Macedonians: it is time to get the monkey off of our backs
Gandeto
May 22, 2009
University professors—in their field and mode of operation—should be able to differentiate and distance themselves from the intricate world and business of the politicians. Indeed one would be inclined to believe that the actions undertaken by a university professor would markedly differ from the one taken up by a politician.
For example, if there is an open forum, a classroom filled with students or a marketplace gathering, the politician should be expected to step forward, address the crowd and—by all means—say something. The university professor, on the other hand, if called upon to the podium, will address the crowd because he will have something to say.
Both, the university professor and the politician, would do what comes quite natural to them; one, upon seeing a large crowd—lusting for the potential of scoring points and votes—has something to say, while the other—sensing the crowd´s urge to learn—feels that he has something worthwhile to say. Granted, in this example—even though there were two different goals to be accomplished, there was no perceptible difference in the means used between the politician and the professor. The means justified the ends. However, one would surely expect a different outcome and a different reaction, if these two protagonists were approached by a group of gift bearing Greeks.
While politician´s behavior could be expected to deviate from the stipulated ethical standards (to bend the rules within the law, so to speak), the behavior of the university professors should follow the unwritten—but usually practiced and adhered to—code of conduct not to engage in debates over politically sensitive matters. In other words, university professor and academicians in general—upon careful and detailed scrutiny—should be expected to bring the evidence forward unimpeded and remain always on guard for weary, gifts bringing Greeks. The "gifts" may come with an unexpected steep price.
Whether Professor Stephen Miller, who solicited signatures from other university professors—felt it was his duty to "right" the "wrongs" of history and "educate" president Obama on issues regarding ancient history, initiated this move on his own behalf or if he was "politely persuaded" or say, nudged to do it, is not my concern. Truth is that his actions are unprecedented in the academic circles and of very dubious nature; they precipitate from the potential discourse may have dangerous tsunami-like reverberations later. The academic truth—under any circumstances—must remain pure and uncompromised.
The mere fact that he collected a miserable fifty signatories from around the world speaks volumes in and of itself. Surely, there are a great number of scholars—whose work I am familiar with—that were able to keep their moral aptitude to education and abstain from forming an opposite camp simply because it was the right thing to do; politics must not influence academic decisions and vice-versa. They recognized that the ensuing internecine strife would be neither useful for scientific research nor appropriate for academic debates. Debated issues are brought to a successful closure not through political clout but on the strength, the weight and the reliability of the presented facts and arguments.
This is why Stephen Miller´s backhanded approach in solving politically created issues is repulsive. He consciously undermines and minimizes the stature and work of so many prominent history professors whose research and academic standards far surpass his assumed defense of the largely indefensible position on the alleged "greekness" of the ancient Macedonians. He even cites King Alexander I´s participation in the Greek Olympic Games as proof of the greekness of the ancient Macedonians but he fails to inform the president of the fact that the Greek participants refused to compete against him on the very same ground that he wasn´t Greek.
It is tempting to ask Mr. Miller the following obvious question:
How is it possible for the common folks, the everyday Greek men to know more about the ancient Macedonians than the judges themselves that Alexander from Macedon was not Greek? Since Alexander did not have his driver´s license on his person, could it be that the judges were persuaded that he is of a Greek descent after they saw his picture on the gold coins he just happened to carry with him. I can picture the "hard-to-bribe" Greek judges saying that a positive identification cannot be obtained by only a few gold coins.
"We need the whole pouch filled with gold coins to determine your greekness. Unlike your barbaric kind, us civilized Greeks need lots of proof."
On this note I am inviting all these professors, the signatories of Miller´s petition to offer their expertise and elaborate the following quote from Plutarch´s Agesilaus:
(Here, the separation of ethnos between Greeks and Macedonians is in the forefront. The emotional feelings regarding Alexander´s conquest and successes in Asia are clearly described. This episode is just another fact in the string of hard, irrefutable evidence that Greeks did not regard Alexander as their king and that his successes in Asia were received in Greece with great disappointment and alarm).
"I certainly cannot agree with Demarathus the Corinthian, who said that those Greeks who did not live to see Alexander seated on the throne of Darius had been deprived of a great pleasure. On the contrary, I believe that they would have been more likely to weep when they remembered that this triumph was left for Alexander and his Macedonians, while they themselves squandered the lives of Greek generals on the battlefields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth and Arcadia"(Plut.Agesilaus.15).
Now let us see what conclusions we can draw from this immortal episode:
(a) Are these two Greek fellows discussing Alexander´s capture of Darius´ throne?
(b) Do they agree with each other?
