Семе на непокорот - исповед на Сократ Лафазановски

[@cool@]

Исповед на Сократ Лафазановски, балетски уметник и сликар.

Исповед за ужасите на една лична, семејна и национална голгота. Ова е приказна за искорнетоста од родната грутка, вистина за оттргнатоста од своето огниште и потрагата по сопствениот идентитет. За с. В'мбел, Костурско, за егејска Македонија, за погромите од времето на Граѓанската војна во Грција. Приказна за траумите на едно детство, но и непокорот и човечката гордост.

Шеесет години наназад една коска ме стега во грлото и болка во душата. Уште од раните години на моето детство до денес.
И, ако не кажам и премолчам, ќе ме задуши, затоа сакам да кажам, да проговорам, отворено, едноставно да се исповедам пред македонската јавност и македонскиот народ за прогонот и егзодусот на 35 илјади дечиња од грчкиот монархофашизам во виорот на Граѓанската војна во 1948 г.
Како сведок на трагичните настани на 9-годишна возраст ја понесов мојата животна одисеја трагајќи интуитивно по сопствениот животен идентитет.

ГОСПОД САКАШЕ МАШКО

Роден сум во село В’мбел, во 1939 г., со светлина во една септемвриска ноќ на гумно кога се вршеше и вееше. Во колибата направена од снопови жито лежеше мојата мајка во положба да се породи, се очекуваше со сигурност да се роди девојче.
Во тој момент мајка виде турма (рој) ѕвезди кои го осветлуваа селото. Една ѕвезда се доближи и го осветли гумното, а особено внатрешниот дел на колибата. Мајка вознесена од мистичното привидение на светлината на ѕвездата се породи лесно и безболно. И наместо долгоочекуваното девојче, се родив јас. Земајќи ме во својата прегратка, мајка ме исправи кон небеса, навестувајќи: “Родив дете со ѕвезда на небото”.
Потекнувам од фамилијата Лафазановски, веќе спомнав, с. В’мбел, Костурско, беломорскиот дел на Македонија, од татко Тодор, мајка Дана, сестра ми Александра и браќата Зисо, Ристо и јас, најмалиот Сократ. Во 1940 г. татко ми како војник во грчко-италијанската војна заболе од неизлечива пневмонија. Како и многу други Македонци, и тој со иста судбина, излажани од грчката политика да се борат за грчката кауза божем за добивање свои права. На креветот пред смртта и се обратил на мајка ми со следните зборови: “Дано, јас умирам, аманет оставам, децата ти ги барам на другиот свет”.
Така, татко ми остави вдовица со четири дечиња, облечена во црнина до крајот на својот живот. Го презема сиот имот во свои раце, нè растеше, работеше ден и ноќ, се бореше со целокупното домаќинство и го одржа аманетот на татко ми што и го остави. Јас не го памтам татковиот лик бидејќи имав само неколку месеци. Како најмалечок во фамилијата, бев милениче. Мајка ме доела пет години, како и сестра ми Александра. И мене и сестра ми нè лулала пет години во древната лулка.
Се сеќавам кога мојата кума и рече на мајка ми: “Дано! Доста го доиш, види го колкав е голем...” Ме искара и мене, а мајка и рече: “Нека кумо, така сакал Господ, родено е со ѕвезда на челото”.
Тој ден за првпат ги слушнав зборовите: со ѕвезда на челото.

МЕЃУ ПАРТИЗАНИТЕ

Во 1945-46 г. започнаа да се формираат македонските партизански одреди.
Почна Граѓанската војна на македонскиот народ во беломорскиот дел на Македонија и еден мал дел на Комунистичката партија на Грција против монархофашизмот за демократска Грција и национално ослободување на беломорска Македонија. Партизанските единици брзо напредуваа во борбите, а монархофашистите имаа големи загуби, бегаа од сите македонски села. Сите планински полициски станици беа минирани од партизаните. Сите македонски села беа организирани во акција за помош на македонските партизански единици со храна, оружје, лекарства и писмени тајни пораки. И ние како деца бевме вклучени во дел од акциите. Во една таква мисија бев испратен и јас да однесам пратка во планините. Претходно ме научија што да направам во случај да ме фатат фашистите. Ми беше речено, доколку ме запре патролата, да паднам на земја и колку што можам на глас да плачам и да викам: леле мајко, ме тепаат. Но, за моја среќа, таква незгода не се случи, јас продолжив со магаренцето натоварено со два коша со ѓубре и стигнав кај партизаните во планината на закажаното место, кај Јаворот. Кога ги растоварија кошовите, меѓу ѓубрето видов спакувани многу лекарства, завои, инјекции и писма. Командирот ме бакнуваше дигајќи ме во воздух со зборовите: “Ти ќе бидеш голем партизан”. Кога се вратив, мајка ми ме прегрна и заплака. На осум години возраст се сеќавам многу добро на славната 1947 г., кога партизанските единици се симнаа од планините и ослободија многу македонски села, поставувајќи народна власт со сите правила. Во нашето село В’мбел дојдоа илјадници партизани, а радоста на селото не можеше да се опише со зборови, затоа што за првпат македонскиот народ од Егејскиот дел на Македонија почувствува дека дојде времето блиску за победа и за национално ослободување.
Во селото се веселеше, се пееше: “Во борба, во борба, македонски народе”, се викаше: “Да живее Македонија, ќе ја ослободиме Македонија!”, се пукаше од секакво оружје, се играа македонски ора и претежно партизански песни, се вееше македонското знаме.
Во македонските села се крена на нозе и старо и младо, со пушка во рацете против грчкиот фашизам, во редовите на партизанските единици се пријавија илјадници момчиња и девојки од 16 до 20 години. Во виорот на победата сите села и градови се ставија во служба на помош, особено со храна за партизаните. Во моето родно село беа направени болници од приватни куќи за ранетите кои помлади жени ги транспортираа со носилки, во ноќното време. Започна нашето школување на мајчин македонски јазик и кирилско писмо на најмладата генерација, од 6 до 16 години возраст. Во почетокот, во нашето село В’мбел учевме под дивата круша на местото наречено Подцел, потоа во црквата Св. Димитрија сè до изградбата на новото училиште. Во слободното време од преголема радост за слободата што ја имавме, со партизански песни, со дрвени пушки и македонско знаме, ние најмладите марширавме низ селото подигнувајќи ја нашата радост и моралот на постарата генерација. Сето тоа го правевме со голем елан затоа што така чувствувавме во срцата без некој посебно да нè учи. Јас имав осум години кога сестра ми и големиот брат заминаа во партизани, на Вичок Планина и Грамос. Добро се сеќавам на една ноќ, кога дојде брат ми Зисо да се види со мајка ми и со нас, помалите двајца браќа. Го прашав: зошто носи пушка на рамо, повисока и поголема од него? Тогаш братот ме фати за рацете и ми рече: “Слушај ти, малечок! Не знам дали ќе се видиме повторно, но никогаш да не заборавиш, ако јас загинам во борбите на Вичок Планина или Грамос, да знаеш за тебе ќе загинам. Затоа, ти треба да учиш, да станеш школуван и учен човек. Ме разбра добро?” Со очи полни солзи му одговорив дека разбрав и се гушнавме. Во прегратката уште ми рече: “Да ја слушаш мајка и да ì помагаш околу овците и козите”.
Си замина доцна, на полноќ. Оттогаш не го видов повеќе. Ниту сестра ми.

