Origin of the Modern Greek nation (Greece)
Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
February 24, 2009
FYROM propagandists are attempting to create a non-existant dispute that focuses on the origin of the Modern Greeks. This propaganda can be found all over the internet; mostly by white supremacists, afrocentrists and Slavmacedonians nationalists (usually VMRO fans and diaspora radical centers) who have political motivations to relate modern and/or ancient Greeks to black Africans, Slavs, Albanians etc.
Nationality is a matter of culture and education and not genetic (mixtures) issue. Who can possibly relate blood standards to nationality (race)?
The racist and the "white arryan" supremacist may think that the colour of the skin and eye or the genetic markers are the definition of the race.
Modern Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained that language and that civilization from classical times to the present. No one claims that genetic purity is an ideal for the Greek people (like other races). Even Sforza considers two others factors, except the clusters: these are language and history. The Modern Greek nation is not an entirely modern formation, for it is based on much older cultural groups. Greek cultural groups (like Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavophones etc.) present "permanent cultural attributes" such as memory, value, myths and symbolisms.
According to the current international thinking as Mr. Michael Vakaoukas (Modern Greek National Identity, Nea Koinoniologia Magazine, Summer 2005) said there are two main models of nation:
(a) the territorial and civic model and
(b) the ethnic-genealogical model.
The theory of Renan belongs to the western civic model, as per which a historic territory, legal-political community, legal-political equality, and common civic culture and ideology are required for the formation of a nation. According to the alternative ethnic model, which is supported by one of the most prominent modern theorists of nationalism, Anthony Smith, nation as a community is based on the common predecessors, the common descent of the different ethnic groups and their native culture.
The question now is which model is the most appropriate for the Greek historical reality: the civic model of Renan, Gellner and Anderson or the ethnic model of Smith. In other words, which of the two types of nationalism (emanating from the two models) applies to the Greek nation: the civic model or the ethnic model?
The nations with an ethnic or genealogical basis seek to expand so as to include the ethnically kin populations that are beyond the current borders of the ethnic nation, along with the territories where they live, or aim for the creation of a much larger ethic-national state, merging into other culturally and ethnically kin states. This is the case of the pan-nationalism of the unredeemed and all other kinds of pan-nationalisms .The characteristics of the genealogical nationalism of the unredeemed fit the Greek nation almost perfectly. Greeks will still talk about the "The Great Idea" and the unredeemed Hellenism (e.g. that of northern Epirus), even though these ideas have fortunately faded after the Asia Minor Catastrophe. However, what is happening today and what happened in the 19th cent, when the Greek nation was built on the basis of the unredeemed-ethnic-genealogical nationalism and much less on the vision of Renan , are two completely different things.A nation is defined by its ethno-culturalism, not by its geographical borders. Common Language and Heritage are what unite a people
In other words, the example of the Greek nation substantiates Smith's theory. According to Smith a nation-state can be defined as "a state claming to be a nation", while a nation, can be defined as "a named population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for its members". An ethnie is in turn defined as "a named population sharing a collective proper name, a presumed common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more differencing elements of common culture, an association with a specific ´homeland´ and a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population".
Here some quotes from Smith as regards the origin of the modern Greek nation:
Quote:
The evidence from the period suggests that the immigrants succeeded in occupying most of central Greece and the Peloponnesus (Morea), pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants to the coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilization to the east, to the Aegean, the Ionian littoral of Asia Minor and to Constantinople. It also meant that modem Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.´
There is a sense in which the preceding discussion is both relevant to a sense of Greek identity, now and earlier, and irrelevant.
It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier, fellt that their ´Greekness´ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such filiations made them feel themselves to be members of one great ´super-family´ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies arc constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece.
For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ´Greek revival´ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage.
This is not to deny for one moment either the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoples and civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years
Anthony D.Smith, National Identity, pages 29-31
Quote:
Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Persians, Chinese and Japanese could be cited as examples of ethnic continuity, since, despite massive cultural changes over the centuries, certain key identifying components—name, language, customs, religious community and territorial association—were broadly maintained and reproduced for millennia.
Nationalism and Modernism, 2003, page 191]
Quote:
The problem of ethnic survival seemed particularly important for later nationalisms: the ability to call on a rich and well documented ´ethno-history´ was to prove a major cultural resource for nationalists, and myths of origins, ethnic election and sacred territories, as well as memories of heroes and golden ages, were crucial to the formulation of a many-stranded ethno-history. All this points to the importance of social memory; as the example of the relationship between modern and ancient Greeks shows, ethnies are constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population.
Nationalism and Modernism, 2003, page 192]
Quote:
This is not to deny for one moment cither the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoplesand civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years.
