The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World [Hardcover]

Loring M. Danforth (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 1995 | ISBN-10: 0691043574 | ISBN-13: 978-0691043579

Greeks and Macedonians both assert that they, and they alone, have the right to identify themselves as Macedonians. The Greek government denies the existence of a Macedonian nation and insists that all Macedonians are Greeks, while Macedonians vehemently assert their existence as a unique people. This work examines the Macedonian conflict in the light of contemporary theoretical work on ethnic nationalism, the construction of national identities and cultures, the invenstion of tradition, and the role of the state in the process of building a nation. The conflict is set in the broader context of Balkan history and in the narrower context of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The book focuses on the transnational dimension of the "global cultural war" taking place between Greeks and Macedonians both in the Balkans and throughout the rest of the world. It analyzes two issues in particular: the struggle for human rights of the Macedonian minority in northern Greece and the campaign for international recognition of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia. The book concludes with a detailed analysis of the construction of identity at an individual level among immigrants from nothern Greece who have settled in Australia, where multiculturalism is an official policy.

Editorial Reviews

From Scientific American

Loring Danforth humanizes the Macedonian conflict, shows us real people as they live this conflict, and makes clear that, despite its unique features, this struggle over ethnic and national identity is shared with other groups throughout the world. A good, rapid read filled with the fruit of firstrate, onthescene digging into people's lives. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Review

Danforth, an anthropologist, takes one through the ferociously juxtaposed claims and counterclaims, and he explains why the issues set people off with such intensity by fitting the case into modern anthropological thought about national identity, ethnic nationalism, and the role of culture....Danforth struggles mightily to maintain his scholarly detachment amid one of the more explosive topics in the universe, and for the most part he succeeds. -- Foreign Affairs

A significant contribution both theoretically to the study of ethnic and national identity and specifically to those interested in Balkan politics. -- Adamantia Pollis, American Political Science Review

A superb case study both of the conflict between nationalism and ethnic aspirations and of the curious parallelisms in their development. . . . It is a level-headed, humane, and very timely political intervention in a quarrel that continually threatens to become more than a war of words. -- Journal of Modern Greek Studies

[An] engaging, original, timely, and conscientiously written study. . . . This is a well-written work and a major contribution to the study of national consciousness and nation-building. -- Philip Shashko, American Historical Review

Loring Danforth humanizes the Macedonian conflict, shows us real people as they live this conflict, and makes clear that, despite its unique features, this struggle over ethnic and national identity is shared with other groups throughout the world. A good, rapid read filled with the fruit of first-rate, on-the-scene digging into people's lives. -- Lou Panov, The Boston Book Review --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 296 pages
• Publisher: Princeton Univ Pr (December 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691043574
• ISBN-13: 978-0691043579
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,719,299 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

32 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Objectivity rather than political correctness is required, January 22, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Macedonian Conflict (Paperback)

