Lets talk about Greece

[ramza]

Why tenuous? Since when is the protection of a country's cultural heritage tenuous? As I have already said, I don't expect foreigners to sympathize with our cause as they cannot understand the issues at stake and do not feel concerned by these issues. No offense meant, but what can an Australian understand to Balkan politics and intricacies? In any case, I just wanted to clarify yet another stereotype about the mean Greeks that won't allow the "macedonians" to name their country as they will.

 

Look, you're polite, and informative, but one can tell by the tone of your posts that you're also incredibly biased.

 

Maybe I am a foreigner, but maybe that's what it takes to look at the situation objectively.

 

I don't think I am particularly biased. I am mainly explaining the Greek Government's official position and I am well placed to know what is at stake. Personally, I couldn't care less about what happens to FYROM, but I do believe Greece's arguments are reasonable enough. If Greece was facing some western European country, I am sure it would adopt a more flexible stance. However, Greece is facing a country which has persistently and aggressively expressed its intention to use the Greek Macedonian symbols as its own, while they are already being used by its Greek counterparts. Greece's position is no more no less than self defense. Moreover, Greece is ready to accept a compromise of a composite name for FYROM (like the examples I mentioned previously) but the latter insists on getting the name of plain "Macedonia" instead.

 

If you could just give me some counter arguments, it would help me understand how you view this situation.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ramza

[Walsingham]

Don't get me wrong. I accept the name is important. Names are important. Try telling a handful of randomly selected people who come from Belfast that they live in Ulster and you'll see what I mean.

 

But what I'm also saying is that the name is obviously bloody important to THEM. And that given that you are hardly short of a cultural heritage point or two let them bloody have it.

[Meshugger]

Why tenuous? Since when is the protection of a country's cultural heritage tenuous? As I have already said, I don't expect foreigners to sympathize with our cause as they cannot understand the issues at stake and do not feel concerned by these issues. No offense meant, but what can an Australian understand to Balkan politics and intricacies? In any case, I just wanted to clarify yet another stereotype about the mean Greeks that won't allow the "macedonians" to name their country as they will.

 

Look, you're polite, and informative, but one can tell by the tone of your posts that you're also incredibly biased.

 

Maybe I am a foreigner, but maybe that's what it takes to look at the situation objectively.

 

I don't think I am particularly biased. I am mainly explaining the Greek Government's official position and I am well placed to know what is at stake. Personally, I couldn't care less about what happens to FYROM, but I do believe Greece's arguments are reasonable enough. If Greece was facing some western European country, I am sure it would adopt a more flexible stance. However, Greece is facing a country which has persistently and aggressively expressed its intention to use the Greek Macedonian symbols as its own, while they are already being used by its Greek counterparts. Greece's position is no more no less than self defense. Moreover, Greece is ready to accept a compromise of a composite name for FYROM (like the examples I mentioned previously) but the latter insists on getting the name of plain "Macedonia" instead.

 

If you could just give me some counter arguments, it would help me understand how you view this situation.

 

Everybody in Europe/the world already knows that Alexander the Great was Greek. All the schools teach it. All the historians definately know it. So how about letting your northern neighbouring slavs make fool out of themselves and practice revisionism as much as they want. No one will take them seriously anyway. They will be the laughing stock the instant they print his face on the flag. It's a win-win solution in the long run.

[Walsingham]

Exactly. Let them run with it. If it's balls then they'll be famous for being wrong.

[Meshugger]

I mean, what you or anyone react to this conversation:

 

- "Hello, ai um Ivan dremanov, annd tis is my friend Boris borsanov. We comm from Macedonia. Did yuu know that Alexandrov the Great waz a macedonian?"

 

-"Who?!"

 

-"Alexandrov!"

 

-"WHO?!"

 

-"ALEXANDROV!"

 

-"Are you talking about some 'great' leader of some 'great peoples republic' of some country that do not exist anymore?"

 

-"NO. He was great warrior, rode a horse."

 

-"Sure"

 

Point being, stop trying to stop people/countries making fools out of themselves. You only fall down to their level if you do

[Wrath of Dagon]

Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek. I don't think Greeks as the time considered Macedonians Greek, more something akin to barbarians.

