Ok, I give up: There have been very emotional mass protests in the recent past by Greeks who protest against the new country of Macedonia (or FYROM, it’s capital at Skopjye).
The issue seems to be because of the name Macedonia is also connected to a Greek province.
But why is it a big issue? Is Paris France upset that we have a Paris, Texas? Is Hamas angry that we have a Palestine, Texas as well? Mexico angry because we have a ‘New Mexico’? (Ok maybe about the Mexican-American war, but not the name itself)
And why are the Macedonian (FYROM) people Slavic? At least they speak a Slavic language. What relation do Slavs have with Macedon? Why would they want a Greek name? And why do Greeks care that much? (A little care I understand, but not as much as I’ve seen).
The Wikipedia articles explain some of the conflict, but I still don’t get it.
The wikipedia article explains all of the conflict. But if you want the cliff’s notes version… two words: Greater Macedonia. Emphasis on the word “Greater”, meaning “larger”. If you still don’t get it, see: Greater Serbia.
It’s nothing like Paris, Texas, where a place has just been named after another place. The country and the Greek province are both part of the ancient country of Macedonia – the country that Alexander the Great started off as king of.
My guess is, from the way things always go in the Balkans and especially in the last 20 years, the Greeks are afraid an independent state of Macedon bordering on their own province of Macedon implies an irredentist territorial claim down the road. That’s what nationalism is all about . . . even though it doesn’t apply here because the Greek Macedonians are Greek-speakers, not Slavs. But the name – and the ancient territorial associations – might be enough to cause trouble. As Walter Lippmann wrote in Public Opinion (1922):
There’s also a matter of national pride, “Macedonia” being universally associated with Greek history and Alexander the Great. The modern Greeks regard themselves as the rightful heirs of the whole classical Hellenic heritage.
Let me preface by saying I just drank a glass of wine so I hope this makes sense.
Ethnicity and nationality in the Balkans is very complicated and doesn’t really have a neat parallel to how we view it in the United States. You just have to keep that in mind. You hear one thing from one person and a totally conflicting thing from another person; it’s really confusing, and even though I have actually made a concerted effort to learn Balkan history, I still don’t really know what’s going on. (Not the least because what I’ve heard from Bulgarians often totally conflicts with what I read in mainstream English-language books.) You have to keep in mind that borders have shifted a lot over time, and that this entire region was part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years.
There is a large region of Northern Greece, the FYROM, and Western Bulgaria that is considered by the people who live there to be “Macedonia”. The Bulgarian part is called Pirin Macedonia (the Pirin Mountains run through it) and many people who live in the region consider themselves to be ethnically Macedonian instead of Bulgarian, and people in that region speak Bulgarian with a “Macedonian accent.” However, the Northern Greeks consider themselves to be the descendants of the original, ancient Macedonians. When Macedonians and Bulgarians say that they are Macedonians, the Greeks get annoyed because they believe that their culture is being misappropriated by Slavs. That is the essence of the issue.
And yes, he majority of citizens of the FYROM are Slavs - there is also a large Albanian minority.
It’s not as well-known as the Greek issue, but Bulgarians also have a major problem with the existence of an independent Macedonia. Bulgarians will tell you that Macedonians ARE Bulgarians and that Macedonia should be part of Bulgaria and that it was artificially separated from Bulgaria after…I want to say WWI, but it might have been one of the Balkan Wars. It is certainly true that the linguistic and cultural distinction between Bulgarians and Macedonians is very minor. (Like I already mentioned, there is distinct accent, but Bulgarian and Macedonian are in essence the same language.)
If you want to see people who are part of this conflict talk about it, I recommend reading the comments at literally any video of Macedonian music at youtube. The very first thing I came up with when I searched at youtube was this.
By the way, just to the east of Macedonia is Thrace, which is claimed by Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey. If there were a modern country named Thrace, I guarantee you that one (or all three) of those countries would have a shit fit.
