Fabricators of Macedonian History: Finally, we have agreed!
Gandeto
November 23, 2008
A Greek fellow writes:
"The common definition of "taking text out of context" is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its true meaning. In other words, a shorter extract or phrase is used purposedly in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. The latter certainly became an effective tool on the hands of the usual peddlers of false history; originating mainly from the "most radical Slavic groups" of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as Prof. Eugene Borza [1] correctly concluded. Since the overwhelming evidence was against their illusions de grandeur, they had to invent an effective way to present the facts distorted in their favour, and misinterpreting positions became a usual tactic."
These are my sentiments exactly; for once we have agreed with these propaganda disseminators from our southern neighbor, Greece. It appears that our adversaries speak with confidence stemming from their long and painstakingly invested efforts to perfectly articulate the science of fabrication.
I have selected several passages for illustration where the reader can see examples of the aforementioned allegations; the only difference is in the fact that these passages were produced by Greek propagandists.
The Greek fellow continues to describe how propagandists work:
"If the source in question disagrees with their position, FYROM´s propagandists will try to diminish the validity of the source or instead they will present quotes which allegedly suggest that this source is supportive of their own position. Material that allegedly uphold this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured. In summary, we have a plain misrepresentation of the source´s position created by FYROM´s propaganda machine for the purpose of having a deliberate overstatement of the actual position to their own favour."
Consider the following example:
One of the well-travelled paths to link the Ancient Macedonians with the Ancient Greeks is the Greek insistence that the Ancient Macedonians spoke the same language as the Ancient Greeks and therefore, they, against all common indicators to the opposite, should be included with the Hellenes. Thus, the language spoken by the Ancient Macedonians is taken as a prime determinant of their ethnicity. This postulate serves their purpose and is widely and stubbornly defended as one of the indices, if not the sole indicator, for Greek-ness.
This, in the preponderance of other more direct opposites of their thesis, is not surprising; what is surprising is their track record in using and applying double standards. While they readily dispense unsubstantiated charges of "text and content manipulation" they, themselves are caught with their hand in the cookie jar; doing what they accuse others of doing.
In the article written by AMAC members (who are neither Macedonians nor defenders of truth) "Recycling Propaganda: Remarks on NGO reports on Greece´s "Slav-Macedonian Minority" from November 18, 2008, we find the following Greek position defended:
Between November 1993 and October 1994 various NGO reports focused on the ethnic Macedonian minorities living in Greece. NGOs argue that Macedonian language is primordial ethnic identity embraced by a considerable proportion of the population of Macedonia and still corresponds to a sizable but suppressed and violently assimilated ethnic minority in Greece.
One of the observers, Eric Siesby, states that the existence of a Macedonian ethnic identity in Greece is self-evident since there is distinctive and corresponding language. Interchangeably, to describe the Macedonians, he used the terms "Macedonian" "local Slav-Macedonian" and "Slav-Macedonian".
Greeks´ objection to his findings is described as follows:
"Had he tried to define their content, as other observers after him did, he would have realized that they correspond to extremely ill-defined groups of people, bilingual, Greek or Slav-speaking, of Greek ethnic identity in their overwhelming majority."
This is troublesome thinking to say the least but it is not what caught my attention and raised a red flag; what (did not) surprise(d) me was the following rationale for their objection: (Bold faced text for emphasis)
"Groups which in any case would all agree that linguistic criteria are not only insufficient to denote ethnic nuances in the Balkans; they can also be misleading."
Perhaps, you remember the contentious quote from Polybius a few days ago where the dispute centered around the quote containing the passage "speakers of same language" with which the Greek fellow wanted to use as proof that Ancient Macedonians spoke the same language as the Ancient Greeks and thus, they must be classed as Greeks.
Now, these same Greeks are burning the candle from the other end and want to argue the point but this time, since it suits their purpose, in the opposite direction: namely that "linguistic criteria are not only insufficient to denote ethnic nuances in the Balkans but they can be misleading.
A lesson learned: You cannot burn the candle from both ends and expect not to get burned.
