Macedonians are not Bulgars
By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
January 29, 2008
In the deliberately confused political landscape of the Central Balkans,
historical truth, moral standards, ideological clarity, and political
resoluteness are necessary for all if peace, progress and prosperity are
truly sought after.
The fabricated nationalistic falsehood, diffused in various Balkan
countries
by entrapped chauvinistic parties, associations and organizations, has far
reaching consequences that the various propagandists cannot even imagine;
this is the reason they stick to their historical falsehood that will
finally be detrimental to them as well. Few have perceived so far the real
end of the nationalisms incited in most of the Balkan states by the
Anglo-French colonial establishments since the early 19th century; even
fewer can see clearly the impending dangers due to the chauvinistic
rekindling perpetrated again by the Anglo-French diplomats and advisors
since 1991.
One of the worst lies diffused among various Balkan peoples is the
assumption that the modern Macedonians are Bulgarians; the argument is
mostly linguistic and has to do with the apparent vicinity between the
Macedonian and the Bulgarian languages.
It would be parallel to the hypothesis that the ****tuguese are Spaniards,
because ****tuguese and Castillan Spanish have great similarities. Indeed,
500 years ago the Galician language of NW Spain (gallego) and ****tuguese
were one and the same Iberian language (named gallego - ****tugues); they
diverged in more recent eras. However, as no nationalistic feelings were
involved in this case, not a single Spaniard ever denied the authenticity
of
the ****tuguese nation and language. Unfortunately, the same did not happen
in the case of the Macedonians.
I am delighted to have gone through an excellent essay composed by two
great
Macedonian scholars and intellectuals, Aleksandar Donski and Risto Stefov,
that focuses precisely on this subject; indeed, the Macedonians have
nothing
to do with the Bulgars, and even most Bulgarians are not Bulgars - to
repeat
here the subtitle of this excellent analysis. Before publi****ng here
integrally the pertinent contribution that completely clarifies the issue,
I
will present a brief biographical sketch of the two intellectuals.
Alexander Donski was born in 1960 in Stip, Republic of Macedonia; he is a
Macedonian historian, writer and translator. He is known for his work
about
Macedonian history in which he argues for ethnic continuity between modern
"Slav" Macedonians and the ancient population of Macedon, as well as for
an
ancient and fundamental ethnic distinction between Macedonians and
Bulgarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_Donski).
Risto Stefov, was born in 1953 in the village Oshchima, Lerin/Florina
region, in Macedonian Greece. As his family immigrated to Canada in 1966,
Risto completed his secondary education in Canada (Westview Centennial
Secondary School) and in 1978 got his Bachelor in Electrical Engineering
from the University of Toronto. Risto was recruited by the Village
Association Benefit Society Oshchima (formed in 1907) where he served for
many years on the board of directors and was later voted President, a
title
which he holds to this day. In the early 1990´s, he joined the newly
formed
Lerin Region Macedonian Cultural Association of Ontario where he served on
the board of directors for two terms as treasurer and just recently
completed his second term as President.
Macedonians are not Bulgars (Even most Bulgarians are not Bulgars)
By Aleksandar Donski and Risto Stefov
January 24, 2008
It is high time the truth be known that Bulgarians know very little about
their own history. It is a well known fact that Bulgarian propaganda has
influenced many Macedonians to believe that they are Bulgarian, but the
facts show differently.
Let us begin by asking some questions like: "Who were the Bulgars of
History?", "How do these historic Bulgars relate to the modern
Bulgarians?"
and "Could these Bulgars be the ancestors of the modern Macedonians?"
Before answering the above questions we need to make a couple of points:
(1) According to mainstream history to which most of the world subscribes
today, the Slavs arrived in the Balkans around the 5th and 6th centuries
AD
while the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans about a century and a half later.
(2) Also according to mainstream history, the Bulgars were Oriental people
who had names like Kubrat, Omurtag, Telec, Toktu, Pagan, Cok, etc., and
spoke an Asiatic language.
A common argument Bulgarians make today is that Tsar Samoil´s kingdom was
"Bulgarian" and that Macedonian historiographers are attempting to hide
this
from the world. Is this true?
According to mainstream history Tsar Samoil ruled a vast region that
encompassed today´s Bulgaria , Macedonia , Greece , Albania , Montenegro ,
Serbia , Bosnia and even Croatia . But if we are to believe the Bulgarians
that Samoil´s kingdom was Bulgarian then we must also believe that there
were no Macedonians, Greeks, Albanians, Montenegrins, Serbians, Bosnians
or
Croatians in Samoil´s kingdom and that all these people were actually
"Bulgarians"!
The truth is that Tsar Samoil´s kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom and the
same can be said about his army. Clearly Macedonia was the center of
Samoil´s kingdom where he had his capitals but he recruited his soldiers
from the various ethnic groups living in his vast kingdom.
