Product Description

Greeks and Macedonians are presently engaged in an often heated dispute involving competing claims to a single identity. Each group asserts that they, and they alone, have the right to identify themselves as Macedonians. The Greek government denies the existence of a Macedonian nation and insists that all Macedonians are Greeks, while Macedonians vehemently assert their existence as a unique people. Here Loring Danforth examines the Macedonian conflict in light of contemporary theoretical work on ethnic nationalism, the construction of national identities and cultures, the invention of tradition, and the role of the state in the process of building a nation. The conflict is set in the broader context of Balkan history and in the more narrow context of the recent disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Danforth focuses on the transnational dimension of the "global cultural war" taking place between Greeks and Macedonians both in the Balkans and in the diaspora. He analyzes two issues in particular: the struggle for human rights of the Macedonian minority in northern Greece and the campaign for international recognition of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia. The book concludes with a detailed analysis of the construction of identity at an individual level among immigrants from northern Greece who have settled in Australia, where multiculturalism is an official policy. People from the same villages, members of the same families, living in the northern suburbs of Melbourne have adopted different national identities.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1225565 in Books
• Published on: 1997-03-17
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 290 pages

From Scientific American
Loring Danforth humanizes the Macedonian conflict, shows us real people as they live this conflict, and makes clear that, despite its unique features, this struggle over ethnic and national identity is shared with other groups throughout the world. A good, rapid read filled with the fruit of firstrate, onthescene digging into people's lives.

Review
Danforth, an anthropologist, takes one through the ferociously juxtaposed claims and counterclaims, and explains why the issues set people off with such intensity. -- Foreign Affairs

Loring Danforth humanizes the Macedonian conflict, shows us real people as they live this conflict, and makes clear that, despite its unique features, this struggle over ethnic and national identity is shared with other groups throughout the world. A good, rapid read filled with the fruit of first-rate, on-the-scene digging into people's lives. -- Review

Review
Danforth, an anthropologist, takes one through the ferociously juxtaposed claims and counterclaims, and he explains why the issues set people off with such intensity by fitting the case into modern anthropological thought about national identity, ethnic nationalism, and the role of culture....Danforth struggles mightily to maintain his scholarly detachment amid one of the more explosive topics in the universe, and for the most part he succeeds.
(Foreign Affairs )

A significant contribution both theoretically to the study of ethnic and national identity and specifically to those interested in Balkan politics.
(Adamantia Pollis American Political Science Review )

A superb case study both of the conflict between nationalism and ethnic aspirations and of the curious parallelisms in their development. . . . It is a level-headed, humane, and very timely political intervention in a quarrel that continually threatens to become more than a war of words.
(Journal of Modern Greek Studies )

[An] engaging, original, timely, and conscientiously written study. . . . This is a well-written work and a major contribution to the study of national consciousness and nation-building.
(Philip Shashko American Historical Review )

Loring Danforth humanizes the Macedonian conflict, shows us real people as they live this conflict, and makes clear that, despite its unique features, this struggle over ethnic and national identity is shared with other groups throughout the world. A good, rapid read filled with the fruit of first-rate, on-the-scene digging into people's lives.
(Lou Panov The Boston Book Review )