[HoonDing]

So many problems would never have existed if the Ottoman Empire had never fallen. Turkey is right to stick its nose at the Balkan door again.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You can kind of see the overlap in these maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macedoni...mbiguation).png

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Pelo...r_431_BC-fr.svg

[Rostere]

Why tenuous? Since when is the protection of a country's cultural heritage tenuous? As I have already said, I don't expect foreigners to sympathize with our cause as they cannot understand the issues at stake and do not feel concerned by these issues. No offense meant, but what can an Australian understand to Balkan politics and intricacies? In any case, I just wanted to clarify yet another stereotype about the mean Greeks that won't allow the "macedonians" to name their country as they will.

 

I'd say, the more mature country should let the other one take any name they want.

 

Don't get me wrong. I accept the name is important. Names are important. Try telling a handful of randomly selected people who come from Belfast that they live in Ulster and you'll see what I mean.

 

Basically an example which reinforces the stance that names are not important.

[Enoch]

A historical analogy: Bangladesh. The name means "Bengali Country," although the area of Bengali cultural influence is broader than the borders of Bangladesh, including the neighboring Indian state of West Bengal. (Prior to the India-Pakistan split, the two were a unfied state of Bengal.) Does anybody know if citizens of India objected to Bangladesh's name when the country split from Pakistan in 1971?

Edited May 4, 2010 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

Don't get me wrong. I accept the name is important. Names are important. Try telling a handful of randomly selected people who come from Belfast that they live in Ulster and you'll see what I mean.

 

Basically an example which reinforces the stance that names are not important.

 

 

While I applaud your laudable attempt to deligitimise the conflict in Northern Ireland, I think you're being a bit lala land. It makes a big ****ing difference because the name is practically written in blood. But Macedonia? FFS that's LITERALLY ancient history? Let the bugger's have it, and move on. If it gives them a sense of purpose and gives them a boost then so much the better. It would be the cheapest diplomatic manoeuvre ever since Menelaus left Paris alone with his wife.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Wals, have you seen the groovy advert for Macedonian wine on the telly? I think it's great that the Macedonian Wine Marketing Board has such global reach, furthermore the ad has very high production values.

[Magister Lajciak]

And here's a final: why do States have to borrow money? It comes to my understanding that the creation of money should be under the responsibility of States as part of their sovereignty. However, since 1976 and the end of the Bretton Woods system, the power to create money has been progressively transferred to private banks.

 

This is incorrect. States can and do create money through their central banks (& mints for the physical representation of money). Central banks are parts of the state and aren't private (the U.S. is a bit of an exception in this regard, where the Federal Reserve is semi-private). Greek case is different, though, see below.

 

This resulted in the States having to borrow money from private institutions in order to fund their policies. This is an aberration in my opinion and should be remedied asap.

 

Well, the issue here is that Greece is part of the Eurozone. By joining the Euro, states agree to give up control over their monetary policy, including their right to create money and transfer this part of their sovereignty to the European Central Bank. As a result, individual states can no longer rely on creating money to finance their deficits/debts. If Greece had its own currency its debt problems would not be so severe, as it could create money to finance them and to inflate them away. As it stands, however, Greek membership in the Eurozone means that Greece does not have that option and has to borrow and cut spending instead.

 

Thanks for clarifying some of my statements. I have no in-depth knowledge about economics so I had a hard time explaining these things. The main thing is that euro-zone countries have no control on the currency and cannot make any devaluation in order to get rid of excessive debts.

 

No problem - glad to help. Yes, euro-zone countries indeed do not have options to devalue or create money. This may pose huge problems to countries that are deeply indebted. The debt crisis has hit Greece first, but other countries may suffer from this too - debt levels are high and rising throughout Europe.

 

As it concerns my specialty in EU matters, I have a law degree with a focus on EU and international law and two Masters that deal with EU matters and policies, and I am writing a Phd on a subject that concerns the EU internal market. I have also worked at the European Commission for a time and have studied a lot about EU history and policies in order to enter the European civil service.