So, the Bulgarian argument that Samoil´s kingdom was Bulgarian is clearly
false.
How then do we account for some Byzantine authors calling Samoil´s army
´Bulgar´?"
There are historic do***ents that show that Byzantine authors did use the
word "Bulgars" to refer to Samoil´s soldiers. These however were not
ethnic
references. These were more like references to a certain "class" of
people.
When the "Bulgars" arrived in the Balkans around the 7th century AD, their
behaviour seemed unusual and barbaric. They were described by some as wild
and highly uncivilized barbaric people who ate raw meat and buried their
prisoners alive. In the eyes of the more cultivated Byzantines, besides
being barbaric, these "Bulgars" seemed "uneducated", "primitive" and
"dirty". With time the word "Bulgar" too became associated with
"uneducated", "primitive" and "dirty".
Even today in modern Greek the word "bulgar" means "primitive". The French
too define "Bulgar poetry" as the poetry of "common people". In some
Macedonian dialects the verb "se izbugari" means "to have become rotten".
Therefore it would appear that some Byzantine authors called Samoil´s
soldiers "Bulgars" not because they were ethnic Bulgarians, but because
they
looked poor, dirty and seemed uneducated and primitive like the real
Bulgars.
Assuming that during Tsar Samoil´s reign Macedonians were actually
"Bulgars"
as the modern Bulgarians would have us believe, then "Who were the
historical Bulgars from whom they descended?"
Mainstream history tells us that the first Bulgars arrived in the Balkans
around the 7th century AD and established their first State in the
northeastern part of present day Bulgaria in 681 AD. If we are to believe
that, and we have no reason not to, then who lived in Macedonia before the
arrival of the Bulgars?
Those who subscribe to the "Slav migration theory" would say it was the
Slavs who lived in Macedonia and had lived there for at least one and a
half
centuries before the arrival of the Bulgars.
Those who believe that the Macedonians descended from the ancient
Macedonians, would say Macedonians lived in Macedonia at least a thousand
years before the arrival of the Bulgars.
History also tells us that the "Bulgars" never settled in Macedonia . They
may have looted and pillaged Macedonia but they never settled there. In
fact
when the Bulgars conducted campaigns in Macedonia they conducted them
against the Macedonians.
Byzantine author Leonnis Diakonis in his book "History" wrote: "In
September, Simeon the Bulgarian, advanced with his army against
Constantinople . He robbed Thrace and Macedonia where he devastated and
ruined everything." This testimony is taken from a Bulgarian history book
(GIBI).
Nicholaos Mystikos also offers testimony about Bulgarian Middle Age terror
in Macedonia : "ruined homes, burned churches and monasteries, raped
virgins
and tortured priests..."
There are many such testimonies of Bulgarian atrocities committed in
Macedonia . Why would the Bulgars do that to themselves if Macedonians
were
truly Bulgarian?
If we are to assume, as some Bulgarians have done, that the Macedonians
have
descended from the Bulgars, then we need to have some basis for "when" the
Macedonians became "Bulgars"; what century, what year and what month on
which to make our assumptions? Obviously such information does not exist
because the Macedonians are not and never were Bulgars!
Again then why are such claims still made? From what we know from history,
the Bulgars did invade Macedonia a couple of times for short periods of
time
during the Middle Ages. Unfortunately this act alone does not qualify as a
valid reason for Macedonians to have become Bulgars. This is like saying
because of Hitler´s occupation of France for four years, the French people
are now ethnic Germans.
The most obvious reason of course for Macedonians and others to be
claiming
to be Bulgars then is the same reason as Macedonians claimed to be Turks,
Greeks, Serbians, etc., later and that is because by doing so they had
something to gain.
Even today, after Yugoslavia´s disintegration we have some 200 self
declared
Yugoslavs living in Macedonia . Why? Especially since Yugoslavia no longer
exists? These people declared themselves Yugoslavs because they obviously
had some personal connection to Yugoslavia and not necessarily because
they
were "ethnic Yugoslavs". Similarly some Macedonians during the Middle Ages
declared themselves Bulgars because they had something to gain.
Another point to make is that there were no declared Yugoslavians in
Macedonia before Yugoslavia came to exist just as there were no declared
Bulgarians in Macedonia before the Bulgars invaded and briefly occupied
parts of Macedonia in the 9th century.
Unlike Bulgaria or Yugoslavia however, the names Macedonia and Macedonian
have never disappeared since ancient times.
In conclusion, claims made by Bulgarians that Bulgars exist in Macedonia
(like those of Yugoslavs existing in Macedonia ) are a result of some
social
or economic factor and not necessarily because they are "ethnic Bulgars".
Even today Macedonians declare themselves as Bulgarians so that they can
get
Bulgarian pass****ts and be able to work in the European Union. Obviously,
this is a reflection of economic factors rather than of ethnic ones.