Customer Reviews

Objectivity rather than political correctness is required
Since the breakup of Yugoslavia sociocultural anthropologists have attempted to provide interpretations and descriptives of both Macedonian ethnicity and the complex Macedonian Question. Objectivity however, is a shortcoming common to most of these studies, not only with respect to history but also with respect to the development of contemporary Macedonian culture. Unfortunately while Danforth aspires to feign neutrality, any individual familiar with the literature would readily recognise the bias in fact and argument. Accordingly we see how employing anthropologically based arguments and perspicacious historic information Danforth "deconstructs" Greek claims of exclusivity with respect to Alexander the Great. However when the equivalent Macedonian process is undertaken, and for which the facts are plain, Danforth is so circumspect that most readers may struggle to differentiate between Macedonian nationalistic "constructs" and Danforth's "deconstructs". The more misanthropic reader might even conclude Danforth is actually supporting "reconstructs". For example the Miladinov brothers identified themselves as Bulgarian throughout their lives. This is self-evident from their letters, their poetry, and from all material describing their lives. Yet not once does Danforth state that the Miladinov Brothers self-identified only as Bulgarians, and devoted their lives exclusively to the Bulgarian national revival. Instead Danforth is mindful to provide the minimum information possible when he attributes a quote to De Bray that Dimitar Miladinov "developed a Bulgarian national consciousness" (De Bray actually wrote "developed a /fanatical/ Bulgarian national consciousness"), and states that the title of the Miladinovs' famous text was "Bulgarian Folk Songs". In regard to Konstantin Miladinov, who wrote some of the most patriotic Bulgarian poetry published during the 19th century, Danforth totally avoids any comment on his self-identity. By raising contentious issues (to Macedonian nationals) as facts without further qualification, Danforth denies his readers an appropriate insight of their wider implication. Danforth is quite aware that the Miladinovs' text was only available in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia under the falsified title - "Macedonian Folk Songs". And this was not an isolated incident, but part of an extensive revisionist agenda to purge the "Bulgarian" name from any historic reference connected to the region. Danforth adopts standard revisionist tactics to link Macedonian nationalism and the Miladinov brothers, even though they died (in a Greek prison) fighting for the Bulgarian nation,16 years before the Bulgarian state existed. The same principles of arbritariness and non-information are evident when Danforth discusses the life of Grigor Purlichev. Exploiting phrases like "dismissed by Bulgarian critics" and "slain by the Bulgarians", Danforth characterises Purlichev as a Macedonian aspiring to be Bulgarian, but never accepted as such; even when Purlichev wrote his final autobiography Danforth tells us how Purlichev chose to write it in Bulgarian. As Danforth's position is untenable, he relies on ascribing identity by inference or supposition - for example he interconnects Purlichev and Misirkov (see later), simply because they came from the Macedonian region and wrote in literary Bulgarian. But anyone having read Purlichev's "Autobiography", or even superficially aware of his life's work, could have no doubt that Purlichev, just like Dimitar Miladinov (his former teacher), viewed himself as a Bulgarian; a Bulgarian fighting for the Bulgarian national revival. So what exactly is Danforth inferring by his phrase "the dilemmas these writers faced as a result of conflicting national pressure"? If it is intended to reveal the existence of a Bulgarian-Macedonian identity crisis amongst the Miladinov Brothers or Purlichev, then Danforth is ill-informed. Deliberation on Krste Misirkov, is obligatory for all authors attempting to justify the long-term existence of Macedonian nationalism, and Danforth is certainly no exception. Unfortunately, Danforth, like many others, has become dependent on the "preconstructed" images of revisionist history fed to him by the likes of the pro-Macedonist academics Friedman and Lunt. Although Danforth has declared that self-ascription is the only principle governing national consciousness, he writes that Misirkov had "clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian", ignoring that on numerous later occasions Misirkov unequivocally stated he was Bulgarian. Danforth's view of the language issue is also compromised from the outset. By limiting discussion to what is only "acceptable" to Macedonian nationalists, he fails to expand on important themes relevant to contemporary Macedonian culture. Danforth omits any reference to Venko Markovski, the first Macedonian poet laureate, and a member of the "Philological Committee on the Establishment of the Macedonian Alphabet and the Macedonian Literary Language" in Skopje, during Nov 27-Dec 3, 1944. Markovski decries the Macedonian literary language as the creation of one person, Blaze Koneski. Danforth disregards events, as recent as 1991, when Lupjcho Georgievski, President of the VMRO-DPME political party, and now in government, demanded major revision of the Macedonian Literary Language to its pre-1944 state. Danforth continually refuses to amplify a multitude of important themes, preferring instead only to recount events which directly favor the stance of Macedonian nationalists. If Danforth stated this bias it would be acceptable, but he does not. Accordingly much of his book cannot qualify as objective scholarship.

