Bulgaria, Macedonia: Blog Wars Over History
The relations between Bulgaria and Macedonia are no less complex and incomprehensible than those between Greece and Macedonia, although lately the former get less media exposure than the latter. The main problem between Sofia and Skopje is, once again, history.
To Bulgarians, the Macedonians were part of the Bulgarian nation until the beginning of the 20th century, when a large part of Macedonia fell under Serbian domination after the Balkan wars. Then, due to Serbia’s policy in the region and the doctrine of Macedonism, changes in the mindset of the local population occurred, leading to the forming of the Macedonian nation. The Comintern and Stalin’s stance on the issue also contributed to this result.
Macedonians, on the other hand, consider themselves an entirely separate nation, heir to an ancient people. They accuse their Bulgarian neighbours of having been an occupation power in their land and claim that Sofia is trying to appropriate parts of the history of Macedonia, like, for instance, King Samuil, St. Kliment Okhridski, the revolutionary Gotze Delchev, etc.
Bulgarians address similar accusations to Macedonia.
Contention is even further exacerbated by fears on the part of Macedonia that Sofia seeks to “assimilate” the Macedonians, while Bulgarians suspect their neighbours in seeking to annex Pirin region, which is part of the so-called Greater Macedonia.
All these contradictions have spilled over into the virtual space and sparked a permanent “war” over history between Bulgarian and Macedonian bloggers – a war that often exceeds the rules of “bon ton.” And the Bulgarian blogosphere, too, is debating the question of what should be Bulgaria's attitude towards Macedonia.
Blogger Peter Stoykov writes (BUL):
Some arguments about whether Macedonia is or has been part of Bulgaria, whether there exist a Macedonian language, nationality, the Macedonian question, and Bulgarian national interest in Macedonia… Historians, politicians and, most of all, internet morons are competing in speaking nonsense on the issue, as though their lives depend on that.
[…]
Is Macedonia Bulgarian?
No, it is not Bulgarian, it’s Macedonian. And I will tell you why, but I will first look back in time. In 2001, a regular census took place in Australia. Precisely then a Star Wars episode was released and as you know, there are many people crazy about this film. So, in the “Ethnicity” box in the census questionnaire some wisecracks wrote “Jedi”… […] What does this have to do with Macedonia? If Macedonians want to call themselves Macedonians, they have an indisputable right to do so.
[…]
So, what shall we do with the Macedonian question?
As a matter of fact, I am even glad that Macedonia is not part of Bulgaria and that a number of years ago it was torn away from Bulgaria and given over to Yugoslavia. Bulgaria, as our politicians have always been happy to say, “is a focus of stability on the Balkans” – unrest is boiling around us, there were fights and fission in Yugoslavia, Kosovo has been on the table, the Greeks fought with the Turks over Cyprus, Turks are fighting the Kurds, they have even crossed over the border into Iraq, five years ago Albanians made something which was very close to a revolution in Macedonia, fire was exchanged there.
If Macedonia were part of Bulgaria, we would be part of this madness.
Another renowned blogger, Peter Dobrev, responds (BUL):
“Macedonia is the cradle of the Bulgarian national spirit. And even if it is to become its grave, we will never give up the fight for its liberation.” This was the title with which the then large-circulation Outro newspaper appeared on the eve of the Balkan war. This used to be the dominant opinion until 1944 (when the communists took the power in Bulgaria). Today, however, regardless of the fact that Bulgaria in theory should have left the ideological constructs of totalitarianism, the memory of Macedonia has faded so much that it turns into polar extremes.
[…]
No wonder then that blogger Peter Stoykov thinks that there is no Macedonian question, that Macedonia is Macedonian, and whoever says the opposite is “an internet moron.”
[…]
Everybody has a God-given right of self-determination – as a Jedi, Eskimo or Macedonian. When, however, it’s a matter of general national significance, of causes that have cost the lives of thousands and matters that have changed the fate of a half of a people, it’s good to speak with a little understanding and knowledge. It’s necessary to separate personal opinion from the objective historical fact…
[…]
Just as everybody knows today that Alexander the Great was a Greek, so it is indisputable that all leaders of the Macedonian organisations after 1878 (the year of the Berlin congress and the subsequent liberation/emancipation of Bulgaria) were Bulgarians. These leaders, as well as the people as a whole, have always spoken of themselves as Bulgarians, and they have been seen as such by the foreign observers. All foreign observers, even the Serbian ones.