It is often said: "Macedonians, Bulgarians, they are the same people,
after
all they speak the same Bulgarian language; right?"
Statements such as the above are more a reflection of modern day Bulgarian
propaganda than they are a reflection of historical reality.
We have shown above that the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans during the 7th
century AD and that they were an Oriental group that spoke an Asiatic
language. Today´s Bulgarians however, are a predominantly Caucasian group
of
people who speak a "Slavic" (Macedonian - Zh. A.) language. We have also
shown above that when the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans they found people
living there, speaking a "Slavic" language.
So, given the above statements we can conclude that the Macedonians are
not
Bulgarians and they do not speak the Bulgar language. However, given that
the historic Bulgars were Orientals and spoke an Asiatic language and the
modern Bulgarians are predominantly Caucasian and speak a "Slavic"
language,
we can also see that there is an inconsistency in the Bulgarian model
which
postulates that the modern Bulgarians are the descendants of the historic
Bulgars.
If we were to ask any modern Bulgarian today about who his or her
ancestors
were, he or she would say they were khan Kubrat and khan Asparuh (whose
name
in Bulgarian means "swift horse"). But, as we can see Kubrat and Asparuh
were Orientals! Also the title "khan" is a well-known Mongolian title. So
then, how is it possible that Caucasians have descended from Orientals?
We also know from history that the Bulgars were a very small group in
comparison to those they found in the Balkans. It is conceivable then to
assume that the small oriental group of people who spoke an Asiatic
language
was assimilated by the larger group of Caucasian people who lived on those
lands and spoke a "Slavic" language.
So, the next question that begs to be asked is: "Who were these Caucasians
from whom the modern Bulgarians descended?"
The truth is that today´s modern Bulgarians, to a large extent are the
descendants of a small mix of "historic Bulgars" with a heaping large mix
of
historic Thracians, Slavs, Antes, Ancient Macedonians, Vlachs and other
people who lived in the regions of modern day Bulgaria.
According to the renowned Bulgarian historian Dimitar Angelov, more that
100,000 Caucasian Thracians lived in Bulgaria in the beginning of the
Middle
Ages. There is no historic event to show that these people moved or
vanished
so it is conceivable that the small Oriental Turko-Mongo Bulgar tribe
melted
among the great ancient Thracian tribes producing the modern Bulgarian
nation.
Professor Angelov also mentioned that many Thracian cultural elements such
as customs and people´s names still do exist in Bulgaria to this day.
Why then do modern Bulgarians, the vast majority of whom are Caucasians,
still claim to be the descendants of the Khans who in fact were Orientals?
The answer to this question lies in the 19th century when the Bulgarian
people began their struggle to liberate themselves from the Turks. At that
time most Bulgarian revolutionaries were educated in Russia which
instilled
in them that they were the descendants of the fierce fighting Khans. As
true
as that may be, Russia failed to instill in them that the modern
Bulgarians
are also the descendants of the mighty ancient Thracians, a descent which
they partly share with the Macedonians.
So there is some truth to the rumors that Macedonians and Bulgarians are
the
same people, or should we say similar people, since both partly descended
from the ancient Thracians and they both speak dialects of languages that
have Thracian words.
Should our readers require more information or clarification on any of the
above subjects, please feel free to write to us at adonski@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Aleksandar Donski, author of the book Ethno-genetic differences between
Bulgarians and Macedonians), or rstefov@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Risto Stefov, author
of
the book History of the Macedonian People from Ancient Times to the
Present).
Note
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Orientalist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 51, is the
author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia
entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than
15, modern and ancient, languages. He refuted Greek nationalism, sup****ted
Martin Bernal's Black Athena, and rejected the Greco-Romano-centric
version
of History. He pleaded for the European History by J. B. Duroselle, and
defended the rights of the Turkish, Pomak, Macedonian, Vlachian,
Arvanitic,
Latin Catholic, and Jewish minorities of Greece. Born Christian Orthodox,
he
adhered to Islam when 36, devoted to ideas of Muhyieldin Ibn al Arabi.
Greek citizen of Turkish origin, Prof. Megalommatis studied and/or worked
in
Turkey, Greece, France, England, Belgium, Germany, Syria, Israel, Iraq,
Iran, Egypt and Russia, and carried out research trips throughout the
Middle
East, Northeastern Africa and Central Asia. His career extended from
Research & Education, Journalism, Publications, Photography, and
Translation
to Website Development, Human Rights Advocacy, Marketing, Sales &
Brokerage.
He traveled in more than 80 countries in 5 continents. He defends the
Right
of Aramaeans, Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Berbers, Afars, Anuak, Darfuris,
Bejas and Tibetans to National Independence, demands international
recognition for Kosovo, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and
Transnistria, calls for National Unity in Somalia, and denounces Islamic
Terrorism.
|