Again, referring to your original statement above, I could not have said it better myself; you fellows are true students of the art of manipulation. As a matter of fact, you have not only mastered the art of manipulating the text but have brought it to another level; the level of highest distinction. Like so many other things that you Greeks have invented, this, the art of fabrication, is deservedly yours. You have won the argument hands down.
Many times I wonder where western civilization would be without your colossal contribution to humanity. Remarkable achievement indeed; It is so remarkable that if you have elected not to contribute it, the Western intellectuals would have been forced to beg and borrow from the Mesopotamian and the Egyptians scholars or even Chinese. Just think for a moment what kind of fiasco that would have been, to borrow cultural things from a Muslim country; or to admit that what we have inherited, here in the west, comes not from "glorious" Greece, but from these "backward", Muslim countries; the mere thought of it sends shivers down your spine, doesn´t it?
So, let us thank you, once more, for your cultural heritage because without your 4000 years of unbroken continuity of existence (give or take a few hundred years under the Macedonians, then a few dozen centuries under the Romans, then five hundred years under the Ottomans) you managed to remain pure, 100%, 24 carat Greeks.
From now on, we´ll dissect every written word to avoid misunderstandings and we´ll stay away from ambiguous statements that can induce discourse in our newly found agreement.
Let us visit Philip V, the King of Macedonia.
A selected segment from the Aetolian Congress:
"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p. 300] book 5.104
A Greek delegate speaks at the congress.
(1) He is addressing King Philip. This, so far is clear. Isn´t it?
(2) "Instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader…"
Here the explicit implication is that one party, Philip, inflicts burden, torment or pain to the other party, the Greeks. Are we clear so far?
If Greeks were the same as the Macedonians or if Macedonians were Greeks, would Philip, the Macedonian King, make his own subjects, the Greeks, an easy prey for the invader? Are you still with me brothers?
(3) "…is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions."
"Protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominion"
Gentlemen! Disseminators of the truth, what part of this sentence causes you discomfort? What part of this sentence is ambiguously stated? What is it that you don´t quite comprehend?
"To protect every province of Greece as if it were a part of your own dominion."
Can any one of you rise to the occasion and state whether the ancient Greeks considered the ancient Macedonia as part of Greece? Are there any misconceptions that need to be addressed? Does this statement come from the mouth of an ancient Greek speaker, a contemporary of Philip, who could tell who was who in antiquity? Is there any doubt whether the translation from Latin is accurate or not?
(4) If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack…"
Greeks will be your friends and allies!
Could this sentence be applied to a Greek fellow? Can a Greek fellow be friends to the Greeks? Does it make any sense to you, brothers; you, the disseminators of the truth?
Do you think Greeks regarded Philip as one of their own? Can a King have allies from his own dominion? (Don´t even try to go to the Lyncestians or the Orestians.)
I understand your predicament but would you refrain from making false statements from now on? Would you not cling to unimportant, casual matters that bear no weight at all, like using language as an excuse for Greekness? How many examples do you need us to bring forth for you to be convinced that the language does not ethnicity make. Look at your partners, the Serbs and their close cousins the Croats; do they speak the same language? Would you not agree that Croats will get angry if you call them Serbs and vice-versa? Are Brazilians the same as Portuguese? Are Mexicans the same as Puerto Ricans?
I think this case needs to be closed.
Let us continue…
(2) [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace: "The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, handover to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."
(1) "He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece,"
Let us attack this unknown:
(a) Do Romans see Macedonia as part of Greece?
(b) Is there a clear delineation between the two geographical places?
(c) If Macedonia was "always Greek" do you think this Roman general confused the geography of the land?
(d) Do you think you are disseminating the truth when you repeat at nausea that Macedonia is Greece?
(e) If Polybius knew that the Roman general was at fault, don´t you think he would have said so?
Let us move on….
(3) (Book XVIII. 3) A man named Alexander of Isus, who had the reputation of being both an experienced statesman and an able orator, rose to speak: 'Why,' he asked Philip V, 'had he sold into slavery the people of Cius, which was also a member of the Aetolian League, when he himself was on friendly terms with the Aetolians?'
(1)Sold to slavery the people of Cius?
(a) Would a king sell his own citizens to slavery?
(b) Do you still think that Philip V was Greek?
(4) (Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands:
"But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,' he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories?"
