Macedonia changes name, ending bitter dispute with Greece
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
This is exactly what is happening here. They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders.
In Central/South America, it's generally taught that everything from Nunavut to Cape Horn is a single continent, America. When the US calls itself "America," that's seen as a deliberate attempt to claim primacy over the whole continent.
In English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents, so we're befuddled by the irritation.
This is why Canada, actually, doesn't appear to have an issue with the "America" thing.
aaaaaand you don't see any problem here, no?
Let's try again. With that logic, there'd be no problem with Germany calling itself "Europe":
"What's the problem? When we say 'Europe', we mean our home country, a large part of the region known as 'Western Europe', and disjoint from 'Eastern Europe' - everybody here is befuddled by why the Greeks are upset! The Austrians are totally on board with it, by the way."
In English-speaking cultures, North and South America are separate continents. "America" is understood to mean the USA. The polite term for someone from the USA is "American". Calling a Canadian "American" is impolite.
In Spanish-speaking cultures, América is a single continent. "Estados Unidos" is understood to mean "de América", not "Mexicanos". People from the USA are commonly called "estadounidense", "norteamericano", or "americano". It's polite for outsiders to use "estadounidense".
Neither language is indigenous to the Americas, so why not just use the polite words in each language?
The situation is way more complicated than people expect or are comfortable with. I am not objective in this situation to give you a full analysis, but I would suggest if you want to have a full picture to start by looking at Balkan Wars to get an idea about the imperialistic dreams of each country in the area and the events. WWI shows how things evolved afterwards. Just checking the alliances is enough.
Then read about WWII specifically in that area and about Josip Broz Tito [0] (for starters) and dig in why he introduced new history and an identity and what were the political aspirations after WWII and why Yugoslavia was created and the naming of its regions.
I tried to give an objective guide to read the situation. Again personally I am perhaps not objective, as I have a stake in the situation.
Because you're misunderstanding the issue at hand.
Greece and Macedonia aren't having an abstract argument over sets. As the article explains, Greece has two specific objections to its neighbor using the name Macedonia: that the name (and certain actions) are thinly-disguised territorial claims against its own province of Macedonia, and are an attempt to lay lay claim to the historical/cultural legacy of the ancient Greeks.
This is why the US situation is the opposite, because the US as a separate nation predates all of the other nations you mentioned in the Americas. It therefore can't have been claiming territory of other neighboring states because there weren't any, nor were they claiming anyone's cultural legacy (except arguably the natives, but that's a charge that can be brought against every modern nation in the Americas).
It might help to recall that after the American Revolution the 13 colonies became 13 separate sovereign states that would only come together as a single nation in 1789 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The new nation was a union of all then-extant states on an American continent, hence the United States of America. That other independent nations eventually came to be in the Americas has no bearing on what America chose to call itself at the time of its founding.
FYROM (UN designated name) and to be Severna Makedonija has been actively teaching they are the descendants of Alexander the Great, raised statues [0](random article googled, you can find more) etc. Extremist groups also post maps [1] (also random googling you can find more). So I would say the claims are disguised only in talks with other country officials.
Don't take this dispute lightly; recall that country policies trying to force the dispute to end created the whole Middle East mess and the Balkan's has been a hotpot with the last war happening in the 90's (also because they forced together two different people (I am skimming on the subject please read into Yugoslavia)).
[0]https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-06-24/macedonia-gets-statue... [1] https://www.thenationalherald.com/172171/fyrom-map-claims-gr...
Sounds exactly like the USA at the time of their founding, and is in no way describable as "the opposite".
Ancient Athens once controlled the Aegean and its borders. Does this mean Anatolians should require Athens be re-named?
[1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/04/02/49CB53830000...
And no, large part of the population does not share those views. The reason is simple, those views are unrealistic and have no place in today's Europe.
There concerns would have been well founded, the issue was settled in 1922: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919%E2%8...
Fairly sure they'd laugh at them, and then get on with their lives.
Surely that can't be the whole reason for this dispute. I mean, the name "United States of America" would also fall into that description, but nobody's up in arms about it.
Many people in South America think it's a ridiculous, pretentious name.
