Customer Reviews

Who Are the Macedonians?

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Reviewed by JAMES GOW in International Relations, Volume XIII, No 4, April 1997. In the shadow of war in Croatia and Bosnia, there has been a worry in the minds of those engaged in matters of European security and international relations: Macedonia. One of the five states to emerge from the dissolution of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, the country has been both a relative success and a quiet concern. It has been a relative success because major armed conflict has been avoided and, despite economic disarray, there has been notable political stability within the country with both local and national elections being held and repeated without any of a set of potential internal crises developing.
This has been so in spite of difficulties presented internationally by the country's southern neighbour, Greece, which has impeded its entry into international bodies because of an objection to the use of the name `Macedonia' - as a result, the temporary designation of `former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (FYROM) has been adopted as a compromise enabling the new state to take its place at the United Nations, inter alia. The potential for crisis, against the background of war elsewhere on the territories of the former Yugoslavia, and the difficulties presented by Greece have made Macedonia the focus of significant international attention in the 1990s. It is therefore welcome that Hugh Poulton has filled a crucial gap in the contemporary literature by providing a commendable introduction to the subject.
The title itself is a matter of some importance. The volume is essentially a synthesis of that which exists within books on other or broader subjects - particular pillars appear to be Ivo Banac's The National Question in Yugoslavia and Richard Crampton's A Short History of Modern Bulgaria, each the best of its field - supplemented by some research on ethno-national communities in the period of transition from Yugoslav Republic to former Yugoslav Republic. Whereas most books would use a straightforward title, for example, `The Macedonians' and then pose the defining question within the text, Poulton puts it up front: who are the Macedonians? This immediately tells the reader two things. The first is that there must obviously be some dispute, or uncertainty, about what constitutes a `Macedonian'. The second is that the author is seeking to avoid assumption, prejudice, commitment, or the perception of any of these in approaching the subject. This also implies his determination to make it clear that a major part of the problem is that there are three possible answers to the question - that, in itself, reveals why Macedonia has been a focus for attention and the nature of its problems.
The Macedonian state to which reference has been made so far reflects only one use of the label `Macedonian'. As Poulton lays out from the beginning, the term can also refer to a far broader geographical region incorporating parts of Greece, Bulgaria and (only slightly) Albania. In this context, the country which emerged on the international scene in the 1990s is only one part of an historic region - it is usually known as Vardar Macedonia, with Pirin Macedonia in Bulgaria and Aegean Macedonia in Greece. Thus, in part, Greek objections to the use of the name `Macedonia' are said to be based on fears that such use implies territorial claims on Greece itself.
The final possibility for answering the question in the title concerns the ethno-national community known as Macedonians - the Slav majority within the state which speaks a southern Slavonic language, most closely related to Bulgarian (indeed, said by some to be no more than a dialect of Bulgarian). Neither Greece nor Bulgaria has conventionally recognized the existence of this community, describing them as Slavophone Greeks, or simply as Bulgarians. Serbia (and Yugoslavia), although at certain stages seeing them as southern Serbs, eventually encouraged the strengthening of Macedonian identity and culture as a means of securing the population's support vis à vis Bulgaria, in particular. With around two thirds of Macedonia's population ethno-national Macedonians, this makes it the majority community, but only one of several. Of the others the ethnic Albanians are the most significant. The internal mix of populations, as well as the presence of small ethnic Macedonian minorities in neighbouring countries, is one component of the potential combustion which the international community feared in the 1990s.
With three possible answers to the question posed at the outset indicating the potential for trouble, Poulton continues to offer a clear and readable account of the evolution of lands and peoples on it from ancient times and the great Macedonian Kings, Philip and Alexander, through to the independence of the modern state. In particular, he usefully pricks the Greek position on the identity of ethnic Macedonians by drawing attention to Greece's attempt in 1925 to show the League of Nations how well it treated its minorities by citing the example of the Macedonians - who according to Athens's representative to the League spoke a language which was `neither Bulgarian, nor Serbian, but an independent language', although Greece, in practice, did nothing. Poulton also conveys a strong sense of the way in which an ethno-national consciousness developed among the Macedonians through events and political action, such as the impact, at a late stage in the evolutionary process, of the Bulgarian occupation of Vardar Macedonia and the impact of this on identity. At the same time, however, the author shows us how this evolution interacted with the conflicting positions in neighbouring territories.
The neighbouring territories of the contemporary Macedonian state and that land itself were all once part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Poulton sets out the core of the Macedonia question well in his analysis of the way in which parts of what were to become Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria gained their independence from the Turks in the course of the nineteenth century, leaving geographic Macedonia, both broadly and narrowly defined, as an object of aspiration for all of them (and for Albania, as well, once it gained independence in 1913). The crux of the Macedonian question, as Poulton identifies it was in the unresolved status of territories with a mixed population coveted by a set of bordering states.
It is the ghost of that question formed in the nineteenth century, regenerated through events in twentieth century history - the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the First and Second World Wars, the Greek Civil War, the communist revolutions in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria and the dissolution of the old Yugoslav federation - which has prompted international attention in the 1990s (although the discussion of contemporary Bulgaria omits reference to the positive role in the 1990s of the UDF government and President Zhelyu Zhelev, above all in breaking the historical mould when Sofia became the first country, leading both Russia and Turkey at the same time, to recognize Macedonia's independence). Although that international attention is mentioned, it is one of the book's few weaknesses that major international attention only receives passing reference - for example, the precedent-setting deployment only seems to merit one mention, although the index falsely suggests that there are a couple of others (these are simply to the UN, not the peace operation). Perhaps this should be seen as the subject for a study in its own right - it certainly merits more serious attention. This possible weakness notwithstanding, Hugh Poulton has produced a valuable and reliable overview of the historical and ethno-national setting for those addressing the Macedonian question in the 1990s.
JAMES GOW
Review copyright International Relations 1997-98

