Part 1 - Introduction - Part 10

If God himself came to earth and spoke to the Greeks and said “these people here are Macedonians” the Greeks would not believe him. If Greeks start believing that Macedonians exist in Greece then they will also have to believe that Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs also exist in Greece. If Macedonians, Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs exist in Greece then Greeks will be asking “who then are the Greeks?” And as I have found out in my quest for “searching for the Greeks”, ethnically speaking, there are no Greeks. But how can that be? The entire world knows that there is a country called Greece populated by 10 million Greeks who are 98% pure Greeks and 2% Muslim Greeks! Well there are people who identify as “Greeks”, unfortunately, ethnically speaking they are not “ethnic Greeks”; they are “politically” Greeks. Did I just say “politically Greeks”? Yes politically Greeks. They identify as Greeks not because “they are” ethnic Greeks but because they “want to be” Greeks! It’s a matter of choice. How else can one explain Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Macedonians, Christian Turks, Armenians, Russians and a whole group of other ethnicities ALL identifying as “Greeks”? In other words, anyone can be Greek provided they agree with the “Philhellenic indoctrination” of what a Greek is. Anyone who speaks Greek, claims to be a descendent of the so-called Ancient Greeks, pretends to be superior to other people, claims minorities don’t exist in Greece, is arrogant and insensitive to non-Greeks and hurls slogans like “Macedonia is Greek” can be a Greek. Can an Asia Minor Christian Turk settler who was deposited in Macedonia in the 1920’s be a Greek? Yes they can! They can even be a Macedonian, descendent of the Ancient Macedonians! Can a Macedonian whose family identified as Macedonian before Greece annexed Macedonia in 1913 identify as a Greek? Yes they can, provided they accept and swear by the “Philhellene Indoctrination”. Can any of my relatives, like myself who were born in Greece, with whom I share great grandparents be Greeks even though I identify as a Macedonian? Yes they can! They can in fact also be “full fledged” Macedonians, direct descendents of the Ancient Macedonians! Can I be a Greek, and I did ask this question, on account of some of my family members identifying as Greeks? The answer was a flat NO! And according to the same “Greek authorities” who said I could never be a Greek, I don’t even qualify to call myself Macedonian. According to them I am a “Slav” and a “Skopjan” from some “other” country called “Skopje”, which I have yet to find on any “world” map except on maps made in Greece! If you are still not convinced that the Greek identity is a 19th century Philhellene fabrication; an identity “created” purely for political purposes, then you had best read the following twenty-five excerpts; 1. “There were, however, several magnificent specimens of Greek palicars, who added to the advantage of soldier like, but rather swaggering carriage, all the accessories of their picturesque costume. Nine or ten of them performed the Albanian national dance, to the sound of a bad fiddle and a jingling guitar played with a quill for the amusement of her majesty, who did not seem enchanted with this exhibition. And these men, who were exposing themselves in this absurd manner, were the far-famed Colocotroni, Nikitas, surnamed the Turkofagos, or Turk eater, Makryani, Vasso of Montinegro, Nota Botsaris, and other equally celebrated.” (“Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, Vol. XLIII, January – June 1838) 2. “When Athens was chosen as the site for the modern capital of the new nation, and its (re)construction was planned along lines of Hellenic purity, the unsettling evidence of Greece’s Ottoman heritage along with local vernacular forms had to be confronted, all the more so when situated in the immediate vicinity of remains of classical antiquity. Early nineteenth-century Athens was viewed as a ‘disgraceful site’ (Boyer 1996: 163) full of imperfections, ranging from the city’s physical aspect to the spoken language that called for, ‘filtering-out’ interventions.”

