedonia. Therefore it would be a waste of time to try and prove anything to a Greek who is convinced that his or her truth is the only truth. If I were to classify the Greeks into categories I would classify them into three types. The first type which includes the vast majority of Greeks is the silent type which steers away from “anomalies” or information that is not explained by their indoctrination. These Greeks have found that curiosity can be painful, as Anastasia Karakasidou discovered when she wrote her book “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood”. The second type of Greek is a patriotic and devoted type who believes that everything the Greek government tells him or her, particularly about Macedonia, is true. This Greek is taught to believe the indigenous Macedonians, the ones who lived in Macedonia for

many generations, the ones whose lands Greece stole, are his or her enemies. They are convinced that these Macedonians are preoccupied with “stealing” their “Greek-Macedonia” from them and therefore should not be trusted and should be punished at every opportunity. The third and most dangerous type of Greek is the one who knows the truth but is entrusted with protecting Greek interests at any cost. This is the Greek that seeks out evidence in order to destroy it. So the next time a Greek asks you to produce evidence that proves Macedonians exist remember that by providing this evidence you are helping him or her to cover it up or destroy it. The problem these Greeks have is not only with evidence but with the people who are bent on digging it up. Remember Karakasidou’s case? The Greeks threatened to “blow up” the publishing house in London if it published her book. Greeks often use this kind of “intimidation” to prevent what they deem “damaging” information from coming out. But more often than not, they publish “their own” versions of “the facts” to create confusion and bury the truth. For example Greeks, for years, maintained that Macedonians did not exist. But when stories started surfacing that Macedonians do indeed exist, they invented the idea that these people were not really “ethnic Macedonians” but “geographic Macedonians”. In other words they are called “Macedonians” not because they are ethnic Macedonians but because they are “Greeks” who just happened to live in Macedonia! Until a couple of decades ago, according to these Greeks, Macedonians did not exist; today, according to the same Greeks, we have all kinds of Macedonians. In fact the Greek Prime Minister himself just announced to the Greek Parliament that he too was a “Macedonian”! This is how Greeks logic works. If you can’t outright eradicate “the information” then you bury it in a huge tangle of lies. Greeks are experts at this! Fortunately Macedonians and even foreigners are slowly coming on to these “Greek tricks” and the Greek lies are gradually being exposed. Today there is an overwhelming amount of evidence uncovered all over the world not just from books but also from newspapers and journals. Greeks however are trying very hard to bury it by side tracking the reader with personal attacks on the messenger instead of dealing with the message. In place of responding to the questions posed, Greeks tend to attack the credibility of the messenger calling him or her “anti-Greek” having an “axe to grind” or not possessing “the right credentials” to be an authority. It seems that when facts are presented that contradict the “Greek view”, Greeks tend to dismiss them by accusing the presenter of not having the “right credentials”.

Recently old newspaper stories from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s have also been surfacing from various library archives. These newspapers, it appears, have been carrying all sorts of stories from the Balkan conflicts, including many from the Macedonian 1903 Ilinden Uprising against the Ottoman Empire. These stories exist and are real and can be found in the archives of practically every major library in the world. Some of these documents are now being digitized and will soon be available online everywhere on the internet. Here are some examples;

http://www.maknews.com/forum/archive/here-are-som-articles-from-the-new-york-times-t5689.html

http://www.maknews.com/forum/archive/newspaper-articles-about-the-macedonians-in-the-1800-s-t5734.html

http://www.maknews.com/forum/general-discussions/reference-list-1-newspaper-articles-t14740.html

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1139

These stories talk about Macedonians fighting for their freedom, Macedonians who according to the Greeks did not exist prior to the 1940’s. With stories like these coming out no one in the world is going to believe the Greeks and their false claims. No one is going to believe that the references “Macedonian” and “Macedonians” are “geographic” and not “ethnic”. Who in the world, except Greeks, uses “geographic” references when referring to people’s “ethnic” or “national” identities? “Since the Republic of Macedonia declared its independence the Greek government has asserted that it has exclusive copyright to the use of the Star of Vergina. But is has been argued that since modern day Greeks are not descended from the ancient Greeks: ‘The Star of Vergina is not a Greek symbol, except in the sense that it happens to have been found in the territory of the present-day Greek state. The modern day Greeks appropriate ancient Greek cultural symbols because they happen to live in more or less the same part of the world as the ancient Greeks did” (“Experimenting with Democracy Regime Change in the Balkans”, Edited by Geoffrey Pridham and Tom Gallagher, page 271) “It is widely recognized that national symbols are often a modern creation which do not reflect the reality of the circumstances they purport to represent. Tradition can be invented. Modern Greece, for example, is a relatively new creation and bears little resemblance to the

