 |
|
 |
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:49:59 -0800 (PST), Lyngos <...@aol.com
On Nov 3, 4:23�pm, "Krater Makedonski" <...@yahoo.com
And so? What is the connection of the SKOPIANS with the Macedonians of
Pyrrus? He was a PURE Hellene, just like Alexander.
From ACHILLES', NEOPTOLEMUS' and their MYRMIDONS blood.
What SLAVS had or have to do with the MACEDONIAN BLOOD ?
Show to us YOUR findings from the stolen Macedonian lands.
Lets see in what language are written.
Go BACK to your PRIPETIAN MARSHES, go back to POLAND, Macedomia was
AND IS ONLY FOR THE HELLENES.
L.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:35:10 +1100, "Krater Makedonski" <...@yahoo.com
"Lyngos" <...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 4:23�pm, "Krater Makedonski" <...@yahoo.com
And so? What is the connection of the SKOPIANS with the Macedonians of
Pyrrus? He was a PURE Hellene, just like Alexander.
From ACHILLES', NEOPTOLEMUS' and their MYRMIDONS blood.
What SLAVS had or have to do with the MACEDONIAN BLOOD ?
Show to us YOUR findings from the stolen Macedonian lands.
Lets see in what language are written.
Go BACK to your PRIPETIAN MARSHES, go back to POLAND, Macedomia was
AND IS ONLY FOR THE HELLENES.
L.
----
It is no wonder that (artificial) "Greeks" like yourself, Vlach, are the
laughing stock of the world. Keep it up, moron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:11:31 -0800 (PST), Lyngos <...@aol.com
On Nov 4, 5:35�pm, "Krater Makedonski" <...@yahoo.com
Are you talking of the PROTO-HELLENES?
Are you talking of the ONLY TRUE MACEDONIANS?
These are the VLACHS, you know it and it bothers you !
L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:52:22 +0200, SteN <...@abv.razkarajse.bg
Nope, sweetheart. I disputed the fact that he called the Macedonians a
nation in the text quoted by you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:40:47 +0200, SteN <...@abv.razkarajse.bg
Read very carefully the following:
And yet when Pyrrhus attacked it, he shook it to its foundations and all
but reached Rome itself in his victorious career! [11] Not only did the
Tarentines revolt from us and the whole of that coastal district of
Italy called Magna Graecia, which you would naturally suppose would
follow a leader of the same language and nationality as themselves, but
the Lucanians, the Bruttians and the Samnites did the same. [12] Do you
suppose that if Philip landed in Italy, these nations would remain quiet
and true to us? They showed their loyalty, I suppose, in the Punic War.
No, those nations will never fall to revolt from us, unless there is no
longer any one to whom they can revolt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:19:13 -0800 (PST), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Nov 3, 4:52 pm, SteN <...@abv.razkarajse.bg
Of course he did not. But this is a typical misdirection of the
Macedonists. In fact, never in antiquity was the term "nation" used
in the modern sense. In Greek, the term can even be applied to a clan
and even a sub-clan. It is silly to assume that the ancients assumed
the same meaning for the word "nation" as it came to established from
the 19th century onwards.
In fact, if one reads Polybius who deals with the same issues (the war
between Rome and Macedonia), he preserves the full treaty between
Macedonia and Carthage. In this treaty, Philip V takes great pains to
portray himself as one of the Hellenes and to place Macedonia within
the overall context of Greece. I have posted the original and
translation here repeatedly.
This tired practice of the Macedonists feeds on ignorance and
misdirection. But persons like WineJar are deeply ashamed of the
slavic background and try to generate a heroic (and silly) history for
themselves. The process has gotten so distorted, it is no longer even
funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:20:08 +1100, "Krater Makedonski" <...@yahoo.com
"ADR" <...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 4:52 pm, SteN <...@abv.razkarajse.bg
Of course he did not. But this is a typical misdirection of the
Macedonists. In fact, never in antiquity was the term "nation" used
in the modern sense. In Greek, the term can even be applied to a clan
and even a sub-clan. It is silly to assume that the ancients assumed
the same meaning for the word "nation" as it came to established from
the 19th century onwards.
In fact, if one reads Polybius who deals with the same issues (the war
between Rome and Macedonia), he preserves the full treaty between
Macedonia and Carthage. In this treaty, Philip V takes great pains to
portray himself as one of the Hellenes and to place Macedonia within
the overall context of Greece. I have posted the original and
translation here repeatedly.
This tired practice of the Macedonists feeds on ignorance and
misdirection. But persons like WineJar are deeply ashamed of the
slavic background and try to generate a heroic (and silly) history for
themselves. The process has gotten so distorted, it is no longer even
funny.
