Па самата ЕУ е фашистичка творевина замаскирана како демократија, да и се серам и јас ако ме прашуваш.
Самиот систем им е така скроен, тој што веќе е член да може да го дупи како и кога сака оној кој има амбиции да стане член. Треба да си глуп да веруваш дека Германија и Франција едвај чекаат да влеземе во унијата а лошата Бугарија еве не спречува.
Најнакрај, ние молиме за таму, не ме молат нас...
Нас ни е јасно кој не блокира, уште од решението на Бадинтер наваму! Е*ено е што Бугарија која требаше да ни биде најголема подршка ја игра улогата на црн пиун! Со еден куп платени пропагандисти овде кои изиграваат суппорт на дебилската улога која и е доделена на Бугарија!
Или мислиш дека НОБ и АСНОМ само етнички Македонци имало? Ме интересира кои се тие Македонци во АСНОМ како Кемал Сејфула, Кемал Аголи, Хасан Шукри, Вукашин Попадиќ, Милош Јаковљевиќ, Исак Сион, Камбер Асан, Милева Сабо, Абдула Алија и др
Не ти знајш.
НОБ, АСНОМ, Крушевската Република, Илинденското Востание, Крушевскиот манифест, Македонското Востание, Македонската Пиринска Лига, Разловечкото Востание, Негушкото Востание, биле македонски, без разлика дали во нив учествувале и по некој влав, грк, србин, арнаут или инфилтриран врховистички агент да работи против ВМРО и нивната цел за слободна и независна Македонија.
Не ти знајш.
НОБ, АСНОМ, Крушевската Република, Илинденското Востание, Крушевскиот манифест, Македонското Востание, Македонската Пиринска Лига, Разловечкото Востание, Негушкото Востание, биле македонски, без разлика дали во нив учествувале и по некој влав, грк, србин, арнаут или инфилтриран врховистички агент да работи против ВМРО и нивната цел за слободна и независна Македонија.
Ах, се изглупира сега, па мукла дефокус на други теми,а ?
Ете да прифатиме се дека така е како што тврдиш, не можеш па макар и дубел на глава да го смениш фактот дека НОБ и АСНОМ не се чисти етнички Македонски и во нив учествувале припадници и на други народи.
Инфилтрирани врховистички агент да работи против ВМРО
Ах, се изглупира сега, па мукла дефокус на други теми,а ?
Ете да прифатиме се дека така е како што тврдиш, не можеш па макар и дубел на глава да го смениш фактот дека НОБ и АСНОМ не се чисти етнички Македонски и во нив учествувале припадници и на други народи.
Инфилтрирани врховистички агент да работи против ВМРО
Абе татар, тоа ти го велам, не значи дека ако некој влав, србо, шипо, евреј, еским, абориџин, учествувале во АСНОМ, истиот не е македонски, дека со АСНОМ не се изградила македонската држава.
Уште ве држи фашистичкото во вас, мора етнички чиста држава за да биди држава.
Уште од настанокот на ВК по налог на бугарската влада дејствува на подривање и преземање на ЦК на ВМРО бидејќи не биле слепи, знаеле за што се залагаат и дека тоа не кореспондира со интересите и целите на бугарија. Затоа вршат агитации по македонското население против ЦК кое имало најголем авторитет и пуштаат свои чети да провоцираат неуспешни востанија, си ги прибираат исфрлените од ВМРО и поранешните ајдути на кои не им одговарале правилата и забраните да крадат и грабаат како порано, а во ВК за тоа секако си добиле слобода и нормално пари, нешто својствено за блгарите.
Barbara Jelavich History of the Balkans, Vol. 2: Twentieth Century (The Joint Committee on Eastern Europe Publication Series, No. 12)
The really difficult question was the determination of the national divisions
of the population. The Ottoman census of 1906, which was based on the
millets, reported 1,145,849 Muslims; 623,197 Greek Orthodox, who were un-
der the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate; and 626,715 Bulgarian Orthodox, or
members of the Exarchate.4 The figures for Muslims, of course, included the
Albanians. The numbers given for the Patriarchate and Exarchate were also
misleading. The Serbs, without a strong national organization, could join
either church; Bulgarians could be counted among the Greek Orthodox if
they lived in an area outside the jurisdiction of the Exarchate.