These two opinions sum up the main social attitudes in relation to Macedonia. The majority of Bulgarians have no claims to its neighbour, nor do they want to interfere in its domestic affairs, but many are irritated by the Macedonian blackmail to give up a part of their history and want the historic truth established. Similar voices are heard in Macedonia.
In the thick of one of the battles between Bulgarian and Macedonian bloggers, Macedonian blogger Ivica Anteski wrote in his ANTIblog (MKD):
If the Bulgarian and the Macedonian “truths” do not coincide, this means that they are not true (or at least one of them). Simple logic. And in court, when two eyewitnesses make contradicting testimonies, the case is solved by means of a confrontation. But historians don’t want to confront each other. It’s more likely that we, bloggers, slaughter ourselves first on the internet, than see the experts surpass the contentions through the power of arguments.
[…]
Scholars, historians, philologists, academics, Slavic studies experts (Macedonian and Bulgarian)!!! Sit down together and tell us where the problem is. Reach an understanding! Forget that you are Macedonian or Bulgarian – scholars have no nationality. The truth and the facts are their nationality. Clear out the problems.
In such an atmosphere, on March 31, several days before the NATO summit in Bucharest, Sofia-based Manfred Woerner Foundation and the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria introduced a brochure titled “Bulgarian Policies on the Republic of Macedonia,” which was written by a group of Bulgarian history, Balkan studies and diplomacy scholars.
Image: komitata.blogspot.com (CC 3.0)
The purpose of the publication is to be used in the process of defining Bulgaria's Macedonia-related policies. Blogger Konstantin Pavlov, who attended the presentation, published the following report (BUL):
The Republic of Macedonia is about to join the EU and NATO. When exactly this will happen is not clear yet. The problem lies in the fact that, on the basis of the argument between Greece and Macedonia, the majority of independent politicians and observers take the side of Macedonia, without giving it much thought. (David against Goliath). And although the argument over the name elicits sympathy for Macedonia, the arguments that are being used – ancient Macedonia, that has survived down to the present day, the “autochtonal” Macedonian population, having been “enslaved” and “assimilated” by its bad neighbours, including the “bad Bulgarians,” gains ground with the people who sympathize with Macedonia. Those sympathies might lead to extremely negative consequences for Bulgaria, like, for example, “giving up” [May 24 as a national holiday] […]. It seems the book on the subject is not bad (I had no nerve to read it) and, unfortunately, is written in a complex, pseudo-scientific language with the purposes not all too clear. The result is nearly contrary to the objective sought – to write a clear, concise and unequivocally logical (right, winning) policy of the Bulgarian state towards the challenges coming from Macedonia. Well, it has not been achieved very well.
Having read the book and Pavlov’s report, Macedonian blogger Volan wrote (MKD):
The desire of Bulgarian politics – one people – two nations – is clearly discernible…
It is clear that the problems between Skopje and Sofia cannot be solved until the Balkan approach to history as property is not given up, and as long as it is being divided to “mine” and “yours” – in this case, into “Macedonian” and “Bulgarian.”
50 comments
Hellenic Headbreaker,
Greeks are not as pure as you make them out to be. There is enough proof that Greeks originate from Africa. Many well known scholars have proved this. Quotes include
“THE BLACK GREEKS
Black Athena. This book has nothing to do with Afrocentrism. In the two volumes published thus far, Bernal maintains that Semites from Phoenicia and the Semitic Hyksos speaking rulers of Egypt, took civilization to Greece, not Black Africans.
J.A. Rogers in Sex and Race, Parker, Diop and DuBois on the other hand, are Afrocentric scholars. These scholars have reviewed the writings of the classical authors, the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence to reach the conclusion that the ancient Greeks were blacks and that the European Greeks learned the liberal arts and sciences from their “black ancestors” who first settled Greece and the Egyptians.
