Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkempe | Hacker News Reader

Naming themselves "North Macedonia" kind of implies that they are strongly connected to the other three Macedonia (administrative) regions of Greece (Western, Central, Eastern). The reason they're not going to join Greece is that there are no ethnic Greeks there, so why not call themselves Slav Macedonia instead?

[added after downvotes] what is wrong with asking why "North" is the chosen distinction? it seems that the more substantial distinction is the slavic vs greek culture and population when one considers the four regions that use the name "Macedonia"!

View on HN

Should Massachusetts change its name because the Massachusett people are not an ethnic majority there?

Just like US states, most European borders are not drawn according to ethnic groups, and their names are similarly historical rather than descriptive. The nation state is a 19th century fantasy.

Are there three other "Massachusetts"-named states bordering the current Massachusetts? [edit] Maine is not called "North Massachusetts".

As for your belief that European borders are unrelated to ethnic/cultural distinctions, do you know much about Europe? [edit: blocked from replying] Were there truly no pre-19th century differences between the peoples and cultures in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Russia? and no-pre 19th century differences between the languages and cultures of France, Spain, and Italy? [edit2] yes, being unable to quickly "reply" makes it difficult to converse in HN :-). [edit3] France is named after the Franks. Sweden (Sverige) after the Svea people. Finland/Suomi after the Finns. Russia after the Rus. Etc. Each of these has an ethnic, linguistic, and cultural core predating the 19th-century nation states.

That was in response to your suggestion of “Slav Macedonia”.

But there’s certainly a “California” both in the USA and Mexico and it’s not confusing anyone.

I was born in Finland and have also lived in France.

(Edit: I see you replied to me by editing the parent post, but it makes the conversation impossible to follow if we both do that.)

>But there’s certainly a “California” both in the USA and Mexico and it’s not confusing anyone.

Because one is called California and the other is Baja California.

There’s a Luxembourg province in Belgium, right next to the country Luxembourg. Nobody gives a damn.

The European powers certainly did at the time of the division between the province and the city-state, since its disputed status almost led to a huge continental war in the aftermath of the Belgian revolution and the creation of the city-state was the resulting compromise.

"Nobody gives a damn, he said" haha

Maine used to be part of Massachusetts.

Ok, I'll try to reply to your 'edit3' examples.

In my mind Finland and France are examples of European countries that have pretended very hard at some point in their history to be single-ethnicity nation states counter to how the actual population sees themselves.

France is named after the Franks, but if you went back in time to 1700 and asked random people within the country's boundaries the question "What's your ethnic group?", the answers you'd get would include Breton, Basque, Catalan, Provencal, Alsatian, etc. — a minority of people within the Kingdom of France would identify primarily as "French" (and nobody would have heard of the Franks, a people that existed a millennium earlier).

If you asked that same question in Finland in 1700, you'd find a lot of people who identify as Swedes. And why shouldn't they? It was an eastern province of Sweden where every modestly educated person spoke Swedish. You'd also find people who identify as Sami, Karelian, etc.

Flash forward to newly independent Finland of 1918, and you'll find politicians who are adamant that it's a nation state. Yet descendants of those Swedish-speaking people are still there, and so are the Sami speakers, the Karelian speakers, and so on. Some of them will identify as Finns while others never do.

Thats because nationalism didn't really rise until the 1800s. It was the French Revolution that drove a unity of the French people, and it was Napoleon's French soldiers, and the writings of the revolution that seeded nationalism across most of Europe.

  Maine is not called "North Massachusetts"

What we call Maine was just a discontiguous part of Massachusetts going into the Revolution.

I can only guess because around a quarter of the population is Albanian, and they currently (and probably will also in the future) constitute the parliamentary majority. The Albanian population is currently in a surge, and Albanians don't really like to be mixed up with Slavs...

"Around a quarter of the population is Albanian" - is this also your educated guess, or something you "read" online?

The FACT is that the last Census was done in 2002. According to conservative estimates pulled from the Health Ministry, there are less than 20% of Albanians currently residing on the territory of Macedonia.