The major problem in drawing national lines was not separating the Al-
banians, Greeks, and Turks, who could be differentiated by language, but
distinguishing among the Slavs. Macedonia was a transition zone between
Bulgaria proper and the Serbian kingdom. The majority of the Christians of
Macedonia were indeed South Slavic, but they spoke dialects, and they had
customs and traditions drawn from or common to each of their neighbors.
The population was largely illiterate, so there was no written language to
assist in the determination of nationality. Since there had been no Slavic Mac-
edonian state in the past, historical records could not be appealed to for an
answer. As we have seen, the region had been part of the medieval Serbian,
Bulgarian, and Greek empires. The antagonists of old thus reemerged on the
modern stage.
Because of this confused situation, it was also possible to argue that the
Macedonian Slavs were neither Serbian nor Bulgarian, but formed a unique
nationality of their own. This issue was to be of great importance after World
War II. However, in the nineteenth century the term Macedonian was used
almost exclusively to refer to the geographic region; the Macedonians were
usually not considered a nationality separate from the Bulgarians, Greeks,
Serbs, or Albanians.
...
The diplomatic records of the period make no clear
mention of a separate Macedonian nation. At the time of the Constantinople
conference of 1876 and the Congress of Berlin, as we have seen, the represen-
tatives of the great powers considered the region to be of an extremely mixed
ethnic composition, but predominantly Bulgarian. The second major claim-
ant was believed to be Greece, with Serbia in a weak third place. At the end
of the century the Romanian government began to show a great interest in
the Vlach population, which spoke a Romance language and was scattered
throughout the area.
Автоматски споено мислење:
Nevill Forbes The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey
From 1894 onwards Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia increased, and the Bulgarians were soon followed by Greeks and Serbians. The reason for this passionate pegging out of claims and the bitter rivalry of the three nations which it engendered was the following: The population of Macedonia was nowhere, except in the immediate vicinity of the borders of these three countries, either purely Bulgar of purely Greek or purely Serb; most of the towns contained a percentage of at least two of these nationalities, not to mention the Turks, Albanians, Tartars, Romanians (Vlakhs), and others; the city of Salonika was and is almost purely Jewish, while in the country districts Turkish, Albanian, Greek, Bulgar, and Serb villages were inextricably confused. Generally speaking, the coastal strip was mainly Greek (the coast itself purely so), the interior mainly Slav. … The game was played through the appropriate media of churches and schools, for the unfortunate Macedonia peasants had first of all to be enlightened as to who they were, or rather as to who they were told they had got to consider themselves, while the Church, as always, convenietnly covered a multitude of political aims; …
The Bulgars claimed the whole of Macedonia, including Salonika and all the Aegean coast (except Chalcidice), Okhrida, and Monastir; Greece claimed all southern Macedonia, and Serbia parts of northern and central Macedonia known as Old Serbia. The crux of the whole problem was, and is, that the claims of Serbia and Greece do not clash, while that of Bulgaria…
…
The population of Macedonia, being still under Turkish rule, was uneducated and ignorant; needles to say it had no national consciousness, though this was less true of the Greeks than of the Slavs.
…
Macedonia has been successively under Greek, Bulgar, and Serb, before Turkish, rule, but the Macedonian Slavs had, under the last, been so cut off both from Bulgars and Serbs, that ethnologicallu and linguistically they did not develop the characteristics of either of these two races, which originally belonged to the same southern Slav stock, but remained a primitive neutral Slav type.
…
Radicalization was often spearheaded by students, teachers, and other young professionals
who had embraced ideas of national liberation circulating in Europe. Especially among young
men who had studied or worked in Sofia or in Bulgarian- sponsored high schools elsewhere, the
Great Powers’ intervention to block the Greater Bulgaria created in the Treaty of San Stefano
was a betrayal of the Bulgarian national cause. In the 1890s, young men formed a range of
secret societies and brotherhoods with a shared goal: to end Ottoman rule and create some
form of sovereign state in Macedonia where Slavic Christians controlled their own destiny.