-------
Unfortunately for the lobotomised grkomani (artificial "Greeks")
propagandists like yourself, your nitwit propaganda does not fool the
scholars. Below are couple of examples which completely destroy your
everything-is-"Greek" propaganda. Enjoy: :-)
"It is clear from the extant Alexander historians that the lost sources made
a CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN GREEKS and MACEDONIANS - ETHNICALLY, CULTURALLY
and LINGUISTICALLY - and THIS MUST BE an ACCURATE REFLECTION of CONTEMPORARY
ATTITUDES." (Wldemar Heckel-John C Yardley - "Alexander the Great -
Historical Sources in Translation")
"In the early years of the Kingdom of Greece (1832-1844), the boundaries of
modern Greece were conceived as IDENTICAL to those of ANCIENT Greece; the
ANCIENT Macedonians were viewed as CONQUERORS OF ANCIENT GREECE ancient
Greece and NOT as part of it." (Victor Roudometof - "Nationalism and
Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question" -
Journal of Modern Greek Studies)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:29:46 -0800 (PST), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Nov 4, 5:20 pm, "Krater Makedonski" <...@yahoo.com
If you think that the "quotes" destroy the Greek "propaganda" you are
more idiot than I think and that says a lot!!!
Hmmmm....."lost sources"???? It is quite funny to discuss "lost
sources" as they are "lost". One can put whatever spin one wants to
put on lost sources. Who can possibly argue convincingly otherwise.
But if we want to talk about clear distinctions, I encourage you to
read Attic and then translate the same paragraph to Greek Doric. In
fact, the Athenians could not understand the Spartans. Why do you
think that the Koine was ever developed? For those who are interested
in this discussion (and this is not you), it is impossible for me to
understand either Pontic Greek or Tsakonian (and other Greek
dialects), although they are definitively Greek. Because I cannot
understand them, it does not mean that they are not Greek. I would
mark it as such and even note regional differences (as Greeks
definitively do). In fact, even today, Greeks are very regional and
differences between Greek regions are much stronger than differences
between several eastern or central European states. In any case,
making any self-serving statements on lost sources is a waste of time.
You must obviously have no idea who Roudometof is and what he
supports. In fact, here is the link to the whole article. I
highlight (with asterices, the key operating phrase).
http://www.gate.net/~mango/JHS1.htm
Please not the fact that it is included in a "Macedonist" site which
actually means that those who posted the article did not know how to
read. In fact, the "quote" appears in the section of the document in
which Roudometof recounts the "FYROM narrative". Below, are the
concluding paragraphs of the Roudometof article:
"..........................................
Both sides operate with the assumption that nationhood provides the
essential component for nation-building. Both view national narratives
as providing an essential ingredient for their national identity. The
two national narratives, however, encroach upon one another, tending
to claim Macedonia (the name and, for the IMRO irredentists, the
territory as well) exclusively for their particular side. For Greeks,
Macedonia is a name and a territory that is an indispensable part of
the modern Greek identity.******* For Macedonians, it provides the
single most important component that has historically differentiated
them from Bulgarians******.
The strong Greek mobilization against FYROM's claim to represent the
Macedonian nation constituted a response to an implicit threat to
modern Greek identity. Greek reaction centered upon the name of the
new state more than any other issue because the name in itself raised
important questions concerning the validity of the Greek national
narrative. The question of Macedonian minorities in Bulgaria and
Greece made clear that concern with national narratives was not an
academic activity but one that carried with it significant political
repercussions. National narratives help define a population and
therefore provide the basis for claiming a particular population's
loyalty.
The international political conjuncture of the post-1989 period has
significantly aided the open assertion of Macedonian national
identity. With the collapse of the Soviet bloc during the 1989-1990
period and the concomitant "springtime of nations" in eastern Europe
and the former U.S.S.R., FYROM's declaration of independence occurred
in an extremely favorable international environment. Official Greece
was therefore cast in the role of the "villain" that denies the right
of a people to self-determination. The particular context of the Greek
reaction to FYROM's declaration of independence was rarely articulated
in a manner that made it comprehensible to agents unfamiliar with the
history of the region. Instead, most Greek authors and politicians
operated from within the Greek national narrative, hence making it
difficult to communicate the gist of this issue to an international
audience.
In the post-communist era, Greece's position in the Balkans would have
been extremely favorable had it not been for the nationalist
antagonisms vis-à-vis FYROM (and Albania). Attempting to create a [End
Page 285] friendly environment necessitates recognition of the other's
viewpoint. In the case of the dispute between Greece and FYROM, such a
recognition entails the acknowledgment that the particular national
narratives are the main source of tension between the two states. If
peaceful coexistence is the ultimate goal, each side must revise its
narrative so that it does not impinge upon the other's narrative.
Although this goal may appear to be too distant or unrealistic, I
believe it is the only recipe that can provide for the amelioration of
ethnic and national rivalries among the Balkan peoples and aid the
institutionalization of a civic culture throughout the region.
...................................."
I share Roudometof's pessimism about a potential solution and his
assessment that Greece did not communicate its case well to
international audiences because it was worked mainly within the Greek
context.
Next time, check the whole context of your quotes and, for crying out
loud, get some brains....it is just too sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|