@ MegasArgus #31

Well, a Macedonian ethnicity exists from the moment that people calling themselves Macedonians in an ethnic sense try to separate themselves from the other ethnic groups.

In that sense, we have a latent phase of Macedonian ethnicism from the late 19th century, which is in competition with a Bulgarian ethnicism and nationalism and a proper Macedonian nationalism after 1950, when a Macedonian national identity is institutionally cultivated with the help of the new Macedonian state within Yugoslavia.

Of course part of the Macedonian heritage is the pre-modern Bulgarian identity of the ancestors of the modern ethnic Macedonians and of course, in the sense of the territorial heritage, one modern ethnic Macedonian has every right to the ancient macedonian heritage just as the Bulgarians have statues of Philip in Philippoupolis/Plovdiv and Spartacus. These are no different from the French having statues of the Gaulish king Vercingetorix who fought against Julius Ceasar even if the Modern French use a Germanic name (Franks) and speak a language that descents from Ceasar's latin:


So far there's no problem. The problem begins when I see some of your compatriots who try to "prove" idiotically that there was a diachronical sense of "Macedonianess" that links "Saše Velikiot" to Čupovski or that there were no such thing as "Greeks" living in Macedonia until 1912, when your traditional songs speak clearly of "edna Grkinka, edna Vlahinka and edna Bu(l)garka devojka" and when Skylitzes for example says that during the first phases of the Peter Delyan rebellion, the Bulgarians killed every Romaios that they found in their way and later speaks of Presjan's Bulgarian besieging Thessalonica and fighting against its Romaioi defenders. These stupidities are usually counterbalanced by similar stupidities by many of my compatriots who stupidly try to "prove" that there exists a diachronical "Hellenic" identity and that somehow it is correct for a "Grkoman" Bulgaro-Vlach to consider himself as a descendant of "Sašo" yet it is preposterous for a "Macedonist" Bulgaro-Vlach to do the same thing, not knowing that for the greek speaking "Romaioi" after the 11th century every Bulgarian, Vlach, Albanian etc was an allogenes/allophylos "barbaros" (not ethnic Romaios):


I have said many times and I will repeat it another more time. Today you are not Bulgarians (because you you have chosen not to be and you have chosen to be Macedonians). Everyone calling you Bulgarians presently obviously mistakens and does not respect your choise and secondly, because he can't understand the difference between the premodern Bulgarian identity and the modern national Bulgarian identity that is linked to the RoBulgaria.

That said, just as every serious modern Greek knows that there was a transformation of identity from the traditional premodern "Romaic" one to the modern originally only ethnic and later also national "Hellenic" one, so must a serious modern ethnic Macedonian realize that there was a transformation of identity from the traditional premodern Bulgarian to the modern ethnic/national Macedonian one.

So "your" history has many starting points:

"Your" history as ethnic Macedonians starts after 1950 (with some latent manifestations starting with Pulevski much earlier)

"Your" history as people who have been traditionally premodern Bulgarians starts around 1000 AD when the Slavs living inside the Bulgarian empire chose to appropriate the name "Bulgarian" for themselves and their culture (language, alphabet, customs etc).

"Your" history as speakers of a slavic language starts with the slavic settlements.

"Your" history as Christians starts when Boris-Michael converted to Christianity in 865 AD and as the Byzantine emperor Leo the Wise says in his "Taktika" (written a few decades later ~ 900 AD):

[18.42] Ἀλλά Βουλγάρων τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ εἰρήνην ἀσπαζομένων καὶ κοινωνούντων τῆς εἰς αύτὸν πίστεως Ῥωμαίοις, μετὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς παρορκίας πεῖραν οὐχ ἡγούμεθα κατ΄αυτῶν χεῖρας ὁπλίζειν, ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον ἤδη τὰ κατ΄ἐκείνων ἀναρτῶντες στρατηγήματα, δι΄ὅπερ οὔτε τὴν αὐτῶν καθ΄ἡμῶν παράταξιν, οὔτε τὴν ἡμετέραν κατ΄ἐκείνων, ἄτε διὰ τῆς μιᾶς πίστεως ἀδελφῶν ὑπαρχόντων καὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις εἴκειν ἐπαγγελλομένων εἰσηγήσεσι, διαγράφειν τέως προθυμούμεθα.

"Since the Bulgarians, however, embraced the peace of Christ and share the same faith in him as the Romans, after what they went through as a result of breaking their oath [Byzantine provoked Hungarian invasion of Bulgaria], we do not think of taking up arms against them. We now refer to any military action against them to God. For the present, therefore, inasmuch as we are brothers because of our one faith and because they promice to yield to our advice, we are not eager to describe either their battle formation against ours or ours against theirs."

Of course, neither the great military Bulgarian rulers like Simeon or Samuel nor their Byzantine counterparts like Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil the Bulgar-slayer  followed Leo's example, but it is good to remember his words.