Talk:Nikola Karev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Bulgaria
Bulgaria Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Nikola Karev: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] POV Template

I don't understand why the POV template is necessary. Can you provide more detail as to which section is POV, because it is unsourced, original research or some other issue?  /FunkyFly.talk_   14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian or Bulgarian?

FunkyFly, why you needed this? My change wasn't in direction that Karev was Macedonian. I have point out that he is considered both Macedonian and Bulgarian. Why it isn't acceptable for you? By the way, this aticle need to be improved a lot, because it is more an article about the Ilinden uprising than for Karev, so I'll appreciate a lot if you are constructive here. (Zdravko mk 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

It's not acceptable, as there is no identification as Macedonian on his behalf that is provided   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And can you give some proves that he has identified himself as a Bulgarian? Meanwhile, I will put that POV back. And again, I'll ask you to be cooperative, or I can try other ways (Zdravko mk 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

For one, he was a member of BMARC. Read point 3 of the statute   /FunkyFly.talk_   14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, TMORO was the name of the organization when Karev has joined it. Secondly, the only members of TMORO wasn't members with ethnic Bulgarian feelings. And stop being so stubborn!!!!!!!!!! (Zdravko mk 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Wrong, he joined BMARC.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Karev was a socialist. The socialists born in Macedonia have joined TMORO only after 1902! So, after the name of the organization was renamed. I don't know how you enjoy being so nationalistic here. If you have nationalist attitudes go somewhere else. This is Wikipedia, not some nationalist garbage (Zdravko mk 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Goce Delchev was a socialist too, yet he joined in 1894. I added the passage that he is considered ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia   /FunkyFly.talk_   18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found various claims about the date when he entered the IMRO, the earliest being 1899. As explained in the Goce Delchev's talk page, it almost certain that the name of the organization was already SMARO in 1898, because:

  • There is a SMARO constitution dated "1898" in the British Foreign Office documents: PRO. - FO 78/4951. Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S.I.
  • In two of his 1898 letters Goce Delchev identifies himself as representative of SMARO, and his respondent, archibishop Menini apparently recognizes him as such.

--FlavrSavr 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As Nikola Karev entered the organization when it's name was SMARO, I don't see a particular reason why we should add that the IMRO was known known as Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees before 1902, because:

  • There is no proof that the organization was generally known as BMARC before 1902, or any time before that.
  • As far as I know, apart from the famous BMARC constitution, repeated zillion times, from the correspondence of IMRO activists, there is no proof that the operational name of the organization was BMARC.
  • The most commonly used name for the organization in English, Macedonian, and Bulgarian is IMRO, despite the fact that the name was given as late as 1920.

I might be wrong, of course, much is speculated about "BMARC" but I'll require sources, to counter my claims. --FlavrSavr 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Flavrsavr who vandalizes

Let me quote a source for you: Who are the Macedonians? by Hugh Poulton, page 53. He says: this organization [VMRO] repeatedly and confusingly changed its name, often as a balance between pro-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian autonomists (...). It appears to have been originally called the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Committee (BMORK - the 'O' standing for Odrin or Adrianopole). In 1902 it changed its name to the Secret Macedonian Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Organization (TMORO) while from 1905 it was first known as VMORO and then simply VMRO, where the 'V' stands for 'inner' in Bulgarian. Let me ask you something. Do you have a source that says that this wasn't its original name or the date it was renamed? If not, I advise you to look for something instead of threatening. Also, in that link all he says is that he is a Macedonian. Well even Arben Xhaferi and Kostas Karamanlis are Macedonians. Macedonian can refer to any person from Macedonia whatever their ethnicity.

Thank you for using the talk page. Finally someone to actually cite a source about it. (I'll check into it, though). Of course I have a source about SMARO, I used it in the Goce Delchev's talk page:

[edit] Sources that GD was a member of SMARO in 1898

Here are my sources (to be honest, I didn't expect to find such an explicit statement that GD was the leader of SMARO, not BMARC in 1898)

  • A letter from Goce Delchev to the Archibishop Menini

11 july 1898

Foreign representation of SMARO Sofia

To His Excellency The Archibishop of Plovdiv Mr. Mennini

... Our SMARO is nowadays labeled a terrorist organisation from many representatives of the Christian states, firstly because of the ignorance of our struggle, and secondly because of the personal interests of their states...