Among the best-known of these various organizations was the Macedonian Revolutionary
Organization (MRO) founded by six young men in 1893. The Treaty of Berlin had included
a clause calling for Ottoman provinces, especially those inhabited by Christians, to be granted
substantial autonomy. The Sultan’s refusal to enact this clause prompted revolutionary activism
in many areas of the Empire, including Armenia and Crete. The MRO’s immediate goal when
first formed was to insist on the implementation of this clause.
Over the next ten years, this organization won significant support among the Slavic-
speaking communities of Macedonia. From the start, it had to deal with a fundamental tension
between two terminal goals. Some leaders and members were committed to an ideal of political
autonomy for Macedonia as a new and distinct entity. Others fervently pursued the unification
of all Bulgarians in a single, powerful nation-state. The Organization maintained solidarity by
focusing on shared aspirations, including putting an end to Ottoman exploitation and misrule,
and combating Greek influence. However, the Organization’s relations with the Bulgarian gov-
ernment, the Exarchate, and other Bulgaria-based institutions were always complicated.
...
Combined with the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, this high-level schism in the revo-
lutionary movement marked a turning point in discussions of the Macedonian Question.
Nationalist thinking had come to dominate the thinking of politicians and much of the public,
both in the region and beyond.They now envisaged Macedonia as home to identifiably separable
populations of “Greeks,”“Bulgarians,”“Serbs,” “Romanians (or Aroumanians),” “Albanians,” and
“Turks.” These could be defined in different ways, but most salient were the language they used
at home or in their places of worship, and their religion. These were taken as reliable predictors
for the political state or unit with which they felt the closest affinity.
Once the population were viewed with these classificatory criteria in mind, the Macedonian
Question could be answered in a way that satisfied the leaders of the land-hungry states that
bordered on the Ottoman territory. They all pursued partition, combined with some form
of resettlement for those residents who “belong” to another political unit; and some form of
national assimilation or acculturation for those who did not feel they belonged to any of those
named groups.
This was the logic by which the world answered W. E. Gladstone’s question. In the middle
of the twentieth century –when the creation of a new federal Yugoslavia raised the question
again – American political scientist Joseph Roucek summed up that logic in his 1947 article
“The Eternal Problem of Macedonia” in the following words
Although a perennial object of contention, Macedonia has remained a vaguely defined
area, never forming a racial, linguistic, or even political and administrative unit. The
fact is that Macedonia has been a political problem rather than a geographical entity.
126
Автоматски споено мислење:
Misha Glenny The Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804-2012
To this day scholars have sought to
answer the Macedonian Question, the unyielding philosopher’s
stone of Balkan nationalism.
Although largely unknown outside Bulgaria and Macedonia, sev-
eral exhaustive studies of the Kresna Uprising have been written,
published during the communist period in both Bulgaria and
Yugoslav Macedonia. Nobody disputes the basic facts: the Uprising
started on 17 October 1878 when 400 insurgents under the leader-
ship of Karastoilov climbed a crag overhanging the river Struma to
attack the inn at Kresna where the local Turkish battalion was sta-
tioned. Everyone recognizes that Pop Georgievski masterminded
the rebellion, and that there was much traffic between the rebels in
Macedonia and the ‘charitable’ committees across the border in
Bulgaria.
At first glance, the rival accounts are identical. But a closer exam-
ination reveals curious discrepancies in detail. The histories
published in Sofia refer always to Pop Georgiev whereas those from
Skopje call him Pop Georgievski; one historian will write about the
rebels as ‘Bulgarians’, the next will talk only of ‘Macedonians’. Both
tell the truth and both, unwittingly, lie.
Macedonia was and is the crossroads of the Balkan peninsula. To
travel from Central Europe to the Aegean port of Salonika or from
the Adriatic Sea to Istanbul, the trader would always pass through
Macedonia to avoid traversing the Balkan mountains. Even Bismarck
with his studied contempt for all Balkan affairs conceded its vital
strategic location. ‘Those who control the valley of the River
Vardar’, he observed, ‘are the masters of the Balkans.’15
At the time of the Congress of Berlin, the region was an extraor-
dinary pot-pourri of cultures, faiths and traditions. The four largest
A MAZE OF CONSPIRACY
157
populations were Slavs, Greeks, Albanians and Turks, although
Macedonia’s main port, Salonika (Thessaloniki), was dominated by
50,000 Sephardic Jews and their language, Ladino. There were many
other communities too, notably the Aromano Vlachs,* nomadic
shepherds and traders who speak a language akin to Romanian.