(c) Would you agree that the fellow, who disagrees with Demarathus the Corinthian, sees Alexander and his Macedonians as being quite different than the Greeks?
(d) Is there a clear separation in meaning between Greeks and Macedonians?
(e) Greeks would "weep" and not received pleasure for seeing Alexander seated on the throne. Is this clear enough? Why would the Greeks not rejoice in Alexander´s triumph? Isn´t it true that along with the modern Greeks, you Mr. Miller, claim that Alexander was a Greek king and a Greek hero?
(f) Where is the evidence Mr. Miller? Surely, from this episode and hundreds like it, one would be hard pressed to come up with such a conclusion.
(g) Would you have enough intestinal fortitude to discuss and elaborate this episode with your students Mr. Miller? It seems to me that there is no other way around it; to assign greekness to Alexander one must either: (a) distort the truth, (b) corrupt the evidence or (c) swiftly avoid the argument altogether and
(h) Do you, gentlemen and scholars, agree that the ancient Greeks did not see the Macedonians as brethren?
Then, let me ask the final logical question: how can one who teaches young adults—and claims to know his way around ancient history—come up with such a preposterous conclusion and place his signature on corrupted evidence?
This is just one example of an ordinary Greek expressing his innermost displeasures that the glory and the triumphs were left for the King of the Macedonians. Like so many inscriptions left on many monuments and the epitaphs erected for the fallen comrades in battles, these facts accentuate the unpretentiously heartfelt wishes, the pure desires or the raw pains of the ancient people. These episodes subtly, and with an incorruptible text convey to us the truest picture of the events taking place in antiquity and, to a certain degree and with a heightened urgency, implore us not to mess around, or try to see more than what is already written in the text.
Alexander´s success in Asia is not the concern of this Greek fellow. To him, Alexander and his Macedonians are seen as conquerors of Greece, and the road to Darius´ throne was paved with Greek blood spilled at Leuctra, Chaeronea and Corinth. Literature is replete with examples where the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks is not only obvious but it is treated as a matter of fact.
All of you signatories—who suffer from amnesia-plagued human rights issues—should be taken to Greece on a fact finding mission and forced to observe for yourselves the discrimination, the persecutions and the cultural degradation inflicted on the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece. By attaching your signature to that worthless piece of garbage, you not only sided with the racist, bigoted Greek regime, but you also approved of their hated, gruesome inhumane practices. Shame on all of you, heartless invertebrates.
We have been carrying this Greek monkey on our backs for too darn long. We must find a way to get rid of it once and for all.
Until next time…
For example, if there is an open forum, a classroom filled with students or a marketplace gathering, the politician should be expected to step forward, address the crowd and—by all means—say something. The university professor, on the other hand, if called upon to the podium, will address the crowd because he will have something to say.
Both, the university professor and the politician, would do what comes quite natural to them; one, upon seeing a large crowd—lusting for the potential of scoring points and votes—has something to say, while the other—sensing the crowd´s urge to learn—feels that he has something worthwhile to say. Granted, in this example—even though there were two different goals to be accomplished, there was no perceptible difference in the means used between the politician and the professor. The means justified the ends. However, one would surely expect a different outcome and a different reaction, if these two protagonists were approached by a group of gift bearing Greeks.
While politician´s behavior could be expected to deviate from the stipulated ethical standards (to bend the rules within the law, so to speak), the behavior of the university professors should follow the unwritten—but usually practiced and adhered to—code of conduct not to engage in debates over politically sensitive matters. In other words, university professor and academicians in general—upon careful and detailed scrutiny—should be expected to bring the evidence forward unimpeded and remain always on guard for weary, gifts bringing Greeks. The "gifts" may come with an unexpected steep price.
Whether Professor Stephen Miller, who solicited signatures from other university professors—felt it was his duty to "right" the "wrongs" of history and "educate" president Obama on issues regarding ancient history, initiated this move on his own behalf or if he was "politely persuaded" or say, nudged to do it, is not my concern. Truth is that his actions are unprecedented in the academic circles and of very dubious nature; they precipitate from the potential discourse may have dangerous tsunami-like reverberations later. The academic truth—under any circumstances—must remain pure and uncompromised.
The mere fact that he collected a miserable fifty signatories from around the world speaks volumes in and of itself. Surely, there are a great number of scholars—whose work I am familiar with—that were able to keep their moral aptitude to education and abstain from forming an opposite camp simply because it was the right thing to do; politics must not influence academic decisions and vice-versa. They recognized that the ensuing internecine strife would be neither useful for scientific research nor appropriate for academic debates. Debated issues are brought to a successful closure not through political clout but on the strength, the weight and the reliability of the presented facts and arguments.