The letter is signed by Gjorgji (Goce) Delchev. There is also a similar letter to the same person (Archibishop Menini, send on 3 July 1898, in which again he is a member of SMARO. I'm too lazy at the moment to translate the SMARO parts of that letter).

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/), 978-980.

--FlavrSavr 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • A letter from Archibishop Menini to the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith

12 july 1898

Plovdiv Holy Archibishopry no. 398 12 july 1898 Plovdiv

To the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith Rome

Your Eminency, Enclosed to this letter are the two letters which I have received from the representative of the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Organisation Gjorgji Delchev related to the given favors to some Macedonian revolutionaries...

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/), 980-982.

(provided above) There is a SMARO constitution dated "1898" in the British Foreign Office documents: PRO. - FO 78/4951. Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S.I. --FlavrSavr 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to your approach on Goce Delchev, a man who described himself as "Bulgarian", it is original research to infer that that means he was Bulgarian. You say you want a neutral source describing him as such. Now, you want to study his letters, and to draw inferences from them is not original research. In other words, Delchev's letters can be used to prove that the organization was called SMARO before 1902, but not that he declared himself Bulgarian, you want independent sources for the latter only. Smells like double standards to me - typical of Macedonism... --Tēlex 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Telex, see Cigor's neutral sources on what "Bulgarian" could possibly mean (the ones which FF has erased at Macedonism). On the other hand, 12 july 1898 can only mean 12 july 1898. Besides, the widely accepted name for the organization is IMRO (not BMARC, not SMARO). --FlavrSavr 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This reminds me of a joke I once heard. If GD had said I am a pure Bulgarian, f*ck the Macedonians, it would be interpreted as I am a pure Christian Slav, f*ck the Greek Macedonians, whereas if he said I am a pure Macedonian, f*ck the Bulgarians, that would as a rule be interpreted as I am a pure ethnic Macedonian, f*ck the ethnic Bulgarians. Typical Macedonistic double standards. There could be a million reasons for those letters, including the reason that Constantinople wasn't officially renamed to Istanbul until the 20th century. People referred to it using the new name and intended to officially change it, but never got round to it until a years later. Of course, it would be blasphemy to demand a modern independent source that BMARC wasn't renamed to SMARO until 1902. --Tēlex 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Telex, 12 July 1898 is 12 July 1898. While it is possible that Hugh Poulton's (an Amnesty International researcher) book is valuable, it remains suspicious how he deducted that it changed the name in 1902 despite obvious evidence. Moreover, some logical questions also remain unanswered: how could Pitu Guli become a member of the organization if it was exclusively meant to accept ethnic Bulgarians? How come there are no operative documents of the organization under "BMARC" label? How come, even Tatarchev (arguably, the most pro-Bulgarian element of IMRO), says that the name of the organization in its beginning was "Macedonian Revolutionary Organization"? --FlavrSavr 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't a clue. Take exception to the fact though that Rigas Feraios was also an Aromanian, and he did a lot for Greek independence. If Guli attended a Bulgarian Church, self-identified as Bulgarian, etc, then there is no reason not be believe he was Bulgarian. Aromanians were not an ethnic group per se, but some sided with all sides - Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and even Romanians. I raised this issue at Talk:Pitu Guli. In Greece, no one has ever heard of these names, BMARC, SMARO, IMRO etc. We just refer to them as Bulgarokomitadzides who committed atrocities on the native Greek population of Macedonia, dreaming of what Rugova is dreaming for Kosovo. --Tēlex 16:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Telex, thanks for your answer. To be honest, I'm also confused about it. I don't deny the possibility that the name of the organization was at some point "BMARC". However, obviously, much is unclear. The point is that Pitu Guli is not an isolated case. There was a considerable amount of ethnic Aromanian rebels in the Ilinden Uprising - almost a half... The most notable I know were Pitu Guli and Dinu Vangeli. In Krushevo, the site of the Ilinden Uprising even today lives possibly the biggest Aromanian community in RoM, and they still proudly identify themselves as "Vlachs" and not as Macedonians/Bulgarians, so there cannot be a word of total assimilation. --FlavrSavr 17:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1898

