Return to: Home | Life & Society | Society

24 comments from readers

dog
10 April 2008 at 10:04

A little more information is needed even to begin to explain this issue to readers:

The loosely defined geographical region of Macedonia was the last region in Europe to be controlled by the Ottoman Empire. In the late 19th century, the new states of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, seeing the imminent collapse of the Ottoman Empire, competed in laying claim to the cultural and future political identity of the inhabitants of the region. They competed through their churches and church-schools and, finally, with their soldiers. It was in their interests to deny a separate identity to the people of this region and they still deny that identity today.

For hundreds of years the Christian inhabitants of this region, mostly peasants who had never belonged to a state, would not have identified themselves as a nation. They spoke a language which they knew was different from Greek and Serbian, that was close to Bulgarian but with significant differences. When bullied into answering as to their affiliations by churchmen or soldiers, they would give the answer the bully required.

It was the brutal tactics of the agents of the neighbouring states and the manipulations of the Great Powers which paradoxically convinced the few educated inhabitants that the best interests of people in the region was to seek autonomy/independence as 'Macedonia'. These calls were first articulated from the 1870s onwards and were fiercely, murderously, contested by Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. It is a complex story, but as far as Agean Macedonia goes it is a case of decades-long ethnic cleansing of 'Bulgarophones' from the area they aspired to make northern Greece. (The lands of the Slav-speaking inhabitants of what became northern Greece were subsequently taken over by a million plus Greek refugees from Asia Minor after Greece's failed war against Turkey.)

Remaining Slavs in northern Greece were prominent amongst the Communists in the Greek Civil War--their only hope of remaining in Greece lay with the Communists. At the end of that war, the last great wave of ethnic cleansing was implemented: thousands of Slav speaking children were deported (separated form their families forever) across the world).

Greece has pursued a nationalism based on total unity: no minorities were to be recognised, its ethnic cleansing atrocities were to be denied. To effect this, the very existence of 'Macedonians' had to be denied.

The story is far more complex than this, but this is essentially the basis of Greek and Bulgarian policies today.

Irridentist calls in Macedonia are almost non-existent. There is anger at Greece's role in the impoverishment of Macedonia, it refusals to recognize the existence of Macedonians and its refusal to consider compensation for properties confiscated in Greek Macedonia, but no-one in MAcedonia sanely envisages any confrontation with Greece. This threat is worked up in Greece to win votes in northern Greece--a nationalist card that neither large party can afford to ignore.

Sadly, Greek arrogance in its negation of Macedonian identity has led to a somewhat embarrassing reaction in Macedonia in the form of Greek-style identity-building based on spurious claims to continuity with ancient Macedonia and Alexander the so-called Great--but that is populist nonsense which Greece chooses to be provoked by in furtherance of its equally preposterous claims to continuity with ancient Greece.

dienekes
10 April 2008 at 12:59

Helena Smith writes: "After all, if there is a Macedonian language, there can surely be a Macedonian people and a Macedonian state."

The Macedonian language was the language of the ancient Macedonians, most probably a dialect of Greek. The language spoken in FYROM is a dialect of Bulgarian, which belongs to the Slavic family.

dog writes: "but that is populist nonsense which Greece chooses to be provoked by in furtherance of its equally preposterous claims to continuity with ancient Greece."

The evidence for continuity with ancient Greece is significant, but I will comment on a single point: Greeks speak Greek, while the inhabitants of FYROM do not speak the Macedonian language. Hence, the claim that Greek and "Macedonian" claims to continuity are _equally_ preposterous is false.

milosevv
10 April 2008 at 13:06

70 years a go, Hitler labeled the Austrians and the Dutch as artificial nations created by German enemies in order to steal German land and historic heritage.

Today Greece says that Macedonians are artificial nation in order to steal Greek land and heritage.

Where is the difference?

The swastika poster was an art exhibition poster where the artist on the modified Greek flag put a family photo of his Family who was clensed from Greece in the late 1940s and who is not allowed to enter Greece anymore. Such a strong and graphic message was needed to make Greece facing with its own skeletons in its closet.

There is NO argument that can justify violation of a basic right from the United Nations Human Rights Charter - a freedom of self identification and self expressing. What Greece does is violating this UN Charter by imposing to another nation names and rules of their self-identification.

postpost
10 April 2008 at 13:14

"but that is populist nonsense which Greece chooses to be provoked "

I'm not sure...By populist nonsense you mean official bank notes with foreign territory and presidential antics?