Macedonia also boasted the largest concentration of Roma, or
Gypsies, on the Balkan peninsula. The ethnic communities were
sometimes divided by religion. There were both Muslim and Greek
Orthodox Albanians, not to mention several pockets of Muslim
Slavs. Urban Slavs, Jews and Greeks dominated trade in the region,
and the last had developed impressive cultural and educational insti-
tutions. In many parts of central and western Macedonia, a Slav, a
Greek, a Vlach, a Turkish and an Albanian village would exist side
by side in docile harmony. Quite simply, Macedonia was Europe’s
most enduring and complex multicultural region. When the process
of fragmentation in the Balkans began, the potential for violence in
this region was greater than anywhere else. At some point in the
near future, the Ottoman Empire would lose Macedonia. Everybody
agreed on that after Berlin. But who would then gain control of the
most strategically valuable part of the Balkans?
The Bulgarians were indignant because Macedonia and Eastern
Thrace, which the Russians had awarded them at San Stefano, had
been taken from them in Berlin. Their claim on Macedonia was
based on its Slav population, the largest of all. The Bulgarian elite
assumed that these Slavs were Bulgarian. This was not unreason-
able. The language they spoke was the same, albeit with great
dialectal variation, as the population of the Bulgarian Principality
and Eastern Rumelia. The Slavs in Macedonia had also gravitated
towards the Bulgarian church after its establishment in 1870. Yet, at
the same time, the Slavs of Macedonia referred to themselves as
Macedonians. This was not necessarily a denial of their Bulgarian
identity. It is merely that they shared with many other inhabitants a
sense of belonging to Macedonia. Greeks from the region would
call themselves both Greeks and Macedonians.
....
The question of the origins of the modern Macedonians, who feel
themselves categorically to be a Slav people distinct from Serbs
or Bulgars, provokes more intellectual fanaticism than any other in
the southern Balkans. One scholar, let us say from Skopje, will
assume that this nation has existed for over a thousand years; the
next, perhaps a well-meaning westerner, will claim the Macedonians
first developed a separate identity from Bulgaria about one hundred
years ago; a third, for the sake of argument a Serb, will swear that
the Macedonians only emerged as a nation at the end of the Second
World War; and a fourth, probably a Greek or Bulgarian, will main-
tain doggedly that they do not exist and have never done so.
Scholars and politicians from Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and the
Republic of Macedonia itself, not to mention their respective apolo-
gists from outside the region, regularly work on assumptions about
Macedonia and ‘the Macedonians’ which are irreconcilable. This
suggests that nationalism and national identity in the region are
built on fragile foundations. Fragile, because such supposedly well-
established identities as the Greek, Serb and Bulgarian can feel so
threatened by a national community which even now numbers less
than two million; and because throughout the region, and especially
in contested regions like Macedonia, national identity or identities
do not remain stable. They change over a few generations; they
mutate during the course of a war; they are reinvented following the
break-up of a large empire or state; and they emerge anew during
the construction of new states. Balkan nationalism evokes such fer-
ocious passion because, paradoxically, it is so labile.
....
At the height of the Kresna Uprising in 1878, the rebels produced
a document called ‘The Rules of the Macedonian Rebel
Committee’ which codified the aims and conduct of the rebellion.
For such an apparently primitive revolt, it is a very detailed text,
running to 211 ‘rules’. These express the paradoxes and contradic-
tions that would afflict the ‘Macedonian cause’ for decades after the
Uprising’s collapse. The Committee appeals to ‘those people from
Macedonia who feels themselves to be Macedonian . . . regardless of
faith and nationality’ to flock to the rebellion. Yet a few paragraphs
later the Committee admits that the aim of the Uprising ‘is no
secret. It is the liberation of Macedonia, the land of the glorious Slav
educators and teachers, SS. Cyril and Methodius’. Thus the Kresna
Uprising, and henceforth the movement for the liberation of
Macedonia, were simultaneously inclusive of all nations and exclu-
sively Slav.