 

[@cool@]

ПЕКОЛ ОД ДЕТСТВО

Од селото многумина мажи и возрасни младинци заминаа на фронт. Се очекуваше сигурна победа на беломорскиот македонски народ. Во македонските села сега останаа само старците, бабите и мајките кои требаше да ја нахранат војската, како и најмладите што останаа со нив. Сите беа колективно на нозе за победата. Грчката фашистичка војска претрпе големи загуби на Вичо и Грамос и токму во таа предност на партизанската војска во 1948 г. Комунистичката партија на Грција, односно ДАГ, кога слободата од грчкиот фашизам беше на чисто видело, неочекувано го направи најголемото предавство во Граѓанската војна на грчкиот народ кој се бореше за демократска Грција и за национална слобода на македонскиот народ. Вистинските факти покажаа дека Граѓанската војна беше режирана од големите сили и Европа, насочена против националното ослободување на беломорскиот народ со цел да се изврши масовен геноцид. Тоа се случуваше пред светската јавност во 1949 г. Со планот на грчките монархофашисти и сојузничката Европа не беше првпат Македонците да бидат излажани. Истото се случи и во грчко-италијанската војна, во 1940 г. кога Македонците војуваа за грчката кауза, во ЕЛАС во 1944 г., Беше тоа маскарада која режирана во интерес на Европа и оската на другите балкански сојузнички земји, Србија, Бугарија, подоцна и Албанија.
Во 1919 и 1926 г. од Беломорска Македонија беа протерани, односно депортирани од своите вековни родни огништа повеќе од милион Македонци во денешна Бугарија, кои се присилно асимилирани во Бугари.
Денес сите овие злосторства против македонскиот народ се познати и демаскирани, завесата се крева, маските паѓаат, Берлинскиот ѕид се урна, но сепак сè си остана на истото место како што беше: силата, политиката и интересот.
Злосторствата се направени, а виновниците сè уште не се казнети според вистинската вина, туку според интересите и политиката на големите сили и Европа.

Во 1948 г. во април дојдоа група партизани од штабот на македонските единици со итна порака која требаше веднаш да се изврши. Пораката гласеше дека сите дечиња од најмала возраст, од 2-15 години, мора да го напуштат селото и да се сокријат во планините бидејќи монархофашистите ќе се одмаздат за големите порази на Вичо и Грамос. Се сеќавам како вчера да беше тој ужасен ден, нешто тивко и таинствено се случуваше, се трчаше од маало до маало и пораката се пренесуваше од куќа до куќа. За само еден ден, животот на селото се промени, се надвиснаа тагата и болката. Одмаздата на грчките фашисти беше да ги бомбардираат македонските села за да ја уништат најмладата генерација на македонскиот народ. Моето родно село, над кое зрачеше светлина и сонце, песна и љубов, надеж и иднина на слободата, сега се претвори во темнина.

 

[@cool@]

ПЕКОЛ ОД НЕБОТО

На мојата мајка и се собра душата кога слушна дека авионите ќе го бомбардираат селото. Од голема грижа почна самата да зборува со себеси, барајќи го татко ми да му каже што се случува со неговите деца, алудирајќи на аманетот што требаше да го исполни...
Вечерта мајка со скршено срце и болка во душата нè собра како пилиња и со мајчина топлина ни рече да не се плашиме бидејќи за два-три дена ќе се вратиме дома од планините.
Последната порака од партизаните и цивилниот штаб од селото гласеше дека заминувањето на децата ќе се случи по полноќ, околу три и пол часот. Се сеќавам кога се собравме кај малото црквиче, на влезот на селото, карши планината Рушелица. Со нас беа сите мајки, баби, дедовци и група партизани. Времето беше студено и почна да врне дожд. Мајките исплашени нè држеа во прегратка, изнемоштени од плачење, болка и тага во душата и од страв дека остануваат сами во селото. Се создаде паника и ретко видена разделба на најмладата генерација македонска која беше стожер и единствената и последна радост на селото за која се живееше и сè уште имаше надеж дека националната слобода ќе дојде засекогаш.
Одеднаш се слушна силен глас: “Ајде, време е, ќе тргнуваме! Во секој момент авионите ќе дојдат и ќе нè бомбардираат!” Во тој момент плачот се засили, прегратката на мајчината љубов стана уште посилна и не нè пушташе од своите раце да тргнеме. Дождот не престануваше, започна да грми, во тој миг се наредија во колона неколку деца и така еден по друг влеговме во редот на колоната и тргнавме зад партизанот кој ја водеше колоната... Во тој миг подзастанав од колоната и посакав да ја видам уште еднаш мојата мајка која остануваше сама во селото.
Кога се завртив, ја видов најтрагичната слика во мојот живот: ја видов толпата стуткана, сите еден до друг, мајки и баби во црнина, старци со наведнати глави потпрени со стапови, изнемоштени од старост. Некои од мајките беа на колена со испружени раце кон Бога, барајќи на глас милост со молитва, помош за спас на своите дечиња. Во мрачната толпа од одблесокот на грмотевицата ги видов бледите лица на кои се ронеа солзи, плачеше небото, плачеа и ангелите на љубовта…

 

[@cool@]

НАЈТЕШКАТА РАЗДЕЛБА

Дождот сè посилно врнеше, се затемни небото, удараа в’мбелските камбани кои допреа до Бога како благодарност за дождот што го испрати за да не можат авионите да полетат порано од предвиденото време да нè бомбардираат.
Од ехото на планината Рушевица и сега го слушам лелекот и плачот и мрачната слика на толпата со која живеам.
Околу мене со солзи во очите седеа домашните миленици водени од дождот, некои се умилкуваа гребејќи ме за нозете и телото, како да сакаа да ми кажат дека се гледаме и поздравуваме за последен пат. Со поглед кон мојата мајка да ја видам и родното огниште В'мбел, се приклучив кон детската колона, а зад мене трчаа домашните миленици... Од таа ноќ кога се разделивме со скршени срца од мајчината прегратка, сето време мислата ми беше насочена кон неа, кон мајка која нè израсна иако вдовица, а сега од четири деца, остана без ниедно покрај неа, сама во селото.
Со постојана мисла кон мајка по долго патување влеговме во едно село и се приклучивме со други дечиња од многу села. Од трагичната и мачна разделба со нашите најсакани од родното огниште, нашето детство остана во селото В’мбел со сите детски спомени кои се носат во срцето и душата.
Почна големата голгота на илјадници деца од цела беломорска Македонија, прогонети по планините како јагниња. Авионите бомбардираа со денови. Геноцид проречен од наречниците на грчкиот монархофашизам под закрила на Европа.
Нè откорнаа од вековните родни огништа, на нашите прадедовци, дедовци и татковци, нè протераа од ѕвездата на Белото море, нè турнаа кон далечното, непознатото, во темнината на мрачната ноќ.

 

[@cool@]

ДЕЦА-СКИТНИЦИ

Со денови нè бомбардираа, а за да немаме многу жртви, беше неопходно да пешачиме само ноќе.
Кога се доближивме до Преспанското Езеро, поради мракот заскитавме директно во езерските води и се сеќавам дека настана голема паника и хаос меѓу децата. Некои од поголемите деца почнаа да викаат: “Назад! Влеговме во море, Ќе се удавиме...”. “Назад брзо, кон патот!”, викаше одговорната што нè водеше. Другиот ден поминавме во село Љубојно каде нè очекуваа партизански стари камиони и воловски коли со кои бевме пренесени во Битола . Во Битола се правеа списоци на децата за распоредување во сите тогашни демократски земји.
Иако се наоѓавме во сопствената татковина, во Македонија, сепак, за жал, не останавме тука, туку јас и мојот среден брат со илјадници други дечиња од моето село и од цела Македонија бевме распоредени во Романија. Знаевме дека се наоѓаме во нашата татковина,Македонија, и со мислата дека тука ќе останеме извесно време, а потоа ќе се вратиме во нашите родни огништа. Но, тоа не се случи. Нè качија во воз и по долгото патување стигнавме во Романија, во градот Арад каде останавме кратко време, а потоа нè однесоа во едно бањско место. Бевме прифатени од романскиот народ како нивни деца, ни излегоа во пресрет како прво, медицински, затоа што бевме изнемоштени, преморени од пешачење, уплашени, како и психички под стрес од трагичната разделба од сопствените мајки, баби и дедовци и домашните миленици. Ни беше нанесена душевна болка која не се заборава, болка со физички последици по здравјето, разни болести: тифус, бронхитис, пневмонија, анемија...