It's not even the only United States in America (for example, Mexico is formally United States of Mexico).
But nobody is that worried, it's true.
You can't understand this problem without understanding the Greek Civil War and former Yugoslavia post WW2. The facts are disputed so rather than try to play historian on a subject on which I am biased, I encourage you to read the wikipedia page [1], and especially look for information regarding Slavic Macedonians, separatist groups that wanted to take Greece behind the Iron Curtain, and the claims made to a large chunk of territory within Greece by the separatists and by Greek communists specifically around the region we call Macedonia. Keep in mind that our current government openly calls itself the Radical Left Coalition.
Reach your own conclusions about whether Greeks should consider this a silly matter.
[0] My grandparents fought in the civil war against the separatists
For both countries it's a real conflict which involves not only emotions (the way news websites make you see it), but economical interests, political perspectives, and safety.
Silly dispute, but much less stupid. The Persian/Arabian Gulf dispute is the product of an ongoing and relatively-new geopolitical tension. Both sides have military assets in the Gulf, and those assets threaten a major trading corridor. As a result, there is a genuine threat of one side seizing strategic ground from the other. Neither side is losing economic activity as a result of the naming dispute per se. (Lots of other things would need to be resolved before they could trade with and invest in each other.) And given the lack of intermingling (or common allies), they can each call it what they want without the other side noticing.
At least the dispute of Macedonia has some kernel of truth to it (the Slavic peoples who moved into the Balkans during the Age of Migrations bear no relation to the Ancient Macedonians).
This is a normal facet of disputes. It's silly. But it isn't stupid. Doing this in reverse, where a name dispute turns into a proper dispute, is stupid.
Could you perhaps expand on this a little? I have a very hard time understanding why someone would be passionate about something like this.
PS As a greek citizen, i couldnt care less about the name of our neighbors, as long as we live together in peace (and we do live in peace with them)
For a historical reference about this issue and the Greek identity of Macedonia: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/6265/was-alexand...
If "the will of the people" is to cling on to nationalist and irredentist ideas, then it's imperative that the people are givent he opportunity to reconsider their "will". We know all too well what happens in Europe when we let nationalism guide us. In the Balkans, even more so.
The "will" of the people can certainly not be that we are constantly up in arms, killing each other for petty malakies (yes, I'm Greek). The only "people" who "will" this are populist politicians who stand to profit from constant unrest.
Nationalist Greeks are angry and so do nationalist Makedonians.
I would think both countries have more important things to protest about than name change, but then I don't live on Balkans.
Can’t really say the will of the people is being ignored when referenda are planned, referenda which one can reasonably still presume will be binding.
And before you speak again about nationalists, etc read a bit about Mikis Theodorakis who was the main speaker addressing the crowd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikis_Theodorakis
The 'macedonian' (irl: south slavic) language was recognized as a language in 1977 at a UN standards meeting that took place in Athens.
When Yugoslavia was broken in pieces, the issue of the name for FYROM should have been resolved then and there. The most promising name was North Macedonia. Oh the irony.
People in this thread miss one point about FYROM, they want to use the name Makedonia with relations to the ancient Makedonas. Which in turns creates issues with the Greek nation.
Now with the new "deal" they will take the name North Macedonia but they strictly mention that they do not have any relation to the Ancient Makedonas. So at the end of the day, why didnt the two goverment or EU or UN take 20 historians and ask them, "guys do they bare the right to have that name?" Whatever the historians say should be the verdict.
Now as for the name, there is a reason it is being pushed right now. The balkans are a chessboard for many many years and we will see soon the effects on "North Macedonia".
It creates zero issues for Greece. Alexander the Great died over two millenia ago [1]. Shortly after his death, the ancient kingdom of Macedon fell to Rome [2]. Again, over two millennia ago.
Instead of working on something productive, these two nations found something totally irrelevant to squabble over.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#Co...
The Holy Roman empire was an attempt of Charles I (to be named Charlemagne, i.e. the great) to recreate such an empire.