And a little free lesson in history for you: The Slavs you are referring to, in the 6th century did in fact invade and conquer present day Macedonia and whole of Greece, all the way down to Peloponnesus. Byzantine historians stated that the Macedonians did not disappear with the Slavic invasion but continued to exist. In the 10th century Salonica is described as the "largest city of the Macedonians".

According to the 2002 Census, 46.5% of the children aged 0–4 were Muslim. Macedonians will be minority very soon. It might come a time when this country will be called Eastern Albania.

Given the extreme nationalism of the Macedonians I do not think this country will resist history very long in this configuration. And if they do not accept the Albanians and do not live in peace with them they will be soon a tiny joke country.

By your bias and derogatory comment, it is evident that you lack a very basic understanding of the weight and proud nature Macedonians and Albanians feel as people, as neighbors, and as individuals.

Having grown up with Macedonian-Albanian friends, to this day, we both have respect for each others traditions. The common people living in Macedonia, regardless of their ethnic background, want one thing, and that is: peace and prosperity. Not war, nor divide, and not putting down, one another.

The conflict of 2001 is still a fresh reminder what can happen, where KFOR and NATO had to rescue the terrorist cowards surrounded by the Macedonian military. This is a fact.

Define "extreme nationalism", I challenge you.

Macedonians are all people born in Macedonia. Everyone else, is a tourist, on a tourist visa.

Therefore, calling one self Albanian, while born in Macedonia is the same as a person of African descent born in the US, calling him/her self African, instead of African-American.

See how what you "think" makes no sense.

Your analogy sucks. But I am not here to increase your intellectual capabilities. And I do not think that is possible.

The Albanians are native in that region whereas you are the newcomers. So, if you think a little bit more (which I highly doubt you can) you will understand why your analogy is just nonsense.

The Albanians are Albanians and they will remain Albanians. They are of course citizens of Macedonia, a joke sate which does not even have an acceptable name, but they are Albanians.

You want examples? Boban Ilic killed a 4-year old Albanian. I am not talking about other incidents, but killing with your car a 4-year old is just an act of a coward criminal/animal. And most of the Macedonians/Bulgarians supported him. Moreover, he is free to go.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/people-protest-th...

Anyway, as I said, you are a joke state, and very soon you will be a minority in that joke state.

Let me see then if you can kill 4 years old child.

Not sure where did you pull out that number, I've downloaded the report from the Macedonian Statistics Office and double-checked what I googled out.

I'm pretty much aware of that history lesson, thanks. How does that change what I wrote initially?

Not taking sides here, I just find it funny that both of you claim to be using official online sources, but both of you conveniently forgot to provide a link.

I completely agree. Here is the link. It is a mix of Macedonian and English, page of interest is 34. Total population: 2022547. Albanians: 509083. Pretty clear, around 25.17%.

http://www.stat.gov.mk/Publikacii/knigaXIII.pdf

The Albanian minority does absolutely not have a majority in the North Macedonian parliament. Being a tiny minority party across changing ruling coalitions does not mean they "constitute a majority".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_parliamentary_elect...

Lost in translation, they are not A majority, but their parties are a part of the ruling majority. Sorry, that's just how we usually refer to it around here.

Because their main goal is to differentiate as much as possible from Bulgaria.

I could understand them wanting to mark their differences from Serbia, but Bulgaria was the reference point for the emergence of Macedonian nationalism when the Ottomans were pushed out. Do you have references for such anti-Bulgarian sentiment?

Quoting Wikipedia [1]: "The Balkan Wars (1912–1913) and World War I (1914–1918) left Ottoman Macedonia divided between Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania and resulted in significant changes in its ethnic composition. The immediate effect of the partition of Ottoman Macedonia were the nationalistic campaigns in areas under Serbian and Greek administration, which expelled Bulgarian churchmen and teachers and closed Bulgarian schools and churches. As a consequence a sizable part of the Slavic population of Greek and Serbian Macedonia fled to Bulgaria or was resettled there by virtue of a population exchange agreements. The Bulgarian population in Vardar Banovina was regarded as "Southern Serbs" and a policy of Serbianization was implemented. Within Greece, the Southern Macedonians were designated "Slavophone Greeks".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Bulgarians

Well, I'm Bulgarian, there's much hatred as they like to call us tatars and all kinds of things. Not really very nice, considering they have the same genes as ours, same names, same language(except for a few serb add-ins). Also, they would rather be absorbed by Albania, than join their blood brothers :)

When you generalize like that, who do you refer to when you say 'they'? I've been there last year and I saw a lot of ethnic albanians and met A LOT of people with greek surnames.