Funky, I don't understand your latest edits: don't Bulgarian and Macedonian historians claim that the organization's name was BMARC and SMARO from 1896, respectively? This is nothing about whether their claim is true or not... --FlavrSavr 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Before 1898 it was BMARC, undisputedly.   /FunkyFly.talk_  05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It is disputed. Not only it is disputed by Macedonian historians, but it's also disputed by Tatarchev's "Macedonian Revolutionary Organization". Moreover, the 1898 addition makes a false sentence altogether - that is not what Macedonian and Bulgarian historians claim. --FlavrSavr 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced information

Bulldoger, do not remove the references, it is considered vandalism Mr. Neutron 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned Frightner

Please respect the linked references. Mr. Neutron 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to reinstate Ottoman Empire as place of birth and death. 124.168.105.254 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, please do that then. Mr. Neutron 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date

Could someone please fix his date of death in the infobox, I'm not familiar with how that particular template works. --AimLook 11:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akropolis newspaper

Please find a different source. Makedonsko sonce is a radical Macedonist irredentist newspaper, plus the text is hardly readable. Also, dont erase the places of birth and death and the dates. Mr. Neutron 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again with the "radical Macedonianist" (personal attacks deleted) The site did not make up the interview it merely posted what already existed. Frightner 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You know, a couple of weeks ago one of the leading Brittish newspaper posted an article which claimed that 10% of EU citizens had, let's say, an alternative sexual orientation. Do you know what info was posted in one of the Macedonistic papers the next day? I suppose you don't as you obiously live in Perth and therefore might not be familiar with this. The Heading was "At least 10% of all Bulgarians are gay". Is this actual journalism? They said they've cited the Brittish paper, but had they really? This is just an example. Oh, and since we are on the subject, are you planning to stop vandalizing from anonymous IPs? I'm saying vandalizing since you were reverting my edit although it was more than obvious you were wrong (the Kiustendil case). --Laveol T 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure more than 10% of Bulgarians are gay. I mean, there's actually a gay site called "bulGAYria". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.241.11 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You're being really funny, Frighner, but you didn't answer my question. You surely seem like the type of guy who'd write such nonsense. --Laveol T 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't see the paper, but who wouldn't write that about the country they hate? I doubt that the article was based on pure journalism, it was an act to humiliate Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.241.11 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I knew you'd admire it --Laveol T 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a while to cool down the edit war; Frightner, due to his past actions, is not on an equal footing here. If there are more personal attacks on the talk page, tell me, and I'll semi-protect it as well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the interview published in some book by an American author or something? That could be used a source instead of the link to Makedonsko Sonce. And BTW, some article (I forgot which one) linked to a nationalist Greek website (perhaps even nastier than Makedonsko Sonce) which hosted an article being used as a reference here on Wikipedia. So, I don't see why Makedonsko Sonce should be excluded. --AimLook 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name spelling

I was gonna add the Macedonian spelling of his name, but then I realized that it is the same as the Bulgarian, so it would probably be redundant. Ah, the Balkans, always a fun place :) Hmm, when I think about it the Serbian spelling is exactly the same, which just goes to strengthen my previous statement about the funness of the Balkans :) Capricornis 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useless and inaccurate informations

Ok,give me one evidence that Nikola KArev was bulgarian.Maybe you can apply some letter which is wriiten by N.Karev,but if you know what was the constelation in Macedonia in the end of 19 centurie and begining of 20,you can understand that any macedonian revolutionary was under pressure of Bulgarian state,and in same time they hope for bulgarian help. But there is irrefutabile document - The Krushevo Manifesto for macedonian uprising in 02.08.1903 against Turks.This manifesto is signed by Nikola Karev themself.I don't see any sentence with reference to bulgarian national feelings of Nikola Karev.Here is a link: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/krusevo.manifesto.html Also this is an article for Nikola Karev,not for Ilinden uprising.Provide more information about his life and acts. And this is for the very first time that i read here that the first name of TMORO was BMARC.Come one, give us an real evidence! I think that everything but accepting the fact that Karev was Macedonian,and fought for free Macedonia is just harsh for Macedonian people,and of course inaccurate.Another link about ethnical feelings of Nikola Karev : http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2000/sonce318/Tekst14.htm.And please change the claiming of top of the page about ethnicity of Nikola Karev.It is more than true that he was Macedoninan revolutionary. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.231.128 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity and self-consciousness

