Μακεδονικές Ιστορίες και Πάθη 1870-1990

by Anastasia N. Karakasidou

Αυτό το βιβλίο δείχνει πόσο πολύπλοκες ήταν οι ιστορικές διαδικασίες και εμπειρίες που διαμόρφωσαν τις ταυτότητες και τις κοσμοαντιλήψεις των κατοίκων της Ασσήρου. Καθώς οι αγροτικές και εμπορικές κοινότητες στη Μακεδονία πέρασαν από τον οθωμανικό έλεγχο στην ελληνική κρατική διοίκηση, οι διάσπαρτοι και ποικίλοι από πολιτισμική άποψη πληθυσμοί της περιοχής αναζήτησαν τρόπους για να ανταποκριθούν, τόσο ενεργά όσο και από αντίδραση, σε αυτή την αλλαγή. Με έναν τρόπο, αυτή η μελέτη επιχειρεί να δείξει τη δράση εντός των δομών. Σαφώς, το κράτος επέβαλε στην τοπική κοινότητα διοικητικές, πολιτισμικές και εθνικές δομές. Εντούτοις, ταυτοχρόνως, τα άτομα σε τοπικό επίπεδο πάλεψαν για να βρουν τρόπους ύπαρξης ή τρόπους να γίνουν μέλη - και σεβάσμια μέλη - αυτής της εθνικής πολιτικής συγκρότησης. Η κάθε γενιά εμπλέκεται σε έναν ιστό εξαρτήσεων, που συνδέονται με πολιτικές και οικονομικές εξελίξεις ευρύτερης, ακόμη και παγκόσμιας διάστασης. Και η κάθε γενιά ανταποκρίνεται στις ιδιαίτερες συνθήκες με ποικίλους τρόπους, διακριτικά ή όχι, άλλοτε προσαρμοζόμενη στις απαιτήσεις του κράτους και άλλοτε ανατρέποντάς τες.

Genres: History, Greece, Nonfiction, Ethnography, European History

448 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

Reviews

[Nicholas Whyte]

http://www.incore.ulster.ac.uk/services/ecrd/new/reviews/102.html

This is a gripping and moving account of the construction of Greek nationhood in a municipality near Thessaloniki. Using both oral and official history, Karakasidou reveals how the inhabitants of the town once called Guvezna and now known as Assiros were altered from an Ottoman cocktail of Turks, Slavs and Greeks to the mono-ethnic culture present there today. The space left by departing Turks and Slavs after the town came under Greek control was partly filled by refugees forced to resettle in Greek Macedonia after the disastrous war of 1922. They mostly spoke Turkish themselves as a first language, but, like those Slavic speakers who remained in the town, they became assimilated during the course of the twentieth century. "In many ways," the author concludes, "the past has become very much a foreign country to the Assiriotes". (p.217)

But this book is not just about Macedonia, it is about nation-building. Karakasidou complains that "while there is overwhelming concern among Euro-American politicians and diplomats over what nationalism has brought to Eastern Europe in recent years, many seem unaware of the fact that nation-building processes are a longue duree", (p. 146) and she describes the process in all its brutality. War, religion, politics and capitalism all contributed to constructing the 'official narrative' of this particular nation in this particular place over the last 120 years.

Cambridge University Press declined to publish this book, fearing attacks on their Greek staff if the crisis over the official name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were to escalate. Fortunately it did not, and many Greeks now look to their new northern neighbour as a business opportunity rather than a military threat. Perhaps Karakasidou's courageous research helped to open up the space in which this became possible. There may be hope for all of us.

[Elina Pant · Rating 2 out of 5]

Two stars because the book is informative and I do not doubt the accuracy of Mrs Karakasidou findings and the credibility of the people she interviewed one bit. However, the presentation of the work seems biased. While Mrs Karakasidou is clearly against the concept of nationhood in general, her studies were so elaborate regarding the wrongdoings of the Greek state and so unscientifically lacking regarding the wrongdoings of Bulgarians or Turks that it only makes you wonder. The typical process followed in this study was analysing a Greek oppressive tactic for 40 pages and then continuing it with a paragraph of four lines where she was admitting Bulgarians did equally bad deeds. She writes over and over about how a Slavic speaking family was forced to a nearby village due to discrimination by Greeks but mentions the mistreatment (murders, rapes) of Greek refugees by Turks in four lines “It was horrible… anyway”. Besides, Karakasidou dedicates this book to her Turkish speaking father, who according to her was deported to Greece but never felt Greek and felt as bitter about it as the Greek state that received him. In this context, it almost feels like Karakasidou is too reluctant to admit the Greek consciousness of other Greek refugees from Asia Minor. You get the impression it pains her when she says the Pontic Greeks spoke an archaic Greek dialect and that refugees from East Thrace admittedly spoke Greek. I repeatedly got the impression Karakasidou was trying to validate her father’s feelings, who felt forced to become part of the Greek nation against his will. With this in mind, she applies disproportionate focus on people who experienced the same pressure as her father did by the Greek state in comparison to those who were pressured by other states and circumstances in the same region or embraced Greek national consciousness more readily. Does her being driven by emotion make her research less credible? I don’t know.