At the start of the Macedonian struggle, it seems its participants
were sure of only one thing – that the Ottomans should leave. But
beyond that, the conduct and aims of the Macedonians, of whatever
ilk, were changing according to the fluid political conditions. This
underlines how swiftly people’s identities had begun to change,
especially, but not exclusively, in mesmerically complex regions like
Bosnia and Macedonia. This has since been particularly true in
times of political chaos and violence.
Еве ти пак не дебата, а муабети. Прво, не сум Македонец, второ не сум потомак на Аспарух..Аспарух нема општо со денешните б'лгари, како и Александар нема општо со денешни Македонци..
Трето и најважно - кога се води историско политическа дебата најважен аргумент се фактите. Ти бегаш от фактите или даваш некои толкуванија..Прво се гледат фактите - од лево, од десно, горе, долу и тогаш се прави извод..ако не е јасно тогаш се толкува..
Вие замитате фактите под чергата и начевате само со толкуванија...
Најважен факт е што се пишале тие луге през годините, на каков јазик, какви училишта и цркви сакале и строеле.
Како Македонци и како неб'лгари се определувале хилјада две хилјади лугье. При тоа мнозинството се определувале како елински македонци или како словено јазични елини.
Активна дејност како македонци воделе пола фајтон луге и само еден за целиот си живот - Димитар Чупаров - Димитриј Павле-Чуповски, кој живел во Русија. Другиве му роднини обаче - б'лгари и при тоа борци за б'лгарштина за училишта и црква б'лгарски.
И сега веке може да се толкува - каков е Чупаров, ако неговите дедовци, татко, мајка, бракја и нивните деца се декларирале и се бореле за б'лгарштина..
Каков е Мисирков, ако неговата борба е главно за б'лгарските работи и се декларирал като б'лгарин и понекогаш за македонските работи и се декларирал како македонец?
Пет пати кажал "Македонец сум!" - по вашему "Македонец е", сто пати кажал "Б'лгарин с'м!" - по вашему "Пу пу не важи"..
Matthew Spinka, 1933
A History of CHRISTIANITY IN THE BALKANS
BULGARIAN CHRISTIANITY AFTER
THE CONVERSION OF BORIS
The wholesale acceptance of the new creed ordered by
Boris soon provoked a spirited revolt on the part of the
nobles.
Opposed to the policy which threatened to deprive
them of their privileged position, they stirred up the people
of ten provinces, and the mob besieged the khan's palace at
Pliska. The revolt which broke out early in 866 placed
Boris in desperate straits. In fact Archbishop Hincmar of
Rheims in his Annates could see no means to extricate Boris
from his predicament save miraculous divine aid.1 Fortunate
ly, the khan was able to overcome the rebels, whereupon he
inflicted a summary vengeance upon them : fifty-two of the
revolted nobles with their wives and children were cruelly
put to death, and others were punished in a milder fashion.
Henceforth, the opposition was wiped out, and Boris had a
free hand.
From the political point of view, the revolt is easily
explicable. Acceptance of Christianity meant a victory of
the Slavic over the Bulgarian element in Boris' realm. The
former, always numerically greatly in majority, now became
politically dominant by supporting Boris' new policy of
Christianization, and hence of centralization of government
in the hands of a divinely anointed ruler. The Bulgarian
element, with its traditional concepts of division of author
ity among the heads of clans, well understood that the
change of religion was a step toward the overthrow of their
own power.
Има нешто и од Бугарите на Аспарух останато, иако го тврдиш спротивното.
Малку тема за размисол:
He was then ruling a divided people: the governing Bul
garian class with which he shared his power formed an in
creasingly diminishing minority in the midst of the Slavic
masses. Boris conceived the plan of centralizing the politi
cal power in his own hands by subverting the existing bal
ance of power and favoring the Slavic element.
Adoption
of Christianity (many Slavs already being Christian) as the
official state religion, making Slavic the language of the
state as well as of the church, were to be the means to the
end of changing his status from a Bulgarian khan to an
absolute prince ruling a united nation. Of course, such plan
required time for maturing, and undoubtedly only dim out
lines of it were originally in Boris' mind; nevertheless, the
above considerations were among the motives actuating
him to accept Christianity.