ancient Greece which is the source of much of its symbolism.” (“Experimenting with Democracy Regime Change in the Balkans”, Edited by Geoffrey Pridham and Tom Gallagher, page 271) So let us dispense with the niceties and tell it the way it is. Greeks who know the truth know very well that Macedonians have as much right to the Macedonian heritage as Greeks do to the Greek heritage. Even though the Modern Greeks are not the descendents of the so-called ancient Greeks they consciously laid claim to the ancient Greek heritage. Why are they then protesting against the Macedonians laying claim to the Macedonian heritage, even though the Macedonians have been living in Macedonia a lot longer then the Modern Greeks have lived in Greece? Looking at the problem another way, why is the world not challenging these imposters for usurping the Greek heritage? If Macedonians have no right to the Macedonian heritage then surely the Modern Greeks have no right to the Greek heritage? We know that the Greeks acquired Greece and Greek occupied Macedonia under false pretences so why are we not putting all this on the table and making it part of the so-called “name negotiations” with Greece? “And, once again, we came to this often visited intersection; there are some very progressive Greeks who do not subscribe to this middle-age Greek thinking and who see the people in the Balkans living in peace and harmony—these are the true Greeks and then, there are newly created Greeks, those whose heritage has been wiped out and replaced with the newly "morphed" ethnicity "Greek-Macedonian". Since they—in this Greek created problem—stand to lose the most, they are the "true" Greek soldiers in the forefront fighting the battle. I am sure they wouldn’t dare dig deeper into their past because they will inevitably find "skeletons" which have another story to tell: their grandfathers did not even speak Greek nor did they share in these "Megali Idea" Greek dream. What they dreamed the most and with a heavy heart longed for, were their abandoned homes, forsaken culture and their way of life in their Asia Minor communities. Sooner than later all these Greek lies and fabrications will run their course and Europe will have no choice but to put an end to this Greek farce.” (Gandeto, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/98213 “Those who espouse extreme nationalist positions, claiming (as they invoke Alexander, Philip, and Aristotle) that the name of Macedonia is exclusively Greek and that there is no such thing as a Macedonian minority, are reacting to the exigencies of a perhaps genuine dangerous local situation in which their country faces potentially hostile neighbours on several fronts; but they are also

resuscitating the very logic that has always compromised their supposed independence to begin with – the logic according to which all the country’s modern claims must be evaluated by the yardstick of ancient history.” (Michael Herzfeld, “Anthropology - Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society”, pages 67 and 68). “It is a myth that the population exchange ensured an uncontested and harmonious national homogeneity or that the refugees became integrated into Greek society in an unproblematic way. The criterion used for the population exchange was that of religion, in line with the tradition of the millet system. In many instances the refugees could hardly speak Greek and many had been reluctant to leave their lands and home where they had lived for generations. Although the refugees from Asia Minor are collectively referred to as a single group, in fact they came from various cultural, linguistic, social and regional backgrounds.” (“Mediating the Nation - News, Audiences and the Politics of Identity” by Mirca Madianou, page 31)

Essay 24 – Education

Greek lobbyists and the Greek propaganda machine have been busy for the last couple of centuries ensuring that the “Greek point of view” is not only promoted but enforced everywhere in the world, particularly in the English speaking world. As a result today we have a world which believes Macedonians do not exist and everything that is Macedonian is Greek. As unbelievable and bizarre as this may sound, it is true. It all starts in school where children are taught to believe that Macedonians are Greek and as these children grow up and some become teachers, they in turn teach new children to believe that Macedonians are Greek and the cycle of lies continues. How do I know this? I have encountered it myself personally but that is not what compelled me to write about it. Just recently I received an angry e-mail from Pete Kondoff who you may know from the Canadian-Macedonian Historical Society in Toronto, Canada. He is one of its founders. Pete was angry because of what happened to his grandson at university. The problem began when the grandson’s professor asked the students for some background information in order for her to become better acquainted with them. When Mr. Kondoff’s grandson was asked for his ethnic background he replied, “Macedonian” to which his professor retorted, “Then you must be Greek!” Why would a professor at a prominent Canadian university think a Macedonian is “Greek”? Mr. Kondoff’s grandson is a 4th generation Canadian. The Kondoff family has been living in North America since the very early 1900’s, even before Macedonia was invaded and occupied in 1912 and partitioned in 1913 by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. So technically the Kondoff family has absolutely nothing to do with Greece. As a young man, Pete’s father immigrated to the United States while Macedonia was still occupied by the Ottoman Empire. To be corrected by his professor, who in fact went against his own beliefs, was not only a surprise but a shock to Pete’s grandson. What do you say to your professor who just made a huge mistake? I am sure this is a dilemma many Macedonians face not only in school but at their jobs and even at parties and outings. It is frustrating and sometimes worrisome. Do you argue with people and face ridicule because they “perceived you are ignorant of your own identity” or “do you accept what they say” and keep quiet and suffer desolation and humiliation in silence? Pete Kondoff and his wife Mary have been active participants in the Macedonian community all over North America since their youth. They