This is a very well written book explaining the background of the Macedonians in a neutral and well documented way. Unfortunately, any book written by a neutral observer on the Macedonian question is bound to receive a high number of negative reviews. In this case, 10 one-star reviews from Greek nationalists who (judging by their comments) didn't even open the book but use the space here to propagate for their own view is keeping the rating rather low. Don't let this deter you from reading the book, it is precisely because it is neutral and well-balanced that it is not liked.

Firstly, I would like to tell you all that I am an 87 year-old man, now living in Australia and my young great-grandson is writing what I say.

I was born in Aegean Macedonia (many of you know it as Northern Greece). In my youth and in the youth of my father, the village names, city names and people's names were different. They were Macedonian.

I will tell you now, there were many of us, Macedonians living in Macedonia (now occupied by Greece). The Greeks gave us no rights, no freedoms. As a child I (together with my older brothers, god rest their souls) watched as my mother was beaten by greek authorities for speaking the Macedonian language (it was not allowed). We were beaten, ethnic-cleansed, re-located and all our possessions stolen from us because we were Macedonians and would not turn greek (assimilate?).

Everything that was Macedonian, was destroyed. Our lives, our families, our culture, our history, our land, our homes, all taken from us and many of us (like myself) were forced to flee the country, because we were not Greek, we are Macedonians.

Now I want to tell you that my parents and grand parents lived before the division of Macedonia and lived through the uprising against the turkish empire (Ottoman). When this happened, Greece took most of Macedonia, Bulgaria took another section and what was Yugoslavia took the part you now know as Republic of Macedonia.

In my lifetime I have seen many arguments over the Macedonian identity and I cannot blame either side for the heated arguments. The Greeks, growing up, have been taught based on the political agenda of their government (and passed on through generations). The same applies for the Macedonians.

But as someone who lived through this, as someone who knows what it feels like to live under oppression by the Greeks and someone who knows what it feels like to be Macedonian and forced out of my home and out of Macedonia (now Northern Greece) because of my ethnicity, I can tell you that Macedonia is not greek. It is occupied by Greece today, as with many lands from many nations, but it has never been greek and as old as I am, I dare any young man say to me that I am Greek. If I were Greek, I would not have been forced out of the house built by my Great Grandfather in 1874.

Now you go on telling people that Macedonia and Macedonians are greek. You remain the oppressor and I do believe in karma.

Not sure of all the politics, still learning, but it seems to me Macedonians are in the same predicament as us Americans. I smoke tobacco, but I'm not native American. My family is from Alsace, does that make me French? I eat dim sum, but I'm not asian. No, but it does make me American. We're a little bit of everything as are the current Macedonians, as are the people in just about every other country in the world. I'm not sure why the ancestry arguement is so critical when there are more pressing issues in Macedonia like the current redistricting. When the dust settles I am sure everyone in Macedonia will go right back to what they were doing, farming, shopping, eating, living, etc. just like the Greeks, and the Bulgarians, Serbs, etc.

I am married to a Macedonian and I am still trying to answer the question, who are the Macedonians? Not sure I care. In the end Macedonia is just another country doing what countries do and they need Greece as much as Greece needs Macedonia. With Macedonia's strategic locale, Greece has no choice but to aid in the development of Macedonia. Greeks companies are already pouring millions of dollars into Macedonia, Cosmofon is a good example, and a Macedonian company even contructed part of the Olympic stadium.

Eventually, money will be the decisive factor. The prosperity in Greece cannot help but spill over into Macedonia and other surrounding countries and when everyone is flush with cash I'm sure the whole issue of 'who are the Macedonians?' will be forgotten as toasts are made marking new business deals.

Thanks to all those who have posted for such a lively and informative debate.

This book deals with a contentious subject in a very impartial manner. It goes to great lengths in examining the seeds of controversy over terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" and it clarifies different meanings of these two terms: difference between geographic and historical Macedonia on the one hand and the current state with this name on the other hand; difference between Macedonians as inhabitants of geographic-historical region and ethnic groups carrying this name together with evolution of this ethnic group. It pays a lot of attention to history of all these Macedonias and Macedonians since 1876 onwards, which is the key period in which distinct ethnic identity of Macedonians took shape. The only shortcoming of the book is a little attention devoted to developments that took place specifically in Macedonia before 1876, while on the other hand it deals extensively with the nationalism and peculiar Ottoman concept of millet and developments in Ottoman empire in general.