By the way never understood why exactly you oppose Upper Macedonia? And why you chose an ancient empire name for a modern state? Is Italy called Roman Empire or Greece Hellenic world?

David Edenden
10 April 2008 at 13:27

Greece's treatment of its ethnic Macedonian minority is the inspiration for every racist, every facist and every ethnic cleanser in the Balkans.

It is not enough to try to either explain or condemn Greece's human rights violations. It is also necessary to condemn Nato and the EU since Greece is a member of both organizations. Greece's values regarding minority rights are also Nato and EU values.

(Memo to the Serbs of Kosovo, see the plight of ethnic Macedonian in Greece to see your future under "Nato and EU human rights guarantees.)

|Helena, Noel Malcolm wrote about the Macedonians in Greece in THE NEW BULLY OF THE BALKANS, The Spectator" of 15th of August, 1992. Nothing has changed.

I suggest you read it and weep!

postpost
10 April 2008 at 13:31

seriously can someone answer my questions? trying to have a dialogue-the bully me.

milosevv
10 April 2008 at 13:33

To postpost:

Thessaloniki and the Aegean Macedonia played a crucial role into the birth of the modern MAcedonian nation and state. The Macedonian Revolutionary Organization was created in 1897 in Thessaloniki, and all major Macedonian intellectuals lived and worked in Thessaloniki at the end of the 19th and early 20th Century. The Aegean Macedonia is part of the history of the modern day Macedonia and that is why it is mentioned in the History books and the White tower of Thessaloniki was put into the Macedonian paper money. There is absolutely no claims of any "liberation" , that is a silly argument.

You have to take into consideration that according to the census of 1917, the Greek were MINORITY in Aegean Macedonia, people lived and worked there so you cannot simply delete this heritage and re-define it.

The terms "Macedonian language" and "Macedonians" have no relation with ancient history, the people who lived there simply started to call themselves like that - then the Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek soldiers were not around .

If Greece and the Greek people take a bit more open minded approach, then they will see that the Macedonian heritage can be a vital bridge of frendship between these two nations

postpost
10 April 2008 at 13:50

I dont know about the sillyness of the liberation argument.

I know that the Greeks were the minority but Jews and Turks consisted the rest with not huge quantitative differences from the latter two as portrayed for example at the Salonica City of Ghosts by an American I think author.

The connection of some of your intellectuals that were in Thessaloniki is just absurd. I cant imagine what the reactions would be with Hagia Sophia in our bank notes. A PURELY territorial issue! That would an extreme nationalistic act in Greece but you neighbours have it as an official policy!

postpost
10 April 2008 at 13:53

Anyway u didnt exactly answer my questions. If no connection with the ancient macedonia why the name? Sorry got to go to sleep now. I'll wait for your answers

macedon4eva
10 April 2008 at 14:08

i'd like to know macedonia in every map has always in every map from ancient times been a seperate land to greece during roman empire which rome had 3 wars to take macedonia, during bulgarian ,byzantine, ottoman, and serbian rule how did us supposed slavs who greeks say went into macedonia from 500ad and took over the whole region of macedonia including salonika area without even a mention of a war if it was greek land and keep it till 1912 when the greeks won 51% and the serbs won 39% against the turks but serbs gave it back to the macedonians in 1991 as they knew it was not there land as to why there was no bosnia in macedonia. The region has always been known as macedonia and nothing else. The macedonia in greece was known as northern greece from 1912-1988. The bible doesn't lie either, it says the apostle st.paul visited salonika in macedonia and then went south to visit greece. The greeks deny the existence of the macedonians, albanians and turks in greece and god and the world is watching. Keep denying the truth and spreading your bs propaganda.

milosevv
10 April 2008 at 14:22

to postpost:

Many modern day nations are born and created in fundaments that are today part of other modern day nations. For example , the Dutch national anthem goes like this:" Mighty prince, Willem van Oranje , a knight with a GERMAN heart. He will fight and serve loyaly to the SPANISH king"(!!). The Albanians are still carrying the BLACK AUSTRIAN EAGLE as their national symbol. So does the Serbs, but they colored it white.

And about foreign cities on the money - just look at your Euro money, are those cities Greek?