According to the Olympian Creation Myth the earliest groups to appear on earth were the Libyco-Thracians .The Libyans were Proto-Saharans, as were the original Thracians. Some Thracians were descendants of the Kushite and Egyptian troops established at Trace, by Sesostris (Thutmose III or Ramses II), when he conquered Asia and Europe.(Diop 1991; Winters 1983a,1984b,1985a)
Many of the so-called Greek myths are in reality historical texts which show the ancient lifestyle of the pre-Aryans in Greece and the transition from Pelasgian matriarchy to Greek-Aryan patriarchy. The term Amazon was often used by the Aryans to denote matriarchal societies living on the Black Sea. The battle between Thesus and the Amazons, led by Queen Melanippe, records the conflicts between the ancient Aryan-Greeks and the Libyans settled around the Black Sea.
Dr. Lefkowitz (1992) and Snowden (1992,1976) perpetuate the myth that the only blacks in ancient Europe were slaves or mercenaries. This is false the Greek historical works make it clear that many ancient settlers of the Aegean came from Africa , especially the Garamantes and Pelasgians. G. W. Parker wrote that: “I need not go into details concerning the ethnical relations of the Romans, since they, too are Mediterranean and are closely related to the same African confederation of races …[situated in Greece]. Aeneas, their mythical founder of Troy. The Aenead, like the Illiad, and Odyssey and all other of the world’s great epics, is the poetic story dealing with African people”. The heroes of these tales used long shields, the characteristic shields of the Indo-European speaking Greeks were round.
The Eurocentrists attempt to prove there was “considerable cultural and linguistic continuity from the twelfth century to the eight century BC” ,in the Aegean . Yet there is no way it can be proven that Indo-European Greeks have always been in Greece. This view on the continuity between the Linear B Greeks and later Greeks held by Lefkowitz is disputed by Hopper who noted that ” after all, so much which characterizes Minoan Crete seems wholly alien to later Greece, despite the efforts of scholars to detect ‘continuity’ ” .
Given the wealth of Afrocentric literature it would seem logical that the Eurocentric “resisters” review these works, and point out the weaknesses within these text to prove that Afrocen- trism is a “myth” (Lefkowitz 1992). But, instead of doing just this, the “resisters” simply mention text written by Afrocentric scholars and then attack Black Athena, as if Afrocentrism is based solely on this text.”
You are not as pure as you claim.
Global – You allow Hellenic Headbreaker to continually insult the Macedonians, yet you don’t my screen my comments like mine where I counter-attack by referring to the Greeks as AfroGreek in response to being called FYROMians or FYROM etc.
Your terms state that others are to be treated with respect. You are not treating the Macedonians with equal respect. The blog is to be based on “Bulgaria-Macedonia” relations yet you let him preach on and on about how false the Macedonians are.
Unfortunately you are not being fair! You have lost my respect and I won’t be the last if you continue the path you have taken.
The truth must hurt eh “Macedonia” (stop appropriating my heritage) is not Greek”- mind you Mr. Headbreaker never insulted you in the slightest and has at least provided ample evidence to prove the falsity of your and your countrymen’s claims.
Now as for Non-Greek’s gibberish- you “sir” are the racist.
I have actually read that piece of cr*p and threw it across the room before I even read the first chapter. Of course I forced myself to finish it just so I could understand our enemies better. I thoroughly enjoyed Mary Lefkowitz book “Not Out of Africa” I loved everyone of her rebuttals; absolutely hillarious stuff considering this filth being used by propagandists.
Now I find it amazing how trash like that can actually be taught at Universities. I know that they have tried to teach it at the University I went to and my Classics professors quickly put a stop to that as it insulted their intelligence and the intelligence of the academic community. It is also amazing how they can base so much of it on a Free Mason secret ritual that were based on Egyptian ideas(Ideas is the key word since at the time Hieroglyphics were not even deciphered so all the rituals were based on the IDEAS of a few priveledged white men.) Black people basing some of their evidence on white racist rituals.(the Free Mason until recently refused any admittance of Blacks into their society.)
What the afro-centrists and FYROM have in common is REVISIONISM and distorting of historical, linguistical, archaeological proofs and sources to obtain an IDENTITY FOR THEMSELVES! Why can’t people just be proud of who they are and who their ancestors were? I always believe in giving credit where credit is due, but this is a time where there is no credit due to any of these people especially when it is Hellenic credit.