Тоа што си го пролупал не се никакви факти, тоа може да бидат факти само во твојата бугарска глава. Имам еден другар живееше 10тина години во Бугарија и тој убаво си кажува за вас, "кога тие ќе речат дека нештото е бело мора да биде бело иако може е црвено, тоа е крај, нема попуштање".
Tака и ти, истреси зелени и сега мора да биде така, за тебе тоа се факти исто како она што тресеше зелени кога викаше дека Бугарија ги терала "бугарите" во УСА и АУС да се декларираат за македонци, е такви се и овие последниве факти што ги пролупа.
Таа дупка не е дупка, тоа црвено е бело и нема друго црвено, немам докази али тв'рдам..
Единствениот начин да го надговорам татарот е да му кладам погрешни реченици коишто не ги рекол и потоа да објаснам дека не е во право.
Немам кажано дека Б'лгарија ги терала македонците да се деклалираат како "Македонци" на влегуванье во УСА и АУС.
Во УСА б'гарите си имале организации, кои им помагале на б'лгарите да добијат побрзо статус и пасош.
УСА имала квоти за народи. Кога се изцрпи БГ квота се користи МК квота..видиш дека списоците се пишани на б'лгарски од една рака..
Чети вестник Македонска трибуна на МПО да видиш какви се "македонците" во УСА е Канада..
На средата на ништото, во Манкито, МИнесота имам видени б'лгари от Штип...имаха си стари б'лгарски книги..ме сакаа во нивна кашта гостин да им бидам..
За Мисирков и как се подпишувал види http://misirkov.blogspot.com/2008/05/blog-post.html
ОБАЧЕ за вас тие факти не се факти, таа дупка не е дупка, тоа се бугарашки пропаганди...лагите се вистина, фактите се лага..
Кој нас се велит "безсилна злоба и омраза..."
Жална Македониьо
The Balkans: A History Of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania and Turkey: (Timeless Classic Books)
Macedonia had been successively under Greek, Bulgar, and Serb,
before Turkish, rule, but the Macedonian Slavs had, under the last,
been so cut off both from Bulgars and Serbs, that ethnologically and
linguistically they did not develop the characteristics of either of
these two races, which originally belonged to the same southern Slav
stock, but remained a primitive neutral Slav type. If the Serbs had
been first in the field instead of the Bulgars, the Macedonian Slavs
could just as easily have been made into Serbs, sufficiently plausibly
to convince the most knowing expert. The well-known recipe for
making a Macedonian Slav village Bulgar is to add -ov or -ev
(pronounced -off, -yeff) on to the names of all the male inhabitants,
and to make it Serb it is only necessary to add further the syllable -ich
, -ov and -ovich being respectively the equivalent in Bulgarian and
Serbian of our termination -son, e. g. Ivanov in Bulgarian, and
Jovanovit in Serbian = Johnson.
Adherence to one church or the other was
simply the most convenient way of labelling the national or political
commitment of a village at a time when national or political con-
sciousness in a modern sense barely existed among the peasantry.
Conversions of whole villages were common. Sometimes they took
place at the end of a gun barrel, sometimes there were compelling
economic reasons, as H.N. Brailsford discovered at the time:
I was talking to a wealthy peasant who came in from a neigh-
bouring village to Monastir market. He spoke Greek well, but
hardly like a native. ‘Is your village Greek,’ I asked him, ‘or
Bulgarian?’ ‘Well,’ he replied, ‘it is Bulgarian now, but four
years ago it was Greek.’ The answer seemed to him entirely
natural and commonplace. ‘How,’ I asked in some bewilder-
ment, ‘did that miracle come about?’ ‘Why,’ said he, ‘we are all
poor men, but we want to have our own school and a priest
who will look after us properly. We used to have a Greek
teacher. We paid him £5 a year and his bread, while the Greek
consul paid him another £5; but we had no priest of our own.
We shared a priest with several other villages, but he was very
unpunctual and remiss. We went to the Greek Bishop to com-
plain, but he refused to do anything for us. The Bulgarians
heard of this and they came and made us an offer. They said
they would give us a priest who would live in the village and a
teacher to whom we need pay nothing. Well, sirs, our is a poor
village, and so of course we became Bulgarians.’