The name Macedonia expanded to cover the modern country of Macedonia sometime during the Roman Empire. The historians (well, everyone but the Greeks) would all agree that there is absolutely no issue with calling the modern country of Macedonia from a historical naming perspective. Sure, there's confusion between the Slavic-speaking Macedonians and the Hellenic-speaking Ancient Macedonians, but this is far from the only instance of the same name referring to completely different entities.
Should people in Western Turkey get pissed off about Greece calling itself Greece?
Politicians do not care about what is right, or what the scientific community thinks. They want to make things easier for them.
Oh really? We need to have an authority deciding if we can have a name or not. Why not just let people label themselves what they want.
I'm pretty sure if I name my island the "United States of America" people will not start paying their taxes to me anytime soon.
The country of Macedonia was part of a region generally called Macedonia for over a thousand years, as the initial named unit of Macedonia (which was in Greece) expanded to cover a wider area.
Besides I think the people in Greece-Macedonia are happy being Greek.
Macedonia is part of the Greek identity. FYROM (still the official name until the agreement gets implemented in a few months) have been claiming this Greek identity by misappropriating history.
Think of it as a trademark violation.
I wonder - is this spelling some sort of shibboleth for Greeks who want to make a point that 'Macedonia' is only the area in Greece? I've seen it a few times in this thread, but never before anywhere else (then again, I didn't even know this was an issue until a week ago).
> The agreement means Skopje will need to make more than 150 changes to its constitution before Greece brings the pact before its own parliament for ratification – a task replete with challenges for Zaev, who like Tsipras has taken a progressive view on the issue, and faces considerable opposition from nationalists. Macedonia’s president, Gjorge Ivanov, has refused to support the deal, presaging a stormy few months ahead.
Seems silly that a name change means that legal agreements have to be re-ratified.
The FYROM constitution includes claims to Greek territories. Part of the deal (among others) is for these claims to be removed.
I appreciate that we all live in a bit of an echo chamber since we choose our friends, but I don't know anyone who is not okay with the "two names" solution
What more could anyone else want? That they call themselves Skopje? We are the only ones to clal them that while E V E R Y O N E else just calls them "Macedonia" and wonders "what the hell is wrong with you greeks".
The official name is still FYROM and will switch to North Macedonia when the agreement starts getting implemented. In a few months or so.
Would never have guessed that.
It's mostly split between the population -- half (probably most) of us don't really seem to care about this issue, the other half feels pretty upset about it. It's really important to note that not a single Macedonian I've ever talked to has ever claimed that Ancient Macedonia isn't part of Greek history, I really don't know where Greeks are getting that from. Almost everyone here goes to vacation in Greece every year, and concedes when some Greeks say "Skopje?" to suggest that we're not Macedonians. We just nod and shrug it off, and say "Yeah, Skopje". Most people really don't care about this, if we did we wouldn't be going to Greece on vacation or buy Greek products, both of which we do a fair amount of. Some of us even wonder why we're celebrating a serial killer at all (Alexander the Great). In order to understand what's going on, I think you need to separate yourself from what politicians are thinking and doing compared to what the people are thinking and doing. Also let's face it, governments love to manipulate group identities to serve their interests.
What Macedonians are upset about is that they feel like Macedonia has a shared history and Greece doesn't want to acknowledge it, and it's leveraging it's strong international influence to set us back and/or make us look bad. We're a small, formerly communist, landlocked country in the Balkans, we barely have any international influence at all. It's a no-brainer that most countries will side with Greece, and why there's EU pressure for us to change the name. We definitely wouldn't be able to dispute Greece's territory, especially since 1952 when Greece became part of NATO. We're seriously no threat to them even without NATO. I don't think this is about the name or territorial ambitions, or if it was it was like that a long time ago and is no longer relevant. It's deeper than that.
People on the thread and the previous one have talked about the Balkan Wars being relevant to understanding this, and that the then conservative Greek govt in the mid-20th century suppressed a lot of North Macedonian speaking peoples living in Greek Macedonia to force them to say that they're Greek and that they can't speak slavic, much like how Bulgarians forced us to say that we're Bulgarian and speak Bulgarian when we were occupied by them, or how some people think we should be part of Greater Albania, or how some Serbians view us as South Serbians, and that Greece wants to cover this up. There's probably something there to look into, the Balkans is full of territorial grabs like that. I don't really know anything about this part of history.