All made more interesting in that many northern Greeks are no doubt descended from Hellenized Slavs and likely more than a few Slavic Macedonians are descended from Slavicized Greeks. Pretty much the entire area of Macedonia and Thessaly ( minus well-fortified Thessalonica and few other coastal sites ) was overrun and settled by Slavic tribes starting as early as the late 500s, certainly by the early 600s. Macedonia in general ( both the modern Slavic and Greek parts ) would not have reverted to Byzantine Greek control until after 1018 when Bulgaria was conquered. Bulgaria itself only expanded to exercise a loose suzerainty over that region in mid-800s, though it is commonly thought that the Slavic tribes in Bulgaria proper and those that quite independently penetrated modern Greece had a common linguistic origin, associated with the Antes.
A lot of Greeks just don’t like the idea that Slavs would call themselves Macedonians, they feel like they’re robbed of their heritage (Alexander), and for some reason that nobody outside the Balkans can understand it’s a huge deal and almost worth a declaration of war.
Just never pronounce the word “Macedonia” anywhere near a Greek*, avoid any spot (real or internet based) where a Macedonian and a Greek could be present at the same time and your sanity will be preserved.
(*) Preemptive comment : yes, I know, not every Greek is like that.
Not only a province but a 3,000 year old history. Macedonia is Greek. The embezzling of the name Macedonia is a travesty of Slavic and/or Muslim people trying to claim part of the Ancient Greek tradition and history for themselves.
This is not like Paris, Texas, or Athens, Georgia. City names are considered a kind gesture to historical ancestors.
This is like the NW Mexican peninsula declaring independence and calling themselves the Nation of California.
The US would never stand for it, nor should it. The only reason the Former Yugoslavian Republic of M? got their name is because of the incompetence of Greek politicians to stand up for their historical heritage.
Makedonia is Greek. Read some historical books if you disagree.
If the Mexican state of California became independent and named itself the Republic of California, I’d be willing to bet this would be the least of the US’s concerns. The break-up of Mexico, and whatever caused it might be a concern. But absent any indication that the RoC was looking to expand into the US State of California, I doubt that we would have any objection.
No one in the continents of the Americas get upset over the name the United States of America, you know. Over 200 years, and have yet to hear any serious objection to the USA claiming the whole of two continents. The actual policy of hemispheric dominance, sure. The name, not so much.
In other words, get over yourselves. You would think the Greeks would know that obsessin over what happened 1200 years ago is a losing game. You were relatively unscathed by the latest blow-up over the ethnic rivalries in the Balkans.
It is not your politicians who were incompetent (at least no more than usual). It was your position that was deemed unworthy of sympathy and childish. The Greeks are losing this by attrition. But the more they fight, the faster they lose.
You mean the area that is now called Baja (Lower) California? I am a California native and it wouldn’t have occurred to me in a million years to have a problem with that new name. Especially given that it’s already kind of called that. I bet that you couldn’t find ten people here that would have a problem with that new name.
I’m another (Alta) Californian, and I have to agree. That part of Mexico is already called Baja California, and no one cares.
The sheer fury of the Greek objection over the name of Macedonia does baffle me. And I’ve spent a lot of time in the area (been to Macedonia three times; could never afford to go to Greece) and generally have a pretty decent idea of how things work in the region.
I don’t know if Naxos is actually Greek (his location field is empty), but if so it sure seems you’re right. But I’d also like to understand it. I can see why Greece would be concerned if there was in the Republic of Macedonia an active irredentist movement aimed at annexing the Macedonian parts of Greece and Bulgaria. Not that it could ever be successful. But just using the name (which is justified, as the country of Macedonia is entirely part of the historical region of Macedonia) and the image of Alexander the Great? That’s fairly harmless.
For that matter, is it the name of the country (Macedonia) or the use of Alexander’s image that’s bothering the Greeks more?
Not only that, but Alexander and the Macedonians weren’t Greek. Not ethnically, and not really culturally. Macedonia was a very different place. It was more like Hispania to Rome: influenced culturally, but with its own independant future. The Macedonians for their part preferred to be considered Greek, but it wasn’t exactly true then. These days, perhaps, but then not all of historical Macedon is part of Greece: it included chunks of southern Buglaria, the Republic of Macedon, and the Greek province of macedonia.
So, all in all Naxos is very much wrong, and given the Greek nymic and the sudden angry passion, I’m betting he is a Greek with a very non-neutral point of view here.
