Re: Francis Seymour Stevenson, 1914, pages 144-145

"S_N" <baba_ginka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fvrhkj$6m7$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.apost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:4820e961$0$1021$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "S_N" <baba_ginka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:fvoqkt$j0q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.apost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:481fb82a$0$13948$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "S_N" <baba_ginka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:fvmun8$g8e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> The material shown does not say that the word "Macedonians" was used

>>>>> in 1711. The mention of "Macedonians" here is by the author Francis 
>>>>> Seymour Stevenson and the date is 1914.
>>>>>
>>>>> SN
>>>>
>>>> Correct, but the author says that in 1711 "proclamations" were sent
to 
>>>> the Macedonians, Albanians, ...., as opposed to "Bulgar(ian)s",
Greeks 
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing "opposed" - It is clear that Stevenson was using the notions
of 
>>> his day when writing about events from the 18th c.
>>
>> "Clear"? The only thing that is clear here is your "notion" (read 
>> "bulgar" bias).
>>
>>> And yes, in 1914, the term "Macedonians" has been used to describe all

>>> the inhabitants of what then was called Macedonia:
>>> have you ever heard of IMRO ?
>>
>> IMRO stands for Internal MACEDONIAN Revolutionary Organisation. Have
you 
>> read the interview of Niola Karev, by a greek journalist in May 2003?
:-)
>
> :)
> "We talked a long time about the goal of this organization and at last
we 
> fixed it on autonomy of Macedonia with the priority of the Bulgarian 
> element. We couldn't accept the position for "direct joining to
Bulgaria" 
> because we saw that it would meet big difficulties by reason of 
> confrontation of the Great powers and the aspirations of the
neighbouring 
> small countries and Turkey. It passed through our thoughts that one 
> autonomous Macedonia could easier unite with Bulgaria subsequently and
if 
> the worst comes to the worst, that it could play a role as a unificating

> link of a federation of Balkan people. The region of Adrianople, as far
as 
> I remember, didn't take part in our program, and I think the idea to add

> it to the autonomous Macedonia came later.We talked a long time about
the 
> goal of this organization and at last we fixed it on autonomy of
Macedonia 
> with the priority of the Bulgarian element. We couldn't accept the 
> position for "direct joining to Bulgaria" because we saw that it would 
> meet big difficulties by reason of confrontation of the Great powers and

> the aspirations of the neighbouring small countries and Turkey. It
passed 
> through our thoughts that one autonomous Macedonia could easier unite
with 
> Bulgaria subsequently and if the worst comes to the worst, that it could

> play a role as a unificating link of a federation of Balkan people. The 
> region of Adrianople, as far as I remember, didn't take part in our 
> program, and I think the idea to add it to the autonomous Macedonia came

> later. " Christo Tatarchev.
>
> You should read karev's interview within these lines of understanding
....

This is a "bulgar" do***ent. When it comes to Macedonia, I have as much 
faith in this "evidence" as I would have of "evidence" produced by the 
Greeks sup****ting their propaganda and is totally contradictory with the 
Karev interview. The Karev interview totally debunks the bulgar propaganda

about the supposed "bulgar" character of the leader****p of VMRO and the 
"Ilinden" (Macedonian) rebellion.