have fought for the rights of Macedonians all their lives and Pete, being an educator himself, was very angry about the incident. How could a professor at a Canadian university not know about the Macedonians? Worse, how could a Canadian professor use “Greek propaganda” against a Macedonian, perhaps even without knowing it? Why and how often does it happen? These are some of the questions which plague Mr. Kondoff? Now some of you may think “So what’s the big deal?” mistakes are made, it was a simple mistake what is the harm in that? Well, calling a Macedonian “Greek” is like calling a black person “a slave” or a North American indigenous person “a savage”. It is very degrading and hurtful and congers up unpleasant memories from painful past experiences. So why would a professor who would NEVER call a black person “a slave” or an indigenous person “a savage” call a Macedonian “Greek”? This thought has haunted Mr. Kondoff from the day he found out. Since the incident Pete Kondoff has been vigorously campaigning to inform the various universities and educators of this problem. Mr. Kondoff believes the problem is not with the educators themselves but with the educational system. For years information about the Macedonians has been compiled through Greece and the Greeks have been skewing it to fit their own agenda. With the advent of the “Classics” departments, Modern Greeks have been very influential in Western universities and have been responsible for compiling the history of the Balkans, particularly ancient history. Without any opposition from the Macedonians, Greeks have been revising history, naturally to their advantage, and unfortunately to the detriment of the Macedonians. The Greeks over the years have carefully positioned their “specific views” of who the Macedonians are as part of their history which Mr. Kondoff believes is intentionally done and designed to mislead the world about the Macedonians. It is one thing to harmlessly “exaggerate” a little to suit your agenda but yet another to use “exaggerations” in order to wipe out an entire culture and to rob it of its lands and heritage. If it is true that “the law is blind to ignorance” then “unknowingly spreading false information that contributes to the demise of a culture” would constitute “breaking the law”. Just because people don’t know they are telling lies does not mean they are not causing harm! Mr. Kondoff strongly believes that the educators themselves are victims of this “Greek propaganda” which has been taught in our schools for over a century. Mr. Kondoff strongly believes that our educators are ethical people who would NOT voluntarily spread anyone’s harmful propaganda if they knew that it was propaganda. The question here is

how do we inform our educators that some of what they are teaching our children may in fact be someone’s propaganda? No educator would call a Macedonian “Greek” if they knew the kind of atrocities the Greeks have committed against the Macedonians. No educator would ever call a Macedonian “Greek” if they knew the Geeks used and still use force to assimilate Macedonians for the purpose of eradicating the Macedonian identity and culture and usurping the Macedonians heritage. What intelligent and civilized person, who has devoted his or her life to teaching and to making our world a better place, would agree to promote Greek racist propaganda designed to rob Macedonians of their land, name, language and heritage if they knew that it was indeed propaganda? Most educators are dedicated to preserving cultures, not destroying them. Therefore it is imperative that we all understand that today’s Macedonians are the survivors of a brutal Greek cultural war waged against the Macedonians since 1912 and not just inside Greece but worldwide, a war that has cost Macedonians their lives, personal freedom, language, identity and dignity. These Macedonians are survivors of “cultural genocide” and not only deserve recognition but also respect for their suffering. It is indeed WRONG to call a Macedonian “Greek” as much as it is wrong to call a black person a slave. If you believe Greeks have done wrong to the Macedonians then please stop calling them “Greek”. They have their own identity, call them Macedonian! Please stop the abuse. Mr. Kondoff believes that the educational system must take responsibility for its own actions first by identifying and removing what is deemed “politically motivated propaganda” from their curriculums. If the universities care for the rights of all people then why not let their educators teach “the Macedonian experience”. If there are differences in opinion between Macedonians and Greeks then tell both sides of the story. It’s about time Macedonians are given an opportunity to tell their own side of the story. It is also about time that the world learns of another side of Greece and what it has done to (1) secure its own place in the world and (2) its use of its “place” as leverage to usurp Macedonia’s heritage. But our subject here today is not about “the history” itself but about how Greece has distorted history to deny the Macedonian people their identity, culture and basic human rights. By calling a Macedonian “Greek” you in effect unwittingly insult all Macedonians and deny them their most basic human right, the right to exist as Macedonians. A Macedonian knows he or she is not “Greek” and if you deny them the right to be Macedonian then what do you