Actually, I think Naxos reversed the California example. The “traditional” region of California includes both Upper California (the US state) and Lower California (the two Mexican states). But Americans refer to Upper California as simply “California”, which is similar to the (FY) Republic of Macedonia using this name despite its territory covering only part of the traditional region of Macedonia.
As far as I can tell, the Mexicans don’t care about Americans appropriating the name “California”. But on the other hand there isn’t an ancient, semi-mythical race of “Californians” whom Mexicans consider themselves the cultural heirs of, unlike those uncultured gringos up north.
Also you have to remember Bugarian and Macedonian are basically the same language. Bulgarians considered the Macedonians to be Bulgarians. Before WWI the Serbians referred to them as South Serbs.
You also have claims that Montenigrins are actually Serbs. My mother is from what is now Croatia and my father from what is now Serbia, they spoke the same language which is now called Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenigrin.
The real problem with the area is it IS such a mixture of people. There’s no clear cut divisions. For example in Romania right in the middle of the country is a huge area of Hungarians. It would make sense to put these people in Hungary. But there’s no way to do it and keep a contiguous area, 'cause then you’d have a whole bunch of Romanians in Hungary.
Back the OP questions, the Macedonians will say they are Greeks who were “Slavisized” over the years. The Greeks maintain this was never the case.
In additon to concepts of Greater Serbia, there is a movement for Greater Bulgaria, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania, all seeking to put as many of the nationalities under one flag as possible.
Indeed the forced population movements of WWII, solved the problem where 1/3 of Poland was actually Germany and huge areas of Finland are now in Russia. Since the populations were moved there’s no huge call to get those lands returned. Not to say forced populations is a good thing, it causes huge suffering.
This. But also, the area has simply been a huge crossroads of peoples since before the Romans. We know there were some major ethnic migrations during the laer Roman period, but we don’t entirely know how much. The cultural and ethnic shifts, immigrations and emigrations, have turned it into one giant noodle platter.
Ok, this may be a little around the circle but bear with me. In Balkans, one of the biggest causes of an individual and group anxiety is the idea that a group of people living in a geographically well-defined region has a national – and with it, religious and ethnic – identity that is not very clear. An identity that due to some historical event can be questioned. This historical event can go very deep back into past, it may have as many versions of the story as there are days in between past and current, no matter, the seed of doubt, once sown, is there for eternity. Did I mention historical documents that contradict each other every year as they were published?
These regions are usually mixed as they are always on the edge of the national fatherland epicenter and as such are subject to all kinds of mixing with other groups but most of all, these regions are relatively low in significance in both intellectual and practical sense. Anyone with half a brain wants to leave that region and move closer to center thus making such regions perpetually backwater of the country they belong to.
What these regions are good for is for elites to manipulate its population into a loud, fighting, no-prisoners-taken war machine because that is the only time they get to shine. And the luminescence is usually directly related to the degree of doubt in their identity; in fact, it can be said that in war they shine as much as is the stain on their national identity.
It is no wonder that in a lot of cases the worst leaders of the Balkan national groups come from a region like that - case in point, both Milosevic and Karadzic come from Montenegro.
Something similar can be said of northern Greece and province of Macedonia. Long time ago some Slavs came down from Russian steppes in 6th and 7th century and decided to stay, of all places, in a place called Macedonia. Over time they took the name of the place to distinguish themselves from everyone else and the name stayed on. They were even defined as a Macedonian nationality within former Yugoslavia not even 20 years ago. We never heard of problems then. It is only when Macedonians decided to upgrade from a province to a country that voices became louder and in fact, became official political thread in Greece. It was only able to become “official” because the region itself and the long asleep issue was awakened by the smooth operators from the center (Athena). That’s really all it is - useful idiots of a doubtful identity doing their best to prove they are the purest form while other pressing issues (and trust me there are plenty of those all over Balkans and Greece) go on as always.
Personally, what was really stunning to me is that they were able to block process of UN recognition of country of Macedonia after the breakup of Yugoslavia and force them to take up the most stupid and humiliating name ever. It just tells me to stay the hell away from that region as far as possible and show finger to any UN official.