I cannot change the history, as Greece asks. The fact is that pretty much all modern day MAcedonian historical figures ( Goce Delcev, Prlichev, Pavel Shatev, etc...) were born in today's Greece and they met , planned the Macedonian state and worked in Thessaloniki. Florina, Castoria, .or whatever you call these cities today. Many Estonians, Latvians, lived and worked in Moscow and the Estonian history mentiones Russia as part of their national struggle. Does Estonia wants to attack Russia?

This is what we learn in the schools, the past, the peroid from 1850 to 1950 where the roots of the modern Macedonian nation have been established. We also see the old maps from 1900 before the Macedonian territory was divided between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. Back then, the Macedonian revolutionaries wanted to create such state. The history went into another direction and that is distant past now.

The people started calling themselves "Macedonians" because the region was called Macedonia and because they did not feel themselves neither Greek, Serbs nor Bulgarians. they hardly knew the guy called Alexander or his ancient kingdome.

This is just like the Croats call themselves like that and their country "Croatia" despite the fact that Croatia was once a Roman province where latin language was spoken. Today Italy does not freak out over Croatia like Greece. Italy does not freak out also about the country called "ROMANIA" , despite the fact that we all know who the ROMANS were.

Dan Asta
10 April 2008 at 14:38

The official policy of the Macedonian gov't is that "Aegean Macedonia" is unliberated land.

We can pretend that Macedonia harbors no irredentism against Greece. But then as their gov't officials make all too clear, they actually DO:

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=10104...

Read this:

"This map illustrates the 'knot' in the aftermath of the Balkan wars. It was the first time in history, after the Bucharest peace conference (1913), in which Greece stepped on Macedonian land and got the territory as far as below the city of Manastir (Bitola in Macedonian). By exchange of population, mainly with Greeks from Anatolia, the ethnic Macedonia was transformed into a part of the Greek state."

This gov't official is wrong. According to historian Mark Mazower, Greek Macedonia was equally divided in 1913 between Greeks, Slavophone natives (whatever you want to call them), Jews and Turks. There were 250,000 Greeks living in Salonika alone. The ethnically cleansed Greek settlers arrived later and made the region into a predominately Greek one. This was not "the first time" Greeks had set foot there.

The ambassador is just spewing some unfortunate historical biases.

Now, that my friends, is some deeply nationalist, fascist propaganda, brought to you by the likes of people that never got over their losses in the Balkan Wars, in their support of the Axis powers, and in Tito's attempt to change the name of Vardar Banovina to Macedonia, in line with Comintern principles, in order to wrest away Greek Macedonia.

The next time a Macedonian utters the words, "Greek Macedonia," will be the first time, as they prefer to use the term, "Aegean Macedonia," coined by Tito in his bloody war against Greece. Aegean Macedonia is unliberated territory, don't you know. I'm sure Greeks would be much more generous in sharing the term Macedonian were it not for the nationalists and propagandists north of the border.

William
10 April 2008 at 14:39

New Statesman, thank you for giving a voice to the Greek side of the argument, something which has been largely missing from other news sources. Greek concerns about their neighbor's irridentism are perfectly valid. Fyromians like to paint themselves as the "victims" but it is actually the Greeks who have been on the receiving end of constant attacks against their history, culture and territory. As Helena mentioned in her article, FYROM currently poses no military threat to Greece but their irridentist position is not conductive to good relations and the historical precedent in the Balkans is for such sentiments to end in bloody conflict. To their credit, the Greeks have been setting the foundation for better relations, mainly by investing millions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs in FYROM. The Greek request for a compound name with a geographic indicator is perfectly reasonable and is being made with an eye towards regional stability. It is a request that any other country would be making under the same circumstances. Let's hope that FYROM can drop its irridentist position long enough to meet the Greeks half-way.

dog
10 April 2008 at 14:44

When Krste Misirkov wrote On Macedonian Matters in 1903 (English version: http://www.misirkov.org/kpm_zmr_eng.htm), he essentially argued that 'Macedonia' should exist autonomously within the Ottoman Empire for several reasons:

1. Because Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs had shown by their actions that they would only harm the interests of the people living in that region if they managed to take the territory.

2. Because even if the best interest of the inhabitants of the region might be served by being assimilated within Bulgaria, the Great Powers would not allow this assimilation without dividing the territory--which he considered to have become an entity with a common (if loose, fluid and pragmatic) sense of identity.

The controversy was not about the name at that crucial time: Greece's territorial ambitions were aimed at 'Northern Greece' and the name only emerged as a major issue after the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia.