 

[@cool@]

ИЗМАЧЕНИ И ИЗМАМЕНИ

Во Романија го почувствувавме и доживеавме најдолгиот пат во нашето најмладо детство и кревко без сопствените родители, сепак оставени на сопствената судбина. Во почетокот, плачот и тагата за враќање во нашите родни огништа и кај родителите постојано беа присутни во нашите срца. Живеевме со мислата од ден на ден дека сепак набргу ќе се вратиме дома, кај нашите родители. Грчкиот фашизам и пропаганда не се задоволи со бомбардирањата што ги направи врз најмладата македонска генерација, туку се инфилтрира сега во романската држава вршејќи пропаганда и шпионажа дека сите тие 35 илјади дечиња се Грци.
По сето она што го доживеавме од грчките монархофашисти, сега истите тие правеа сè за и во туѓина да нè асимилираат со нивните познати лаги и фалсификати. Во еден од таканаречените павилјони бевме сместени ние, од нашето село, и оние од местото Долна Ваца. Паметам кога една ноќ во павилјонот со Македончиња експлодира направена бомба или динамит. Експлозијата беше многу силна. Цела ноќ бевме собрани во круг, стуткани еден до друг, гледајќи се во очите полни со солзи и страв. Поради горенаведениот настан бевме пренесени во местото Тулгеш каде што останавме подолго време, околу две години. Во време на прогонот заболев од тежок бронхитис, па поради високата температура и слабост бев интерниран во болница подолго време.
Во Беломорска Македонија војната продолжи, монархофашистите не можеа сами да ги победат партизаните кои 80 насто од демократската војска на Македонија и Грција ја сочинуваа Македонци.
Еден ден дојде мојот среден брат Ристо и ме посети во болница. Видов дека на рамото носеше голем ранец со зеленкаста боја, на предниот граден кош имаше обесено батерија, а на левата страна на колкот висеше нож. Го прашав: “Што си се облекол како партизан?”, а тој ми рече: “Ќе ти кажам, ама никому да не кажеш”. Ми рече: “Ние, големите деца, што имаме по 15 години, ќе одиме во Македонија да се бориме против фашистите за да ја ослободиме Македонија, а белки ќе го сретнам големиот брат и сестра ни Александра”. Се поздравивме и замина, меѓутоа на границата во Беломорска Македонија некои деца беа вратени како малолетни, меѓу кои и брат ми, а другите што отидоа на фронтот, сите изгинаа. По излегувањето од болницата, по некое време го сретнав брат ми, ми кажа дека го вратиле назад со други деца како неспособни за борба. Иако бевме сè уште дечиња, во раното детство од нашиот живот, бевме многу свесни за она што ни се случува.
Затоа, се фативме во костец да бидеме појаки од каменот, ги пребродивме сите препреки што ни ги пласираше грчката пропаганда која со ништо не можеше да нè покори. Времето течеше, сфативме дека нема враќање назад во родните огништа, покрај нашите родители. Не ни остана ништо друго, сфативме дека е време да им се оддолжиме на нашите татковци, браќа и сестри, кои војуваа и гинеа за подобар живот на нашата млада генерација и национално ослободување. Јас никогаш не ги заборавив неговите зборови: “Слушај малечок, ако јас погинам на Вичо или Грамос, да знаеш за тебе ќе загинам, ти треба да се школуваш, да станеш учен човек...”

 

[Славјански]

Одамна ми е јасно зошто ни велат, заборавете го минатото да гледаме напред.
Во минатото ќе најдеш многу одговори на работите што ни се случуваат денеска и на тие што ќе ни се случат утре.
Тоа е најдоброто школо кое може да го има еден народ.

Нашата сила мора да ја вратиме, да научиме на нашите грешки и да си ја гледаме нашата работа.

 

[theMac3donian]

Одамна ми е јасно зошто ни велат, заборавете го минатото да гледаме напред.
Во минатото ќе најдеш многу одговори на работите што ни се случуваат денеска и на тие што ќе ни се случат утре.
Тоа е најдоброто школо кое може да го има еден народ.

Нашата сила мора да ја вратиме, да научиме на нашите грешки и да си ја гледаме нашата работа.

Па најмногу се нервирам кога некој така ќе каже. Тоа некој го кажува само ако 1. Нема минато 2. Некој му наложува така да мисли 3. Е глуп!

Најчудно е тоа што тие луѓе па на друга тема ќе ти кажат „ИСКУСТВОТО го прави своето“ ... значи се глупи. ЛоЛ

Со еден збор ИСКУСТВО... знаеме дека е дар што не се учи со книга или да се купи со евра... искуство на еден народ значи многу. Штета што подпаѓаме на туѓи влијанија и си викаме „кој го мати минатото, што ќе ми е“. Ама ако некој ден и тоа ќе ни биде во ИСКУСТВОТО, па нема да ни се повторува таа грешка.

 

[@cool@]

http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2007/sonce670.pdf/32_35_feljton.pdf

 

[fmi]

http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2007/sonce670.pdf/32_35_feljton.pdf

Тук много добре пише за борбата против патриаршиjaта,па никаде не видех и думичка напишано за екзархиjaта,коjaто владеела големи делови от днешните територии на РМ?!

 

[alex macedonian]

[SIZE=+2]HOW CAN A WOMAN GIVE BIRTH TO ONE GREEK AND ONE MACEDONIAN?[/SIZE]

Loring M. Danforth is professor of anthropology at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, and the author of The Death Rituals of Rural Greece and Firewalking and Religious Healing: The Anastenaria of Northern Greece and the American Firewalking Movement (both published by Princeton University Press).
Loring M. Danforth

[SIZE=+0]Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine 04240 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+2]Acknowledgments: [/SIZE] The research on which this essay is based was carried out in Melbourne, Australia in 1991-92 and was generously supported by a Fulbright Scholar Award. I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Melbourne for their kind hospitality. I would also like to thank the many people from Florina living in Melbourne who were willing to talk with me about the complex and emotionally-charged issue of national identity and the Macedonian conflict. A grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities enabled me to spend the 1992-93 academic year working on the larger project of which this essay is part, a book tentatively entitled The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Finally, I would like to thank several colleagues whose friendship, encouragement, and constructive criticism I value very highly: Victor Friedman, Michael Herzfeld, Gregory Jusdanis, Roger Just, Anastasia Karakasidou, and Riki Van Boeschoten.