(“Contested Landscapes Movement, Exile and Place”, Edited by Barbara Bender and Margot Winer, page 23) 3. “In 1851, at the time of her enfranchisement, Greece possessed about one million inhabitants, of whom a quarter were Albanians or Walachians. The population was a residue of invaders of all peoples, and notable of Slavs. For centuries the Greeks properly so called had disappeared from Greece. From the time of the Roman conquest, Greece was regarded by every adventurer as a nursery of slaves, which everyone might have recourse to with impunity.” (“The Psychology of Socialism”, by Gustav Lo Bon, page 206) 4. “The Greek influence which has partially Hellenized the Vlachs of Macedonia to-day can hardly date from before the Turkish conquest. It is the work not of the Byzantine Empire but of the modern Church, and seems to have reached its height during the eighteenth century.” (“Macedonia its races and the future”, by H. N. Brailsford , page 181) 5. “Greek statesman said Albanian was not a language – it had no literature, not even an alphabet - it is a mere patois, and would die out in a generation, and the children of the Albanian soldiers and sailors would all be good Greeks.” (“The Catholic Presbyterian an International Journal Ecclesiastical and Religious”, vol. II, July – December 1879, edited by Professor W. G. Blaikie D.D., L.L.D., F.R.S.E., page 319). 6. “ We have many instances of the daring of these Greek robbers, one of which I shall here relate, as received from their chief, no less a personage than Colocotroni, who was in our service, and has since, as may be remembered, made himself conspicuous in Greece. He is an Albanian, and, as he acknowledges, a kleftis (robber).” (“Selections from my Journal during a residence in the Mediterranean”, pages 110 and 111) 7. “…the historical absurdity of declaring Hellenic civilization the expression of a culture uncontaminated by foreign elements can be explained by a simple fact that tends to be disregarded – namely, that Hellenic civilization that we know it was in effect the invention of the ‘Science of Antiquity’, of Classics. As such, it could have been (and was) endowed with whatever signification the discipline found useful.” (“Dream Nation Enlightenment, Colonization and the Institution of Modern Greece”, by Stathis Gourgouris, page 134) 8. “After successive treaties, (London 1913, Bucharest 1913), Greece acquired much of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete and the north-eastern islands of the Aegean. Greek land increased by 70 percent and the population almost doubled from 2,800,000 to 4,800,000 some of whom were Slavs and Turks.” (“Entangled Identities Nations and Europe”, Edited by Atsuko Ichijo and Willfried Sohn, page 112) 9. “Yet so much of the Sclavonian element had been infused into the latter that the modern Greeks are found to differ widely from their remote ancestors.” (“Foreign Quarterly Review”, Vol. XXVI, 1841, page 73) 10. “…the question of Greece’s political and ethnic status generated a considerable amount of debate in western Europe. As Michael Herzfeld argues in ‘Ours once more: Folklore, Ideology and the Making of Modern Greece’: ‘to be a European, was in ideological terms, to be a Hellene’ (1982: 15). Many Europeans of the time, however, believed the contemporary Greeks to be an adulterated version of the Classical Greeks – ‘Byzantine Slavs…” (“Grafting Helen The Abduction of the Classical Past”, Matthew Gumpert, pages 239 and 240) 11. “…since the Greeks are a composite people among whom the descendents of the veritable Greek of old are in a great minority. The majority are of Albanian and Solute blood, races which even the Romans found untamable.” (“In Greek Waters: a Story of the Grecian War of Independence (1821-1827)”, By G.A. Henty, 1893, page 40) 12. “General interest was first aroused by a controversy as to the racial derivation of modern Greeks. The War of Independence had won the sympathy of Europe; and it was a rude shock both to Greece and her champions when Fallmerayer announced that her inhabitants were virtually Slavs.

The race of the Hellenes, he declared in his ‘History of Morea’, was routed out and Athens was unoccupied from the sixth to the tenth century. Only its literature and a few ruins survived to tell that the Greek people ever existed. What the Slavs had begun the Albanians had completed.” (“History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century”, by G.P. Gooch, pages 490 and 491) 13. “Old Corinth passed through its various stages, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Turkish. After the War of Independence it was again Greek, and, being a considerable town, was suggested as the capital of the new Kingdom of Greece. The earthquake of 1858 leveled it to the ground with the exception of about a dozen houses. A mere handful of the old inhabitants remained on the site. But fertile fields and running water made it attractive; and outsiders gradually came in. At present, it is an untidy poverty-stricken village of about 1,000 inhabitants, mostly of Albanian Blood.” (“The Encyclopedia Britannica” Eleventh edition, Vol. VII, 1910, page 148) 14. “The modern Greeks possess none of the qualities which make nations great. Their existence is due to the battle of Navarino, for in the autumn of 1827 Greece was unquestionably conquered by the arms of the Grand Vizier Reshid Mehmed and by Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, and