Since the breakup of Yugoslavia sociocultural anthropologists have attempted to provide interpretations and descriptives of both Macedonian ethnicity and the complex Macedonian Question. Objectivity however, is a shortcoming common to most of these studies, not only with respect to history but also with respect to the development of contemporary Macedonian culture. Unfortunately while Danforth aspires to feign neutrality, any individual familiar with the literature would readily recognise the bias in fact and argument. Accordingly we see how employing anthropologically based arguments and perspicacious historic information Danforth "deconstructs" Greek claims of exclusivity with respect to Alexander the Great. However when the equivalent Macedonian process is undertaken, and for which the facts are plain, Danforth is so circumspect that most readers may struggle to differentiate between Macedonian nationalistic "constructs" and Danforth's "deconstructs". The more misanthropic reader might even conclude Danforth is actually supporting "reconstructs". For example the Miladinov brothers identified themselves as Bulgarian throughout their lives. This is self-evident from their letters, their poetry, and from all material describing their lives. Yet not once does Danforth state that the Miladinov Brothers self-identified only as Bulgarians, and devoted their lives exclusively to the Bulgarian national revival. Instead Danforth is mindful to provide the minimum information possible when he attributes a quote to De Bray that Dimitar Miladinov "developed a Bulgarian national consciousness" (De Bray actually wrote "developed a /fanatical/ Bulgarian national consciousness"), and states that the title of the Miladinovs' famous text was "Bulgarian Folk Songs". In regard to Konstantin Miladinov, who wrote some of the most patriotic Bulgarian poetry published during the 19th century, Danforth totally avoids any comment on his self-identity. By raising contentious issues (to Macedonian nationals) as facts without further qualification, Danforth denies his readers an appropriate insight of their wider implication. Danforth is quite aware that the Miladinovs' text was only available in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia under the falsified title - "Macedonian Folk Songs". And this was not an isolated incident, but part of an extensive revisionist agenda to purge the "Bulgarian" name from any historic reference connected to the region. Danforth adopts standard revisionist tactics to link Macedonian nationalism and the Miladinov brothers, even though they died (in a Greek prison) fighting for the Bulgarian nation,16 years before the Bulgarian state existed. The same principles of arbritariness and non-information are evident when Danforth discusses the life of Grigor Purlichev. Exploiting phrases like "dismissed by Bulgarian critics" and "slain by the Bulgarians", Danforth characterises Purlichev as a Macedonian aspiring to be Bulgarian, but never accepted as such; even when Purlichev wrote his final autobiography Danforth tells us how Purlichev chose to write it in Bulgarian. As Danforth's position is untenable, he relies on ascribing identity by inference or supposition - for example he interconnects Purlichev and Misirkov (see later), simply because they came from the Macedonian region and wrote in literary Bulgarian. But anyone having read Purlichev's "Autobiography", or even superficially aware of his life's work, could have no doubt that Purlichev, just like Dimitar Miladinov (his former teacher), viewed himself as a Bulgarian; a Bulgarian fighting for the Bulgarian national revival. So what exactly is Danforth inferring by his phrase "the dilemmas these writers faced as a result of conflicting national pressure"? If it is intended to reveal the existence of a Bulgarian-Macedonian identity crisis amongst the Miladinov Brothers or Purlichev, then Danforth is ill-informed. Deliberation on Krste Misirkov, is obligatory for all authors attempting to justify the long-term existence of Macedonian nationalism, and Danforth is certainly no exception. Unfortunately, Danforth, like many others, has become dependent on the "preconstructed" images of revisionist history fed to him by the likes of the pro-Macedonist academics Friedman and Lunt. Although Danforth has declared that self-ascription is the only principle governing national consciousness, he writes that Misirkov had "clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian", ignoring that on numerous later occasions Misirkov unequivocally stated he was Bulgarian. Danforth's view of the language issue is also compromised from the outset. By limiting discussion to what is only "acceptable" to Macedonian nationalists, he fails to expand on important themes relevant to contemporary Macedonian culture. Danforth omits any reference to Venko Markovski, the first Macedonian poet laureate, and a member of the "Philological Committee on the Establishment of the Macedonian Alphabet and the Macedonian Literary Language" in Skopje, during Nov 27-Dec 3, 1944. Markovski decries the Macedonian literary language as the creation of one person, Blaze Koneski. Danforth disregards events, as recent as 1991, when Lupjcho Georgievski, President of the VMRO-DPME political party, and now in government, demanded major revision of the Macedonian Literary Language to its pre-1944 state. Danforth continually refuses to amplify a multitude of important themes, preferring instead only to recount events which directly favor the stance of Macedonian nationalists. If Danforth stated this bias it would be acceptable, but he does not. Accordingly much of his book cannot qualify as objective scholarship.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Identity as a social construct, January 8, 2012

By 

Robert S. Newman "Bob Newman" (Marblehead, Massachusetts USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Macedonian Conflict (Paperback)