The construction of national identity at the individual level is a phenomenon that has not been adequately addressed by recent work on ethnic nationalism. I attempt to remedy this situation by examining the case of immigrants from northern Greece to Australia who share a common regional or ethnic identity as "local Macedonians" but who have been forced to chose between two different and mutually exclusive national identities - Greek and Macedonian - as a result of the recent politicization of the Macedonian conflict. In my analysis of the indigenous theories of identity used by immigrants from northern Greece to Australia as they argue about what nationality they really are, I hope to move beyond oversimplified nationalist rhetoric dealing with immutable biological essences and arrive at a deeper understanding of the complex historical, political, and cultural processes by which individuals construct and negotiate the identities that give meaning to their lives. [national identity, nationalist ideology, Macedonia, Greece, Australia] Most scholarly work on ethnic nationalism has focused on the construction of national identity as a large-scale collective phenomenon and as a long-term historical process. It has not paid sufficient attention to the construction of national identity as a short-term biographical process that takes place over the course of the life-time of specific individuals. For this reason, as Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out (1990:78), much too little is known about people's 'thoughts and feelings towards the nationalities and nation-states which claim their loyalties."
any important questions are raised by focusing attention on the construction of national identity at the individual level. How do people develop a sense of national identity? How do they choose a national identity when more than one possibility is available to them? How is this identity transmitted from one generation to the next? How and why do people change their national identity? Finally, how is it possible for residents of the same village and even members of the same family to adopt different national identities.
In this paper I explore these questions through an analysis of the indigenous theories of identity used by people from the region of Florina in northern Greece who have emigrated to Melbourne, Australia, when they argue about whether they are Greeks or Macedonians. These people, the majority of whom speak both Greek and Macedonian, share a common ethnic identity: they are "local Macedonians."[1] However, as a result of the recent intensification of the nationalist conflict between Greeks and Macedonians over which group has the right to identify itself as Macedonians, immigrants from Greek Macedonia to Australia have been forced to make a difficult decision and adopt one of two mutually exclusive national identities: they must chose whether to be Greeks or Macedonians. What is more, they must do so in Australia, an explicitly multicultural society where ethnic and national identity is more freely and self-consciously constructed than it is in the nation-states of the Balkans with their claims of national purity and homogeneity.

The Construction of National Identity

In nationalist ideologies the national identity of a person is usually regarded as something permanent, innate, and immutable. It is often thought to consist of some natural or spiritual essence which is identified with a person's blood or soul. While generally avoiding such overtly biological or spiritual metaphors, much anthropological writing has held that people share a particular ethnic or national identity because they possess certain cultural traits in common, because they share a common culture. People are Greek, in other words, because they speak Greek, have Greek names, and attend the Greek church.[2] It was the work of Fredrik Barth (1969) that was largely responsible for the rejection by many anthropologists of this essentialist notion of ethnic, and by extension, national identity. Instead of defining ethnic groups as "culture bearing units," groups whose members share a common culture which distinguishes them from members of other groups, Barth defined them as "categories of ascription and identification." According to this approach the crucial feature of ethnic identity is "the characteristic of self ascription and ascription by others" (1969:10-13). Barth's insights make it possible to understand how the boundaries between ethnic and national groups are able to persist despite the fact that people are constantly flowing across them, how ethnic and national categories are maintained despite the fact that membership in these categories is always changing.
Once the assertion of ethnic or national identity is no longer equated with "belonging to" a particular culture or exhibiting certain cultural traits, once it is understood as a form of political consciousness, as an often explicit and self-conscious political choice, then we are in a position to understand how separate groups with distinctly different identities can exist even when there are no "objectivett cultural differences that distinguish between them. Because the existence of these two groups and of the boundary between them depends exclusively on the "subjective experience of difference" (Sahlins 1989:270), it is possible for people who share a common culture to adopt different ethnic or national identities. Once we abandon the notion that adopting a particular identity is necessarily the result of being a member of a certain culture, we can consider the reverse: that being or becoming a member of a certain culture is rather the result of adopting a particular identity. In other words, people may ~not in fact be Greek because they speak Greek, have Greek names, and attend the Greek church. On the contrary, they may speak Greek (and not one of the other languages they know), use the Greek (and not the Slavic) form of their names, and attend the Greek (and not the Macedonian) church because they are Greek, that is, because they have chosen to identify themselves as Greek.
Barth's work also emphasizes the active role individuals play in what are often highly contested struggles involving the creation and distribution of new identities. While states with their powerful military, educational, and ecclesiastical bureaucracies often attempt to impose national identities from above, it is ultimately the individual who chooses what national identity to adopt, or in some cases whether to adopt any national identity at all. Such a situational approach to identity not only avoids the problems associated with a reified and essentialist approach, in which the assertion of a particular identity is equated with the possession of some natural or spiritual essence, or even the possession of certain cultural traits. It also draws attention to the fact that identity "is a socially constructed, variable definition of self or other, whose existence and meaning is continuously negotiated, revised and revitalized" (Nagel 1993:2).[3]
In a recent study entitled Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America Mary Waters (1990) documents the fact that identities often changes through time, both over the life cycle and across generations. Parents may try to hide or deny a particular identity that their children "rediscover" as they approach adulthood themselves. An identity may be adopted if world political events give it enhanced prestige, or conversely it may be shed if it becomes stigmatized. Often these changes in identity are not perceived by the actors themselves as changes, but are seen as the correction of an error or the achievement of a new insight that is accurate in contrast to the earlier perception that was in error.
Given the common nationalist view of the immutability of identity, conversion from one identity to another is bound to raise serious questions of authenticity and legitimacy, for if national identity is a fact of nature, something determined by blood or by birth, then it is "unnatural," if not impossible, to change it. As Handler (1988:51) puts it, from a nationalist perspective people "cannot choose what they naturally are." The new identities people ascribe to themselves, therefore, are often challenged or even rejected by others. This is particularly the true case when national identity is manipulated in an obvious way to serve personal self-interest (Sahlins 1989:223). When the construction of identity is contested in this manner, the criteria people use to define their identity and assess its legitimacy are often explicitly cited. Such arguments over the relevance of various criteria for the determination of group membership make the process of identity formation unusually accessible to anthropological analysis.
A situational approach to identity, while taking into consideration the role of personal choice in the process of identity formation, must also remain sensitive to the role played by external factors that limit or constrain the choices individuals face as they construct the identities that shape their lives. For an identity formation is not entirely a matter of self--ascription; it is a matter of ascription by others as well. Identities are shaped or structured by powerful political, economic, social, and cultural forces, the most important of which inevitably involve the hegemonic power of the state. State policies, the ideologies that legitimate them, and the institutions and organizations that realize them, all influence the process of identity formation as individuals are socialized and become citizens of particular states. To a great extent states have the power and the resources to determine what choices are available to people and what the rewards or the sanctions will be when they exercise these choices and adopt specific identities.

The degree to which state hegemony constrains individual choice in the construction of national identities varies tremendously. At one end of the spectrum stand nation-states whose ideologies of national homogeneity and ethnic purity lead them to limit quite narrowly the choices available to their citizens. Despite the best efforts of a nation-state to ensure that all its citizens develop one and the same national identity, however, the hegemonic power of the state is never absolute. Some individuals are always willing to endure severe persecution by asserting an identity that defines them as members of an ethnic or national minority.