Let us finalize it…
(1) "they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans"
(a) "They should put themselves" could have not been used if Philip felt that the Greeks were his own people.
(b) Is this a clear distinction as to what Philip thought about the Greeks?
(c) Does he feel the Greeks are his brethren?
(2) "what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate"
(a) Does Philip know where Greece begins?
(b) Does he think Greece is his country?
(c) Does he talk about evacuation? Do kings get to be asked to evacuate from their own country?
(d) Is it sinking in now my dear distributor of the truth?
(e) Is it painfully obvious that Philip did not care for the Greeks or them about him?
(3) "Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks!"
(a) Do you think Philip V knows who is Greek and who is not?
(c) Why does he say that Aetolians were not Greeks?
(d) Do you think Greeks knew who were and who weren´t Greeks?
(4) "The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek"
As you can see my dear Greeks, you have no legs to stand on. Common wisdom dictates that what ancient Greeks knew and left for posterity is the incontrovertible evidence that you cannot manipulate nor can you erase. These things are not like the artifacts you dig out from your archeological sites in Greece that you can dispense as you wish.
Modern Greeks of today have no connection to the ancient Greeks, let alone claim any connection with the ancient Macedonians. The historical lacunas uncovered are too deep and too numerous for you to subvert.
Your aim is tragically transparent; you do not care about the name "Macedonia" but you are morbidly afraid of those wretched Macedonian souls you did not fully exterminate when you tried. They will haunt your soul as long as you live. Your hands are bloody and your conscience is taking a toll on you. (Edgar Allen Poe´s story comes to mind.) Your drivel in the media is just a divergent ploy to throw off the attention elsewhere. Be sure that readers, whom you take for granted, can see through you. Do you know why?
(a) You are trying too hard to portray the Macedonians from Macedonia as factitious people without history or culture and (b) when you stretch the truth too much, people see through it.
I´ll leave you with this:
Instead of disseminating worn-out propaganda lines and attempting to buy and collect new "converts" to your failed political goals you should advise, since you claim to be in that business, your leaders in Athens to grasp the extended peaceful hand from the Republic of Macedonia, embrace the people of Macedonia as your neighbors and fellow Christians (after all, the two people from both countries share an enormous amount of "sameness"), prosper together in the new Europe and bury the hatchet of hatred once and for all.
It is our duty as a civilized people to promote peace and cooperation between nations instead of hatred and division; it is incumbent upon us to stifle the flames of war and work tirelessly towards building bridges instead of barriers, it is our duty to overcome our old prejudices and accept the other fellow as equal instead of pompously beating our chest and claiming that we are better than our neighbor; it is within our times to change the old, stupid mentality of grabbing more land for ourselves and making "our nation" bigger than yours. We are, collectively speaking, too small for that and we are nothing but a pawn in a big chess game. It is time that the winds of war cease and never blow our countryside again. Pray, (borrowing a phrase from Tecumseh) as you claim to be a Christian, not to be stronger than me, but to be able to defeat the demons within you. Ancient history is neither yours nor mine; it belongs in antiquity. Alexander as a historical icon belongs to all of us. Let it be. Let us be able to overcome nonessential obstacles that by their nature do not impede today´s progress; let us hope for wisdom in our leaders to see and recognize the anomalies inherited in retrograde thinking. Republic of Macedonia is not a threat to Greece; she, in the near future, could be your biggest asset.
Recognize the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece; they are your citizens, treat them with equal dignity and again, instead of denying their existence, rise above your ingrained prejudices and right the past wrongs. Let them speak their mother´s tongue and provide primary education in their Macedonian language. Let the children learn from their own grandparents their traditional songs and stories only grandparents can deliver. You will be stronger and bigger for it; diversity of populations is not an impediment to cultural greatness but an incentive to cultural wealth. It is only human to forgive and let us move forward from this day on. Stop the hate and look around yourselves; it is time "hermano". We are not that different from each other…
Until next time….
"The common definition of "taking text out of context" is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its true meaning. In other words, a shorter extract or phrase is used purposedly in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. The latter certainly became an effective tool on the hands of the usual peddlers of false history; originating mainly from the "most radical Slavic groups" of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as Prof. Eugene Borza [1] correctly concluded. Since the overwhelming evidence was against their illusions de grandeur, they had to invent an effective way to present the facts distorted in their favour, and misinterpreting positions became a usual tactic."