Laveol, I see it's sourced, but there's another source where he states that he's not a Bulgarian. I'm trying to find a neutral solution, please don't make it harder. We cannot say for sure that he considered himself a Bulgarian, especially not since we know the fact that he was the president of the Republic. The sources that prove his Bulgarian self-determination are just as weak as the ones that prove his Macedonian self-determination. iNkubusse? 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I said, please see the talk page, but nobody answered. You just revert the article, and you do it very well planed, so that only I receive a 3RR breaking notice. 2 rv's by Laveol, 2 by ForeignerFromTheEast, and 2 by Decx. I have no other choice but to use the talk page, but still, nothing. You're making troubles about a goddamn category, for Pete's sake! iNkubusse? 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop insinuating. It is not just the category. The person is considered an ethnic Macedonian only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted you only once. The fact is sourced with a Western secondary source. I have not reverted you on articles where the ethnicity is not sourced, but you're not even remotely right here. --Laveol T 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
He's not. That's not true. Even if it was, he is still considered Macedonian by a whole state and a set of historians.
I'm sorry Laveol, you're right, it was only once. But either way, he gave an interview for that Greek newspaper where he states that he is not Bulgarian, and tell me what's more reliable, an interview from himself or a Western author? But we shouldn't even discuss about this, he is considered an ethnic Macedonian too and the category is relevant. I really, really can't see why you mind the category. iNkubusse? 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The interview is not from a reliable source. Provide a reliable publication, not some latin-alphabet poor rendition. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually i don't mind the category - I reverted you, cause you changed the article against the source given. As you see I have made no reverts on the other articles in discussion. --Laveol T 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry again then :) But what about the interview? iNkubusse? 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked the source [[1]] no where does it state that Karev stated that he is a Bulgarian. Ireland101 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The interview with Nikola Karev

Two articles from a Macedonian newspaper "Utrinski vesnik", published on 22. 07. 2000, archive number 329.

1.

По откривањето на интервјуто на Никола Карев за "Акрополис" во 1903


Одважноста на претседателот на Крушевската Република


Грчкиот новинар разговарал токму со Никола, најпознатиот борец за Македонија од семејството Кареви - сето вклучно во Движењето


Интервјуто на Никола Карев за грчкиот весник Акрополис, објавено на 8 мај 1903 година, е првото, досега познато интервју на член на најтесното раководство на ВМРО пред Илинденското востание. Тоа го предизвикува љубопиството на современите читатели и поради погледите на Карев за борбата на Македонците за ослободување и поради односот на Грците кон Востанието и кон Македонија и Македонците.

Овој исклучителен, слободно ќе може да се нарече, историски документ го откри и го преведе на македонски јазик г-ѓа Елефтерија Вамбаковска, вработена во Институт за национална историја. При вчерашната средба со г-ѓа Вамбаковска во редакцијата на "Утрински весник" најнапред не интересираше начинот на кој таа дошла до интервјуто.


- Пред извесно време од соседна Грција добивме неколку мошне интересни историографски изданија. Меѓу нив е и делото со наслов Та тетрадја ту Илинден, (Атина 2000) подготвена за печат и публикувана од Георгиос Пецивас што претставува еден вид независно издание и претпоставува заобиколување на силно присутната селекција, па и цензура (да ја наречеме), на официјалната грчка историографија. Книгата е поделена на два дела. Во првиот дел е поместен дневникот на првиот секретар на грчкиот конзулат во Битола Јон Драгумис, а во вториот дел Г.Пецивас има поместено цела збирка разни документи кои се однесуваат на Илинденскиот период.

Авторот на "тетратките" Ј. Драгумис е познат националистички борец за голема Грција. Во Битола дошол 1902 година и меѓу првите започнал да организира борба против Внатрешната организација, која, ете, успеала да ги привлече во своите редови речиси сите македонски патријаршисти, со што ги загрозувала грчките "интереси" во Македонија.