Bulgarian writers of the 1870s derided the claims of those they considered fellow Bulgarians in this region as to continuity with ancient Macedonians. This questionable aspect of Macedonian identity has a fairly long history, then, though it should not undermine separate claims to a self-determined identity.

All nations rewrite the history of their ethnic 'consciousness' on more or less ridiculous grounds. However, Macedonia has no need to base its claims on continuity any further back than the late 19th century when many arrived at the conclusion that the best hope for its inhabitants lay in independence.

Macedonia has already renounced any territorial claims on Greece and has backed down on the issue of the flag. Personally, I believe it should back down on all spurious claims to the ancient past.

Greek arguments as to the artificiality of the nation, however, are out of step with the times: no one seriously argues any more that 'nations' are organic, united ethnic entities that lay dormant for centuries to emerge in the 19th century.

Names of individual countries do not necessarily imply claims on the wider regions after which they are named. France dos not include all territories once inhabited by Franks (Ottonian Franks, for example.)

As to names, there may be nothing wrong with Upper Macedonia, but there is a question of dignity involved--what will be the name of the language,etc.? But more importantly, why on earth should Macedonia change its name as it is the only country whose territory corresponds entirely with any part of geographic Macedonia. And certainly why should it bow to pressure from another state when that state's arguments are not convincing?

postpost
10 April 2008 at 14:56

To milosevv

I wont comment at your analogy for the bank notes as I'm sure if you re-read it u will agree that was not at your standards.

All the nation states that you mention there was a continuity . From what you say I infer that you agree that you created a new idenity and FACTUALLY a new nation. As we did and it was named Greece with clear borders and no connection with the past like "Byzantium" for example. It is the territorial that is the main issue although it has implications.

Now I will get to what REALLY is happenign without the history trap. I believe that you are an extreme nationalistic country . You have your problems and you need it in some way. Bu you cant see it. All the facts show that (bill notes and photographs again). That means that your goverments play this game very good and we are afraid of playing too much with the so called minorities for example (6000 people voted Rainbow for crying out loud and I read many of you claiming 1 million. where do you get these guys?).

Now what is wrong with Upper Macedonia?

Yiorgos
10 April 2008 at 15:07

I agree that the macedonia language and Macedonians as termed today have no relation with ancient history and was adobted by the inhabitants of the geographical area know as Macedonia during the Ottoman period or even further back during Byzantine and Roman times if you like. With the adoption of the name Republic of Macedonia this country lays claim to this whole geographic area as its own, when no such country existed since ancient times. As there are FYROM citizens that identify themselves as macedonias, there are greek citizens that also identify themselves as macedonias, but with no relation to FYROM. Greece does recognize a slavic minority, but not as macedonian since there are greeks that identify themselves as such. To do so would be impossible. Milosevv asks why Greece and the Greek people can't take a more open minded approach. Why can't we ask the same from our neihbors to the north?This is not an issue of one being right and the other wrong and if extremist views from both sides were put aside a reasonable and satisfactory solution would not be difficult to obtained.

milosevv
10 April 2008 at 15:27

to postpost:

All today's modern nations are NEW nations. Do you think that Egyptians are grandchildren of Cleopatra? Do you think that you guys are descendents of Socrates? The name of your prime minister Karamanlis is in fact "Dark guy" in Turkish.

Please don't speak about Greek "disconnection" from the past, it sounds very funny, when I hear that and the "Greek copyright rights of Alexander and Macedonia".

Your claim on Macedonia and MAcedonian heritage is exactly like Serbian claims for Kosovo. They have fought one battle over there 600 years a go. They got Kosovo in 1911 and collonized it with Serbian collonists in the period from 1911 until 1950, and now all over sudden it is a"Cradle of Serbian culture and Nation".

You can gotten Macedonian chunk in 1913, you Hellenized it completely, and not even called in "Macedonia" until 1988. Now all of the sudden, "Macedonia is heart of Greece". Please!

About the Slavic-Macedonian minority in Greece:

1) All normal modern European nation should grant a right to its citizen to express freely his/her ethnic feeling. It does not matter if it is one guy, 10 guys , 1000 or 10 000.

2) Once Greece allows freedom of self-expression then we will see exactly how many Greek citizen will declare themselves as Greek with Slavic-Macedonian ethnic origin. Today, these 6000 who dared to say something against the official Greek policy are subject of humiliarion and public lynch, and this is well documented by United Nations, European Parlament, US State Department etc.