 

[alex macedonian]

At the other end of the spectrum stand countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia, whose democratic and pluralist ideologies place significantly fewer constraints on the identities their citizens may adopt. In the case of third or fourth generation immigrants from Europe the choice of identity may become sufficiently fluid and free from stigma that one can begin to speak of ethnicity as a "lifestyle choice" or a "matter of taste," something to be adopted one day and discarded the next (Jusdanis nd:27).[4] The construction of identity among immigrants from nation-states in the Balkans who have settled in large pluralist democracies is a particularly complex process because it is influenced by hegemonic constructions that have their origins in both the countries where they were born and the countries where they have settled. These immigrants bring with them identities constructed in their homelands and face the challenge of reconstructing them in the diaspora. From the perspective of these immigrants themselves, particularly those whose identities were denied in their homelands, the most salient feature of the politics of identity in the diaspora is the fact that they now enjoy the freedom to express an identity which they were unable to express freely before.[5]
For the purpose of understanding the role of diaspora communities in the transnational conflict between Greeks and Macedonians, it is precisely this point which is most relevant. While many groups experience serious discrimination in the United States, Canada, and Australia, for white immigrants from Europe full enjoyment of the rights of citizenship in these countries is compatible with a fairly wide range of ethnic identities. Immigrants who are members of national minorities in the Balkans, for example, experience considerably more freedom to assert their identities in the United States, Canada, and Australia than they do in their countries of origin. More specifically, it is much easier to be a Macedonian in Australia than it is in northern Greece. Macedonians in Australia acknowledge this with their frequent expressions of gratitude and appreciation for the fact that in Australia they enjoy the right to express freely their identity as Macedonians. They often add with bitter irony that Macedonians in Greece, the "birthplace of democracy," do not enjoy these same rights.
From an anthropological perspective, however, it is clear that while Macedonians in Australia do enjoy a degree of freedom with respect to the expression of their ethnic identity that is not available to them in Greece, the choices facing them in Australia are certainly not unlimited. They are constrained by a complex set of hegemonic forces that have to do with both multicultural politics in Australia and nationalist politics in the Balkans. From the perspective of the English-speaking majority which dominates Australian society at all levels it makes very little difference whether immigrants from northern Greece identify themselves as Greeks or Macedonians. Regardless of their choice of identity at this level, however, immigrants from northern Greece remain "Europeans," "ethnics," or "people of non-English speaking background," as opposed to "real Australians."[6]
Immigrants from northern Greece to Australia, like immigrants to Australia from anywhere else in the world, encounter constraints in the process of constructing new identities for themselves in another sense as well. Their choices are limited by the ethnic categories that exist in the official discourse of Australian multiculturalism and that dominate government bureaucracies, social service agencies, and the educational system. Immigrants choose from among the many "ethnic communities" which together constitute Australian society; they become members of the "Italian community," the "Polish community," or the "Turkish community."
It should be immediately apparent that the ethnic categories of Australian multicultural discourse replicate or reproduce almost precisely the national categories of nationalist discourses throughout the world. Immigrants from the Balkans to Australia have more freedom to chose an identity than their fellow villagers they left behind, but the choices they face are essentially the same. Whether they live in Australia or the Balkans, they must be Serbs or Croats, Greeks or Macedonians.
The truth of Pellizzi's (1988:155) observation that "in exile nations become ethnicities is confirmed by the parallels that exist between the construction of national identities in the Balkans and the construction of ethnic identities in Australia. The disintegration of Yugoslavia and the emergence of Croatian, Serbian, and Macedonian national identities in the Balkans is part of the same transnational chain of events that has led to the demise of the Yugoslav community in Australia and the development there of Croatian, Serbian, and Macedonian communities. The hegemony of national categories of identity is such that even in multicultural Australia they cannot be escaped. In Australia, as in northern Greece, it is difficult for people to preserve or construct regional or ethnic identities that have no counterpart at the national level. It is difficult for them to resist becoming either Greek or Macedonian and to remain simply "local Macedonians."

Any analysis of the process by which ethnic and national identities are constructed at the individual level must also take into consideration the fact that such identities are situational but that they are also multiple. People have many collective identities each of which may be relevant in different ways and at different times. While national identity may be one of the broadest and most all-inclusive identities a person has, it certainly does not exclude or even transcend in importance other identities which define individuals as social beings (Hobsbawm 1990:11). Local, regional, ethnic, national, and even transnational identities may all coexist and together constitute important aspects of an individual's overall identity, not to mention other forms of collective identity based on religion, class, gender, or age. The precise nature of the relationships among these different identities - whether they coexist without conflict or whether they are mutually exclusive - varies greatly. For example, while it may be politically acceptable to be both Greek and Australian, it may not be politically acceptable to be both Greek and German.

One aspect of the construction of collective identities that is central to the study of ethnic nationalism is the process by which individuals who have previously defined themselves primarily in terms of regional or ethnic identities often associated with rural villages, local dialects, and oral cultures, come to acquire a sense of national identity associated with "a literate high culture which is co-extensive with an entire political unit and its total population" (GelIner 1983:95). Cultivating a sense of national identity in people who previously did not have one - turning "peasants into Frenchmen" (Weber 1976) -not to mention instilling the "proper" national identity in people who have somehow managed to acquire the "wrong" one, is the ultimate goal of all national movements. Needless to say, it is a long, complex process that may take place peacefully or violently, and that may destroy as many identities as it creates. This is particularly true in the case of an ethnic group that inhabits a frontier zone on the border between two nation-states, each of which attempts to impose a different national identity on members of the contested group. With the nationalization of ethnic identities and the politicization of local cultures, a national identity develops like a thin veneer on top of preexisting regional or ethnic identities. Gradually the ethnic group whose territory is divided by a national boundary splits as its members develop two different and mutually exclusive national identities.
For the local Macedonians from the region of Florina in northern Greece this process, which had its beginnings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is still continuing in the 1990s both in northern Greece as well as in diaspora communities in Canada and Australia. Inhabitants of the same villages, members of the same families, who have adopted different national identities, continue to argue about whether they are Greeks or Macedonians. They continue to argue about what nationality they really are.

The Macedonian Question in Balkan Historv

Macedonia is a vaguely defined geographical area in the southern Balkans. It includes the territory of the Republic of Macedonia (which prior to its declaration of independence in September, 1991 was the southernmost republic in the former Yugoslavia) as well as territory in southwestern Bulgaria and north-central Greece. The Macedonian Question has dominated Balkan history and politics for over a hundred years. During the Ottoman period, which lasted in Macedonia from the fourteenth century until 1913, the population of Macedonia included an amazing number of different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups, including Slavic and Greek speaking Christians, Turkish and Albanian speaking Moslems, Vlachs, Jews, and Gypsies. Toward the end of the nineteenth century the population of Macedonia was increasingly being defined from various external nationalist perspectives in terms of national categories such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, and Turks. Ottoman authorities, however, continued to divide the population of the empire into administrative units, or millets on the basis of religious identity rather than language, ethnicity, or nationality.
The hegemony which the Greeks exercised over the Orthodox Christian millet was seriously challenged for the first time by the establishment of an independent Bulgarian Church in 1870. Orthodox communities in the Macedonia now had the choice of affiliating with either the Greek or the Bulgarian national church. This marked an intensification of the "Macedonian Struggle" in which Greek, Bulgarian, and to a lesser extent Serbian, irredentist claims came into conflict over who would gain control over the people and the territory of Macedonia. By the 1890s the three Balkan states were all fielding irregular bands of guerrilla fighters who attacked the Turks, fought each other, and terrorized the local population. In addition, through the construction of churches and schools and the assignment of priests and teachers each state was conducting an intense propaganda campaign, whose goal was to instill the "proper" sense of national identity among the Orthodox Christians of Macedonia. The Macedonian Struggle reached its climax in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, which ended with the partitioning of Macedonia among Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia (later Yugoslavia).
Since 1913 the fates of the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Bulgarian (Pirin) Macedonia, Greek (Aegean) Macedonia, and Yugoslav (Vardar) Macedonia have varied considerably. With the exception of a brief period following World War II the Bulgarian government has officially denied the existence of a Macedonian nation, arguing instead that all the Slavs of Macedonia are Bulgarians. Since that time its policy toward the Macedonians in Bulgaria has been one of forced assimilation into mainstream Bulgarian society.
The Greek government has also consistently denied the existence of both a Macedonian nation and a Macedonian minority in northern Greece and has adopted a policy of forced assimilation toward he Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Greek Macedonia. After 1913 all Slavic personal and place names were Hellenized, and all evidence of the existence of Slavic literacy was destroyed. As a result of the population exchanges which took place between Greece and Bulgaria and Greece and Turkey in the 1920s, the number of people in Greek Macedonia who had a sense of Greek national identity increased substantially.