National Identity, 1991, pages 29-30]
From the above you can realize that Smith theory is more close to the argument that modern Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained thelanguage and culture that dated from classical times to the present. Greek ethnies present a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium. Thus, as Smith points out, "the challenge for scholars is to represent more accurately and convincingly the relationship of ethnic, cultural (Greek) past to modern (Greek) nation".(I add the "Greek")
Written by Akritas
for: Macedonian Forums
info@macedonian.com.au
Nationality is a matter of culture and education and not genetic (mixtures) issue. Who can possibly relate blood standards to nationality (race)?
The racist and the "white arryan" supremacist may think that the colour of the skin and eye or the genetic markers are the definition of the race.
Modern Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained that language and that civilization from classical times to the present. No one claims that genetic purity is an ideal for the Greek people (like other races). Even Sforza considers two others factors, except the clusters: these are language and history. The Modern Greek nation is not an entirely modern formation, for it is based on much older cultural groups. Greek cultural groups (like Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavophones etc.) present "permanent cultural attributes" such as memory, value, myths and symbolisms.
According to the current international thinking as Mr. Michael Vakaoukas (Modern Greek National Identity, Nea Koinoniologia Magazine, Summer 2005) said there are two main models of nation:
(a) the territorial and civic model and
(b) the ethnic-genealogical model.
The theory of Renan belongs to the western civic model, as per which a historic territory, legal-political community, legal-political equality, and common civic culture and ideology are required for the formation of a nation. According to the alternative ethnic model, which is supported by one of the most prominent modern theorists of nationalism, Anthony Smith, nation as a community is based on the common predecessors, the common descent of the different ethnic groups and their native culture.
The question now is which model is the most appropriate for the Greek historical reality: the civic model of Renan, Gellner and Anderson or the ethnic model of Smith. In other words, which of the two types of nationalism (emanating from the two models) applies to the Greek nation: the civic model or the ethnic model?
The nations with an ethnic or genealogical basis seek to expand so as to include the ethnically kin populations that are beyond the current borders of the ethnic nation, along with the territories where they live, or aim for the creation of a much larger ethic-national state, merging into other culturally and ethnically kin states. This is the case of the pan-nationalism of the unredeemed and all other kinds of pan-nationalisms .The characteristics of the genealogical nationalism of the unredeemed fit the Greek nation almost perfectly. Greeks will still talk about the "The Great Idea" and the unredeemed Hellenism (e.g. that of northern Epirus), even though these ideas have fortunately faded after the Asia Minor Catastrophe. However, what is happening today and what happened in the 19th cent, when the Greek nation was built on the basis of the unredeemed-ethnic-genealogical nationalism and much less on the vision of Renan , are two completely different things.A nation is defined by its ethno-culturalism, not by its geographical borders. Common Language and Heritage are what unite a people
In other words, the example of the Greek nation substantiates Smith's theory. According to Smith a nation-state can be defined as "a state claming to be a nation", while a nation, can be defined as "a named population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for its members". An ethnie is in turn defined as "a named population sharing a collective proper name, a presumed common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more differencing elements of common culture, an association with a specific ´homeland´ and a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population".
Here some quotes from Smith as regards the origin of the modern Greek nation:
Quote:
The evidence from the period suggests that the immigrants succeeded in occupying most of central Greece and the Peloponnesus (Morea), pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants to the coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilization to the east, to the Aegean, the Ionian littoral of Asia Minor and to Constantinople. It also meant that modem Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.´
There is a sense in which the preceding discussion is both relevant to a sense of Greek identity, now and earlier, and irrelevant.
It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier, fellt that their ´Greekness´ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such filiations made them feel themselves to be members of one great ´super-family´ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies arc constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece.
For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ´Greek revival´ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage.
This is not to deny for one moment either the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoples and civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years
Anthony D.Smith, National Identity, pages 29-31
Quote:
Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Persians, Chinese and Japanese could be cited as examples of ethnic continuity, since, despite massive cultural changes over the centuries, certain key identifying components—name, language, customs, religious community and territorial association—were broadly maintained and reproduced for millennia.
Nationalism and Modernism, 2003, page 191]
Quote:
The problem of ethnic survival seemed particularly important for later nationalisms: the ability to call on a rich and well documented ´ethno-history´ was to prove a major cultural resource for nationalists, and myths of origins, ethnic election and sacred territories, as well as memories of heroes and golden ages, were crucial to the formulation of a many-stranded ethno-history. All this points to the importance of social memory; as the example of the relationship between modern and ancient Greeks shows, ethnies are constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population.
Nationalism and Modernism, 2003, page 192]
Quote:
This is not to deny for one moment cither the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoplesand civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years.
National Identity, 1991, pages 29-30]
From the above you can realize that Smith theory is more close to the argument that modern Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained thelanguage and culture that dated from classical times to the present. Greek ethnies present a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium. Thus, as Smith points out, "the challenge for scholars is to represent more accurately and convincingly the relationship of ethnic, cultural (Greek) past to modern (Greek) nation".(I add the "Greek")
Written by Akritas
for: Macedonian Forums
info@macedonian.com.au
Print
Email