A lot of us just feel like we're being bullied to an extent, and that Greece is basically being a d*ck about it. Ancient Macedonia has mostly been part of Greece, but Paeonia (North Macedonia) has for a large part of it's existence, either been a dependent territory of Ancient Macedonia or has been fully a part of Ancient Macedonia when it was at the height of it's power. We didn't just pull the name out of nowhere, we've been called Macedonians since forever. Some of us that are upset about this think that we shouldn't be giving in to powerful external forces and that we should just make a stand. And that by giving in we're showing ourselves as weak and easy to manipulate, and would affect future negotiations. Some of us others think we're being stubborn, and that we should be the bigger person and just concede, because it's a pretty stupid dispute and I agree. A lot of us just don't care, or if we used to care we're jaded now after all this time and don't care anymore.
We have a lot of shared history, we're neighbors after all. We don't have the same language, sure, but our traditional dress and textiles looks similar, our dance is similar, we both say "Opa!", we have similar traditional food. We used to be the same country several times in history, during the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. I don't think this is really about the name, it's more about that North Macedonia is mostly made up of slavic people with a large Albanian-Macedonian population and from a formerly communist country, and Greeks just don't want to be associated with former communists or slavic people.
It really sucks because I like a lot about Greek history and culture, one of my favorite college professors taught Greek Philosophy to me. Greeks gave us democracy and the best philosophers along with India and China, all of which is still extremely relevant today. I'm glad we've come to a consensus about the name. We've both wasted a lot of energy over something pretty stupid, and we really should be getting along a lot better. We've wasted our time with what could've been quality time with our families or more richer life experiences, or improving the human condition. Nationalism, tribalism and groupthink are all diseases that I hope the 21st century will rid itself of.
The term 'Macedonia' does not refer to a geographical region only. It refers to a geographical region plus the connection to ancient Greece.
Slavic people like you have no right to use the term Macedonia, because you are not related to Macedonia, the ancient-Greek derived sub-ethnicity. You only live in Macedonia, you are not a Macedonian.
History is full of examples of people that moved to other areas but did not 'steal' the history of the area they ended up into.
Turks moved to Ionia, they didn't become Ionians. Greeks moved to Pontos, they didn't become Turks. Spaniards moved to America, they didn't become Indians. British moved to Australia, they didn't become Aboriginals.
Just because your progenitors moved to the area of Macedonia, that does not entitle your people to claim they are Macedonians.
Yes, you are a separate people, you have your own culture, language, you have become a nation, and we, Greeks, certainly recognize that.
But claiming you are Macedonian and you speak the Macedonian language? that's a fallacy. You should just use another term.
I am saying all the above in friendly spirit and with the relevant historical sciences in mind. I am not a Greek nationalist, I only want justice. And in this case, judging from the historical records, justice means you Slavic people are not entitled to use the term Macedonia in any form.
The ancient Kingdom of Macedonia was 100% Greek, judging from the historical records, the written works, the names of places and people, the language used, the art forms, and the fact that the rest of Greece accepted Macedonians as Greek.
Beyond justice, what might be the reasons for us Greeks not wanting other people to take our history? well, here are the reasons:
1) there is the danger that, in the future, the connection between North Macedonia and Greek Macedonia becomes the geopolitical cause for an unforseen yet block of power to change borders in the area.
History is full of examples of geopolitical blocks using specific interpretations of history, culture and geography to cause problems.
2) Greek products from Macedonia can no longer be named 'Macedonian' in other countries.
I understand it's difficult for you to accept it, but you have been actually scammed. From the moment you were born, to now, in all your life, you have been indocrinated to believe you are Macedonian, that you speak Macedonian, etc. What a shame! this has been done for political purposes.
If only you could let the notion that your people and any form of the word Macedonia has any connection, the world would be so nice!!!
You're saying people don't have a right to use a certain name because it meant something else hundreds of years ago.
Your comment is as flawed as "my culture is not your prom dress." Nobody has a monopoly on culture.* That's now how culture works. It's always changing and shifting, and getting borrowed between people.