These are my sentiments exactly; for once we have agreed with these propaganda disseminators from our southern neighbor, Greece. It appears that our adversaries speak with confidence stemming from their long and painstakingly invested efforts to perfectly articulate the science of fabrication.
I have selected several passages for illustration where the reader can see examples of the aforementioned allegations; the only difference is in the fact that these passages were produced by Greek propagandists.
The Greek fellow continues to describe how propagandists work:
"If the source in question disagrees with their position, FYROM´s propagandists will try to diminish the validity of the source or instead they will present quotes which allegedly suggest that this source is supportive of their own position. Material that allegedly uphold this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured. In summary, we have a plain misrepresentation of the source´s position created by FYROM´s propaganda machine for the purpose of having a deliberate overstatement of the actual position to their own favour."
Consider the following example:
One of the well-travelled paths to link the Ancient Macedonians with the Ancient Greeks is the Greek insistence that the Ancient Macedonians spoke the same language as the Ancient Greeks and therefore, they, against all common indicators to the opposite, should be included with the Hellenes. Thus, the language spoken by the Ancient Macedonians is taken as a prime determinant of their ethnicity. This postulate serves their purpose and is widely and stubbornly defended as one of the indices, if not the sole indicator, for Greek-ness.
This, in the preponderance of other more direct opposites of their thesis, is not surprising; what is surprising is their track record in using and applying double standards. While they readily dispense unsubstantiated charges of "text and content manipulation" they, themselves are caught with their hand in the cookie jar; doing what they accuse others of doing.
In the article written by AMAC members (who are neither Macedonians nor defenders of truth) "Recycling Propaganda: Remarks on NGO reports on Greece´s "Slav-Macedonian Minority" from November 18, 2008, we find the following Greek position defended:
Between November 1993 and October 1994 various NGO reports focused on the ethnic Macedonian minorities living in Greece. NGOs argue that Macedonian language is primordial ethnic identity embraced by a considerable proportion of the population of Macedonia and still corresponds to a sizable but suppressed and violently assimilated ethnic minority in Greece.
One of the observers, Eric Siesby, states that the existence of a Macedonian ethnic identity in Greece is self-evident since there is distinctive and corresponding language. Interchangeably, to describe the Macedonians, he used the terms "Macedonian" "local Slav-Macedonian" and "Slav-Macedonian".
Greeks´ objection to his findings is described as follows:
"Had he tried to define their content, as other observers after him did, he would have realized that they correspond to extremely ill-defined groups of people, bilingual, Greek or Slav-speaking, of Greek ethnic identity in their overwhelming majority."
This is troublesome thinking to say the least but it is not what caught my attention and raised a red flag; what (did not) surprise(d) me was the following rationale for their objection: (Bold faced text for emphasis)
"Groups which in any case would all agree that linguistic criteria are not only insufficient to denote ethnic nuances in the Balkans; they can also be misleading."
Perhaps, you remember the contentious quote from Polybius a few days ago where the dispute centered around the quote containing the passage "speakers of same language" with which the Greek fellow wanted to use as proof that Ancient Macedonians spoke the same language as the Ancient Greeks and thus, they must be classed as Greeks.
Now, these same Greeks are burning the candle from the other end and want to argue the point but this time, since it suits their purpose, in the opposite direction: namely that "linguistic criteria are not only insufficient to denote ethnic nuances in the Balkans but they can be misleading.
A lesson learned: You cannot burn the candle from both ends and expect not to get burned.
Again, referring to your original statement above, I could not have said it better myself; you fellows are true students of the art of manipulation. As a matter of fact, you have not only mastered the art of manipulating the text but have brought it to another level; the level of highest distinction. Like so many other things that you Greeks have invented, this, the art of fabrication, is deservedly yours. You have won the argument hands down.