again the ‘untoward event’ of Navarino could only occur at a time when Phil-Hellenism was a sort of social disease, caused by hallucinations and by the illusion of finding in the present a mongrel inhabitants of the Morea and Attica the descendents of the ancient Hellenes.” (“The Syrian War and the decline of the Ottoman Empire (1840-1848)”, by Byron Augustus Jochmus, page 100) 15. “The notion of a ‘Greek’ identity in the modern sense is itself in large part the creation of the movement towards statehood. It was not until the nineteenth century that the term came to describe a homogenous ethnic group in the modern sense. Instead, the people of the Peloponnesos, including Argolida, made up an intricate mosaic of ethnicities and languages. In Argolida dialects of Albanian, Greek, Turkish and other local languages were spoken (Andromedas 1976).” (“Blood and Oranges Immigrant Labour and European Markets in Rural Greece”, by Christopher M. Lawrence, page 12) 16. “…Greek national feeling was already quite strong at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Even the Albanian-speaking Orthodox did not regard themselves only as Rum (members of the religious community or Orthodox Christian millet) but also as real Greeks.” (“From Geopolitics to Global Politics”, editor Jacques Levy, page 174) 17. “…he devoted his personal attention exclusively to the latter, assigning Joannina to his son-in-law, Thomas Preliubovich, in 1367, and Aetolia and Akarnania to two Albanian chiefs, belonging to the clan Boua and Liosa – a name still to be found in the plans of Attica. Thus, about 1362, all north-west Greece was Albanian…” (“The Latins in the Lavant a History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566), by William Miller M.A., 1908, page 294) 18. “Overrun by the Goths and Vandals, it became a pay, by the second half of the 8th c., to bands of Slavic invaders, who found it wasted by war and pestilence. Gradually however, these barbarians were subdued and Grecianized by the Byzantine Emperors. Nevertheless the numerous names of places, Rivers, etc., in the Morea of Slavic origin, prove how firmly they had routed themselves, and that the Moreotes are anything but pure Greeks.” (“The International Encyclopedia a Compendium of Human Knowledge”, edited by Richard Gleeson Green, 1890, page 204) 19. “…between a cheer and a whine, and presently their Imperial Majesties of Greece, cantered up the hill attended by four dignitaries, and as many equerries. The queen was dressed in a dark green riding-habit, black beaver with drooping feather, and veil. King Otho wore the Albanian costume of crimson, gold embroidered jacket and legs, white fustanela, with a richly chased saber belted over his shoulder.”

(“Scampavians from Gibil Tarek to Stamboul”, by Harry Gringo, 1857) 20. “There was little interest as to the nationality of the Rayahs while Turkish rule was strong. They were nearly all Christians of the Byzantine type, those in Europe at least, and were hence regarded as one people, for oriental theocracy cannot conceive nationality apart from religion. They themselves know the difference in their origins and in such traditions as they had: some were Slavs, some Vlachs and some Albanians…; they were all non-Muslims, all Rayahs, and in a sense all Greeks.” (“Political Science Quarterly”, Columbia University, 1908, page 307) 21. “The revolution of 1821 has restored the ancient appellation ‘Elines’, but as it is used chiefly by the inhabitants of Bavarian Greece, who perhaps don’t constitute more than one fourth of the Greek nation, it may safely be said that the mass of the people still call themselves ‘Romaii’ and their language ‘Romaiki’.” (“A Romaik Grammar”, by E.A. Sophocles, 1842, page iv) 22. “From their manners, their features and their names of many of their neighbouring places, I should be tempted to regard them [Mainiotes] proceeding of Sclavonian blood: many travelers pretend, however, to have discovered in these barbarous hordes traces of a Spartan origin.” (“Recollections of a Classical Tour through various parts of Greece, Turkey and Italy made in the years 1818 and 1819”, by Peter Edmund Laurent, 1821, page 182) 23. “The Greeks have not taken much interest in their past until Europeans became enthusiastic discoverers and diggers of their ruins. And why should they have cared? The Greeks were not Greek but rather the illiterate descendents of Slavs and Albanian fishermen who spoke a debased Greek dialect and had little interest in the broken columns and temples except as places to graze their sheep. The true philhellenists were the English – of whom Byron was the epitome – and the French, who were passionate to link themselves to the Greek ideal.” (“The Pillars of Hercules” by Paul Thereoux, page 316) 24. “…Neohellenic Enlightenment sanctioned a selective tradition, with particular emphasis upon an imaginary classical antiquity, and sought to suppress what was deemed to be a ‘non-significant tradition’, mainly the Byzantine and Ottoman legacy. Through this ideological management of the past, it achieved the displacement of a substance part of the history, memory and experience of those it sought to shape into modern Greeks.” (“Tormented by History Nationalism in Greece and Turkey”, by Umut Oskirimu and Spiros A. Sofos, page 24) 25. “There are two other difficulties involved in the history of the Turkish period. In tracing the movements of merchandise