Last: about "Upper Macedonia". If Greece wants Macedonians to change the name of their coutnry, language, nationality, etc; then you can bet that this will not be done via: vetos, economic blocades, rasist and nazzi insults on their ethnic and national feeling, acting like a "godfather": and imposing some names as "done deal" etc...

Macedonian side proposed a joint working team of Greek and Macedonian experts consisted of historians, linguists, ethnologists, politicians etc... The idea was to open up together all tabu topics and speak openly to each other about each other view on the history, ethnicity etc...

Greece rejected this offer.

Why?

About the "extreme nationalistic country", Macedonia is the only country in the region that gives all civil rights to all ethnic groups. It is mentioned by everybody as the only fully functional multi-ethnic country , even in the scope of European Union.

milosevv
10 April 2008 at 17:03

To Yiorgos:

Please note that overvelming majority of the provocation from Macedonian side are result of the frustration of the Greek policy. Nobody mentioned Alexander in Macedonia since the Greek side practically put it in our mouth.

The Macedonian position is very clear and very fair:

1) Macedonia can add some geographical clarification in addition to its consitutional name, like "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje, or Upper Macedonia, etc...)"

2) We can call ourselves Macedonians, you can also call yourselves Macedonians if you like.

3) We can celebrate the antique history, you can do the same. Nobody claims copyright.

that is it. it is very simple. This is actually the latest UN proposal that Macedonia has accepted and Greece rejected.

prudence
10 April 2008 at 17:15

I'd like any citizen of FYROM to explain to me why there wasn't a public outcry when, on February 4, 2008, your Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski, was photographed, under a map that portrayed a "Greater Macedonia" incorporating all of Greek Macedonia.

Was this the type of behaviour befitting a modern, 21st century elected leader of a democratic nation? Is this the type of propaganda that should be part of NATO and the EU?

The fact is that there was no such pulic outcry, because the majority of FYROM's populace embraces these irridentist views. (I mean, it's part of their education system for God's sake!).

These propaganda issues are far more important than the "name issue". Unfortunately, the name "Macedonia" only underscores a deeper, un-European dogma that is prevalent in this tiny nation.

I see nothing wrong with "Northern Macedonia". The ethnicity could continue to define itself as Macedonian under that alternate name. (Just as North Koreans, are ethnic Koreans, and not ethnic 'North Koreans).

dog
10 April 2008 at 18:34

Upper Macedonia - why is that acceptable to Greece when it implies a Lower Macedonia and is therefore no guarantee against supposed irredentist claims.

The picture of PM Gruevski laying a wreath at the graves of refugees from northern Greece was criticised by media here because it included a map showing where Slav speakers had lived across the whole of geographic Macedonia. It's been worked on by Greek propaganda to make Greeks feel insecure about their borders: even then I doubt one could find a Greek who really trembles in their bed at the thought of this tiny impoverished country staking a claim on northern Macedonia.

The bank note with the White Tower was either never issued or very rapidly taken out of circulation in the early 90s.

The swastika stunt was performed by a guy advertising an exhibition of photos about his ancestors who were evicted from northern Greece. many here also thought it unwise. But to focus on is again a matter of manipulating fears--one could focus on anti-Slav Macedonian graffiti on any wall in Thessaloniki. But why do it--you don't win votes here simply for being anti-Greek.

One must ask oneself if there is a need for an external enemy in Greece to explain the fears expressed by Greeks about this tiny country. Is it sour grapes following the failures of the Megali Idea? Is it a sense of superiority to Slavs? In short, what's the problem, Greece--you have a beautiful, powerful and prosperous nation with a stunning heritage? Why not give your npoorer northern neighbours a break?

prudence
10 April 2008 at 20:30

dog wrote:

"it included a map showing where Slav speakers had lived across the whole of geographic Macedonia"

I beg to differ dog. This map included places in Greek Macedonia that have always been ethnically Greek, and where Slavic was never spoken (i.e. the southern half of Greek Macedonia), such as:

Grevena

Kozani

Katernini

Veria

Kavala

Halkidiki peninsula

Thasos island

Geographic Macedonia is not the same thing as "ethnic (Slav) Macedonia", nor has it ever been.

Pontian refugees are not the only Greeks in Aegean Macedonia...about half of the Greeks there are "natives", and I'm not talking about the "Grkomani"

If the map included only the northern half of Greek Macedonia, I could see your point

michael
11 April 2008 at 08:23

Dear Ms Smith,

I respect your writing and your magazine, but I wish you hadn’t written such a one-sided article. In “Moving the boundaries”, you are basically suggesting that Greece is justified in demanding that the Republic of Macedonia change its name because it suspects that its government and citizens harbour territorial pretensions towards their southern neighbour.