expect them to be? Is it not enough that Macedonians suffered for a century under Greek oppression? Do we really need western university professors calling them “Greek”? When is the abuse going to end? I want to make it perfectly clear that we don’t blame the educators for teaching what they teach but at the same time we cannot just sit idly and witness our human rights being trampled. That is why we appeal to every reader to do their part and make sure their local school boards and universities are well aware of this problem. Macedonians are not “Greeks” and object to being called “Greek” because by calling them “Greek” you not only abuse and insult them but you unwittingly trample on their human rights. Macedonians have the right to call themselves Macedonian not only because they are Macedonian but because they have that right under international law. As much as we like to allow our professors the freedom to teach whatever they deem appropriate we also have the responsibility to protect the rights of those who are mistakenly misrepresented. It is our duty to also make sure “past wrongs” are corrected. Therefore we appeal to every educational institution to re-examine their policies regarding Macedonia and the Macedonians. We are well aware of the so-called “Greek contribution” to Western European culture but as Macedonians we too have our own experience with Greece and so far it has not been pleasant! “The Europeanisation of Mass Education and the Re-Writing of History A second area where EU officials have sought to invent Europe as a category of thought is in the education sector. This is summed up most vividly in the notion of ‘introducing the European dimension’ into national school curricula, textbooks, and university syllabuses. Central to the process of constructing any new political order is the mobilization of history and memory. As Anderson (1983), Gellner (1983) and Hobsbawm (1990) remind us, mass education – together with conscription, taxation and state violence – were the foremost technologies for inculcating nationalist consciousness among the peoples of the emergent nation states. For this reason, EU officials now emphasize the importance of re-writing history from a European perspective to challenge the nationalist bias of traditional ways of teaching and learning (Brugmans 1987). But what does history look like from this ‘European perspective’? Typically, EU historiography – like Seton-Watson’s view of European culture – represents the last 3,000 years of European history as a kind of moral success story: a gradual coming together in the shape of the European community and its institutions. According to this conception, European history is an evolutionary process that starts with

‘prehistory’ (where the key stages include Homo Erectus, megalithic civilization, the Neolithic revolutions and the bronze Age), before advancing to the age of classical antiquity. The result is that European identity is portrayed as the end product of a progressive ascent through history – albeit a highly selective history – from ancient Greece and Rome, to the spread of Christianity, the scientific revolution, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment and the triumph of liberal democracy. These key episodes thus become palimpsests for an essential European cultural community: a ‘core Europe’ whose common bonds lie in its shared heritage, moral ascendancy and cultural continuity. The EU’s choice of ‘ERASMUS’ and ‘SOCRATES’ as acronyms for its two major educational exchange programmes is a minor example of this. Another is the targeting of the Acropolis and Mount Athos as the two largest EU-funded projects within its ‘Conservation of Europe’s Archaeological Heritage’ initiative. French historians seem to have made a particularly noticeable contribution to the EU’s attempts to re-write history. For example, in one recent EU-sponsored history textbook Henri Brugman’s (former rector of the Collège d’Europe) has an essay entitled: ‘Europe : a common civilization, a destiny, a vocation’ (Brugmans 1987:11). In the same volume, George Pflimlin (1987:9) describes the last 3,000 years of European history as ‘le miracle européan’. Similarly the historian Hélène Ahrweiler argues that there does indeed exist ‘an essential Europe’: “All peoples (Valéry says ‘races’) and all lands which were in turn Romanized, Christianized and subjected – at least mentally – to Greek discipline, are thoroughly European…Everywhere where the names of Caesar, Caius, Trajan, and Virgil, everywhere where the names of Aristotle, Plato and Euclid have simultaneously held meaning and authority, that is Europe” (Ahrweiler 1999:32). The idea that European cultural unity is founded upon a shared ancient civilization is attractive to the architects of political integration and clearly informs much of their campaigning work. The problem with such a notion, however, is that it reifies an outdated idea of cultures as fixed, unitary and bounded wholes that is both sociologically outmoded and politically dangerous. As Pieterse (1951:5) states, ‘what is being recycled as “European culture” is nineteenth century elite imperial myth formation’. EU officials and image-makers, however, continue to draw on ‘classical’ images in their quest to identify the essential elements of European culture, and show little sensitivity towards post-colonial criticisms of Western orientalism. Typically, EU officials justify their attempts to promote the re-writing of history books to reflect the ‘European perspective’ on the grounds that this is necessary to combat the hegemony of nationalist