The most important thing to remember about the "Macedonian conflict" is that the Greek position has changed dramatically over the past decade. Official Greek government policy was that Macedonia did not exist. When Greece took over Aegean Macedonia in 1913, they killed, tortured and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Macedonians. They changed the names of people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek in their attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name.With the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990's, the Republic of Macedonia saw its chance to finally achieve its independence. A referendum was held on September 8, 1991 with an overwhelming majority choosing independence. Recognition came swiftly from Russia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia among others but the majority of the international community stalled because of pressure from Greece. This country, as a member of the United Nations, European Union, and NATO blocked recognition of Macedonia because it claims that the Macedonian name and flag, a sixteen-pointed sun dating back to Alexander the Great, belongs to Greece.Regardless, Macedonia was accepted as a full member-state in the United Nations, albeit with the awkward reference, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. However, the majority of countries and international organizations refer to this country under its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia. Greek propaganda is slowly losing its influence, the truth will come out.

A fallacious account of Macedonian history, most likely fueled by greek propaganda. Most literature on the history of Macedonia is manipulated by foreign parties with their own interests at hand. If you are interested in the history of Macedonia I encourage you to read materials from all sides, and speak to people. The truth is never easy to find. History can never be changed. Macedonia is its own land with its own people as mentioned in the Bible, ancient maps and other scripts.

I am neither Macedonian, Greek nor Bulgarian, so I do not have an ax to grind like many of the other reviewers do. Poulton's book merely tries to present the question of Macedonian nationalism in the backdrop of current prevailing nationalist theory. Currently, scholars consider nations to be imaginary constructions of identity perpetuated by the national myths of a shared cultural heritage. (For background reading in nationalist theory, I suggest reading Gellner's Nations and Nationalism and Anderson's imagined communities.)
Poulton successfully lays out the current competing theories surrounding the debate on Macedonian national identity. For this, his work is quite instructive as it presents the material in a clear and concise manner that is accessible to the layman as well as the expert. However, beyond this there is little to commend the work. The research is not that extensive and could have contained much more detail. In addition, it adds little to the overall academic debate as it does not present any groundbreaking theory. If you are layman only interested in learning a few facts about the general issues surrounding Macedonian identity, this is an easy and quick read. If you are a specialist looking for insight into the larger nationalist debate, look elsewhere.

It is nice to see a book written by a non native looking over the history of the region without being biased.
Macedonian history it's still a very hot topic in the Balkan Areas.

Speaking in favor of the demands of the Macedonian people in Greece, the leader of the parliamentary group of the Communist Party, Stelios Sklavenas, declared at the Parliamentary sitting of 25th April 1936: "Another problem which the Government keeps ignoring in its declarations is the question of giving the minorities in Greece rights equal to those of the native Greek population. This refers in the first place to the Macedonian people. Anyone who has traveled through Macedonia must have felt the specific pressure exerted on the Macedo-nians. They have been strictly forbidden to have their own schools, speak their own language or practice their own customs. As a result, the people are getting organized and ready to fight for their rights, in which we can't but support them. The winning countries in the Great War and the League of Nations sanctioned the right for the self-determination of oppressed nations. And we also grant this right to the Macedonian people...
General Metaxas established his dictatorship on 4th August 1936. One of the first things he did was to retaliate against deputy Stelios Sklavenas for his speech in Parliament in support of the Macedonian cause, by sending him to the dungeons of Manyadakis, chief of the Security police, where he was virtually subjected to inquisition.

Certain Greek scholars lacking a critical eye and disregarding historical arguments, consider the ancient Macedonians as Greeks and their language a Greek dialect. However, anyone looking at the facts with an open mind will realize that this is far from being true. Authentic evidence shows that the ancient Greeks regarded the Macedonian people as barbarians and Macedonia a barbaric land. This is also what the two coryphaei of Greek history, Thucydides and Demosthenes thought of ancient Macedonians. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greeks considered all non-Greek people barbarian and their land barbaric. Thus in his third Philippic, Demosthenes states: "... Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Greeks suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Greece, and they might have been regarded as the acts of a legitimate son, born to great possessions, who should be guilty of some fault or error in the management of his estate: so far he would deserve blame and reproach, yet it could not be said that it was not one of the blood, not the lawful heir who was acting thus. But if some slave or superstitious bastard had wasted and squandered what he had no right to, heavens! How much more monstrous and exasperating all would have called it! Yet they have no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave ..." (Demosthene Crationes, IX, p.26, and Istorija diplomatije, vol.1, p.49).

A very interesting book, yet with some weaknesses! "Not written by a native" gives this book more of a third side glance advantage, yet it does not provide a profound information of someone who has lived for decades among the Macedonians, Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians etc. The Republic of Macedonia is a politically independent sovereign country with internationally recognized borders and peoples. What makes a "state" a STATE?
Land/Territory, Population, Sovereignty (and I would add National Identity). The Republic of Macedonia has it all. This truth is undeniable. The ones who deny it, have no clue about politics and should start with the book Basic Politics 101.