...‘we are all poor men, but we want to have our own school and a priest who will look after us properly. The Bulgarians heard of this and they came and made us an offer. They said they would give us a priest who would live in the village and a teacher to whom we need pay nothing. Well, sirs, our is a poor village, and so of course we became Bulgarians.’
Никакви Bulgarians не се дошле во Битольа и не се носели никакви свештеници, нити учители...
Самите битолчани сакале да си имаат училишта и свештеници измегу нив..
Прво имале свештеници, учени во Цариградската патриаршијска семинарија, по грчка литургија, кои потоа оделе во Зографскиот манастир да доучат на словенска литургија по старословенски книги од ВТорото б'лгарско царство...
Потоа тие свештеници отвориле т.тнар. "келиини училишта" каде ги учеле децата на БГ јазик и кирилица..
За тоа време, грците биле много либерални и дозволувале во црквите да се служи на грцки, но и на б'лгарски...
За тоа, за да имат контрола врху училиштата дозволиле да има "елинико-вулгарико схолио"..да се учи б'лгарски, но задолжително и грцки..
Потоа кукушани, битолчани и сите други македонци сакале да си имат нивна чисто БГ црква чисто БГ училишта, и за тоа создале унијата со папата и грчката Патриаршија - Униатум Булгарорум Еклезиа. Униатска БГ црква - 1860 е ферманот на султанот.
Потоа ветиле на султанот, дека ке бидат покорни грагани на империјата и султанот начнал да им дозволува да отвараат други БГ училишта и цркви.. Се оште немало БГ Екзариа..и самите БГ от Тракија и Македонија поделе инициатива да се создаде и признае..
1870 е призната Екзархијата, по ради грците, немало МК епархии....Тогаш МК б'лгаре дигнале протест и сакале плебисцит..
Така една по една МК епархии си дошле кон БГ екзахрија..
The Bulgarians were indignant because Macedonia and Eastern
Thrace, which the Russians had awarded them at San Stefano, had
been taken from them in Berlin. Their claim on Macedonia was
based on its Slav population, the largest of all. The Bulgarian elite
assumed that these Slavs were Bulgarian. This was not unreasonable. The language they spoke was the same, albeit with great
dialectal variation, as the population of the Bulgarian Principality
and Eastern Rumelia. The Slavs in Macedonia had also gravitated
towards the Bulgarian church after its establishment in 1870. Yet, at
the same time, the Slavs of Macedonia referred to themselves as
Macedonians. This was not necessarily a denial of their Bulgarian
identity. It is merely that they shared with many other inhabitants a
sense of belonging to Macedonia. Greeks from the region would
call themselves both Greeks and Macedonians.
...‘we are all poor men, but we want to have our own school and a priest who will look after us properly. The Bulgarians heard of this and they came and made us an offer. They said they would give us a priest who would live in the village and a teacher to whom we need pay nothing. Well, sirs, our is a poor village, and so of course we became Bulgarians.’
Никакви Bulgarians не се дошле во Битольа и не се носели никакви свештеници, нити учители...
Самите битолчани сакале да си имаат училишта и свештеници измегу нив..
Прво имале свештеници, учени во Цариградската патриаршијска семинарија, по грчка литургија, кои потоа оделе во Зографскиот манастир да доучат на словенска литургија по старословенски книги од ВТорото б'лгарско царство...
Потоа тие свештеници отвориле т.тнар. "келиини училишта" каде ги учеле децата на БГ јазик и кирилица..
За тоа време, грците биле много либерални и дозволувале во црквите да се служи на грцки, но и на б'лгарски...
За тоа, за да имат контрола врху училиштата дозволиле да има "елинико-вулгарико схолио"..да се учи б'лгарски, но задолжително и грцки..
Потоа кукушани, битолчани и сите други македонци сакале да си имат нивна чисто БГ црква чисто БГ училишта, и за тоа создале унијата со папата и грчката Патриаршија - Униатум Булгарорум Еклезиа. Униатска БГ црква - 1860 е ферманот на султанот.
Потоа ветиле на султанот, дека ке бидат покорни грагани на империјата и султанот начнал да им дозволува да отвараат други БГ училишта и цркви.. Се оште немало БГ Екзариа..и самите БГ от Тракија и Македонија поделе инициатива да се создаде и признае..
