Customer Reviews

The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

History is still alive because of our interpretations and analysis. However, Academic politics are so poisonous only because there is so little at stake and this is what the author has done cunningly.
To claim that Ancient Macedonians were not part of the Hellenic civilization is beyond madness. Answering in a socratic dialogue; If the Ancient Macedonians weren't Greek, why should we consider the Ancient Spartans as Greek although they fought the most decisive battle against the persians at Thermopylae? Furthermore, if Ancient Macedonians were considered as Barbarians, why would they fight with the Greeks against the Barbian Persians and spread Hellenic ideals? Before some misinformed people of the Ancient Greek civilization say that Ancient Macedonians fought and conquered Ancient Greek city-states, this was also the case with the Ancient Spartians who fought the longest war with Ancient Athens. (Could we say that the Northern states in USA are different to Southern states cause of the American civil war in 1861-1865?) The list can go on that proves with both archeological sites and sources that the Ancient Macedonians were part of the Ancient Hellenic civilization but i would be getting off the topic. However, the author has not been able to present a single source that proves that the Ancient Macedonians spoke something other than Greek but only misinterprets the sources. Not even a coin.
Based on this assumption, that the Ancient Macedonians weren't Hellenic, the author has written this book. Unfortunately, the author has overlooked that a slavic minority appeared in the region one thousand years after Alexander the Greats death. During that time, no one must of lived there according to the author because the only evidence found was in Greek context and not slavic. Although the slavic population never adopted Hellenic ideals and customs as their kings, the author terms them the descendends of Alexander the Great!!!! Would it be correct for the Mexicans who live in America to claim that America is Mexican.
Race, religion, language, customs: these are the fundamental features that brought together the group of human beings, the community known as Greeks which, for all its internal contradictions, its civil, political and military conflicts, and the lïcal peculiarities of its constituents, composed the critical mass around common interests and vital concerns,the critical mass that brought about that civilization we call Greek.
Nowadays, everybody is a Macedonian expect the Greeks. Bulgarians claim to be Vardar Macedonians, Serbs claim to be Macedonians, Albanians claim to be Macedonians even Vlachs claim to be Macedonians. I guess Herodotus with his series Histories, Plutarch etc must of been wrong because Danforth proved them incorrect about the origin of the Macedonians.
There are several important points that the author avoids to point out. One is that the "Macedonian Nationality" was created by the communist movement (Commintern 1934 ) in Moscow and that the "Macedonian language" was created by decree in 1944 by the Yugoslav (Tito) government. Where else in the world has a nationality and language been created by a communist decree? Evidence is: what kind of language is this "Macedonian" when all the language consultants in the newspapers of Skopje, Former Yugoslavian Republic of Maceonia are Serbian?
As for the population of F.Y.R.O.M, not long ago the Carnegie Endowment for the Humanities on the causes of the Balkan wars shows that the Slavic people of FYROMacedonia are considered as 2/3 Bulgarian and 1/3 Albanian.
However, the author avoids to state, before 1944, if the "Macedonian language" was Bulgarian or Serbian? Nowadays, it is Serbian according to the Bulgarian and Albanian inhabitants of the newly established country of FYRO Macedonia.
In regards to the slavophones living in Greece, I myself am one who lives in Florina. As all migrants do in all over the world, we have adopted the Greek way of living and will defend these ideals. Unfortunately, you put me in the difficult position because of your lack of research and i have to remind you that we the slavophones in Greece fought alongside the Greeks during the Balkan Wars against Bulgaria who wanted an autonomous Macedonia under their rule. The treaty at the end of the war enabled the shifting of populations. A lot of Greeks who lived in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria had to move to Greece and a lot of Bulgarians,Yugoslavs living in Greece had to go back to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Furthermore, we fought against the(KKE)Greek Communist Party who wanted to implement the communist decree of a bigger Macedonia that had a strategic access to the Aegean Sea. In both wars, people had the opportunity to take sides and migrate if they felt oppressed. A lot of greek communist guerillas were pushed into Yugoslavia. As for democracy in Greece, we the slavophones have a political party called the Rainbow Party. Eventhough, they are indirectly financed by FYRO Macedonia the greek government has allowed them full privileges. Recent American History, shows that this wouldn't be allowed in America.
On a personal note, It is wonderful to read an American author who has adopted Communist views. However, it is wonderful to see that even the Vardar Macedonians what to share the Hellenic ideals and adopt Ancient Macedonian symbols for their flag. The road from communism to Democracy is difficult.