Go back far enough in history, and you'll see that Greek identity didn't always exist. Greece was a bunch of independent city states, and people were more likely to identify with that city state than with the notion of a greater Greece.
*That is not to say that every borrowing of culture is respectful, or fair. Obviously, whenever you borrow from another culture you must be responsible in how you do so.
Sounds pretty nationalist (if not blatantly racist) to me.
Macedonia (Kingdom? Empire? Ancient ethnicity?/dialect?/polity?) had lots of regime changes. We can't even be sure that the Greeks, at the time of Philip & Alexander considered Macedonia to be "Greece." You could argue either way. You could also argue that half the world is the "real" Macedonia. Bagdad has a decent claim.
I can see how Greece sees it, that naming may lead to territorial claims. That aside, Names are just names. I don't think this name is a crime against logic/history.
This is like insisting that what gay "really" means is happy. It's neither true or false statement. It's nonsensical.
>>This is like insisting that what gay "really" means is happy. It's neither true or false statement. It's nonsensical.
Yes, that word has been overloaded with multiple meanings. Yet your example is perfect as it shows that people care how you call them and how you refer to them. If I go and define gay as something else, people referring themselves as gay probably will not appreciate my renaming. If I change the meaning of the terms U.S. citizen, British etc people would not take it lightly either.
Now consider you do that for a race, that is proud for its past for at least the last circa 2000 years. And it is done in a form of bullying. Recall this whole naming situation started during the Cold War and Greece was blackmailed to "keep in line" for the greater good. Recall USSR and the rest of the allies were both imagining their world. USSR's gift to Tito to side with them encompassed all of Northern Greece and Bulgaria, and that was his aspiration.
Consider a Greek, especially one in Macedonia; they are proud of their ancestors and have seen a lot of bullying from a financial and political perspective being applied on them the last few years. Now the same outsiders come in and say that while we settled on a U.N. name originally, we did not really used it and you have to find a compromise and make it work, whatever the cost for Greece. I am sorry, but historically silly issues like this have backfired for the area and Greece. Let us hope there is no war over this (if you think people would not fight over this area see WWI, Balkan Wars, and WWII atrocities; Cold War was not that cold in that area; the Yugoslavia war (90s) was over identity).
This is plain wrong. There is absolutely no dispute what so ever among historians about the Greek origin of Macedonia. The new country of Northern Macedonia in no way disputes this either. Comments like yours are the prime proof that what happened is very very wrong.
This is a quote from Wikipedia about Alexander the great.
>> Alexander was awarded the generalship of Greece and used this >> authority to launch his father's pan-Hellenic project to lead >> the Greeks in the conquest of Persia.
I'm not making the case for either narratives. I'm making the case that both narratives are fictions, a symbolic language narrating a one-damned-thing-after-another truth. I don't think Alexander/Macedonia was "really" Greek or not Greek. I also think this meant different things at different times. Modern nationalism is a very dominant paradigm in our times. It is new though. Even though it's hard to imagine it, "nationality" was not a dominant paradigm either for personal identity or politics throughout most of history. Alexander didn't seem to give much of a damn about nationality.
Yes, the city-states have been fighting all the time, just like Athens and Sparta. But they have been part of Ancient Greece.
In the case of FYROM (still the official name until the agreement gets implemented soonish), they have been appropriating the Greek identity. That was not just some individuals at FYROM, it was the whole political apparatus of FYROM since the 90s.
Was ancient Libya/Carthage or even Spain a part of ancient Lebanon/Israel? They were certainly a part of the same culture, in the same way "Hellenic Culture" was a thing. They spoke the same Language, shared customs and myths and such.
I understand that if Jordan remained themselves "Canaan" or "Phoenicia" then Israel, Palestine, & Lebanon might object. Territorial implications, etc. It's not made up though. Jordan has a "right" to that legacy too. That language and culture were spoken and practiced in Amman as well as Tyre even if Tyre is what we think of as the original "hub."
absolutely agree... unfortunately common sense is extinct nowadays
Considering that "Macedonia" extends also into Greece it's not unreasonable to differentiate, into Northern and the other part. Without wanting to start a war, today's "Macedonians" are mostly slavs, and Albanians make about 25-30%.