 

Cool! Which part of the European Commission did you work for? Note: Despite my avatar, I am actually supportive of the EU - the avatar merely depicts my dislike at the way the Lisbon Treaty was passed (vote and vote again until you get the 'right answer'). I like to be objective and can 'criticize my own' so to speak - just like I criticize the Slovak political parties I support if they use dubious processes to achieve their aims (e.g. shortened legislative hearings to pass laws, even if they are good laws).

[Zoraptor]

Let's suppose Belgium decided to split up in two separate countries: Flanders and Wallonia.

That's a poor example, nobody cares about Belgium (well, except some Belgians). You have to pick a horrible, threatening, example like Russia renaming Kaliningrad back to Koenigsburg and the province to Prussia and how that signals Russia wanting to conquer large sections of Poland and Germany and its expropriation of another country's cultural heritage etc etc.

 

Does anybody know if citizens of India objected to Bangladesh's name when the country split from Pakistan in 1971?

India was just ecstatic about their greatest enemy breaking in half. They could probably have called Bangladesh Bharat without getting much reaction in those circumstances.

[HoonDing]

Let's suppose Belgium decided to split up in two separate countries: Flanders and Wallonia.

Heavan!

[ramza]

You guys do have a point.

 

I am however afraid that FYROM won't get satisfied with just getting the symbols. More claims will probably follow. I mentioned the example of the restitution of ancient relics but there are other things as well. I am however not that much specialized enough in the bilateral relationships to give you a detailed report about those things.

 

I am pleased to see that you guys can make the difference between the slavic macedonia and the greek macedonia but I am not sure this is the case for other people. When I was in high school (french one), I do remember my history teacher claiming that Alexander was not Greek and she refused to have it otherwise. I have also met other people that couldn't make the difference. There wasn't any Greek nation per se in ancient times. Just a dozen city/states that shared one common culture and civilization (they all spoke Greek, they all cherished the same Gods, etc.). Macedonia was one of them.

 

All the northern part of Greece is called Macedonia and having a neighboring country with the same name does pose a problem. Allowing FYROM to be called Macedonia would deprive our own regions of their identity and international recognition. It is already hard enough to make foreigners aware about the existence of our Macedonia, if FYROM starts using this name as well, you can be sure our regions will fall into oblivion. People are less and less educated concerning history, so this scenario is quite realistic. Using the name "Macedonia" alone is enough for the average joe to identify this word with Alexander the Great. Making and extensive use of ancient Macedonia's symbols for some decades will be enough to make the public opinion identify FYROM as the successor of ancient Macedonia. On both issues, it's a matter of preserving one-self's own identity.

 

Finally, the geographical overlap is irrelevant as 1) part of ancient Macedonia's territory covers today's Greek territory and not only FYROM's 2) people from FYROM are mainly slavs that came many centuries after Alexander.

 

I won't dwell on this matter any longer. Anyone is entitled to his own opinion but I don't know of any country in its right mind that would simply give up its history and legacy just like that. It would be suicidal! If we were to do as some of you say, we should also let the Turks claim that they built Istanbul themselves and pretend Byzantium never existed. I do blame the previous Greek governments for handling the matter as they did. A compromise with a composite name is the best solution and this has been put on the table only a couple of years ago.

 

Cheers.

[Monte Carlo]

Three people dead as the anarchists burn banks. this is grim.

[Morgoth]

I have a real uneasy feeling about the coming months/years.

[ramza]

As for that, let me say that everyone is in shock here. The victims were 2 women and 1 man, all three in their 30s. One of the women was also pregnant and the other two were parents as well. It was those anarchists that struck again. They have no ideology nor any respect of human life. Everyone condemns what just happened and according to testimonies, the other protesters are too scared to stop them. Some of them tried in vain but the anarchists drew their knives.

 

Let me also say that the Greek population would have accepted the measures but they can't accept the fact that the politicians won't take any responsibility for their past actions. Nothing is done to punish them. The politicians have voted drastic measures that reduce everyone's salary or pension between 30 and 50%. However, the politicians have greedily kept all their privileges and do not get to pay any more taxes. Finally, nothing is being done to tax the richest part of the population which keeps avoiding taxes while everyone knows they have more than a dozen villas each and earn more than 100.000 euros per year. I can tell you that everyone is furious and pissed with those that have cheated us and keep mocking us.