and men in the Balkan peninsula it is extremely difficult to differentiate the various races involved. Western travelers knew little, Turkish authorities cared less. Even the polyglot Vlachs themselves knew nor cared a great deal and until the rise of national conciousness at the end of the eighteenth century were probably quite happy with the label of Greek, which was good enough for outside observers.” (“The Vlachs the History of a Balkan People”, by T.J. Winnifrith, pages 124 and 125) So, what have we learned from the 75 authors I have presented so far? Fifty at this link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101938 and 25 more in this article? Well, we have learned that the Greek identity is not an “ethnic identity” at all but rather a “politically motivated artificial identity” created by the 19th century Philhellenes to serve some greater political purpose. We have learned that the 19th century Greeks, recent ancestors to today’s Greeks, were not “ethnic Greeks” at all. The majority belonged to the Slav, Albanian, Vlach and later Macedonian ethnic groups. In other words they became “Greek” either by force or by choice. This cannot be disputed! What can be disputed however is the ownership of a heritage that does not belong to the Modern Greeks. For example Modern Greeks cannot claim the heritage of the so-called “ancient Greeks” as their own just because they call themselves “Greeks” and learned to behave like the Ancient Greeks.

This is like saying that I can claim my neighbour’s father’s house if I changed my last name to match his and pretend to be my neighbour’s brother. Can I legally do that? Can I one day show up at my neighbour’s house and say “I am your brother and this house is mine”? Wouldn’t I have to prove my descent from the man I claim to be my father? Well this is exactly what the Greeks are doing! With the help of a bunch of Westerners, they usurped the Ancient Greek heritage, which does not belong to them, and now they think they are the owners of Greece. Ah, but that’s not all! Since they annexed a large chunk of Macedonian land in 1913 by war, they also usurped the Macedonian heritage, that is, until they were challenged by the real Macedonians. They usurped the Macedonian heritage the same way they usurped the Greek heritage by “pretending” to be Macedonians, descendents of the Ancient Macedonians and by pushing the real Macedonians out into extinction. How clever is that? I don’t think any Macedonian cares what the Greeks call themselves, who they are and who they “pretend” to be but they sure care when these “pretenders” try to lay claim to the Macedonian heritage especially at the expense of the real Macedonians! Sharing the ancient heritage is one thing but claiming it to be exclusively theirs, especially since it can be proven that they are imposters, is another. We are faced with two problems when dealing with this issue. First, the Modern Greeks are not Greeks at all. They call themselves Greeks not because they are Greeks but because they want to be Greeks. There are benefits to being Greek. There is a country “Greece” to call their own, which should never have been created in the first place because such a country never existed before. Then there is that illustrious past with all its glory which should never have been “assigned” to a people who had nothing to do with it. Second, these same people were not only allowed to annex 51% of Macedonia but were given full rights to “assimilate” the Macedonian people, turning them into Greeks, and usurping the Macedonian heritage as their own. Hence the slogan “the Ancient Macedonians were Greek” therefore “the Modern Macedonians must also be Greek”. But wanting to be Greeks is not the same as “being” Greeks. Just because one “wants to be a Greek” does not mean one has the right to lay claim to the Ancient Greek heritage just as I have no right to lay claim to my neighbour’s house just because I “want” to be his brother! This leads to the very important legal question; if these people are Greek because they want to be Greek and they are Macedonian because they want to be Macedonian, then legally what right do they have to either the Ancient Greek heritage or to the Ancient Macedonian heritage? Given that we have proven that the Modern Greeks are “not Greek at all” what moral and legal right do they have to interfere in the affairs of the Macedonian people? More importantly, as Macedonians and rightful heirs to the Macedonian heritage, why are we allowing these imposters to interfere in our affairs? Isn’t it about time to tell them to “hit the road and mind their own business”? On the so-called “name dispute” Osiris wrote: The only name that is logical and natural for Macedonia is Macedonia! We as people are of Macedonia, which has been called Macedonia for at least two millennia, and that is beyond dispute. All other names are politically inspired propaganda coming from our Balkan neighbours which are debatable and will never be resolved because they are based on conflicting historical myths. The fact that all our neighbours covet the remaining piece of Macedonia tells us that they all want it for themselves, and would do and say anything to get it even destroy an independent Macedonia. They incorporated it into their own nation. It seems like its 1900’s all over again; a political Balkan ground hog day. By Osiris from www.maknews.com/forum/ Part 29 – My fascination with Greeks?