TransNationalism by Distortion of History.
History is still alive because of our interpretations and analysis. However, Academic politics are so poisonous only because there is so little at stake and this is what the author has done cunningly.
To claim that Ancient Macedonians were not part of the Hellenic civilization is beyond madness. Answering in a socratic dialogue; If the Ancient Macedonians weren't Greek, why should we consider the Ancient Spartans as Greek although they fought the most decisive battle against the persians at Thermopylae? Furthermore, if Ancient Macedonians were considered as Barbarians, why would they fight with the Greeks against the Barbian Persians and spread Hellenic ideals? Before some misinformed people of the Ancient Greek civilization say that Ancient Macedonians fought and conquered Ancient Greek city-states, this was also the case with the Ancient Spartians who fought the longest war with Ancient Athens. (Could we say that the Northern states in USA are different to Southern states cause of the American civil war in 1861-1865?) The list can go on that proves with both archeological sites and sources that the Ancient Macedonians were part of the Ancient Hellenic civilization but i would be getting off the topic. However, the author has not been able to present a single source that proves that the Ancient Macedonians spoke something other than Greek but only misinterprets the sources. Not even a coin.
Based on this assumption, that the Ancient Macedonians weren't Hellenic, the author has written this book. Unfortunately, the author has overlooked that a slavic minority appeared in the region one thousand years after Alexander the Greats death. During that time, no one must of lived there according to the author because the only evidence found was in Greek context and not slavic. Although the slavic population never adopted Hellenic ideals and customs as their kings, the author terms them the descendends of Alexander the Great!!!! Would it be correct for the Mexicans who live in America to claim that America is Mexican.
Race, religion, language, customs: these are the fundamental features that brought together the group of human beings, the community known as Greeks which, for all its internal contradictions, its civil, political and military conflicts, and the lïcal peculiarities of its constituents, composed the critical mass around common interests and vital concerns,the critical mass that brought about that civilization we call Greek.
Nowadays, everybody is a Macedonian expect the Greeks. Bulgarians claim to be Vardar Macedonians, Serbs claim to be Macedonians, Albanians claim to be Macedonians even Vlachs claim to be Macedonians. I guess Herodotus with his series Histories, Plutarch etc must of been wrong because Danforth proved them incorrect about the origin of the Macedonians.
There are several important points that the author avoids to point out. One is that the "Macedonian Nationality" was created by the communist movement (Commintern 1934 ) in Moscow and that the "Macedonian language" was created by decree in 1944 by the Yugoslav (Tito) government. Where else in the world has a nationality and language been created by a communist decree? Evidence is: what kind of language is this "Macedonian" when all the language consultants in the newspapers of Skopje, Former Yugoslavian Republic of Maceonia are Serbian?
As for the population of F.Y.R.O.M, not long ago the Carnegie Endowment for the Humanities on the causes of the Balkan wars shows that the Slavic people of FYROMacedonia are considered as 2/3 Bulgarian and 1/3 Albanian.
However, the author avoids to state, before 1944, if the "Macedonian language" was Bulgarian or Serbian? Nowadays, it is Serbian according to the Bulgarian and Albanian inhabitants of the newly established country of FYRO Macedonia.
In regards to the slavophones living in Greece, I myself am one who lives in Florina. As all migrants do in all over the world, we have adopted the Greek way of living and will defend these ideals. Unfortunately, you put me in the difficult position because of your lack of research and i have to remind you that we the slavophones in Greece fought alongside the Greeks during the Balkan Wars against Bulgaria who wanted an autonomous Macedonia under their rule. The treaty at the end of the war enabled the shifting of populations. A lot of Greeks who lived in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria had to move to Greece and a lot of Bulgarians,Yugoslavs living in Greece had to go back to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Furthermore, we fought against the(KKE)Greek Communist Party who wanted to implement the communist decree of a bigger Macedonia that had a strategic access to the Aegean Sea. In both wars, people had the opportunity to take sides and migrate if they felt oppressed. A lot of greek communist guerillas were pushed into Yugoslavia. As for democracy in Greece, we the slavophones have a political party called the Rainbow Party. Eventhough, they are indirectly financed by FYRO Macedonia the greek government has allowed them full privileges. Recent American History, shows that this wouldn't be allowed in America.
On a personal note, It is wonderful to read an American author who has adopted Communist views. However, it is wonderful to see that even the Vardar Macedonians what to share the Hellenic ideals and adopt Ancient Macedonian symbols for their flag. The road from communism to Democracy is difficult.

ANOTHER SHAMEFUL STUPIDITY!!!!
This is the most popular issue that the American propaganda has put on target:
"Degrade the Macedonian Hellenic history in every way you can".