Many times I wonder where western civilization would be without your colossal contribution to humanity. Remarkable achievement indeed; It is so remarkable that if you have elected not to contribute it, the Western intellectuals would have been forced to beg and borrow from the Mesopotamian and the Egyptians scholars or even Chinese. Just think for a moment what kind of fiasco that would have been, to borrow cultural things from a Muslim country; or to admit that what we have inherited, here in the west, comes not from "glorious" Greece, but from these "backward", Muslim countries; the mere thought of it sends shivers down your spine, doesn´t it?
So, let us thank you, once more, for your cultural heritage because without your 4000 years of unbroken continuity of existence (give or take a few hundred years under the Macedonians, then a few dozen centuries under the Romans, then five hundred years under the Ottomans) you managed to remain pure, 100%, 24 carat Greeks.
From now on, we´ll dissect every written word to avoid misunderstandings and we´ll stay away from ambiguous statements that can induce discourse in our newly found agreement.
Let us visit Philip V, the King of Macedonia.
A selected segment from the Aetolian Congress:
"I therefore beg you all to be on your guard against this danger, and I appeal especially to King Philip. [Philip V] For you the safest policy, instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader, is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions. If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack and foreigners will be the less inclined to plot against your throne, because they will be discouraged by the loyalty of the Greeks towards you." [p. 300] book 5.104
A Greek delegate speaks at the congress.
(1) He is addressing King Philip. This, so far is clear. Isn´t it?
(2) "Instead of wearing down the Greeks and making them an easy prey for the invader…"
Here the explicit implication is that one party, Philip, inflicts burden, torment or pain to the other party, the Greeks. Are we clear so far?
If Greeks were the same as the Macedonians or if Macedonians were Greeks, would Philip, the Macedonian King, make his own subjects, the Greeks, an easy prey for the invader? Are you still with me brothers?
(3) "…is to take care of them as you would of your own body, and to protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominions."
"Protect every province of Greece as you would if it were a part of your own dominion"
Gentlemen! Disseminators of the truth, what part of this sentence causes you discomfort? What part of this sentence is ambiguously stated? What is it that you don´t quite comprehend?
"To protect every province of Greece as if it were a part of your own dominion."
Can any one of you rise to the occasion and state whether the ancient Greeks considered the ancient Macedonia as part of Greece? Are there any misconceptions that need to be addressed? Does this statement come from the mouth of an ancient Greek speaker, a contemporary of Philip, who could tell who was who in antiquity? Is there any doubt whether the translation from Latin is accurate or not?
(4) If you follow this policy, the Greeks will be your friends and your faithful allies in case of attack…"
Greeks will be your friends and allies!
Could this sentence be applied to a Greek fellow? Can a Greek fellow be friends to the Greeks? Does it make any sense to you, brothers; you, the disseminators of the truth?
Do you think Greeks regarded Philip as one of their own? Can a King have allies from his own dominion? (Don´t even try to go to the Lyncestians or the Orestians.)
I understand your predicament but would you refrain from making false statements from now on? Would you not cling to unimportant, casual matters that bear no weight at all, like using language as an excuse for Greekness? How many examples do you need us to bring forth for you to be convinced that the language does not ethnicity make. Look at your partners, the Serbs and their close cousins the Croats; do they speak the same language? Would you not agree that Croats will get angry if you call them Serbs and vice-versa? Are Brazilians the same as Portuguese? Are Mexicans the same as Puerto Ricans?
I think this case needs to be closed.
Let us continue…
(2) [Book XVIII, 1] Philip V from Macedon invites Flamininus (Roman commander) to explain what he, Philip, should do to have peace: "The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, handover to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...."
(1) "He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece,"
Let us attack this unknown:
(a) Do Romans see Macedonia as part of Greece?
(b) Is there a clear delineation between the two geographical places?
(c) If Macedonia was "always Greek" do you think this Roman general confused the geography of the land?
(d) Do you think you are disseminating the truth when you repeat at nausea that Macedonia is Greece?
(e) If Polybius knew that the Roman general was at fault, don´t you think he would have said so?
Let us move on….
(3) (Book XVIII. 3) A man named Alexander of Isus, who had the reputation of being both an experienced statesman and an able orator, rose to speak: 'Why,' he asked Philip V, 'had he sold into slavery the people of Cius, which was also a member of the Aetolian League, when he himself was on friendly terms with the Aetolians?'