Well, I can only say that we have 95% the same language with a few letters inserted by the serbs. If you look at both greek and albanian languages it's easy to see that they are VERY different than ours. Now, whoever tries to convince you otherwise, is wrong and it's not hard to conclude that given this language similarity and no nearby such similarity it's easy to figure out their origin :)

I don't know. It seems to be dangerous to paint broad strokes like that. My immediate heritage is german, italian and croatian and am from Croatia, speak croatian and live there/here. Yet, I understand 90% of macedonian and probably 70% of bulgarian without ever learning either language. Where is the line then? Since I was born here and learned this language as my first, yet not anyone from my family (grandparents and beyond) is from here... is my origin then same as yours or what? It's a dangerous path. For example, whole region was Rumelia for 502 years up to about 150 years ago, capital was in Sofia (if I remember correctly). Are you all Turkish then? Even people that settled there after Rumelia was gone, but understand the language (as their first)? Where does one define clear lines and be so confident in things like that? It's not that simple.

Bulgarian and Macedonian are way similar than say Croatian and Macedonian. Genetically we are the same. Your example is not on point(both about Sofia and your origin)

Any source for the "genetically same" claim? To me Bulgarians look fairly distinct from Macedonians, although I'm not certain if that's any strong genetic indicator.

Serb here, not sure why would anyone "mix up" macedonians and serbs in any context, and why is a bigger differentiation necessary. Even in the bloodiest years on the Balkans, the relations were very reasonable. Today in Serbia, even the most nationalistic groups (of any kind of influence), don't take Northern Macedonia in discussion.

The relations between Bulgaria and Macedonia were a bit more bumpy, I don't know all of the details, but Bulgarians* consider(ed) Macedonians just as a part of their own and their language as a dialect. Serbian and Macedonian languages are far to different for that. Yes, we can understand each other with some trouble, but that is no where near like Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian which at times sound identical.

The only issue is the conflict between the Serbian and Macedonian Orthodox churches, but that really does not have effect on anything else than themselves.

It's maybe important to note that these disputes (and possible disputes) with Bulgaria, Greece and maybe(?) Serbia have almost none impact whatsoever on the daily lives of anyone in the region there. No animosity, no nothing basically apart from politically organised rallies here and there. Situation with albanians on the other hand... is interesting.

Absolutely. I mean, there are all sorts of fruitcakes all around the Balkans, but in general, things do carry on peacefully. A lot of political points are gathered on everyday stupidities between Serbian and Croatian politicians, to be honest, but that is another story.

The situation with Albanians in Macedonia is disconcerting, at least from a Serb's perspective. It is just too easy to notice a pattern of behaviour, incidents and evenrs, and almost threatening stance, even in some comments here regarding the Albanian majority in Macedonia. Serbia has been through that and handled it poorly, and I'm afraid that Norhtern Macedonia is on the same slippery slope.

Maybe people don't remember, but there was an actual armed conflict within Macedonia only 17 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_insurgency_in_the_Republi... which ended with the Ohrid Agreement which current prime minister of Macedonia, Zaev, said to annul and introduce albanian as the second official language in the (North) Macedonia. That's the real situation at hand in Macedonia now (and then). What situation with Greece did was to inhibit Macedonia's accession to NATO (and EU) which would reduce the threat of reopening possible future armed conflicts. Interesting times ahead for North Macedonia, that's for sure.

No, Slav Macedonia was acceptable to us. But not to the Albanians, and we changed our constitution in 2001 to allow them to veto this kind of things (under strong US/NATO pressure).

North Macedonia is probably the only solution that can pass a referendum vote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com