Прелистувајќи ја книгата, особено делот Прилози, бев пријатно изненадена кога на стр.553 (документот бр.21) пред мене се појави наслов "Интервју со член на Комитетот". Со љубопитност го барам името на членот на Комитетот, но и на новинарот.

Новинарот, чиј идентитет на крајот е означен со иницијали, ни ја открива личноста со која се сретнал, со следниот краток осврт: Во Битола ја имав среќата и честа да се запознаам со еден бугаризиран Македонец - учител, член на Комитетот кој се вика Карев. Со овој човек случајно се запознав во хот. "Монастирион", односно "Отел Монастир", како што го викаат во Битола. Карев се држеше многу резервирано кон мене се до оној момент кога "Гркот од Крушево, по име Папагудас" не ми го претстави. Потоа се ослободи и откако погледа лево-десно ми призна дека бил "бугарофрон" и член на Комитетот.


Дали елементите што ги дава грчкиот новинар биле доволни за да се тврди со сигурност дека станува збор за Никола Карев?


Уште на почетокот пред мене се поставија повеќе прашања и дилеми: прво, се споменува презимето, но не и името, а Кареви имало повеќе и сите биле во Движението. Но, меѓу нив само еден бил учител и раководител од повисок ранг, тоа бил Никола. Значи, нема сомневање дека тој е Никола Карев.

Второ, и можеби најважно: можно ли било во тие тешки години на конспирација, особено во времето пред Илинден кога во Македонија особено во Битолскиот округ, имало чести и жестоки судири меѓу четите и аскерот (период на т.н. непрокламирано востание) а будноста на турските власти била подигната на многу високо ниво, повторувам, можно ли било во едно такво време, во битолски хотел без разлика што бил сопственост на еден крушевски Влав, Карев да се открие пред еден Грк (и не само пред него), а се знаело дека Грците соработувале со турската власт во борбата против македонското движење?

Трето, на документот стои "Атина четврток 8 мај". По се изгледа тогаш било објавено интервјуто. Кога се водел разговорот не се знае, но сигурно тоа морало да биде неколку дена пред 8 мај, по солунските атентати. Карев само што беше минал во илегала по враќањето од Смилевскиот конгрес.

Четврто, познато е дека раководителите на Македонската организација не контактирале со новинари во земјата и надвор од неа. Исклучок е интервјуто на Јане Сандански и, веројатно, на Д.Груев дадени во друго време и поинакви услови. Дали интервјуто на Н.Карев е единствено дадено од еден раководител на Организацијата пред Илинденското востание, останува допрва да се потврди.


Како ја коментирате содржината на интервјуто. Што значи терминот бугарофрон?


Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"!


Самиот новинар го прогласува Карев за Македонец, но бугаризиран, а го започнува интервјуто со прашањето што е (по националност)? Се гледа дека за него поважно било етничкото потекло - дали бил Македонец, што за Грците било синоним за Грк. Инаку, тоа "по убедување" за нив не било важно - убедувањето се стекнувало и било менливо.


Бугарофрон, во буквален превод би значело - човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари. Денес Грците имаат сличен термин - етникрофрон кој има слично значење, имено - човек што мисли на својата нација, односно Грк кој мисли на Грција. Денес Македонците во Егејска Македонија своите сонародници кои се погрчиле ги нарекуваат - етникофрони.

За нив во 50-те и 60-те години се издаваа и посебни уверенија дека се етникофрони, а заедно со нив се издаваа и уверенија за подобност, наречени - пистопиитикон киноникон фрониматон кои беа потребни дури и за полагање на приемните испити на факултетите.

Како го објаснувањето поврзувањето на територијата Македонија со етничкиот карактер на населението кое живее во неа?

Новинарот, и не само тој, Македонија ја смета за грчка територија и оттука и луѓето кои тука живеат, според нив, мора да се Грци, потомци на Александар Македонски. Затоа и тој толку настојчиво се обидува да го убеди Карев дека Грк. А, ако не е Грк тогаш е "бугарофрон", "бугаризиран Македонец" и тн. Инаку, лесно се воочува дека интервјуто во е "малку дотерано", приспособено за грчките читатели во 1903 година.