Mr. Danforth suggests a solution to the problem by urging both Slavs and Greeks to accept the term "Macedonian" as a national description for the first, and a geographical description for the latter. This "solution" is plainly stupid. As you know, Western Thrace is part of Greece and Eastern Thrace is part of Turkey. Both Greeks and Turks frequently use the term "Thracian", and it is perfectly fine with each other, because "Thracian" only has a geographical meaning, not a national one. The term "Macedonia" COULD HAVE BEEN commonly used by both Slavs and Greeks, only if the Slavs agreed to it being used to describe geography alone. But what we see here, is that the Slavic population of the geographical Macedonia has "abducted" the name and the history of ancient and medieval Macedonia, and customized them to fit their need of becoming a nation separate from the Bulgarian one. This is unacceptable by us Greeks, it is a violation of our collective soul. I also find it extremely annoying that according to Mr. Danforth, only Halkidiki and the island of Thasos appear to have been inhabited by Greeks in the past. This is a horrendous lie that proves how much he has been influenced by Slavic propaganda. This book will gratify Slavic nationalism and do nothing to reveal the truth.

Recent events in the Balkans have shown that due to the ethnological, geopolitical and historical complexity of the region, serious in depth analysis is of paramount importance in understanding the truth. Apart from the thousands that have died as a result of the break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's, another victim has been the truth, as is the case in most wars, especially in the 20th century.
The truth is based on undisputed facts (dates, events etc), and in relation to opinion, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. The author along with the two previous "reviewers," offer a valuable primary source of the beliefs of those who wish to distort History in order to further their own goals and political agendas at the expense of the historical truth; in this case it is an attempt at convincing the world of the existence of a fictitious Macedonian nationality i.e. a continuation of Yugoslav communist policies from 1945 to the present aiming to create a "socialist" state in the heart of the Balkans at the expense mostly of NATO member Greece. It is, therefore, a prime example of what should be avoided when in search of the truth. Most of the information included in the book has been either purposely taken out of context or is irrelevant and unsupported material from unknown origins.
In addition, the previous "reviewer" states: "There is no Skopjan nation. This is an uncivilized racial slur that the Greeks use to label the Macedonians, one of gross distortion of reality". There is no bigger crime one can commit against history and human-kind in general, especially the younger generations, than distorting history itself. The undisputed fact is that the "Greeks" or "Hellenes", as is more correct, are made up of a mosaic of different peoples with common characteristics. The Macedonians, just like the Spartans, Athenians, Corinthians, and the citizens of Argos, Thebes, Phokis, Eretria and dozens of other regions, spoke and wrote the Greek language, had Greek names, believed in the Greek gods, used Greek architecture and most of all considered THEMSELVES to be Greek, thus setting themselves apart from all others whom they viewed as "Barbarians". The unification of Greece took place under the hegemony of Macedonia and lead to the downfall of the Persian Empire and the establishment of the mighty Empire of Alexander the Great, through which the Greeks avenged themselves for the Persian Wars and spread Hellenism across the "Known World" and into the far reaches of uncharted lands in Asia.
He also states: "He (the author) has uncovered the existence of the ethnic Macedonian nation and exposed to light the politics of assimilation of the Greeks and Bulgarians."
One can clearly see that the choice of wording "uncovered the existence of the ethnic Macedonian nation" sheds more light as to the true purpose of this "review" than they would have liked; meaning that the "Macedonian" nation had either disappeared from the face of the planet or had carefully and very efficiently been hidden until this book came out. In any case, it lacks both seriousness and credibility.
Furthermore, he states: "Yes, in Greece it is illegal to have a Macedonian personal name!" Both the "reader" from NY as well as Mr Danforth should have done their "homework" better. The names Alexander and Phillip are not only widely used today in Greece, but just like Socrates, Homer or Leonidas, they don't get any more Greek.
A rather childish and yet dangerous assertation coming as a result of Yugoslav communist propaganda and indoctrination aiming at conditioning the majority Bulgarian-Slavic population of South Serbia into believing they belong to a fictitious "Macedonian" nationality. What's next? Did the Vikings build the Parthenon, was Homer a Turk or was Alexander the Great a Slav?
Let's be serious. In a democracy all voices should be heard instead of being immediately disregarded on the basis of their origin. One cannot and should not silence another just because they disagree with them! Nevertheless, the truth should be protected at all cost and not be left to be sacrificed in pursuit of political agendas.
This book provides a fictitious insight in the study of Macedonia. It is a "must" for anybody interested either in fiction or the study of the use of communist/nationalist propaganda in History.