A lot of you have written to me over the last six months asking “what is my fascination with the ‘Greeks’, why do I write ‘denigrating’ things about them and am I jealous of them or something?” Let’s say that I know more about the “real” Modern Greeks than the average person and I can tell you that if writing about them is “denigrating” then so be it! As far as being jealous, how can one be jealous of a “fictitious” identity such as the Modern Greek one? Being fascinated with the Greeks? Is that a “Greek wish” to have “outsiders” even your opponents, be fascinated with your “fictitiousness”? “It was never my intention to delve into the modern history of Greece, but the Greeks kept on and on with their bull-crap about who I am and who I have the right to be so I felt it was time to discover who these fanatics were, and lo and behold I found they were not who they pretended to be, but I still don’t care, I am happy for them to claim they are Greek all I expect in return is they afford me and my people the same rights they claim for themselves.” (Osiris from http://www.maknews.com/forum) What can I say; Osiris beat me to the punch! He expressed exactly how I feel! There is no fascination, only the necessity to fight back and defend our Macedonian identity the only way Greeks can understand; by attacking theirs! Greeks, your identity is not as solid as you think; it is not a solid sphere made of stainless steel as you portray it to be; your identity is more like a fruit, a polished “dark-red” apple with an amazing tantalizing shiny red skin and all rotten inside. When you bite into it you think you are going to get a sweet juicy alluring apple-taste but instead you get a brown rot filled with bitterness! No thank you. I’d rather be “real” and take my chances at being who I am; Macedonian, no matter how difficult it has proven to be! Here is another excerpt from yet another “Westerner” and “impartial” observer on the formation of your “artificial” Greek identity; “Within the context of romanticism, the term ‘Philhellenism’ refers generally to a love of Greece, foundational to which were the beliefs that Greece had a direct cultural link to Western Civilization as a whole, and that, concomitantly, the ‘modern Greeks’ (that is the Greeks of the Ottoman and modern periods) were the direct descendents, biologically and culturally, of the ancient Greeks. In its most specific sense, philhellenism refers to the nineteenth-century historical phenomenon of western Europeans (largely British, French and German) rallying behind the Greek struggle of independence from Ottoman rule (1821-30). The link between philhellenic sentiment and the Greek War of Independence was evident in the numerous cases of western Europeans contributing money, materials, and in some cases manpower to the Greek effort. In the specifically Romantic context, it was evident in the turn-of-the century efflorescence, of paintings, works of literature, and musical compositions with a central Hellenic theme. A famous visual instance of this Romanticist artistic fascination with Greece is the frontispiece to Marie Gabriel, Comte de Choiseul-Goufier’s 1782 voyage Pittoresque de la Grece, an engraving entitled ‘Greece in chains’, in which Greece, allegedly as a beautiful but manacled woman, reclines upon a tomb in a cemetery dotted with monuments to such great men of antiquity as Lycurgus, Miltiades, and Themistocles. The image captures perfectly the Romantic vision of Greece as noble but faded, glorious yet much reduced, enslaved but poised to be free once more. Also quintessential of Romantic Philhellenism is the explicit link the image draws between the modern Greeks of the late Ottoman period and the Hellenic greats of antiquity. In the years just prior to and during the Greek War of Independence, countless such images were in wide circulation in Western Europe – the most famous perhaps, being, those of Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), the consummate representative of French Romantic philhellenism.