When Yugoslavia broke up in the early `90s, the southernmost republic of that former country declared itself independent with the name "Macedonia". Assuming this name caused a great international ruckus, mainly due to Greek refusal to accept a neighbor with that name. They didn't like their neighbor's name, they didn't like their flag, and they denied that this patently obvious nation (as opposed to `state') even existed. Why was this ? Who are Macedonians ? Where do you find them ? And who, after all, has the right to define who you are ? The answers to all these questions are exceedingly complex, but if you read Danforth's book, you will come away with a far better understanding of the matter. (and I should add, it would help if you don't belong to any of the nationalities dealt with in the book !!)

Macedonia was an ancient region, north of the Greek city states. As far as I understood, originally they were not Greek, but absorbed Greek culture enough so that by the time Alexander the Great (also known as "Alexander of Macedon", remember ?) launched on his world conquests, the Macedonians brought their adopted culture to many parts of the ancient world. The Greeks never tired of claiming him as their own exclusively. After the end of Alexander's brief hegemony, Macedonia faded to a region, never playing much part in world affairs. In the sixth and seventh centuries A.D., Slavic settlers moved in, mixing with Bulgarians from further east. As today's Macedonians readily admit, they are descended from these people, not from ancient Greeks. From the 1300s and 1400s, the area became part of the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians all broke away from Turkish rule in the 19th century, claiming as their own the lands still held by the Ottomans. The squabbling culminated in the two Balkan wars of 1912-1913 in which Greece and Serbia emerged the main victors, each with an ample portion of what was still called Macedonia. Bulgaria retained a small corner also. Each of the three Balkan powers tried to create a "pure nation" based on `blood', a national identity that denied minorities, denied differences of any kind. There was no place for Macedonians, who perforce had to be "Greeks", "Bulgarians" or "South Serbs". The xenophobic, nationalist states of the time defined who YOU were. You had no choice. Quoting Benedict Anderson, the author continually points out how national movements must construct an "imagined community" which ultimately demands its own state. A Macedonian language emerged---Slavic inhabitants speaking a Slavic language close, but not identical, to Bulgarian. Eventually the requisite "imagined community" emerged as well. The Greeks refused to recognize that any such group existed in their country. They tried, right from 1913, to Hellenize all their citizens. When Tito established a Macedonian republic within Yugoslavia in 1944, the die was cast. Immigration to Canada or Australia (among other places) was often the only recourse for dissenters in Greece. In 1991, the Greek government launched on a frantic campaign to deny that any such people existed; saying that they were robbing Greece of its cultural patrimony. But they do exist.

In short, Danforth traces how the complex issue of "who is a Macedonian" and "what makes a Macedonian" evolved. He then discusses how such issues take on a transnational complexity in our times because overseas communities are often able to campaign and fight for the identity denied them in their `homeland'. Thus, Macedonians in Melbourne and Toronto (to take his examples), could assert their Macedonian-ness better abroad than back in (wider-geographic) Macedonia. There is inevitably self-doubt, dissent, and confusion, interesting portraits are given of individuals and families in Melbourne who struggled to define themselves within and outside of state-bestowed identities. Danforth concludes that national identities are not biologically given, they are socially constructed. If these topics interest you, I suggest that you will find THE MACEDONIAN CONFLICT a fascinating read, as well as extremely clear, backed up with a great deal of evidence. The fulminations of flag-waving nationalists should be ignored.

14 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars a biased, propagandistic book, February 6, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Macedonian Conflict (Paperback)

Danforth interviewed mostly Skopjan emigres in Australia for this biased work. He ignores that Macedonia was a name given to a Yugoslav region by Tito; he ignores the irredentist designs of the Slavs. He only aims his sights on how Greece ignores the rights of Slav Macedonians--most of whom, by the way, have assimilated & consider themselves Greeks. Save your money; wait for ...the movie.