Not only is the argument that Macedonia is seeking to invade Greek territory incorrect, but in my opinion is not the real reason why Greece objects to our country’s name. First, the textbooks and maps you mention do not depict the Republic of Macedonia expanding into Greek-held “Aegean Macedonia". They simply identify the wider geographical region of Macedonia as everyone, including Greece, accepts it. I don’t remember a banknote with Greek symbols on it ever being issued, but if it was, I am sure it no longer exists. And I can not comment on the photograph of the Macedonian prime minister under a map that portrayed the state stretching to Salonika because I haven’t seen it. To be honest, I read Macedonian media every day, but I have only heard about this photograph from Greek posts.

Simply put, the Republic of Macedonia does not and can not have any territorial ambitions towards Greece, or any of its neighbours for that matter. Let’s accept for a moment the argument that just because a country has barely 1% of the military, human and economic resources of another country, it doesn’t mean that it will not pose a threat in the future. And let’s ignore the fact that this future involves joint membership in the most powerful political-military alliance in the world. But do you think that Macedonia would have achieved international recognition by over 120 countries (including every other neighbouring country except Greece; the UK has used our constitutional name for bilateral and internal purposes since 1999) AND been judged to have fulfilled all criteria for joining NATO, if other countries took seriously the claim that it has hidden territorial ambitions toward Greece? In fact, to my knowledge no one outside of Greece has accused Macedonia of such territorial pretensions. And IF Macedonia wanted to grab a piece of Greek territory, changing the name of the country to Upper or New Macedonia would magically make those ambitions disappear!?

Macedonians can not accept a change of our country’s name because that would mean giving up our national identity as Macedonians, unique and separate from Greeks, Bulgarians or Serbs. And our national identity is in fact what Greece objects to, because it doesn’t want to accept the existence of a Macedonian minority on its territory and of those Macedonians who were in the past expelled from Greece. Witness the angry reaction by Ms Bakoyannis when a US State Department official recently stated that a Macedonian nation and language do in fact exist. Greece accuses us that these are “irredentist” claims. If they are, then why does Greece refuse to recognize the existence of Macedonians and any other minorities on its territory and violently deny their basic human rights? This discrimination has been acknowledged by US and European institutions on numerous occasions. And why does Greece keep a list of Macedonians expelled from the country in the past and deny them entry even today, when they come as citizens of western countries, such as Canada, Australia, Sweden etc?

Ms Smith, the Republic of Macedonia does not pose a threat to Greece. It is no surprise that this has been acknowledged by every newspaper and magazine around the world. In fact, Macedonia’s economy and its internal political stability are at the mercy of Greece and the major western powers. Macedonians are happy to keep their money in Greek banks, shop in Thessaloniki, and take their summer vacations in the Halkidiki. But we are justifiably angry when our accomplishments, sacrifices, and aspirations for a better future are denied simply because of who we are.

Regards,

Michael

prudence
12 April 2008 at 05:15

Michael wrote:

"And I can not comment on the photograph of the Macedonian prime minister under a map that portrayed the state stretching to Salonika because I haven’t seen it. To be honest, I read Macedonian media every day, but I have only heard about this photograph from Greek posts. "

Michael, could the reason you didn't see these photographs in FYROM's media be because it was basically "ho-hum" - nothing new?

In a country were making irredenist claims against Greek Macedonia is basically a national sport, why would such an event even be on the "radar" of the local media?

Greece would have very likely recognized your ethnic bretheren a long time ago if they went by any other name, including SLAVO-Macedonian or Macedonian Slavs.

The fact that you refer to yourselves a simply "Macedonian" is seen with suspicion as as a very subversive thing to do.

"Macedonian" in Greece denotes a large subset of the ethnic Greek population. To say that there is a "Macedonian" minority in Greek Macedonia would be an oxymoron.

And it is a MYTH that this region was somehow "renamed" Macedonia by the Greek government in 1988. Greeks from across the country have always proudly referre to it as Macedonia.

michael
15 April 2008 at 08:42

Prudence, making irredentist claims against Greek Macedonia is a national sport ONLY in your paranoid mind – just ask yourself why isn’t anyone else in the world seeing these threats.