 

[alex macedonian]

Under the Metaxas dictatorship of 1936-40 repression of the Slavic speakers, who by this time had increasingly begun to identify themselves as Macedonians, was particularly severe: people who spoke Macedonian were beaten, fined, and imprisoned. After the Greek Civil War (1946-49), in which many Macedonians supported the unsuccessful Communist cause, some 35,000 Macedonians fled (or were forced to flee) to Yugoslavia and other
countries in eastern Europe (Kofos 1964:186). In the decades that followed, conservative Greek governments continued this policy of persecution and assimilation, perhaps the most egregious examples of which were the "language oaths" administered in several Macedonian villages, which required Macedonians to swear that they would renounce their "Slavic dialect" and from then on speak only Greek (Pribichevich 1982:246). Until World War II the official Serbian (and Yugoslav) position was that the Slavs of Macedonia did not constitute a distinct ethnic or national group, but that they were all "South Serbs." On August 2, 1944, however, Tito and the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia established the People's Republic of Macedonia with its capital of Skopje as one of the states of the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At this time the existence of a Macedonian nation was officially recognized. By 1950 a standard literary Macedonian language had been developed, and in 1967 an autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church was established. In this way Macedonians achieved a significant degree of cultural autonomy, even if they failed to achieve complete national independence.
With the death of Tito in 1980, the constraints which the central Yugoslav government had placed on the expression of Macedonian nationalism were gradually loosened. As Yugoslavia finally began to collapse in the early 1990s, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, in a referendum held on September 8, 1991, voted overwhelmingly in favor of initiating the process of establishing a completely sovereign and independent Macedonian state.
The fledgling state of Macedonia, however, faced a difficult struggle for international recognition because of the fierce opposition mounted by Greece to what Greeks claim to be the misappropriation by a Slavic pe6ple of the name Macedonia, a name that "was, is, and always will be Greek." At the insistence of Greece, therefore, in December, 1991, the European Community stated that it would not recognize the Republic of Macedonia until it guaranteed that it had no territorial claims against any neighboring state and that it would not engage in hostile acts against any such state, including the use of a name which implied territorial claims. After the Macedonian government provided constitutional guarantees that it would respect the inviolability of all international borders and refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other states, an EC Arbitration Commission found that Macedonia fulfilled all conditions for recognition. In addition, it specifically stated that the use of the name "Macedonia" did not imply territorial claims toward a neighboring state. In spite of this, however, in January, 1992, at the insistence of Greece the European Community refused to recognize the Republic of Macedonia.
During this period an incredible variety of alternative names were proposed for Macedonia. Officially the Greek government refused to accept any name for the Republic which included the word "Macedonia" in any form whether "as a noun or as an adjectival modifier." Proposed solutions to the dilemma ranged from names like Dardania and Paeonia (used in antiquity to designate regions to the north of ancient Macedonia), to names like South Slavia, the Vardar Republic, the Central Balkan Republic, and the Republic of Skopje, all of which were acceptable to Greece. Other compromise solutions, which were not acceptable to Greece, included Northern Macedonia, New Macedonia, and the Slavic Republic of Macedonia. At one point Greece even suggested that the Republic adopt two names, one official name for external use (which could not include the word "Macedonia") and one unofficial name for internal consumption (which could include the word "Macedonia"). All these solutions, however, were rejected by the Republic itself, which insisted that it would only accept recognition under its constitutional name: the Republic of Macedonia.
In December, 1992, the dispute shifted from the capitals of the member states of the European Community to New York City, when the Republic of Macedonia applied for admission to the United Nations. The governments of both Greece and Macedonia were ready to compromise when a plan was proposed according to which the Republic would be admitted to the United Nations under the temporary or provisional name "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," with a permanent name to be chosen later through a process of mediation. In April, 1993, the Security Council voted unanimously to admit "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a member of the United Nations. The Republic, however, was not allowed to fly its flag, the sixteen-ray sun or star of Vergina, at the United Nations headquarters because this was an ancient Macedonians symbol (which was found in Greece) and is therefore a Greek national symbol.
Finally, in December, 1993, just before Greece was to assume the rotating presidency of the European Community, six members of the European Community - Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands - decided to recognize the Republic of Macedonia and establish full diplomatic relations with it. When the United States and Australia recognized the Republic in February, 1994, Greece responded by imposing an economic blockade against the Republic, a move that evoked widespread condemnation and prompted the other members of what was now the European Union to bring Greece before the European Court of Justice on charges of having violated European Union trade rules.[7]

Competing Claims to Macedonian Identity

According to the Greek nationalist position on the Macedonian Question, because Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and because ancient and modern Greece are bound in an unbroken line of racial and cultural continuity, it is only Greeks who have the right to identify themselves as Macedonians, not the Slavs of southern Yugoslavia, who settled in Macedonia in the sixth century AD and who called themselves "Bulgarians" until 1944.[8] Greeks, therefore, generally refer to Macedonians as "Skopians," (from Skopje, the capital of the Republic of Macedonia) a practice comparable to calling Greeks "Athenians." The negation of Macedonian identity in Greek nationalist ideology focuses on three main points: the existence of a Macedonian nation, a Macedonian language, and a Macedonian minority in Greece. From the Greek nationalist perspective there cannot be a Macedonian nation since there has never been an independent Macedonian state: the Macedonian nation is an "artificial creation," an "invention," of Tito, who "baptized" a "mosaic of nationalities" with the Greek name "Macedonians." Similarly Greek nationalists claim that because the language spoken by the ancient Macedonians was Greek, the Slavic language spoken by the "Skopians" cannot be called "the Macedonian language." Greek sources generally refer to it as "the linguistic idiom of Skopje" and describe it as a corrupt and impoverished dialect of Bulgarian. Finally, the Greek government denies the existence of a Macedonian minority in northern Greece, claiming that there exists only a small group of "Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness" (Kofos 1964:226).