Now for more reading:
Why has the “true” identity of the founders of classical and Western civilization been reasserted at the present time? Bernal himself has provided the explicit answer to this question.
Trained in Chinese studies, and a teacher and researcher of intellectual relations between China and the West at the turn of the twentieth century, according to his own public revelations, Bernal became concerned after 1962 with the war in Indochina. He studied Vietnamese both to contribute to the movement against American military involvement there and for its own sake ( BA 1:xii). In 1975 he rediscovered his own Jewish roots:
In 1975 came to a mid-life crisis. The personal reasons for this are not particularly interesting. Politically, however, it was related to the end of the American intervention in Indo-China and the awareness that the Maoist era in China was coming to an end. It now seemed to me that the central focus of danger and interest in the world was no longer East Asia but the Eastern Mediterranean. This shift led me to a concern for Jewish history. ( BA 1:xii-xiii)
He also tells us that it was specifically the exploration of his Jewish roots that led him to look at Jewish history in relation to Canaanite and Phoenician history. His subsequent “discovery” of a large number of loan words from Canaanite/Phoenician into Greek led him, in turn, to the stories of the Phoenician colonization of Greece. The search for the quarter to the third proportion of Greek vocabulary which could not be attributed to Indo-European or Phoenician/Canaarn’te sources brought him to late ancient Egyptian.) and the stories of the Egyptian colonization of Greece (1:xiv-xv).
Thus a specific social and personal context gave birth to the new founda- tion myth of the West: it was conceived in Bernal’s mind during the years of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement in America; it developed as he rediscovered his own Jewish roots only two years after the victory of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and less than a decade after the dramatic triumph of the Six Day War, at a time when many Jews living in the Diaspora reassessed their relationships to Judaism and Israel.
It was therefore no accident at all, or the result of an impersonal scientific inquiry, that when the new foundation myth first saw the fight of day, its identity was Afro-Asiatic. The social and personal context in which it was conceived by Bernal ensured that the new founders of classical civilization should only be Egyptians (some of whose most powerful dynasties could “usefully” be called black) and Phoenicians (who were culturally related to the Jews). That context also explains why people who spoke Indo-European languages, such as the Hittites, had to be left out of the new foundation myth of the West. It was not simply because “Aryanist” scholars of the nineteenth century, hunting around for Indo-European language speakers to fit their racist theories, had championed the contributions made by the Hittites and others to Greek civilization. The Hittites and others were also excluded because Bernal could not trace his own personal roots or changing intellectual interests to the Hittites, the Hurrians, or the Babylonians.
Such a reconstruction of Bernal’s enterprise as the above is inevitable; he himself has anticipated such a reconstruction, possibly because he has applied precisely such a method of historiographical analysis to countless scholars in Black Athena. Indeed, he has tried to mitigate the implications of such a reconstruction of his endeavor. He has taken care to insist that even where scholars have worked within the Aryan model, the origins of their projects do not necessarily invalidate their results ( BA 1: 442).
The origins of a scientific project may well be divorced from initial consideration of its results (and it is perhaps to Bernal’s credit that he has openly laid out what he wants the world to believe about the story behind Black Athena). But if, after due consideration, the results of a project appear to be closely linked to its origins, scholars are obligated — as Bernal himself has felt obligated — to examine the relationship between the two. Given the stated social and personal contexts from which Black Athena evolved, it is hard in retrospect not to see the entire enterprise of Black Athena as a massive, fundamentally misguided projection upon the second millennium B.C.E. of Martin Bernal’s personal struggle to establish an identity during the later twentieth century.
The outcome of that struggle has been the creation of a highly selective myth of influences on early Greek civilization. As we have seen (and much more evidence could easily be produced), the selectivity of Bernal’s foun- dation myth cannot be explained on the basis of the ancient evidence; the reasons for that selectivity he inescapably in the personal odyssey of Martin Bernal.
What utter hogwash you have provided, you people make me laugh. First it was the idiotic remark about the Rosetta Stone and now this; you FYROMians are masters of comedy.