This cultural trend worked hand in hand with the political development in the Ottoman Empire to fuel growing interests within Europe for Greece and the modern Greeks. While the travel accounts penned by ‘grand tourists’ were hugely popular, the apparent military and economic decline of the Ottoman Empire commanded huge attention, particularly in Britain, which felt that British imperial fortunes were tied to the political status quo. While the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), which concluded the Napoleonic Wars, emphasized the need to keep the Ottoman Empire intact, growing numbers of Philhellenes felt that the special cultural link between Greece and the West demanded intervention on behalf of the Greeks under Ottoman rule. In this debate, philhellenic position would ultimately dominate, with Britain ending up a major backer of the Greek struggle and the subsequently formed Greek state. The wide circulation of a number of Western works which had as their central theme the exoticisms and depravities of the Ottomans (and the plight of the noble Greeks who suffered beneath their rule) furthered the scope of philhellenism, to the extent that general sentiment in Europe gradually overcame the initial political position of European governments regarding the Greek War of Independence. Lord Byron, Francois August Rene de Chateaubriand and Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe are the best known creators of such works, but a veritable plethora of lesser-known, musical, literary and artistic figures followed the themes popularized by them. Philhellenism is properly understood as a reflection not of any reality concerning Greece and the Greeks, but rather as the manifestation of a purely European, and not entirely magnanimous, impulse. That is to say, the passionate response with which the Greek War of Independence was met in the West was less a reflection of European love of the modern Greeks than of European love of the idea that Western Civilization as a whole could be traced back to Pericles-era Athens.” (“Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era 1760 – 1850”, edited by Christopher John Murray, Volume 2 L-Z index, page 872). It is not common to create “ethnic identities” for “political reasons” in order to have a modern civilization mimicking a dead and long gone culture. Ethnic identities are living and vibrant entities that grow and evolve over time and are naturally bound together without “politically motivated” pressures. One cannot create an instant “ethnic identity” just as one cannot create an instant family by putting a bunch of strangers together and calling them grandparents, parents and children. A fake “ethnic identity” is like a fake family which has no real relationships, no real family tree and no real history. It’s made up, like the Brady Bunch on television, to serve a specific purpose! But behind the scenes each individual person belongs to a “real” family, has a “real” mother and father and a “real” family tree and history. Sort of like the various ethnic groups, the Slavs, Albanians, Macedonians, Asia Minor Christian Turks and other ethnicities constituting the fictional “Greek” family. If there was a purpose for Europeans to “feel Greek” at one time, as per the quote above, that “feeling” is no longer there so then I ask you, “What is the purpose of Greece today?” Does it serve as a “model of Civilization for the New Europe?” Or is Greece a “remnant” of something “old and embracing” whose time has long passed and should have, like the dinosaurs, died a long time ago? The world is evolving like it should and in more cases than not, taking steps forward, but not Greece. The more Greece moves forward the more it falls behind. Greeks, the need to pretend to be “ethnically homogeneous” is no longer there. There is no need to pretend to be superior, arrogant, or “better” than your neighbour. Frankly nobody cares about your obsessions. Like all things in life, everything has its time and the time for “pretending” is over. It’s time to face reality and take your place with the rest of the world!

You realize that your “fake” identity would have never been revealed had you done the right thing and accepted the Macedonian identity for what it is. Through the stubbornness of your political leaders you not only “wiped out” the image of your “Greek-ness” that you spent two centuries building but you have revealed to the world your true “racist” selves which you had managed to hide for over two centuries now. But, this is only the beginning, next will come the “revelation” of the atrocities that you have committed against the Macedonian and other people who lived and died in agony in Greece since those lands became a country for the first time in 1829. After all that is revealed, how many people in the world do you think will see Greece as the “cradle of democracy” or as the birthplace of the “European Civilization” as opposed to “the cradle of oppression and racism”? Greece was built as a country and the modern Greeks were paraded as “the cradle of European Civilization” for a single purpose; to show the world that “Western Europe” was not only “civilized” but far superior to the rest. Europeans found a model in the “Ancient City States” that not only “explained” their “imperialistic war like behaviour” but venerated it and made it “okay” to “enslave” people and “colonize” their lands. Politically Greece, the way it is today, is an “ancient relic” whose time has expired and belongs in a museum together with “Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany”! But it is never too late to “evolve” peacefully and bring positive change with “amends” to past mistakes! And now I leave you with this;

Dear All,