From the Greek nationalist perspective, then, the use of the name "Macedonian" by the "Slavs of Skopje" constitutes a "felony," an "act of plagiarism" against the Greek people. By calling themselves "Macedonians" the Slavs are "stealing" a Greek name; they are "embezzling" Greek cultural heritage; they are "falsifying" Greek history. As Evangelos Kofos, a historian employed by the Greek Foreign Ministry told a foreign reporter, "It is as if a robber came into my house and stole my most precious jewels - my history, my culture, my identity" (The Boston Globe Jan. 5, 1993, p.9). Greek fears that use of the name "Macedonia" by Slavs will inevitably lead to the assertion of irredentist claims to territory in Greek Macedonia are heightened by fairly recent historical events. During World War II Bulgaria occupied portions of northern Greece, while one of the specific goals of the founders of the People's Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was "the unification of the entire Macedonian nation," to be achieved by "the liberation of the other two segments" of Macedonia (Andonov--Poljanski 1985 Vol 2:607). Macedonians, on the other hand, are committed to affirming their existence as a unique people with a unique history, culture, and identity, and to gaining recognition of this fact internationally. In asserting what they sometimes refer to as their "ethnospecificity" Macedonians insist they are not Serbs, Yugoslavs, Bulgarians, or Greeks. They also reject hyphenated names such as Yugoslav-Macedonian or Greek-Macedonian as "divisive labels" indicative of a "partition mentality" that needs to be overcome. There are no Slav -Macedonians, either, anymore than there are Slav-Russians or Slav-Poles. According to many Macedonians, Greeks and Bulgarians who live in Macedonia (whose nationality is Greek or Bulgarian) may identify themselves as "Macedonians," but in a regional or geographical sense only.
Extreme Macedonian nationalists, who are concerned with demonstrating the continuity between ancient and modern Macedonians, deny that they are Slavs and claim to be the direct descendants of Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. The more moderate Macedonian position, generally adopted by better educated Macedonians and publicly endorsed by Kiro Gligorov, the first president of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia, is that modern Macedonians have no relation to Alexander the Great, but are a Slavic people whose ancestors arrived in Macedonia in the sixth century AD. Proponents of both the extreme and the moderate Macedonian positions stress that the ancient Macedonians were a distinct non-Greek people.
In addition to affirming the existence of the Macedonian nation, Macedonians are concerned with affirming the existence of a unique Macedonian language as well. While acknowledging the similarities between Macedonian and other South Slavic languages, they point to the distinctions that set it apart as a separate language. They also emphasize that although standard literary Macedonian was only formally created and recognized in 1944, the Macedonian language has a history of over a thousand years dating back to the Old Church Slavonic used by Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century.
Although all Macedonians agree that Macedonian minorities exist in Bulgaria and Greece and that these minorities have been subjected to harsh policies of forced assimilation, there are two different positions with regard to what their future should be. The goal of more extreme Macedonian nationalists is to create a "free, united, and independent Macedonia" by "liberating" the parts of Macedonia "temporarily occupied" by Bulgaria and Greece. More moderate Macedonian nationalists recognize the inviolability of the Bulgarian and Greek borders and explicitly renounce any territorial claims against the two countries. They do, however, demand that Bulgaria and Greece recognize the existence of Macedonian minorities in their countries and grant them the basic human rights they deserve.[9]

 

[alex macedonian]

Greeks and Macedonians in Multicultural Australia

Since the end of World War II immigration has dramatically transformed the nature of Australian society. In 1947 Australia's population stood at just under seven million people, 90% of whom were English-speaking and Australian-born. With the arrival of over four million immigrants during the next forty years Australian society became one of the most ethnically diverse in the world. By 1988, the year it celebrated its bi-centenary, Australia had a population of over sixteen million people who came from more than 100 different ethnic groups. Over 20% of its population were immigrants, and 20% more were Australian-born children of at least one immigrant parent. Until the early 1970s Australia's immigration program was dominated by a "White Australia Policy" and a firm commitment to the doctrine of assimilation. The goal of this program was to insure that Australia remained a homogeneous, English-speaking society dominated by an "Anglo-Celtic" majority. In the early 1970s, however, the Labor government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam adopted an explicit policy of multiculturalism, a policy of cultural pluralism based on two fundamental principles: "the recognition and affirmation of the diverse cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds of the Australian people, and the promotion of equality of opportunity for all Australians regardless of their backgrounds" (Jupp 1988:926).
This shift in policy constituted an implicit recognition of the basic demographic facts of Australia's immigration history. Not only had assimilation not occurred, but members of cultural and linguistic minorities had failed to achieve a significant degree of upward social mobility. The adoption of a multicultural policy also implied an awareness that assimilation was an unrealistic policy and that cultural pluralism did not in fact present a real threat to the cohesion of Australian society. The ultimate goal, then, of Australian multiculturalism was the creation of national unity while at the same maintaining the diversity and complexity of a polyethnic society.
The rise of multiculturalism as the dominant ideology governing many aspects of Australian society was motivated in part by the increasing assertiveness of second and third generation "ethnic Australians." This new attitude led to the growth of ethnic community organizations and migrant groups which in turn made significant demands on the Australian government at both the state and federal levels to provide "new Australians" with improved social services particularly in the areas of education and welfare. As a result the principle that interest groups based on the ethnic identity of their members were legitimate elements in the formulation and administration of government policies gained widespread acceptance. [10]
In many ways the multicultural nature of Australian society is epitomized by the city of Melbourne, the capital of the state of Victoria, located in south-eastern Australia on the Yarra river at the head of Port Philip Bay. Melbourne, with a population of 3.2 million people, is the second largest city in Australia, as well as the most heavily industrialized. While overall 25% of Melbourne's population is "overseas-born," in some working-class areas of the city this percentage rises to 40%. When the children of the "overseas born" are included, these percentages double. Almost 75% of the "overseas-born" in Melbourne are from Europe, while approximately 20% of the total population of the city speak a language other than English in the home.[11]
According to the 1986 census 337,000 people in Australia stated that they were of Greek ancestry, and 148,000 of them (44%) lived in Victoria. Of the 138,000 people in Australia who listed Greece as their birthplace 66,000 lived in Melbourne. According to the same census, of the 277,000 who stated that they spoke Greek at home, 113,000 lived in Melbourne.[12] Greek is spoken by more Australians than all other languages except English and Italian.
In the 1970s the Greek population of Melbourne was concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods such as Northcote, South Melbourne, and Richmond. By the late 1980s, however, many Greeks had moved to middle-distance and outer metropolitan suburbs such as Preston, Thomastown, and Lalor. While Greeks in general remained employed in low-skilled jobs in manufacturing and in the retail trades, many second generation Greeks have experienced a significant degree of upward social mobility.
The Greek community of Melbourne is one of the largest in the entire Greek diaspora; it is also one of the most visible and active ethnic communities in a city renowned for its cultural diversity and cosmopolitanism. At the heart of the Greek community of Melbourne are 36 Greek Orthodox Churches and over 100 clubs, societies, and associations that are based on place of origin in Greece. There are also a multitude of women's groups, youth groups, and pensioners' clubs, as well as many athletic, philanthropic, cultural, political, and professional organizations. Modern Greek is taught in 25 elementary schools and 30 secondary schools in Melbourne and in all four universities in the city. In addition, the Greek community of Melbourne has a large, well-organized system of private ethnic schools. It is also served by several Greek newspapers and several private Greek radio stations. Finally, the Greek Consulate General in Melbourne, with its Office of Press and Information and its Educational Advisor, plays a prominent role in the affairs of the Greek community there. [13]
According to the estimate of the ethnic composition of the Australian population prepared for the Bicentenary in 1988 (Jupp 1988:124), there are 75,000 people of Macedonian ethnic origin in Australia, 46,000 of whom are thought to have come from the Republic of Macedonia in the former Yugoslavia, 28,000 to have come from Greece, and 1,000 from Bulgaria. In an essay on the Macedonians prepared for the Jupp volume, Peter Hill estimates that there may actually be as many as 100,000 people of Macedonian ancestry in Australia (1988:691).
Census data on the Macedonian community of Australia are extremely unreliable for several reasons. Until recently Australian census forms asked people simply to list "country of origin" for themselves and their parents. People who identified themselves as Macedonians, therefore, appeared in the Australian census data as "Bulgarian-born," "Yugoslav-born," or "Greek-born." In the 1986 census people were asked for the first time to state their "ancestry," defined in an information booklet accompanying the census forms as "the ethnic or national group from which you are descended." At this time 42,000 people in Australia listed their ancestry as Macedonian. 21,000 of them were born in Yugolsavia, 4,000 of them were born in Greece, while the rest of them were born in Australian. Almost half of the people of Macedonian ancestry in Australia lived in Victoria, the vast majority of them in Melbourne. According to the 1986 census there were 46,000 people in Australia who spoke Macedonian at home, 21,000 of whom lived in Melbourne.[14]