1870 е призната Екзархијата, по ради грците, немало МК епархии....Тогаш МК б'лгаре дигнале протест и сакале плебисцит..
Така една по една МК епархии си дошле кон БГ екзахрија..
Кога сељанинот вели дека дека Бугарите дошле, сигурно дошле во селото, најверојатно македонските бугари. Но останува тоа дека во тој момент за него Бугарите се нешто надворешно за неговата психа.
ЗНАМ ТИ ЦЕЛТА - да влеземе во историски офтопик и да ме банират, ама вистината веке ке биде прочетена от неколко стотици лугье..
Човекот от Statutory Declaration се декларирал како Македонец ОК - поединец некаков, нека си биде Македонец..ОБАЧЕ - дали еден човек е вистниски и само глуми "македонец" се гледа от каде доага, какви се му родители и т.н.
Се декларирал "македонец"(негово право), ама корените му какви се?
Имам много другади во тугина и нивните деца, пораснати веке се декларират како белгијци, американци, аустралианци, и т.н., НО со БГ корени.....КОрените си човек не може да мени...А АКО СИ МЕНИШ КОРЕНИТЕ резултира СУВО ДРВО
ПОсле - човекот Кирил Спиров Карафилов от Цапари е син на Спиро Карафилов - борец за б'лгарска ц'рква и училиште и убиен во Илинденското востание...Ако сега таткото Спиро се јави от мртвите што ке каже - дека не е б'лгарин...
History of Macedonians in Australia
Macedonians have been arriving in Australia since the late 1880s as Pečalba. These Pečalbari (the man in the family) would go and work overseas to earn money then return home with the spoils. This restricted major settlement. The two major waves of early Macedonian immigration, according to Peter Hill, were when in 1924 America implemented tougher immigration policies and in 1936 when the Ioannis Metaxas regime came into power.[11] By 1921 there were 50 Macedonians in Australia, by 1940 this number had reached over 6,000., the majority of whom were from Florina, Kastoria and Bitola. However, before the Second World War, when the Macedonian identity gained a popularity,[12] many Macedonians did not have a strong sense of national identity, but of regional one. The general population pre-WWII commonly considered themselves ethnically as Macedonian Bulgarians or simply as Bulgarians.[13][14][15][16][17][18] Until then the number of Macedonian immigrants in Australia was negligible.[19]
дедо ти и баба ти за времето на титова југославија се сметале за "Македонеци" зошто така сакале...нивно право..
Ајде сега објасни ми зошто стотици б'лгари потомци на известни фамилии от МКД, на војводи, на свештеници, на учители на илинденци се определувааат како б'лгари националисти?
Зошто троица брака Влахови - Георги Христо и Никола биле б'лгари.
Четвртиот брат Димитар Влахов до 1934 г. бил б'лгарин, гонарекол Гоце Делчев - б'лгарин по националност, а потоа станал македонец - само тој се осознал, а другие биле будали, асимилирани смотанјаци...
Как нивните деца Туше Влахов е б'лгарин - https://www.strumski.com/books/Кукуш.pdf
Неговиот прв братучед Густав Влахов не е б'лгарин, обаче во книгата "На пресвртница" пишува дека неговиот татко до смртта си се чувствувал како б'лгарин...
Корените се вистината, ако твоите корени се неб'лгарски - не си б'лгарин - ОК...твое право...
Ако корените ти се б'лгарски, може да си македонец, но со б'лгарски корени...
Прадедо ми роден 1890, војувал за Бугарија во Балканските, прва светска и последната година за Србите. Ниту еднаш не рекол дека е бугарин нити пак дек се чуствува бугарин. Умира 1986та година, кога веќе Тито го нема и се знаело на кај оди Југа само што не им се верува и никогаш ама никогаш не рекол ни на неговите деца нити внуци дек се чуствува и 1% Бугарин. Ама Красимировци овде ми објаснуваа дек врска неам, дедо ми бил неписмен и страв го било од комунистите. Џабе се трудиш, си има таму текст бук за одговори во било каква ситуација.
Оваа страница користи колачиња за персонализирање на содржината. Со продолжување на користењето, се согласувате со нашата политика за користење колачиња.