 

I am afraid that a revolution is at hand as those politicians are too cowardly to reduce their own wages.

[Tigranes]

I do remember my history teacher claiming that Alexander was not Greek and she refused to have it otherwise. I have also met other people that couldn't make the difference.

 

I majored in Classics and the ignorance persists to tertiary students/teachers in some cases, I'm not surprised a high school teacher doesn't know the difference. After all, at that level, they don't actually teach history, they teach a story. They teach a story that the dirty unwashed backward Macedonian Alexander came to the cultured self-important Greeks and showed 'em who's boss, aye he did. I think you do simplify it a bit too much though - a sense of 'Hellas' was absolutely present by the time of Alexander and for most in the Peloponnese, Attica and even Thessalonica, the Macedonians were 'half-outsiders'.

 

Anyway, I think you've really divined FYROM's intentions itself. They'd much rather claim the name Macedonia completely and its symbols and so forth that they can confidently construct a historical heritage for themselves, and let's be honest, the only international claim to fame (i.e. the only thing to bring in tourists) that region ever had was Alexander the Great.

 

Some of them tried in vain but the anarchists drew their knives.

 

Are these 'anarchists' an actually organised group with their own demands, or what? Sounds like it's not just a spontaneous gathering of anarchist believers...

[Rostere]

Don't get me wrong. I accept the name is important. Names are important. Try telling a handful of randomly selected people who come from Belfast that they live in Ulster and you'll see what I mean.

 

Basically an example which reinforces the stance that names are not important.

 

 

While I applaud your laudable attempt to deligitimise the conflict in Northern Ireland, I think you're being a bit lala land. It makes a big ****ing difference because the name is practically written in blood. But Macedonia? FFS that's LITERALLY ancient history? Let the bugger's have it, and move on. If it gives them a sense of purpose and gives them a boost then so much the better. It would be the cheapest diplomatic manoeuvre ever since Menelaus left Paris alone with his wife.

 

What do reasonable people care about how much blood has been spilled to name a city one thing instead of something else? Think that over. It's like saying we should take Bin Laden seriously because he is responsible for the deaths of so many. Names are only meant to be informative, and have an agreed upon meaning. Everything else about them is irrelevant.

[Humodour]

Let me also say that the Greek population would have accepted the measures but they can't accept the fact that the politicians won't take any responsibility for their past actions. Nothing is done to punish them.

 

Yet the Greek people elected them.

[Humodour]

Sorry, don't misread me as disliking the Greeks or having a vandetta, neither is true, but a lot of Greece's problems do appear to be of their own making from my perspective, that's all. I'm about as harsh on Greece as I am Britain really.

[ramza]

The average Greek person of my parents' and grandparents' generations is very ignorant and easy to manipulate. Many have not studied beyond middle school and have not a clue about politics. One striking example I once read in the newspaper is that 55% of the Greeks refuse to believe Darwin's theory of evolution (as a comparison it was somewhere like 80% in Turkey and even higher in some other countries). The previous Governments did a good job at hiding the real state of our economy and kept promising things in order to get elected. The average joe just wanted a job to survive and couldn't understand more than that. The real victims are the young people of my generation who have made long studies to end up either in unemployment or with a salary of 600-800 euros and complete exploitation by the employers.

 

As far as the anarchists go, they are just random groups of people that merge with the crowd and seize any opportunity they can to burn cars and destroy buildings. They have no ideology (fighting capitalism for example) as everything they destroy usually belong to poor fellows that don't earn that much. This is a problem specific to Greece and that has existed for at least 2 decades now.

[Monte Carlo]

Let me also say that the Greek population would have accepted the measures but they can't accept the fact that the politicians won't take any responsibility for their past actions. Nothing is done to punish them.

 

Yet the Greek people elected them.

 

Greece has PR. Like all PR systems, whoever you vote for, the same tired elite always seems to win.