I am drawing on my 'Macedonian experience' here to guide both my aim to end the “Name” negotiations between Greece and Macedonia immediately, and to bring to light a movement for change in Macedonia, and elsewhere. There are issues of human rights at stake, our Macedonian nationality happens to be at stake, and issues of power at play. It is a simple point, but one that needs to be made. The fact is that as Macedonians we are a legal entity, we have our Republic of Macedonia, and we are certainly legitimate. We are recognized by over 125 countries, and with time that number will rise. Our institutions will in time receive the due recognition they deserve, and have coming to them. It is simply a matter of time. Both this government and UMD in Washington have over reached. The value and weight they place on "membership" is not justified. A far more sensible look at the situation suggests that the Macedonian economy and nationality can gain as much, and far more, by pursuing bilateral relations. Good economic relations will have positive political outcomes for the Macedonian Republic, but the shortsightedness of the government suggests it has panicked, or failed to consider alternative workable strategies with real long term benefits. The current line of thinking that we cannot claim to be complete as a legal and legitimate nationality, until we have attained EU and/or NATO membership, is also a dangerous, and irresponsible train of thought. It needs to be justified, or put to rest immediately, both in the government, and at the lunatic fringe of the Diaspora. What recent experience demonstrates is that we can have most of the benefits offered by these organizations, and 'not' be an official member of them, or irresponsibly risk our Macedonian nationality to get there. I believe the time has come for another change in our approach to the "problem". The fact is that the Macedonians do not pose a military threat to Greece, and they do not pose an economic threat to Greece. The "threat" if one is to be identified here, is perhaps political, or ideological. It is worth recalling another fact. The Macedonians respect and recognize unreservedly the sovereignty of the Greek State, and its right to self determination. Is it too much to ask the Greeks to in turn do the same? What can we glean from this fact about the nature of the current "dispute"? The "problem" if we need to identify one (and I believe we do), is an issue internal to Greece. The long standing issues Greece has with its landscape, is the issue. It is simply exporting its policies that have subjugated various communities in Greece, for 150 years over the border. But this is not intended to be a backward looking historical exercise. My point is this. For there to be peace Greece must change, not the Macedonians. There is another key point to be made here. For Greece to change, the EU must change. That is unlikely to happen in the short term. This last point raises the question of who or what are we up against here - Greece, or the EU, or both? There is the "system" of negation to consider here. My advice would be that it is not "smart" to engage an entire system at one point on the surface of it, believing that one can change the whole system, beneath and behind it. The political will and the power, the amount of resources Greece has mobilized to turn our "non-existence" into a metaphoric and transformative reality is vast, and old. It is a system rooted in the policies and practice of Europe, against the Macedonians going back a hundred years. Consider for example, the recent statement by an EU official, who referred to us as "Northern Macedonia". We cannot, and should not try to take on these old social structures. As long as Greece stays the way it is, we will always have problems. It would be far more sensible and logical to bring the faults of Greece to the attention of the EU (and highlight the faults of the EU in that way). But for that to happen, we need to be principled.

We need to ask that our sovereignty and our rights, be respected. I want to add another aspect in this survey for political change. Macedonian democracy respects the cultural rights of its various communities. Greece does not. The attitude in Macedonia is that these communities enrich its society, rather than threaten it. In Greece, everyone and everything is a threat. Now, given this fact - why does the EU insist on "blocking" Macedonia? If we were to measure the quality of a State by how it treats its minorities, and based EU membership on those criteria, Macedonia would be at the top of the list. The point to be made here is that the EU is not a functional organization. Its uneven-handedness, and even ridicule of Macedonia and its institutions, is about favoring Greece - not about diligence or compliance. Shouldn't there be a protocol in the EU that states that members, whose human rights practices are not up to standard, have their privileges 'suspended'? There are many possibilities we could pursue here. The EU, and the UN, have both taken positions that are contrary to their Charters, and have shown to favor aggressive, irrational member states, over obedient, compliant ones. Why would we want to be a 'member' in principle - of that? As Macedonians, we are ideological outlaws, in a very small circle of nations. There is the rest of the world at our fingertips. We have our nation now, and we have our nationality. Are we going to let all that generations of Macedonians have accomplished, and sacrificed, end in a terrible disaster? Why are we putting our nationality at risk? There are native movements all over the world who would love to be in our position, and defend their nationality with all of their might and power. I can think of the Palestinians, for starters. Why risk it? We have seen that individuals are willing to do that. I would call them reckless, and more dangerous than anything an enemy has been able to throw at us. The only people who can take our nationality away from us, are the Macedonians (and if it comes to a second referendum, the Albanians I am certain, will have the final say in the matter). This last event is completely lost on people, but it will eventuate. Will our fight for a Macedonian nationality end in a historical scenario where we no longer have one? We must rethink whether "membership" is justified and right for us, when clearly we can enjoy many of the benefits of being an EU member, without actually having to negotiate our nationality and put all at risk, to get there. By Paul from http://www.maknews.com/forum. Part 30 – Who writes my books?