It hurts; It causes pain; The word Hellenism (or Greece) and everything that surrounds it causes panic and now they have put pseudoprofessors like this guy to write another trash under the veil of "scholar objectivity".

Before I begin my review id like to point out some inaccuracies from previous reviews listed here..First, there was no Greek nation in ancient times but Greek city-states...Athens Sparta Thebes Corinth and yes Macedonia...Ive read previous reviews where the authors claim that the the Greeks revolted under Macedoanian rule which is true...Greek city states greatly valued their independence even from other Greek city states..Such is the case between Athens and Sparta when they tried to dominate each other leading to the Peloponnesian War..It is natural that they would revolt..Claiming that because the other Greek city-states revolted against Macedonia as proof of Macedonians being a non-Greek people is false!!

Id like to ask or suggest some food for thought to my FYROM readers(Former YugoSLAV Republic Of Macedonia) or disbelievers that the MAcedonians were Greek these FACTS:

1)Why is there no evidence of a non-Greek Macedonian language?
the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek and had Greek names..
2)Where is this non-Greek Macedonian culture hiding?
All ancient Macedonian artifacts are Greek
Are we suppose to believe the that the ancient Macedoanians were not Greek and then one day out of the blue they said the hell with it let's be Greek? Lets speak Greek, worship Greek gods, write in Greek, structure our conquered territory based on Greek ideas and culture, setting up gymnasiums, theater, agoras..etc.. common on people!!! No conquerer has ever conquered a country or territory and then poof in an instant forgot his roots..I once heard someone use Rome as an example regarding its conquering of the ancient Greek city states and adopting Greek culture.Id like to point out that Rome never adopted Greek as its official language. Romans never adopted Greek names ( cicero ceasar aurelias are not greek)and most of all you can clearly see a distinction between Roman literature and Greek..

3)Why did Alexander idolize Greek heroes such as Achilles, why did he keep a copy of the Illiad around as if it were his bible written by another Greek Homer..How is Aristotle his tutor Greek and Alexander isnt when they are both Macedonians?


4) Why would the ancient Greeks place the home of their gods( Zeus Athena Poseidon etc) on MT OLYMPUS which is located in ancient Macedonia??
Does it make sense for a people to place their holy sites in a foreign land??? Doesnt anyone think logically anymore?

Todays inhabitants of FYROM are a mix of Bulgarians, Albanians, Gypsies.
Slavic people arrived in the Balkans in the 6th and 7th century AD...
It is LOGICALLY incorrect for these citizens to believe they are Macedonians...They are Slavs and there is ZERO evidence of the ancient Macedonians being Slavic!!!!

Todays FYROM scholars have NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE to claim that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek just revisionistic lies!!!!


Furthermore,FYROM's former president Kiro Gligorov in the Toronto Star on March 15, 1992 said: "Wee have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia

In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, Macedonia's Ambassador to Canada said: "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian" and that "there is some confusion about the identity of the people of this country."

All the FACTS listed above can be verified and researched!!!!

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.

Well, as I'm not a scholar, I can't argue about the "scientificness" of the book. It touched me deeply - Macedonian history in my country was written by communists which give it a special touch, and Greeks, definetely, destroyed every sign of Macedonian culture, to rebuild according to their wishes. Of course, this book doesn't mention the UK and US help to the King during the Greek Civil War (US army even used napalm bombs over Macedonian villages), but it mentions the exile - 28,000 kids in 1948 only, and a lot more after that... I just can't wait for the next book which will be devoted to the Macedonian - Greek struggle in Australia...