2.

Разговорот на грчкиот новинар со Никола Карев


Јас сум Македонец!


Комитетот не е бугарски. И Грција да сакаше да ни помогне ќе ја прифатевме со целото срце


- Македонец ли си? Го прашувам.

- Да.

- И следователно Грк.

- За ова не знам, ми одговори, јас сум Македонец.

- Директен наследник на Александар Велики? Му велам иронично.

- Да.

- И Александар Македонски што беше, ве молам?

- Не знам, но историјата вели дека бил Грк.

- Тогаш и ти, како негов наследник, си Грк.

- Не, ми одговори.

- Значи, тогаш го прашувам пак, зошто кога веќе сте Грк сакате да се ослободите преку (со помош) на Бугарија?

- Која Бугарија, мислиш на Комитетот?

- Да.

- Ти одговарам дека Комитетот не е бугарски и, второ, изгледа дека сме наклонети кон Бугарија затоа што само таа се покажува расположена да ни помогне. И Грција, ако го правеше истото, ќе ја прифатевме со целото наше срце.

- Бугарската заштита ја гледате само површински, Бугарија не сака да ве ослободи од турското ропство, туку да ве (потчини) пороби.

- Хм! Ако Бугарија мисли да не претвори во нејзина провинција си направила лоша пресметка. Инаку, нас не не интересира што мисли Бугарија туку обрнуваме внимание само на следново: ВСи ја постигнуваме ли целта'? Си ја добиваме ли нашата слобода? Не не интересира дали ќе не ослободи Грција или Бугарија. Единствено што може да добие секоја една од нив е само наша благодарност.

- Добро, ако се ослободите, што сакате да бидете, автономија?

- Да, како што е во Швајцарија, во која три различни племиња живеат во крајна хармонија и љубов.

- Да, но, знаете дека на таков начин вршите услуга на интересите на Панславистичката Етерија, чиј огранок е и Комитетот?

- Каква услуга вршиме?

- Како што се изјасни погоре Македонија е грчка земја, а ако секоја грчка земја бара да биде автономна тогаш доаѓа до ослабнување на Грција, а тоа го бара Панславистичката Етерија.

- Зошто го бара?

- За еден ден да не пороби и нас и вас и затоа сака да не најде слаби за да го постигне тоа полесно.

Карев за момент изгледаше замислен. Јас побрзав да го прекинам молчењето.

- Зошто не сакате да се обедините со Грција?

- Затоа што ако не земе Мора (Грција) ќе стане една голема држава и следователно монархија. Во таков случај ќе произлезат многу зла - прво монархијата и тоа што произлегува од неа, а второ, Грција ќе не натера да војуваме со Бугарија нешто што (ние) не го сакаме.

- Вие што сакате?

Ми ја покажа капата:

- Сакаме република.

- Демократија и пријателство со Бугарија?

- Не само со Бугарија, туку со секој што ќе ни помогне да се ослободиме.

- Со Бугарија сакате да се обедините?

- Не!. Не!.

- И ова ви го проповеда (учи) Комитетот?

- Да.

- Тогаш овој Комитет кој толку многу се грижи за вашата независност зошто не бара заштита од Грција која има повеќе должности да ве ослободи, туку клоните кон варварите?

- Да ви одговорам веднаш. Ние личиме на човек кој паднал во морето и се наоѓа во опасност, секој момент да се удави. Е, не ми велите, ве молам, овој човек за да се спаси ќе се фати ли за се што ќе најде во тој момент пред себе, дури и за змија? Во таква положба сме ние, дури и Турчин да ни пружи рака за спас ќе ја грабниме со благодарност.

- Но, грчките првенци, свештеници и учители зошто ги убивате кога немате ништо посебно против никој?

- Ова се лаги. Комитетот не убива само Грци, туку и Бугари и Срби и Турци и секого кој предава.

- Ова се изговори за гревовите, уништивте многу грчки патриоти затоа што не даваа пари за вашиот Комитет.

- Овие работи ги измислувате вие Грците како и другите.

- Кои други?

- Ете, тие во Солун, поставивте вие луѓе да го направат тоа што го направија за да го оцрните Комитетот (станува збор за Солунските атентати, б.м.).