She also focuses on towns with Slavic speaking majorities but barely mentions towns with Greek speaking majorities. She focuses on north and west Macedonia and entirely ignores the existence of south Macedonia, where the demographics were very different. She never mentions the demographics of Macedonia’s largest city Thessaloniki and she bases conclusions for the entire region on two villages in what is the largest region of Greece.

However, the most alarming thing I found in her book was a demographics index taken from an anti-Greek Bulgarian pamphlet during the Macedonian struggle (she uses it as a legitimate source without mentioning the anti-Greek nature of it).This pamphlet refers to Greeks as a “bigger danger than the Turks”, a “threat”, as people “with no family values and morality”, as “only interested in earning money with any means” and as “cultural oppressors”. Is this a source that can be used by a scientific research claiming neutrality and objectivity?

I should also note that the dramatic title of the book is not well reflected in the text as there is rarely mention to such acts of extreme physical violence to justify the title “fields of blood”. Of course there was violence applied but you won’t learn about much beyond assimilation through school and marriages in Karakasidou’s book. Her excessive use of quotation marks made it seem as if she was being sarcastic after a while and it was tedious. She definitely seems to reject the concept of national identity as a whole, no ethnic mention - especially the Greek - escapes the quotation marks.

No matter how problematic and unbalanced her sources and presentation of events is though, Karakasidou lands on more or less accurate conclusions. That’s why I find it hilarious that some people use this book as an argument against Greece’s positions. Karakasidou dismisses Greek propaganda by talking about the significant Slavic speaking populations without Greek consciousness living in Macedonia. She dismisses Bulgarian propaganda by saying the vast majority of local Slavic speaking populations felt no affiliation to Bulgaria and it was mostly the Greeks who called them Bulgarians for lack of another ethnic definition available, which in fact most of them found hurtful. And yet she also dismisses North Macedonian propaganda by saying these local Slavs did not have an established ethnic identity, let alone any sense of historical continuity in the region. Very few of them truly tried to oppose Greek and Bulgarian expansionism and become independent and even those who did felt too different among themselves to have any success in shaping a new nation together. In short, once again, she shoots down a concept of nationality, regardless of its origin.

It was an informative read, however I wonder whether people with no proximity to the issues of Macedonia can be led to problematic or inaccurate conclusions after reading this book.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Second rate piece of post-modernist writing. Missing all sorts of critical facts. For instance, where is the mention that most of the people that call themselves "ethnic Macedonains" today (from the former Yugoslav republic)-had ancestors that self-identified as ethnic Bulgarians? Where is the mention the US used to deny the identity of "ethnic Macedonians"? (the US and British government claimed it communist propaganda and a threat to Greece when Tito renamed Vardar Macedonia in 1944) Where is the mention even FYROM's own officials have admitted they are not related to ancient Macedonians?

"To everyone of us it is clear that this entire thesis, this entire thesis for ethnogenesis from Macedonians, it isn't so. Ancient Macedonians until today is founded on a series of mystifications and semi-historical truths which are emitted from Republic of Macedonia and that by using and abusing the media.[...] "Why do Skopjans not ask how much Dardanian blood there is in them[..] how much Thracian blood there is in them[...] how much Illyrian blood there is in them[...]how much Paeonian blood there is in them.[...]I do not see anyone of us get into a fight over the amount of Paeonian blood in us, or God forbid, Dardinian one?[...]Ancient Macedonia does not match with today's Macedonia at all.[...]Ancient Macedonia, we must clarify it once, is literally in entirety in today's Greece.[...] If we are looking at ethnogenesis then we should open at another place. Therefore we should discuss how much we are Paeoneans. " (Ljubco Georgievski, former Prime Minister of FYROM, FYROM A1 TV June 2009)

'We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.'
(FYROM'S Ambassador Ljubica Acevshka in speech to US representatives in Washington on January 22 1999)

'We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.'(FYROM´s Ambassador to Canada Gyordan Veselinov in interview to Ottawa Citizen Newspaper 24 February 1999)

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Kiro Gligorov, FYROM's first President to Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3kwC...

"The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the “Macedonian” historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the “Macedonian” identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made.
(Denko Maleski, former Minister of foreign affairs of FYROM from 1991 to 1993 in an interview to FYROM newspaper Utrinski Vesnik)
http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=C7...

Some of the posters that are giving this book a five star seem to have "forgotten" the NY Times reported Delchev's death (whom they call a "Macedonian" today-after FYROM send troops for fake WMDs in Iraq)... as a Bulgarian in 1903.
http://tinyurl.com/mxfcqq

Krste Misirkov: "We are Bulgarians, more Bulgarians than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria themselves."[...]'And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?
http://www.misirkov.org/kpm_zmr_eng.htm

"This (US) Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece." - U.S State Department Foreign Relations Vol. VIII Washington D.C. Circular Airgram - 868.014/26 Dec. 1944 (http://tinyurl.com/nel46d)

[Marie Østvold · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this a long time ago, during my anthropology studient years. I remember that I thought it was interesting- but that was about it.