ideology, which they regard as the primary obstacle to European union. The result, however, is that nationalist ideology is simply substituted for a new ideology of ‘Europeanism’. For example, writing in a recent EU ‘information’ booklet Pascal Fontaine (Monet’s former chef de cabinet and Director of the Commission’s Information Office in Paris) charts the progress of the ‘European ideal’: “…in the nineteenth century, it was an inspiration for poets and romantics, only to be distorted by conquerors seeking to justify their lust for power. It did not come to full expression in practical form, however, until a handful of courageous, visionary statesmen determined to put a stop to the loss of life that seemed to be the inevitable outcome of conflicts between nation-states” (Fontaine 1991:5). The true saviours of Europe are thus not the leaders of the Resistance or the Allies, but Monnet, Spaaks, Schuman, De Gaspari and Adenauer: these ‘visionary statesmen’ have become the symbolic guardians and ancestors of the ‘European ideal’. But if Europe symbolizes peace and prosperity, the nation state is construed as an agent of conflict and war. To complete this heroic myth of itself, the EU has also produced a series of films and videos for distribution to schools, colleges and local authorities. These include ‘Jean Monnet, Father of Europe’, ‘A European journey’ (a jingoistic potted history of the various stages achievements and future of European integration); ‘The Tree of Europe’ ([a]n original feature which will make all Europeans aware of the common roots of their past’); and ‘After Twenty Centuries’, which surveys 2,000 years of European history and features Europeans’ ‘shared experiences at political, intellectual and cultural level’ (European Commission 1991:1-5). Jean Baptiste Duroselle’s (1990) volume, Europe, A History of Its Peoples, represents an even more ambitious attempt to re-configure history. This 416 page magnum opus – part textbook, part manifesto – reflects the historiography implicit in EC discourses on culture. Chapter one opens with the image of rape of the Greek Goddess ‘Europa’, and proceeds to discuss the geographical complexity and uniqueness of the continent (sic) of Europe. Chapter three describes the Celts and Teutons as the first Indo-Europeans. Chapter four proceeds under the heading ‘Classical Antiquity: Greek Wisdom, Roman Grandeur’. Chapter five (‘the First Four Centuries AD in the West’) is devoted exclusively to the expansion of Christianity. Chapter seven is a lengthy discussion of whether Charlemagne’s empire marks the ‘beginnings of Europe’. Chapter eight (‘Europe Under Siege’) opens with a vivid image of banner-waving Saracens on horseback - ‘European civilization’ thus being equated unequivocally with Christendom defending itself against

the resurgent forces of Islam. The book continues in a similar vein until Chapter seventeen (The Road to European Disaster’) which deals with nationalism. Chapter eighteen (‘Europe Destroys Itself’) which covers the period of 1914-1945, and finally chapter nineteen, ‘Europe’s Recovery and Resurgent Hopes’, which focuses on the ‘makers of Europe’ and the ‘building of Europe in the face of Gaullism’. The net result is that European history is presented as the story of reason and unity triumphing over disunity and nationalism – the apotheosis of the Enlightenment project, or what Wolf (1992:5) calls ‘history as a genealogy of progress’. It is invariably a selective, sanitized and typically heroic re-reading of the past, one that systematically excludes or ignores the less noble aspects of European modernity such as the history of slavery, anti-Semitism, colonialism or imperial conquest. The author’s conclusion that Europe’s history has been marked by a ‘general if halting growth in compassion, humanity and equality’ (Duroselle 1990:413), simply confirms this interpretation. History, it seems, is as much about ‘forgetting’ as it is about remembering and interpreting past events.” (“Europe Cultural Construction and Reality”, edited by Peter Niedermuller & Bjarne Skolund, pages 59 to 61). After reading the above, does anyone still think there is room in Western Europe for Macedonia? After what is said and done, do Macedonians really think they are welcome in the European Union?

