Talk:Association of Serbo-Macedonians

Коста Църнушанов (1992)
I am questioning the credibility and reliability of Коста Църнушанов (1992). I am suspicious of the author for a number of reasons; for example, Kočo Racin's self-identification as an ethnic Macedonian is described as being the result of Serbian manipulation, and he is labelled "the first major victim" of this manipulation. Academics generally don't employ ad hominem when discussing historical figures. Църнушанов (1992)'s claims about the linguistic situation (especially in his other book) are also a fringe view (even among Bulgarian academics); for example, he claims the Macedonian word лав ("lion") is a "purely Serbian word", and that Macedonians should use лъв, despite the fact that the former occurs in folkloric works predating Yugoslavia, that there is no schwa in Standard Macedonian, and that it is the expected derivative of Proto-Slavic *lьvъ. He similarly claims that the Macedonians ought to say герой instead of the "purely Serbian word" херой, not realizing that the former is actually a Russian loan in Bulgarian where we see the typically Eastern Slavic feature of /x/ → /g/. The man hasn't got a clue what he's talking about; he's unreliable and lacks any credibility. --WavesSaid (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case he is right. This info is confirmed as by several Macedonian sources, as well as by many Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC) .


 * Where do you see 'debulgarization'? I see "[...] to bring together all the opponents of the Bulgarians" and "[...] to preserve the nationality of the Serbo-Macedonian people". --WavesSaid (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That claims also suggests that the Slavs in Macedonia had universally identified as Bulgarians. There's also a problem with labeling this organization "Serbophilic" but not labelled other organizations "Bulgarophilic" (but instead asserting that they are "Bulgarian"). This would mean that a Macedonian Slav's Serbian identity is illegitimate, but that it's perfectly legitimate for them to identify as Bulgarians. That's a nationalist, non-neutral point of view. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have changed Macedonian Slavs with Macedonian Bulgarians as more accurate term. Jingiby (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. As per serbophilia, later this people turned into Serbomans. Jingiby (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't even understand what I'm saying. The sources don't attest "debulgarization", only their attempt to counter Bulgarian influence in the area. --WavesSaid (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Jingiby (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
The dot-point "that Bulgarian lexical influence have to be replace by Serbian one" implies that the Bulgarian language was to be Serbianized. It's highly unlikely that these Serbophile Macedonian nationalists would have wanted to use Standard Bulgarian (in fact, their correspondence confirms this). --WavesSaid (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Newly developed nationalism?
Since when is there ancient nationalism? --WavesSaid (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as ancient nationalism, however Bulgarian nationalism, for example emerged in the 1760s, i.e. 100 years before Macedonian one, which was among the last ones, emerged into the Ottoman empire Jingiby (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but why are you describing Macedonian nationalism from a Bulgarian nationalist perspective? Both are social artifacts, and 100 years doesn't make one more valid than the other. --WavesSaid (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, that link says that a text written in 1762 had come to be a "text of early Bulgarian nationalism". It doesn't locate the origin of Bulgarian nationalism as you claim. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the Encyclopedia of Nationalism says that "modern Bulgarian nationalism emerged in the 19th century." --WavesSaid (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that the founder of the Bulgarian nationalism was Paisius of Hilendar and his History of the Slav-Bulgarians written in 1762. Jingiby (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC).


 * The many variants of nationalism weren't "founded" by individuals. Paisius of Hilendar may very well have been a forerunner to later nationalists and his ideas may have been taken up by the movement, but he is certainly not the sole founder of Bulgarian nationalism. The link you provided proves this—again, you've failed to actually read what you copy/pasted—"Despite such early proclamations, it was only in the second half of the 19th century that the nation-building process in the country started to make some headway", "a text traditionally considered to have laid the foundations of the National Revival", etc. --WavesSaid (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the same is the case with Macedonian one, the nation-building process in the country started to make some headway in 1940s. Jingiby (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it was only in the 1940s that they were able to govern themselves. That's not what I'm disputing. --WavesSaid (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

They didn't self-govern themselves. Despite the fact, the presiding committee of ASNOM was dominated by elements that were not known for their pro-Yugoslav sentiments. Čento and Brashnarov wanted a greater independence and saw joining Yugoslavia as a form of second Serbian dominance over Macedonia. However, from the start of the new Yugoslavia, the communist authorities in Macedonia were involved in retribution against people who did not support the formation of the Yugoslav Macedonia. The numbers of dead "counter-revolutionaries" and "collaborators" due to organized killings then is unclear. At that time, even the ASNOM's first leaders Čento and Brashnarov were purged from their positions, then isolated, arrested and imprisoned on fabricated charges, as foreign agents, having pro-Bulgarian leanings, and the like. Afterwards Kolishevski, fully implementing the pro-Yugoslav line, i.e. a period of a second Serbian dominance over Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of their political orientation, they were nevertheless locals (hence, it was national sovereignty). Don't waste your breath. Reread the second part of my preceding comment and my original comment. --WavesSaid (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop with fringe views and tag-spam. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * None of my edits contradicted the sources. In fact, they simply expanded on what was already in the article. How is an outsider supposed to interpret the statement "last ones to develop on [sic] the Balkans"? You're advancing the claim that the population universally considered themselves "Bulgarians", yet the citations paint a completely different picture. What "Bulgarian linguistic influence" did the association's program refer to? Is it unreasonable that I should request the statement be clarified? It's unclear what's being cited because the translation offered is imperfect. People like me want to learn about the past, not have someone's party line shoved down our throat. --WavesSaid (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And don't call me names. Not only is it juvenile, it's uncivil. --WavesSaid (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Jingiby
Read the quote for ref. 6: "[...] between its members, it seems that neither of them [...]". Learn to reference, kid. --WavesSaid (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)