This is why Stephen Miller´s backhanded approach in solving politically created issues is repulsive. He consciously undermines and minimizes the stature and work of so many prominent history professors whose research and academic standards far surpass his assumed defense of the largely indefensible position on the alleged "greekness" of the ancient Macedonians. He even cites King Alexander I´s participation in the Greek Olympic Games as proof of the greekness of the ancient Macedonians but he fails to inform the president of the fact that the Greek participants refused to compete against him on the very same ground that he wasn´t Greek.
It is tempting to ask Mr. Miller the following obvious question:
How is it possible for the common folks, the everyday Greek men to know more about the ancient Macedonians than the judges themselves that Alexander from Macedon was not Greek? Since Alexander did not have his driver´s license on his person, could it be that the judges were persuaded that he is of a Greek descent after they saw his picture on the gold coins he just happened to carry with him. I can picture the "hard-to-bribe" Greek judges saying that a positive identification cannot be obtained by only a few gold coins.
"We need the whole pouch filled with gold coins to determine your greekness. Unlike your barbaric kind, us civilized Greeks need lots of proof."
On this note I am inviting all these professors, the signatories of Miller´s petition to offer their expertise and elaborate the following quote from Plutarch´s Agesilaus:
(Here, the separation of ethnos between Greeks and Macedonians is in the forefront. The emotional feelings regarding Alexander´s conquest and successes in Asia are clearly described. This episode is just another fact in the string of hard, irrefutable evidence that Greeks did not regard Alexander as their king and that his successes in Asia were received in Greece with great disappointment and alarm).
"I certainly cannot agree with Demarathus the Corinthian, who said that those Greeks who did not live to see Alexander seated on the throne of Darius had been deprived of a great pleasure. On the contrary, I believe that they would have been more likely to weep when they remembered that this triumph was left for Alexander and his Macedonians, while they themselves squandered the lives of Greek generals on the battlefields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth and Arcadia"(Plut.Agesilaus.15).
Now let us see what conclusions we can draw from this immortal episode:
(a) Are these two Greek fellows discussing Alexander´s capture of Darius´ throne?
(b) Do they agree with each other?
(c) Would you agree that the fellow, who disagrees with Demarathus the Corinthian, sees Alexander and his Macedonians as being quite different than the Greeks?
(d) Is there a clear separation in meaning between Greeks and Macedonians?
(e) Greeks would "weep" and not received pleasure for seeing Alexander seated on the throne. Is this clear enough? Why would the Greeks not rejoice in Alexander´s triumph? Isn´t it true that along with the modern Greeks, you Mr. Miller, claim that Alexander was a Greek king and a Greek hero?
(f) Where is the evidence Mr. Miller? Surely, from this episode and hundreds like it, one would be hard pressed to come up with such a conclusion.
(g) Would you have enough intestinal fortitude to discuss and elaborate this episode with your students Mr. Miller? It seems to me that there is no other way around it; to assign greekness to Alexander one must either: (a) distort the truth, (b) corrupt the evidence or (c) swiftly avoid the argument altogether and
(h) Do you, gentlemen and scholars, agree that the ancient Greeks did not see the Macedonians as brethren?
Then, let me ask the final logical question: how can one who teaches young adults—and claims to know his way around ancient history—come up with such a preposterous conclusion and place his signature on corrupted evidence?
This is just one example of an ordinary Greek expressing his innermost displeasures that the glory and the triumphs were left for the King of the Macedonians. Like so many inscriptions left on many monuments and the epitaphs erected for the fallen comrades in battles, these facts accentuate the unpretentiously heartfelt wishes, the pure desires or the raw pains of the ancient people. These episodes subtly, and with an incorruptible text convey to us the truest picture of the events taking place in antiquity and, to a certain degree and with a heightened urgency, implore us not to mess around, or try to see more than what is already written in the text.
Alexander´s success in Asia is not the concern of this Greek fellow. To him, Alexander and his Macedonians are seen as conquerors of Greece, and the road to Darius´ throne was paved with Greek blood spilled at Leuctra, Chaeronea and Corinth. Literature is replete with examples where the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks is not only obvious but it is treated as a matter of fact.
All of you signatories—who suffer from amnesia-plagued human rights issues—should be taken to Greece on a fact finding mission and forced to observe for yourselves the discrimination, the persecutions and the cultural degradation inflicted on the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece. By attaching your signature to that worthless piece of garbage, you not only sided with the racist, bigoted Greek regime, but you also approved of their hated, gruesome inhumane practices. Shame on all of you, heartless invertebrates.
We have been carrying this Greek monkey on our backs for too darn long. We must find a way to get rid of it once and for all.
Until next time…
Print
Email