Essay 25 – Assimilation

It is difficult to convince Macedonians that Greeks exist when most “Greeks” they know are in reality assimilated Macedonians, some their own relatives. There are hundreds of thousands of Macedonians today who will testify that they have family members who identify as “Greeks”. I too have extended family members who identify as “Greeks”. But how can they be “Greeks”, a supposedly unique ethnic group different than mine, when I know for a fact we share common great-grandparents whom I know were Macedonians? The so-called “Greeks” who today live in Greek occupied Macedonia are either assimilated Macedonians, like my extended relatives, or other assimilated, imported ethnic groups such as Vlachs, Albanians, Christian Turks, Russians, etc. The Greek government officially does not recognize any of the “ethnic groups” living anywhere in Greek occupied Macedonia, which has been a Greek practice since 1912 when Greece along with its partners Serbia and Bulgaria invaded, occupied and divided Macedonia. So in spite of Greek attempts to portray “Greek” as a “unique ethnicity” with roots extending back to ancient times, the word “Greek” is nothing more than an “umbrella” word that defines a criteria and a method by which various ethnic groups are assimilated and made into “Greeks”. “Greek” is not an ethnic term and to be “Greek” by choice one only needs to abandon their true “ethnicity”, name and language and accept a Greek name, the Greek language and subscribe to the “Hellenic club” of being a descendant of the ancient Greeks. In this essay we will examine the Greek assimilatory policies and practices put in place in Macedonia since the 1850’s in order to better understand how the “Greek identity” in Macedonia has been artificially created. What most Macedonians of the late 19th and early 20th century did not know is that the “Greeks” they encountered since the 1850’s were not “Greeks” at all but assimilated Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and other ethnic groups. Assimilation of ethnicities into the “Greek” fold did not just begin with the Macedonians; it was well practiced much earlier in the Peloponnesus, Epirus and Thessaly with the Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and other ethnicities living there. As we have shown in previous essays, “Hellenization” was invented in Western Europe by the Philhellenes and then first put into practice in the early 1800’s in the region of Greece today known as the Peloponnesus. The aim at the time was to drive out the Ottomans, establish a “Greek” state and resurrect the so-called “Greek civilization” which existed in that region some 2,500 years ago. What

the Philhellenes failed to understand or did not care at all is that the people living in that region at the time were not the descendents of the ancients but the descendents of Slav, Albanian and Vlach immigrants who had migrated into that region two millennia after the ancients disappeared. The Philhellene aim was to “enlighten” these immigrants and teach them to believe that they were the descendants of the ancients and by instilling in them the language and mannerisms of the ancients, make them their descendants. Surprisingly the process worked as many Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs bought into the idea and began to behave as if they truly were the descendents of the ancients. To make these people forget who they were and give them new identities, Greek authorities, with the help of their Philhellene patrons, introduced a new language, an ancient dead language, and renamed all people and place names to Greek sounding ones. To make them sound authentic and “survivours of time” wherever possible modern names were replaced with ancient ones. We know from old maps and documents that most of the villages and other place names in the Peloponnesus before the Greek state was created were of Slavic origin but by the end of the 19th century they were all changed to Greek sounding ones, a practice Greece later used in Macedonia during the 1920’s and 1930’s. By the time Greece occupied Macedonia in 1912 the people and place names in the Peloponnesus, Thessaly and Epirus were already changed. Assimilation and the process of Hellenization in Macedonia began in the early 1850’s with the introduction of the Greek Patriarchate Church. The process was accelerated in the late 1870’s after Macedonia was liberated from the Ottoman Empire by Russia and given back to the Ottomans by the Western Powers. When Greece realized that the Macedonian question was not settled and it knew it had a chance to grab Macedonian territories, it accelerated its policy of “Hellenizing Macedonians” through the introduction of more Patriarchate churches and Greek schools. Bulgaria did the same through the introduction of the Bulgarian Exarchate church and Bulgarian schools. Then when Macedonia was invaded occupied and partitioned during the 1912 and 1913 Balkan Wars, all three occupying states (Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria) began a process of forced assimilation. The first step that Greece took was to expel all Muslims from its Macedonian occupied territories. The second step was to expel all those who refused to abandon the Exarchate church in favour of the Patriarchate. The Greek army was given free reign to do whatever it wanted and as a result many Macedonians were killed, raped, tortured,