Printable View
That country earned itself the right to call itself Macedonia when the neighbour which disputed it failed to prevent it from doing so. If Greece wishes to stop FYROM from calling itself Macedonia, then it must prove its exclusive right to use that name. If Greece can't prove this right, by whatever means it wishes, then FYROM can call itself Macedonia if it likes, and if other countries recognise it, then other countries will call it Macedonia too.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
...and obviously these "Macedonians" have no right to call themselves such.
LINK
To ARMS!
:devilish:
So by your logic what am I a slav? Im a Makedon myself and I speak Makedonian Greek Dialect...how should I call my homeland? Vardarska?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You can call yourself whatever you like, they can call themselves whatever they like, and other people can call you and they whatever they like. Is that so difficult to understand? If you want other people to stop calling them Macedonians, then you'll have to convince them, and if you can't convince them, then they're Macedonians as far as most of the world is concerned, and your protests matter not a jot. And judging from this thread, not only are you not convincing people your side is correct, you're actually convincing people your side is wrong, and not just over the matter of Macedonia. Cf. Rabbit's comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
By your logic, what am I? By your logic, I can't possibly be American, since I'm not of Native American bloodlines. Should I call myself a Germano-English-Dutch? And then, what country should I have loyalty to? Your whole argument makes no sense whatsoever. My "homeland" is where I was born, Iowa, United States. Not Germany, not England, not the Netherlands. Successful countries aren't driven by race or ethnicity, but by nationality. Sorry pal.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
So hellenes by your logic New Zealanders can not call themselves such because another area has a historical precedent to it.Quote:
New Zealand
The islands of New Zealand were named by Dutch navigator Abel Tasman in 1642. Tasman named it Staten Landt, believing it to be part of the land of that name off the coast of Argentina. When that was shown not to be so Dutch authorities named it Nova Zeelandia in Latin, Nieuw Zeeland in Dutch. The two major seafaring provinces of the Netherlands in its Golden Age were Holland and Zeeland, and originally the Dutch explorers named the largest landmass of Oceania and the two islands to the southeast respectively Nieuw Holland and Nieuw Zeeland. The former was eventually replaced by the name Australia, but the name New Zealand remained in place for the latter. Captain James Cook subsequently called the archipelago New Zealand.
If you cannot prove this case to be true for New Zealand then your reasoning against 'New' Macedonia is also flawed.
Welcome to the modern world were citizenship for many is their choice not a caste system one.
I believe he's debating the fact that the country doesn't have the right to call itself that in the first place. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
On the basis that they aren't ethnically Macedonian. Of course, he's rather missing the point that a country can very well call itself whatever the heck it wants to; that's one of the fringe benefits of creating your own country. Heck, a country could even name itself Petoria if they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Having pissing matches over who gets rightful claim over the legacy of Alexander just proves how insane the Balkans really are. It'd be like the Vatican and Italy having a pissing match over who really was the heir to the Roman Empire; it simply DOESN'T matter a single iota.
Careful. At first sight, particularly when seen from afar, other people's conflicts tend to look ridiculous. We often don't (want to) realize what is at stake for them, only what is at stake for us - which may be practically nothing, so why do they make all the fuss?Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
To give you a point of reference: many Europeans have the same attitude about the American 'culture wars'. For instance they think it's ridiculous that Americans are still making a big hullabaloo about the raising or burning of Confederate battle flags. And surprise, surprise: most Balkan ethnic struggles go back about one hundred and fifty years. In other words, they go back about as long as the American Civil War.
Only in the case of the Balkan, these issues they have been compounded by seemingly endless outside interference, great power meddling and several world wars, including a cold one. That's why they are a little more heated than your present Confederacy debates. But the Confederacy issue made a huge comeback as well, during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. It came back to haunt the nation in a different guise, but under some of the same old symbols of 1861-65.
So in both cases, 'memory' goes back that far because it has been kept alive by continuing, and continually changing, conflict. Understanding these conflicts helps you understand the force of the symbols, whether it is old Alex or old Beauregard's rag. Seen from afar, it's child's play. Seen from close up, it's genuine tragedy.
Best post so far, well said Adrian II. :bow:
Doesn't matter. Macedonians can call themselves and their country whatever they feel like. Greece shoul have no say in what is clearly a personal business of another sovereign nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Well part of the reason why people in regions like the Balkans keep killing each other is that they can't get over their stupid grudges. If they stopped caring about some battle in the middle ages (or, perhaps I should say stopped letting demagogues exploit them in this way) maybe they wouldn't have so many wars.
Post #99 please. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental