Bulgarian claims over Macedonia

[Michael]

An independent observer from far way country (down under), who has some knowledge of the cultural, economic and historic development of the wider Balkan region is trying to find someone who can give a rational and logical explanation on the following mystery, at least in my opinion:

Why Bulgaria has such enormous desire and need to claim the Macedonian population as Bulgarian?!

Not just those living in Republic of Macedonia but even those Macedonians living in the neighboring countries, Greece, Serbia and Albania. Most recently, at least for me, even those Macedonians converted to Islam (known as Gorani or Torbeshi) and speak nothing but Macedonian is considered Bulgarian. Although, I believe that these claims are laid by Bulgarian media, at this stage only.

I am not interested in discussing the daily political objectives of the local governments. I am hoping that someone with acceptable academic credentials, preferably from Bulgaria will respond to this request.

In constructing your response please take in consideration the following facts:

1. Anti Bulgarian feelings are widely spread in the Republic of Macedonia, with exception of few.
2. On the contrary those feeling in Bulgaria are quite opposite, claiming that there are two countries with same people.
3. The reaction is surprisingly adverse if reference is made to their Turko-Tataric background, instantly claiming their Slav ancestry.(Please note, noting against Tatars or Turks both very developed nations with very well documented history)
4. The old Bulgarians did not speak archaic Slav and had quite different customs.
5. They represented 10%(approximately 250,000) of the population at that time. Who were the other 90%?
6. Bulgarians occupied the south bank of Danube River in the Dobrudja area.
7. Who were the other people who lived in the other parts of the today’s Bulgaria? What were the common language and customs?
8. Modern Bulgarians do not have common points or similarities with the original Bulgars. However, the resemblance between the old Bulgars and Tatars who populate some parts of Russia is quite evident. Physically and Culturally.
9. The old Bulgars formed the first Bulgarian state in the 7th century, but the population was not Bulgarian.
10. Privileged to function under single state, being allowed to use their mother language and practice their own traditions was a small price the local population had to pay. Simply they took the name of their occupier.
11. Romanians, Serbians, Gypsies, Vlachs, Armenians, Macedonians …. became Bulgarian.
12. Even if today’s Bulgarian claim is true “we are the same people”, it is logical to conclude, one group of people become Bulgarian while the other remain what they were.
13. Nothing new, some people accepted the change of the name while others who did not were subjugated to an ongoing change of identity campaign from Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, especially after those three were liberated from the Ottoman Empire.

The citizens of Bulgaria who do not consider themselves Tatars, Serbs, Turks or Armenians are those people who are searching for their lost identity, their real culture and language?! Even adopting folk songs, events and personalities who are exclusively a product from the territory of the Republic of Macedonia as their own! Why, is this still happening in the heart of Europe in the 21st century?

I am looking forward for a positive and constructive debate with out any nationalistic emotions.

[Mimas]

Michael wrote:

An independent observer from far way country (down under), who has some knowledge of the cultural, economic and historic development of the wider Balkan region is trying to find someone who can give a rational and logical explanation on the following mystery, at least in my opinion:
Why Bulgaria has such enormous desire and need to claim the Macedonian population as Bulgarian?!
Not just those living in Republic of Macedonia but even those Macedonians living in the neighboring countries, Greece, Serbia and Albania. Most recently, at least for me, even those Macedonians converted to Islam (known as Gorani or Torbeshi) and speak nothing but Macedonian is considered Bulgarian. Although, I believe that these claims are laid by Bulgarian media, at this stage only.
I am not interested in discussing the daily political objectives of the local governments. I am hoping that someone with acceptable academic credentials, preferably from Bulgaria will respond to this request.
In constructing your response please take in consideration the following facts:
1. Anti Bulgarian feelings are widely spread in the Republic of Macedonia, with exception of few.
2. On the contrary those feeling in Bulgaria are quite opposite, claiming that there are two countries with same people.
3. The reaction is surprisingly adverse if reference is made to their Turko-Tataric background, instantly claiming their Slav ancestry.(Please note, noting against Tatars or Turks both very developed nations with very well documented history)
4. The old Bulgarians did not speak archaic Slav and had quite different customs.
5. They represented 10%(approximately 250,000) of the population at that time. Who were the other 90%?
6. Bulgarians occupied the south bank of Danube River in the Dobrudja area.
7. Who were the other people who lived in the other parts of the today’s Bulgaria? What were the common language and customs?
8. Modern Bulgarians do not have common points or similarities with the original Bulgars. However, the resemblance between the old Bulgars and Tatars who populate some parts of Russia is quite evident. Physically and Culturally.
9. The old Bulgars formed the first Bulgarian state in the 7th century, but the population was not Bulgarian.
10. Privileged to function under single state, being allowed to use their mother language and practice their own traditions was a small price the local population had to pay. Simply they took the name of their occupier.
11. Romanians, Serbians, Gypsies, Vlachs, Armenians, Macedonians …. became Bulgarian.
12. Even if today’s Bulgarian claim is true “we are the same people”, it is logical to conclude, one group of people become Bulgarian while the other remain what they were.
13. Nothing new, some people accepted the change of the name while others who did not were subjugated to an ongoing change of identity campaign from Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, especially after those three were liberated from the Ottoman Empire.
The citizens of Bulgaria who do not consider themselves Tatars, Serbs, Turks or Armenians are those people who are searching for their lost identity, their real culture and language?! Even adopting folk songs, events and personalities who are exclusively a product from the territory of the Republic of Macedonia as their own! Why, is this still happening in the heart of Europe in the 21st century?
I am looking forward for a positive and constructive debate with out any nationalistic emotions.

Bulgaria has NO desire to claim the FYROManian population!

BULGARIA HAS NO DESIRE TO CLAIM THE FYROMANIAN POPULATION! OR ANYTHING ELSE FYROMANIAN FOR THAT MATTER! THERE'S NOTHING IN FYROM WE (BULGARIANS) COULD POSSIBLY FIND DESIRABLE!

[GBG]

Hey MakLajnjo who gave you Christianity??????????

[Mimas]

Michael wrote:

An independent observer from far way country (down under), who has some knowledge of the cultural, economic and historic development of the wider Balkan region is trying to find someone who can give a rational and logical explanation on the following mystery, at least in my opinion:
Why Bulgaria has such enormous desire and need to claim the Macedonian population as Bulgarian?!
Not just those living in Republic of Macedonia but even those Macedonians living in the neighboring countries, Greece, Serbia and Albania. Most recently, at least for me, even those Macedonians converted to Islam (known as Gorani or Torbeshi) and speak nothing but Macedonian is considered Bulgarian. Although, I believe that these claims are laid by Bulgarian media, at this stage only.
I am not interested in discussing the daily political objectives of the local governments. I am hoping that someone with acceptable academic credentials, preferably from Bulgaria will respond to this request.
In constructing your response please take in consideration the following facts:
1. Anti Bulgarian feelings are widely spread in the Republic of Macedonia, with exception of few.
2. On the contrary those feeling in Bulgaria are quite opposite, claiming that there are two countries with same people.
3. The reaction is surprisingly adverse if reference is made to their Turko-Tataric background, instantly claiming their Slav ancestry.(Please note, noting against Tatars or Turks both very developed nations with very well documented history)
4. The old Bulgarians did not speak archaic Slav and had quite different customs.
5. They represented 10%(approximately 250,000) of the population at that time. Who were the other 90%?
6. Bulgarians occupied the south bank of Danube River in the Dobrudja area.
7. Who were the other people who lived in the other parts of the today’s Bulgaria? What were the common language and customs?
8. Modern Bulgarians do not have common points or similarities with the original Bulgars. However, the resemblance between the old Bulgars and Tatars who populate some parts of Russia is quite evident. Physically and Culturally.
9. The old Bulgars formed the first Bulgarian state in the 7th century, but the population was not Bulgarian.
10. Privileged to function under single state, being allowed to use their mother language and practice their own traditions was a small price the local population had to pay. Simply they took the name of their occupier.
11. Romanians, Serbians, Gypsies, Vlachs, Armenians, Macedonians …. became Bulgarian.
12. Even if today’s Bulgarian claim is true “we are the same people”, it is logical to conclude, one group of people become Bulgarian while the other remain what they were.
13. Nothing new, some people accepted the change of the name while others who did not were subjugated to an ongoing change of identity campaign from Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, especially after those three were liberated from the Ottoman Empire.
The citizens of Bulgaria who do not consider themselves Tatars, Serbs, Turks or Armenians are those people who are searching for their lost identity, their real culture and language?! Even adopting folk songs, events and personalities who are exclusively a product from the territory of the Republic of Macedonia as their own! Why, is this still happening in the heart of Europe in the 21st century?
I am looking forward for a positive and constructive debate with out any nationalistic emotions.

In order to discuss any issue, you must have some knowledge of the subject at hand. All your points above are incorrect, so at this stage you are not in a position to debate this subject. If you were indeed interested in a constructive debate, you should go back and learn some basic facts about it. Good luck!

[lol]

Mimas wrote:

<quoted text>
THERE'S NOTHING IN FYROM WE (BULGARIANS) COULD POSSIBLY FIND DESIRABLE!

you and the rest of the world

[Michael]

Mimas wrote:

<quoted text>
In order to discuss any issue, you must have some knowledge of the subject at hand. All your points above are incorrect, so at this stage you are not in a position to debate this subject. If you were indeed interested in a constructive debate, you should go back and learn some basic facts about it. Good luck!

I believe I have substantial knowledge of the subject. However, can you explain which points are wrong and why? Which saurce should I use so can be "able" to debate?

Please be more tolerant and constructive.

[Michael]

GBG wrote:

Hey MakLajnjo who gave you Christianity??????????

What do you mean?

[GBG]

Michael wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean?

The question is clear.
How creatures living in geographical region Macedonia became Christian????
You have NO CLUE ABOUT HISTORY. Is that right MakLajn(MakShit)?

[Michael]

GBG wrote:

<quoted text>
The question is clear.
How creatures living in geographical region Macedonia became Christian????
You have NO CLUE ABOUT HISTORY. Is that right MakLajn(MakShit)?

How that is relevant to my original request?

If you are not prepared to discuss the subject just do not do it. There is no need to be nasty. I am not Mak and certanly not shit, mate.

[GBG]

Michael wrote:

<quoted text>
How that is relevant to my original request?
If you are not prepared to discuss the subject just do not do it. There is no need to be nasty. I am not Mak and certanly not shit, mate.

There you go mate: Encyclopedia Britannica:

Bulgaria
The spread of Christianity
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 44 of 78

Print PagePrint ArticleE-mail ArticleCite Article
Send comments or suggest changes to this article Share article with your Readers
History > The first Bulgarian empire > The spread of Christianity

Internally, the 8th and 9th centuries saw the gradual assimilation of the Bulgars by the Slavic majority. There are almost no sources that describe this process, but it was certainly facilitated by the spread of Christianity, which provided a new basis for a common culture. Boris I of Bulgaria (852–889) was baptized a Christian in 864, at a time when the conflict between the Roman church and the Eastern church in Constantinople was becoming more open and intense. Although Boris's baptism was into the Eastern church, he subsequently wavered between Rome and Constantinople until the latter was persuaded to grant de facto autonomy to Bulgaria in church affairs.

arrowSpecial Offer! Activate a FREE trial to Britannica Online, your complete (re)search engine for when you need to be right.

The spread of Christianity was facilitated by the work of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who had invented an alphabet in which to write the Slavic language (known as Old Church Slavonic or Old Bulgarian) and almost completed the translation of the Bible (most parts of both the Old and the New Testament) into the vernacular of the land. They also developed a Slavonic liturgy in Moravia. When Moravia committed to Rome and expelled the disciples of Cyril and Methodius, many of them resettled in Bulgaria, where they were welcomed by Boris and undertook the translation of church books and the training of priests. St. Clement and St. Naum are credited with preparing more than 3,000 priests, and they established church and educational centres at the new capital Preslav and on the shores of Lake Ohrid (Okhrid) in Macedonia.

Bulgaria's conversion had a political dimension, for it contributed both to the growth of central authority and to the merging of Bulgars and Slavs into a unified Bulgarian people. Boris adopted Byzantine political conceptions, referring to himself as ruler “by the grace of God,” and the new religion provided justification for suppressing those boyars of Bulgar origin who clung to paganism and the political and social order with which it was linked. In 889 Boris, whose faith apparently was deep and genuine, abdicated to enter a monastery. When his eldest son, Vladimir, fell under the influence of the old boyars and attempted to reestablish paganism, Boris led a coup that overthrew him. After Vladimir was deposed and blinded, Boris convened a council that confirmed Christianity as the religion of the state and moved the administrative capital from Pliska to the Slavic town of Preslav (now known as Veliki Preslav). The council conferred the throne on Boris's third son, Simeon, and Boris retired permanently to monastic life.

[Michael]

So I can see that you are Bulgarian from Canada.

However, I read this befor and I asume we can agree on this:

- Boris I of Bulgaria was not ethnic Bulgarian but was sussessors of the original Bulgars, Batboyan, Khan Asparukh... who were not slavs and they did not speak slavonic lenguage
- Further St Clement and Naum of Ohrid were Moravians not Bulgarians and they were sent to Ohrid to spread what? Literacy and Christianity. To whom? To local population which were not Bulgarians.
- No evidence that original Bulgars penetrated in Macedonia or West Bulgaria as some historians want to call the region.
- Why Boris I of Bulgaria would liketo spread the literacy in a forign language if he was tatar in origin? Does not make sense! But why did he took the name Bulagr if he was not?
- You can become sitizen of a country but it does not make you their national. Your ethnicity is somthing different. eg you are Canadian citizen with bulgarian background

Despite all of the above I stil do not have answer to my original question?!

Cheers

[Zoodohos]

Michael wrote:

<quoted text>
How that is relevant to my original request?
If you are not prepared to discuss the subject just do not do it. There is no need to be nasty. I am not Mak and certanly not shit, mate.

safe FYROM as the Gay heaven of EUROPEAN GayDom,Half the population is GAY anyway.The word PORNO is a Mako word.checd it out gee

[Dolph The Bulgarian]

Michael wrote:

So I can see that you are Bulgarian from Canada.
However, I read this befor and I asume we can agree on this:
- Boris I of Bulgaria was not ethnic Bulgarian but was sussessors of the original Bulgars, Batboyan, Khan Asparukh... who were not slavs and they did not speak slavonic lenguage
- Further St Clement and Naum of Ohrid were Moravians not Bulgarians and they were sent to Ohrid to spread what? Literacy and Christianity. To whom? To local population which were not Bulgarians.
- No evidence that original Bulgars penetrated in Macedonia or West Bulgaria as some historians want to call the region.
- Why Boris I of Bulgaria would liketo spread the literacy in a forign language if he was tatar in origin? Does not make sense! But why did he took the name Bulagr if he was not?
- You can become sitizen of a country but it does not make you their national. Your ethnicity is somthing different. eg you are Canadian citizen with bulgarian background
Despite all of the above I stil do not have answer to my original question?!
Cheers

in the end of the day no one care about your question.Im sick and tired to explain people why this,why that,why.......
http://www.archives.government.bg/images/BgZe... get yourself this book and then start "stupid" discution fyroman!

[Michael]

Dolph The Bulgarian wrote:

<quoted text>in the end of the day no one care about your question.Im sick and tired to explain people why this,why that,why.......
http://www.archives.government.bg/images/BgZe... get yourself this book and then start "stupid" discution fyroman!

The book is realy independent and objective source. When someone is becoming agressive and and abusive it means that they are loosig the argument.
No one asked you to explain somthing that you are not capable of. Obviousely you are not ready for any high level and open discussion. If you are tired get some rest.
The questionn is relevant. Why do you want the Macedonians to be Bulgarians when they do not want to be.

[Mimas]

Michael wrote:

- Boris I of Bulgaria was not ethnic Bulgarian but was sussessors of the original Bulgars, Batboyan, Khan Asparukh... who were not slavs and they did not speak slavonic lenguage

False. Boris was of Krum's dinasty, not related to Khan Asparuh. Boris was the son and heir of Pressian (a Slavic name), who was the son of Zvinitsa (Slavic again) and the nephew and heir of Malamir (Slavic too). Boris' first son and heir was Vladimir (Slavic). Asparukh spoke Bulgar as his native language but Boris spoke Slavic. The last traces of the Bulgar language in Bulgaria are from the early 800's after which it became extinct. By the mid 850's when Boris came to the throne the Bulgars had intermarried with the Slavs - the nobility of course was the last to do that but by 830 even the monarchs had Slavic names. This merger of Slavs and Bulgars was what they themselves called Bulgari and what everyone else called Bulgari as well. Furthermore, the Macedonian Slavs were Bulgari and there was no difference between Bulgari from Macedonia, from Moesia, from Thrace, etc. Also, there were no FYROM type Macedonians at the time. The Macedonians were Greeks (Cyril and Methodius included).

- Further St Clement and Naum of Ohrid were Moravians not Bulgarians and they were sent to Ohrid to spread what? Literacy and Christianity. To whom? To local population which were not Bulgarians.

False again. Clement and Naum were Bulgarians. The local population of Ohrid were Bulgarians. Clement headed the school in Ohrid, Naum headed the school in Preslav, both of which spread literacy and christianity to all of Bulgaria.

[Mimas]

- No evidence that original Bulgars penetrated in Macedonia or West Bulgaria as some historians want to call the region.

There is plenty of evidence that they did, you just don't (want to) know about it. Besides that's irrelevant. The Bulgarians at the time were primarily Slav and spoke a Slavic language - Old Bulgarian or Old Church Slavonic. They surely penetrated the region really well - so well, they were still there a century ago.

- Why Boris I of Bulgaria would liketo spread the literacy in a forign language if he was tatar in origin? Does not make sense! But why did he took the name Bulagr if he was not?

Nonsense. He also spoke Greek. There is no evidence that he spoke Proto-Bulgar. Of course he was the monarch of Bulgaria, and he was Bulgarian. There was no question in anyone's mind what Bulgarian meant. Only you FYROM ignoramuses would question 11 centuries later the Bulgarians' ethnic self-identification.
Why did the Russians take the name Russians if they are Slavs and not Vikings? Obviously they thought they were one and the same as the Rus Vikings who formed Kiev Rus, intermarried with the Slavs and started speaking Slavic too. Do your FYROManian books say that the Russians are vikings? Why did the Greeks take the name Roman even though they spoke Greek?

- You can become sitizen of a country but it does not make you their national. Your ethnicity is somthing different. eg you are Canadian citizen with bulgarian background
Despite all of the above I stil do not have answer to my original question?!
Cheers

No, it does not. However, if there is no difference between your ethnicity and their ethnicity then that's one ethnicity now isn't it? There were no ethnic differences between Macedonian Bulgarians, Thracian Bulgarians, Moesian Bulgarians, Dobrudjan Bulgarians and so on. They were all Bulgarians from different geographical regions. Only in FYROM, after Vardar Macedonia was annexed by Serbia, was a new Macedonian ethnicity developed because the locals couldn't be convinced they were Serbs, but they certainly had to stop calling themselves Bugari. In 1918 the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed. Obviously, there were no "Macedonians" yet.

[Mimas]

Michael wrote:

1. Anti Bulgarian feelings are widely spread in the Republic of Macedonia, with exception of few.

FYROManinans, being the youngest ethnicity on the Balkans and having no history of their own, have created an identity based on hate - they are anti-Bulgarian, anti-Greek, anti-Albanian and anti-Serbian. It is an anti-identity that would not exist without the Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanianas and Serbs. They don't know who they are, they know who they are NOT - they are not any of the above four.

2. On the contrary those feeling in Bulgaria are quite opposite, claiming that there are two countries with same people.

False. They were the same people prior to Tito's Yugoslavia. Obviously, things changed - now you are FYROMians, Bulgarians are still Bulgarians.

3. The reaction is surprisingly adverse if reference is made to their Turko-Tataric background, instantly claiming their Slav ancestry.(Please note, noting against Tatars or Turks both very developed nations with very well documented history)

The Bulgarian ethnicity formed long before the Turkish or Tatar ethnicities - therefore it is not possible that Bulgarians have a Turko-Tataric background. Since all three have very well documented history, I invite you to read it before making any ignoramus remarks such as your statement above.

[Mimas]

Michael wrote:

4. The old Bulgarians did not speak archaic Slav and had quite different customs.
5. They represented 10%(approximately 250,000) of the population at that time. Who were the other 90%?
6. Bulgarians occupied the south bank of Danube River in the Dobrudja area.
7. Who were the other people who lived in theother parts of the today’s Bulgaria? What were the common language and customs?

The proto-bulgarians represented the majority of the population of Bulgaria (north-eastern Bulgaria, eastern Romania, Moldova and south eastern Ukraine today) in the 680's. As Bulgaria expanded into all of Romania and most of the Balkans, more and more Slavs, Vlah, Greeks, even Armenians were incorporated into the ethnic mix and the proto-Bulgars along with the smaller ethnic groups were slowly assimilated by the Slav majority - it took century and a half to two to form a fairly homogeneous single ethnicity from all the above inputs. Nevertheless, the country was called Bulgaria and the people populating it referred to themselves as Bulgarians. Most of their successors still do.
Similarly, the viking Rus occupied the lands of Kiev Rus. Representing only about 10% of the population, they were also quickly assimilated by the local Slavs. The country was still called Rus and the people of the new ethnic ethnicity formed by the merger of the germanic speaking vikings and the Slavs called themselves Rus - now Russians.

8. Modern Bulgarians do not have common points or similarities with the original Bulgars. However, the resemblance between the old Bulgars and Tatars who populate some parts of Russia is quite evident. Physically and Culturally.

You don't know a thing about the proto-Bulgars or the Tatars. How can anything be "evident" to you?

9. The old Bulgars formed the first Bulgarian state in the 7th century, but the population was not Bulgarian.
10. Privileged to function under single state, being allowed to use their mother language and practice their own traditions was a small price the local population had to pay. Simply they took the name of their occupier.

Note that the Bulgars formed alliances with many Slavic tribes for mutual protection (against Byzantium). Few battles were actually fought between Bulgars and Slavs - if any. In fact, any battles (even the war of 681) were fought by Bulgar and Slav allies against Byzantines and Avars. Any battles past the year 800 were fought by between the (now) predominantly Slavic Bulgarians and Byzantines, Magyars, Arabs and other Slavs (more significantly Serbs and Croats).

11. Romanians, Serbians, Gypsies, Vlachs, Armenians, Macedonians …. became Bulgarian.

Romanians are a relatively new ethnicity (just a couple of centuries old). The Serbs were formed by the 13th century from the many predecessor Slavic tribes of the pre-Serbian statelets that merged into Serbia in the late 1100's. Most gypsies moved into the Balkans quite late too. The Vlah were also quite numerous and formed communities throughout the Balkans - they are the basis (or largest group) for the Romanian ethnicity. The Armenians in the Balkans were very few and were quickly absorbed by the surrounding populations once transplanted there. The Macedonians were Greeks, and while some of them became Bulgarian and vice-versa, they are still Greek. With the exception of the Greeks (Macedonians), Armenians and possibly Vlah, the Bulgarian ethnicity is older than all the rest. It is absurd to claim that Romanians or Serbs became Bulgarian some 1000+ years ago.

[Mimas]

12. Even if today’s Bulgarian claim is true “we are the same people”, it is logical to conclude, one group of people become Bulgarian while the other remain what they were.

You got this backwards. We (Bulgarians and FYROManians) are not the same people. Yours and our predecessors were Bulgarian (and the same people) but you changed and become something else over the last century.

13. Nothing new, some people accepted the change of the name while others who did not were subjugated to an ongoing change of identity campaign from Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, especially after those three were liberated from the Ottoman Empire.

The only change in identity that has occurred in Macedonia is that the population of Vardar Banovina became a Macedonian "ethnicity". The remaining Macedonians are still Greek or Bulgarian, just as they were before Vardar Macedonia was incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (note that "Macedonians" were not mentioned in that name because such an ethnicity didn't exist in 1918) and later Yugoslavia.

The citizens of Bulgaria who do not consider themselves Tatars, Serbs, Turks or Armenians are those people who are searching for their lost identity, their real culture and language?! Even adopting folk songs, events and personalities who are exclusively a product from the territory of the Republic of Macedonia as their own! Why, is this still happening in the heart of Europe in the 21st century?

Bulgarians have a rich and very well documented history (in the Balkans only the Greeks exceed that, you on the other hand have none prior to the 20th century). Bulgaria is nearly 5 times the size of FYROM, has a number of geographical and ethnological regions with varied culture, folklore and uniqueness of their own. Bulgarian culture from the Macedonian region is just one piece in a much bigger mosaic. With it or without it, the Bulgarian cultural mosaic is rich and plentiful. We are lucky and proud to have that.

You on the other hand have nothing that is even a century old (don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with that - in fact it must be nice to not have the burdens of a long history because there are always negative and difficult periods in a nation's history), so you go FYROMacedonising the people, language and culture of Bulgarians and Greeks in what is not the search for a lost soul (because there wasn't one to be lost) but the invention of a new soul which you try to apply retroactively. How pathetic and ridiculous is that?

Greek and Roman historical sites in Turkey are not claimed to be Turkish by the Turks, Thracian tombs and Roman theaters in Bulgaria are not claimed to be Bulgarian by the Bulgarians, how the heck did the fortress of Samuil Tsar of Bulgaria came to be FYROMacedonian? Or the fortress of Ivan Vladislav? Or most of your "national" heroes (G. Delchev, K. Misirkov, D. Miladinov, etc.) all of whom said and wrote over and over again that they were Macedonian Bulgarians, and whose writings you translate from Bulgarian into "contemporary Macedonian" - how did you turn them into anti-Bulgarian FYROManians post-mortem? They would be spinning in their graves if they knew what you've become and what you claim them to have been.

How about Cyril and Methodius, whom everyone knows to have been Greek? Or Alexander the Great, who had never even seen a Slav in his life? What the heck is wrong with you people? What exactly is "Macedonian" on you? Even the name Macedonia is Greek. You make up only 25% of the population of Macedonia. How dare you claim that you are "Macedonians" and other Macedonians are not so? Go pick another name and stop changing the ethnicities of the dead - it's infantile and plain disgusting.

[Vlachos ap tin Samarina]

Mimas wrote:

<quoted text>
False. Boris was of Krum's dinasty, not related to Khan Asparuh. Boris was the son and heir of Pressian (a Slavic name), who was the son of Zvinitsa (Slavic again) and the nephew and heir of Malamir (Slavic too). Boris' first son and heir was Vladimir (Slavic). Asparukh spoke Bulgar as his native language but Boris spoke Slavic. The last traces of the Bulgar language in Bulgaria are from the early 800's after which it became extinct. By the mid 850's when Boris came to the throne the Bulgars had intermarried with the Slavs - the nobility of course was the last to do that but by 830 even the monarchs had Slavic names. This merger of Slavs and Bulgars was what they themselves called Bulgari and what everyone else called Bulgari as well. Furthermore, the Macedonian Slavs were Bulgari and there was no difference between Bulgari from Macedonia, from Moesia, from Thrace, etc. Also, there were no FYROM type Macedonians at the time. The Macedonians were Greeks (Cyril and Methodius included).
<quoted text>
False again. Clement and Naum were Bulgarians. The local population of Ohrid were Bulgarians. Clement headed the school in Ohrid, Naum headed the school in Preslav, both of which spread literacy and christianity to all of Bulgaria.

mimas you have some of the best arguements here, I don´t always aggree with you but most of the time I do!!