(1)Sold to slavery the people of Cius?
(a) Would a king sell his own citizens to slavery?
(b) Do you still think that Philip V was Greek?
(4) (Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands:
"But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,' he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories?"
Let us finalize it…
(1) "they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans"
(a) "They should put themselves" could have not been used if Philip felt that the Greeks were his own people.
(b) Is this a clear distinction as to what Philip thought about the Greeks?
(c) Does he feel the Greeks are his brethren?
(2) "what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate"
(a) Does Philip know where Greece begins?
(b) Does he think Greece is his country?
(c) Does he talk about evacuation? Do kings get to be asked to evacuate from their own country?
(d) Is it sinking in now my dear distributor of the truth?
(e) Is it painfully obvious that Philip did not care for the Greeks or them about him?
(3) "Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks!"
(a) Do you think Philip V knows who is Greek and who is not?
(c) Why does he say that Aetolians were not Greeks?
(d) Do you think Greeks knew who were and who weren´t Greeks?
(4) "The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek"
As you can see my dear Greeks, you have no legs to stand on. Common wisdom dictates that what ancient Greeks knew and left for posterity is the incontrovertible evidence that you cannot manipulate nor can you erase. These things are not like the artifacts you dig out from your archeological sites in Greece that you can dispense as you wish.
Modern Greeks of today have no connection to the ancient Greeks, let alone claim any connection with the ancient Macedonians. The historical lacunas uncovered are too deep and too numerous for you to subvert.
Your aim is tragically transparent; you do not care about the name "Macedonia" but you are morbidly afraid of those wretched Macedonian souls you did not fully exterminate when you tried. They will haunt your soul as long as you live. Your hands are bloody and your conscience is taking a toll on you. (Edgar Allen Poe´s story comes to mind.) Your drivel in the media is just a divergent ploy to throw off the attention elsewhere. Be sure that readers, whom you take for granted, can see through you. Do you know why?
(a) You are trying too hard to portray the Macedonians from Macedonia as factitious people without history or culture and (b) when you stretch the truth too much, people see through it.
I´ll leave you with this:
Instead of disseminating worn-out propaganda lines and attempting to buy and collect new "converts" to your failed political goals you should advise, since you claim to be in that business, your leaders in Athens to grasp the extended peaceful hand from the Republic of Macedonia, embrace the people of Macedonia as your neighbors and fellow Christians (after all, the two people from both countries share an enormous amount of "sameness"), prosper together in the new Europe and bury the hatchet of hatred once and for all.
It is our duty as a civilized people to promote peace and cooperation between nations instead of hatred and division; it is incumbent upon us to stifle the flames of war and work tirelessly towards building bridges instead of barriers, it is our duty to overcome our old prejudices and accept the other fellow as equal instead of pompously beating our chest and claiming that we are better than our neighbor; it is within our times to change the old, stupid mentality of grabbing more land for ourselves and making "our nation" bigger than yours. We are, collectively speaking, too small for that and we are nothing but a pawn in a big chess game. It is time that the winds of war cease and never blow our countryside again. Pray, (borrowing a phrase from Tecumseh) as you claim to be a Christian, not to be stronger than me, but to be able to defeat the demons within you. Ancient history is neither yours nor mine; it belongs in antiquity. Alexander as a historical icon belongs to all of us. Let it be. Let us be able to overcome nonessential obstacles that by their nature do not impede today´s progress; let us hope for wisdom in our leaders to see and recognize the anomalies inherited in retrograde thinking. Republic of Macedonia is not a threat to Greece; she, in the near future, could be your biggest asset.
Recognize the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece; they are your citizens, treat them with equal dignity and again, instead of denying their existence, rise above your ingrained prejudices and right the past wrongs. Let them speak their mother´s tongue and provide primary education in their Macedonian language. Let the children learn from their own grandparents their traditional songs and stories only grandparents can deliver. You will be stronger and bigger for it; diversity of populations is not an impediment to cultural greatness but an incentive to cultural wealth. It is only human to forgive and let us move forward from this day on. Stop the hate and look around yourselves; it is time "hermano". We are not that different from each other…
Until next time….
Print
Email