Notidis the AfroGreek Magnificent- you sound so similar to the AfroHellenic Headbreaker. Aren’t you the same person? If not both of you AfroGreeks sound so similar.
Facts are there – Today’s AfroGreeks are not direct descendants of the ancient people living in Europe. DNA’s have clearly proven this. Fanatic AfroGreeks like yourself will never accept the truth. This is understandable for the many narrow minded AfroGreeks.
You will continually deny this and claim the “Greek” purity in all of todays AfroGreeks and that all other races have never been part of Macedonia etc.
At the same time you will come up with any crap to justify the hardships you have forced the Macedonians to experience today and in the past. Part of the world may go along with you, however many country have realised your stupidity. Hopefully all other NATO and EU country will also come to a point where Greece will be told not be the spoilt EU brat anymore. EU has baby sat you for too long.
You are just another AfroGreek.
Non Greek- Mr. Notidis appears to be the only other individual besides me who has a brainstem here. Now as regards your claims; no one has ever given them any shred of credibility. Keep the insults coming, that just proves my point that you are nothing more than an ignorant clown who will be laughed at and that your people are nothing more than racist charlatans- first it is this stupid afrocentrism claim and then the swastika on our sacred flag.
The world is laughing at FYROM and their ridiculous claims- the claim Hellenes are descended from Africa is about as believable as you mob being descended from Ancient Macedonians- in other words, both purely fictional accounts. If you knew anything the Minoans are descended from Anatolia for starters- do some reading for a change instead of eating up that Communist Skopaganda, it’s pathetic. Why don’t you give real evidence instead of pseudoscientific claims that have been debunked? Maybe because you have none.
Enjoy the ignorance- I feel I do not have to explain anything to you; your stupidity speaks for itself and my time is better spent elsewhere. If you think your people have experienced hardship from us supposedly, just wait until the EU veto and what the Bulgarians (your kinsmen) and Albanians will do to you- can you say Western Bulgaria and Republic of Irrilida- or better yet, Greater Albania- the nightmare of 2001 will come back 100 fold and it’s a shame really; you’re fighting for your survival.
Besides who are you kidding- are we that effective at brainwashing the whole world?! That sounds like you playing the ‘victim card’ as always- laugh it up- if Hellas were as spiteful as you claim it would crush you in two minutes but then all those millions of Euros and tens of thousands of jobs we have created for you ingrates would go to waste. For shame.
That aside I won’t stoop to your level, I’ll just pummel you with facts and evenutally you’ll develop a semblance of intelligence.
All I can do is shake my head at your ignorance.
Ahem- note the typo- it should read “Republic of Illirida” as in that which is founded by Illyrians.
insane nationalistic comments like peter given’s are the best weapon
against granting the name ‘macedonia’ to fyrom. There is no question that Alexander was greek-just ask jews who revolted against his descendants whether they fought greeks or macedonians. Similarly there is no question that there were no ‘Macedonians’ before the balkan war-just ask the greek macedonians whom did they fight before the balkan wars, they will tell you Bulgarian comitadji, not Macedonians.
Globalvoices online, Why you dont print the article on Alexander the Great? This article will balance comments with thoes who think Alexander was Greek.It is pointing the truth. The Hellenic Headbreaker must read it to shut his mouth once and for all. On my next comment ,I will write all about the Kings of Macedonia, your readers will find it very interesting.Thanks.
This is ridiculous. If you take any old book from that region (regardless if it’s in Greek, Bulgarian or Serb) you’ll see Bulgarians being mentioned as more than 60% of the population. And yes, those ~2 million Bulgarians from the end of the 19th century are the grand-grandfathers/grandmothers of today’s so-called Macedonians. Which doesn’t necessarily mean Macedonia should be made part of Bulgaria. Each nation has the right of self-determination. I don’t get it when Hellenistic fanatics try to rob a country’s sovereignty … Sounds evil enough to me :/
BIG ALBANIA IS COMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO MACEDONIA NO SKOPIE…………..
ONLY BIG ALBANIA !!!!
Refer to the Helsinki Final Act 07/08 1975 and look at the reality of your claim.
If you don’t wish to live in Republic of Macedonia, then there is no reason for you not to migrate to Republic of Albania.
KOSOVO is SERBIA and will remain SERBIAN.