 

[alex macedonian]

The Macedonian community of Melbourne is similar to its Greek counterpart in many ways. It is, however, significantly smaller in size. There are only 4 Macedonian churches in Melbourne; Macedonian is taught at only five primary schools, six high schools and at none of the universities in Melbourne; and there are no private ethnic schools run by the Macedonian community. Furthermore, because it has a much smaller educated and professional elite than the Greek community, and because there is no Macedonian consulate to support its activities, the Macedonian community of Melbourne plays a much less influential role in the cultural and political life of the city. While the Greek community is divided in many ways, the Macedonian community is even more divided. The major division in the Macedonian community is that between immigrants from Yugoslav (or Vardar) Macedonia and immigrants from Greek (or Aegean) Macedonia. Because many Aegean Macedonians arrived in Australia in the 1950s, while the largest number of of Vardar Macedonians emigrated to Australia in the late 1960s, the Aegean Macedonian community is better established in Melbourne -- its members speak better English and have enjoyed more upwardly mobility. In addition, the two communities have different geographical centers. The majority of Aegean Macedonians in Melbourne live in the northern suburbs of Preston, Thomastown, Lalor, and Epping, while the Vardar Macedonians of Melbourne are concentrated in the western suburbs of Footscray, Sunshine, Altona and Keilor.[15]
This description of the Greek and the Macedonian communities of Australia has been presented as an account two dichotomous and mutually exclusive national groups -- Greeks and Macedonians. Such an account, however, replicates and perpetuates the hegemonic constructions of both Australian multicultural discourse and Balkan nationalist discourse. In doing so it obscures the fact that there exists a group of people from the region of Florina and from other areas of northern Greece, who speak both Greek and Macedonian, who share one common regional or ethnic identity, that of "local Macedonians," but who have been divided into two hostile factions, each of which has adopted a different national identity. These are the people whose lives have been most dramatically affected by the recent politicization of the Macedonian Question. Individual villages and families have been split, with one villager, one brother, identifying as a Greek, the other as a Macedonian.
In many cases the choices made and the postions taken in the present have parallels in the past. There are also, of course, many cases where new choices are made and new identities constructed. Some migrants to Melbourne who identify themselves as Greeks have seen their children grow up and come to identify themselves as Macedonians.
There are many factors that influence the process of identity formation as it takes place among immigrants from Florina to Australia. Balkan history, village politics, family situation, and individual biography all play important parts in this complex process. People may identify themselves as Greeks for a variety of reasons. They may come from a village that supported the Patriarch in the early twentieth century or a family that supported the Greek government during the Civil War. They may come from a wealthy family or have grown up in the city of Florina itself, or they may simply have been the youngest child in the family and grown up speaking Greek in the home because their older brothers and sisters had already started school. They may have left Greece as adults, having been fully socialized into Greek national society as a result of completing high school or serving in the military. Alternatively they may be involved in a profession that can be practiced more readily in the Greek community of Melbourne with its large private educational system and its well-established professional and business elite. They may also have married into a family with strong sense of Greek national identity. Finally, they may be afraid that if they publicly identify themselves as Macedonians, they may not be able to return to Greece or that their relatives still living in Greece may be harassed by Greek government officials. One person, for example, refused to discuss the Macedonian issue with me, saying "It's too political, too dangerous. I don't want to talk. The people in the Pan-Macedonian Association might find out what I said, and I'd get in trouble."
People from Florina may identify as Macedonians for a variety of reasons as well. They may come from a village that supported the Exarch in the early twentieth century or a family that supported the communists during the Civil War. They may have been born in a small, poor village inhabited exclusively by local Macedonians, or they may have been the oldest child in the family and grown up speaking Macedonian with their parents and grandparents. Alternatively, they may have left Greece for Australia at a very young age and may not have been fully socialized into Greek national society, but only into the "local" society of their family and village. People who left Greece after the Civil War, settled in Yugoslavia or some other Eastern European country, and then emigrated to Australia from there, are almost certain to have adopted a Macedonian national identity. People who remained in Greece, but who experienced harassment and persecution at the hands of the Greek government in the years following the Civil War, may also have developed a Macedonian identity. Finally, people who marry into a family with a strong Macedonian identity or who have no relatives still living in Greece are likely to develop a Macedonian identity as well.
Some local Macedonians from Florina living in Australia have adopted a third stance with regard to the question of national identity. They attempt to maintain a neutral stance in the conflict between Greeks and Macedonians by refusing to identify themselves publicly with either one of the two mutually exclusive national groups. In many cases they want to preserve the unity of their village organizations which provide them with their primary sense of identity; in some cases they may value both national cultures and not want to restrict themselves by identifying themselves exclusively with either one. Finally, they may be genuinely unable to choose either one of the two mutually exclusive national categories to identify themselves with. On several occasions people who had adopted this third position refused to discuss the Macedonian issue with me. When I asked a man I met at a village picnic if he were a Greek dr a Macedonian, he said "I can't talk. I can't say anything. [16] Then he gestured to the people dancing a "local" dance on the cricket field in front of us and said 'These are my people; this is my village. That's all I can say.

Since the local Macedonians of the Florina region were generally poor farmers from small villages, they emigrated to Australia in large numbers. like other immigrants from Greece, Yugoslavia, and southern Europe more generally, they often settled in jhe cities of Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, and Melbourne. Those who arrived in Melbourne in the 1950s. settled in the inner city suburbs of Northcote, Richmond, and Fitzroy only to move out to the northern suburbs of Preston, Thomastown, Lalor, and Epping in the 1960s and 1970s. The institutions founded by the early local Macedonian immigrants from Florina to Melbourne testify to the divisions in their community that have been created in large part by the different national ideologies that have competed for their loyalty over the past century. This is particularly true in the case of the church, the institution that lies at the center of many southern and eastern European diaspora communities. In 1950 a group of immigrants from Florina, who identified themselves as Macedonians and who opposed communism, founded a "Macedonian Church of Saints Cyril and Methodius' in affiliation with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church of North and South America and Australia (which at that time was independent of the Holy Synod in Sofia). Years later, however, after the reconciliation of the diaspora church and the Holy Synod in Sofia, a priest from Bulgaria was sent to Melbourne who insisted that the Church of Saints Cyril and Methodius was a Bulgarian Church and that its members were all Bulgarians. In 1985 the trustees of the church, who identified themselves as Macedonians, renounced the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Chruch and attempted to gain control of the church. The Supreme Court of Victoria, however, ruled against them, and the Macedonian community soon abandoned what had now become a Bulgarian church.
Another group of immigrants from Florina who also identified themselves as Macedonians, but who supported communism, founded the Macedonian Orthodox Church of St. George in 1959, which eventually became afffliated with the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia in the former Yugoslavia. This church is now one of the most powerful institutions in the Macedonian community of Melbourne and in all of
Australia. Finally, in 1967, a third group of immigrants from Florina, a group who identified themselves as Greeks, established a Greek Orthodox Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Thus the tripartite division of Macedonia among Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece is replicated in the different affiliations of the churches founded by immigrants from Florina who settled in Melbourne.
Rough estimates suggest that there may be 27,000 people from the district of Florina who are now living in Australia.16 According to a survey conducted by Hill (1989:125) there are over 10,000 people in Melbourne whose families come from a group of 14 villages in the Florina area which have large and active village associations in Melbourne. In addition, immigrants from the city of Florina itself and from about ten other villages in the region have also settled in Melbourne. It is quite possible, therefore, that there are as many as 15,000 people from the Florina area who are living in Melbourne heavily concentrated in the northern suburbs of the city.