Не можев да се воздржам и страшно се насмеав што предизвика љубопитност кај сопственикот Таску Квата, кој ми се приближи.

- Што ти вели? Ме праша.

- Тоа и тоа.

- Хм! Ама како ќе се види дека е Бугарин дебелоглавец, ако не беше Бугарин не ќе кажуваше такви зборови, особено сега кога и ѕидовите имаат уши.

- Да, да ова што ви го велам јас повтори Карев - едно дрво кое ја проби земјата и изникна, зошто да не го вадат сите за да порасне?

- Да.

- Да, но знаете со што го вади Бугарија. Со отров на омраза кон грцизмот.

- Како и да е ова вадење (полевање), не освежува и не натера да ги завртиме гранките кон онаа страна кон која, признаваме дека ништо не не поврзува и да бегаме од вас со кои немаме иста крв и иста историја; ова е на некој начин протест против грчкото интересирање (за нас).

- Ова што го велиш е резултат на бугарското вадење, зашто Грција никогаш не престанала да ве поддржува и со писменоста и со оружје.

И пак Карев не ми одговори.

- И сега, по последните настани што мислите да правите? - Го прашав. (се мисли на т.н. Горноџумајско востание од есента 1902 б.м.)

- Ништо друго освен да ја продолжиме борбата.

- Да, но зар не знаете дека зад таа борба се крие борба подла и нечесна?

- Тоа нас не не интересира, доволно е да си ја постигнеме нашата цел.

- Значи и со убиства?

- Штом се вршат за доброто на еден народ.

- Имате право какви учители имавте такви лекции научивте...

Карев пак не ми одговори, само стана и полека тргна кон неговата соба, додека зад него сите гости на хотелот на разни начини ги коментираа неговите зборови.

С. Т. Стам.

(Акрополис, бр.7608, Библиотека - Стар Парламент)


Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this to do with the article. The mere fact that it has mentioning of the whole naming controversy between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia a lot of years before it started says enough. --Laveol T 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Three things at least. First, Karev defined himself in front of the Greek journalist who questioned him as "Бугарофрон", which means "човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари." Second, the word "Macedonian" was used by both of them, the Greek journalist and Karev, in regional meaning only: "Македонец ли си? Го прашувам. / Да. / И следователно Грк." Third, the contemporary Macedonian researcher г-ѓа Елефтерија Вамбаковска, who works in the Macedonian Institute for National History, defines the terms used by the Greek journalist about Karev as controversial (from contemporary ethnic Macedonian point of view) because Karev isn't represented as ethnic Macedonian. - GriefForTheSouth 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't see it that way. I thought it was some reference to a problem not-existing at the time. Besides from being from a nationalistic paper. --Laveol T 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact the historical interview from 1903 contains two different concepts concerning the meaning of the term "Macedonian". Karev's point of view: he is "Macedonian" and "Bugarofron" (according to E. Vambakovska this word means "person who thinks in Bulgarian way, who thinks as all other Bulgarians think") at the same time. The Greek journalist's point of view: "Karev is Macedonian, therefore he is Greek". The ethnic Macedonian concept is absent. - GriefForTheSouth 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And just what is your proof that Macedonian is used in reagional meaning only? iNkubusse? 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats the point, you have to show it is or it isnt. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't. iNkubusse? 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And how are you showing it? All it says is that the inhabitants of the region of Macedonia are not all Greeks, whatever other ethnicity they might be. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, he said "(Are you a Macedonian?) Yes. - (and consequently Greek?) No. ", that doesn't have to mean regionally. For example, if you ask me if I'm a Macedonian, I'd tell you "yes, and not Greek" (and I wouldn't mean it regionally). The Greek interviewer asked him if he was an ethnic Macedonian (and because, according to the Greeks, Macedonians are part of the Greek nation, also a Greek). Why on earth would the interviewer ask an inhabitant of Macedonia if he was a Macedonian in regional sense? By the way, Karev also said that the committee wasn't Bulgarian - was it Greek maybe? iNkubusse? 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Totally wrong. The Greek interviewer interpreted "Macedonian" in the regional sense, as historically (Ancient) Macedonians have been equivalent with Greeks. And Karev basically responds he is not Greek. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see as an outsider unless there was a prefix infront of Macedonian (greek-macedonian, bulgarian-macedonian, albanian-macedonian ect..) we must take it as writen and not assume what else it could have meant. If the Greek jurnalist asked him if he was Macedonian or Greek and he said Macedonian that means ethnic Macedonian. Ireland101 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Too strong of an assertion with too little of historical basis. "we must take it as writen and not assume what else it could have meant" - Macedonian can mean a whole bunch of things, refer to this disambiguation page. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% Foreigner Macedonian can mean many things such as greek-macedonian, albanian-macedonian, bulgarian-macedonian or Macedonian. So unless it states Greek-Macedonian we should not assume this as it may mean something else. We need to read it as written which is Macedonian. Macedonian is what ethnic Macedonians refered to themselves back then and today, for example there is no record of ethnic Macedonians such as Chupovski or Cento refering to themselves as "ethnic Macedonians" they just referred to themselves as "Macedonian" simmularly as to how ethnic Germans refer to themselves as "German" and how ethnic French refer to themselves as "French".Ireland101 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, totally wrong. Macedonian can mean various things, as seen by the disambiguation page. It can be used by anyone (including by ethnic Macedonians and others) to describe a person from the region of Macedonia. German and French analogy does not hold because unlike Macedonian those terms are not regionally defined. I fail to see how Cento or Chupovski are relevant to Karev. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys trying to say that you know what the interviewer and Karev really meant? You're right, Foreigner, we mustn't assume, but he didn't say he was Bulgarian, did he? Karev simply said "Macedonian", and he said that he didn't know whether the Macedonians were Greeks, but that he was Macedonian, and that he was a direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians! And you still say that he meant it regionally? A direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians - regionally? =)) We really shouldn't tell what he meant, but one thing is certain: he said he was Macedonian, a direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians! (Edit conflict sucks.. Twice!) iNkubusse? 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're shifting the problem to what the Ancient Macedonians are. Are they Slav or Greeks? Either way the point is you cannot use this interview to prove anything about his ethnicity other than it is not Greek. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand Macedonians are not Slavs but rather an ethnic group.Ireland101 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If you mean ethnic Macedonians, they are of the South Slavic family, so yes. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
All of the Macedonians that I have ever spoken to tell me that they are Macedonian and just that they never mention Slavs. They do however say that they are the people of Alexander the Great.Ireland101 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Foreigner, you're shifting my point to something else. We don't care what the Ancient Macedonians were, but we do care about how Karev felt about the Ancient Macedonians. He wasn't really into history and he had no idea what the Ancient Macedonians were, but he sure thought of himslef as an ethnic Macedonian, a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians. My point is that he didn't consider him an ethnic Bulgarian, but an ethnic Macedonian (again, a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians!); and that he didn't mean it regionally, since he mentions the Ancient Macedonians (which is, of course, a term that describes ethnicity). iNkubusse? 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A bit off-topic, I don't know for sure whether we are Slavs or Greeks or Ancient Macedonians, or if the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs or the Martians invaded Saturn, but I know for sure that I speak a Slavic language and that it's racist to speak of a pure Slavic nation (as the Greeks refer to Macedonians). iNkubusse? 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even going to touch this one. The bottom line, vague interpretations, in the lack of any other evidence cannot support a claim that the person is ethnic Macedonian. You can twist it all you want, who meant what, who felt which way about whatever. Its a waste of time. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Foreigner, here's the bottom line:
1° You can't set bottom lines whenever you want;
2° Vague interpretations are ALL the articles about the Macedonian/Bulgarian revolutionaries from the Ilinden period;
3° The terms Bulgarian and Macedonian can both be interpreted in various ways: Bulgarian could mean an Orthodox Slav in those days and Macedonian could be used regionally - but still, you only take the latter term as such, only because you it suits your views;
4° The article still says that he was a Bulgarian revolutionary, based on the name of the organisation (?!).
This is really not right. iNkubusse? 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going by the facts. You're going by interpretations. Read the statute of BMARC at IMRO. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're interpreting the facts just like you want. I have read the statues, what should I do next? Karev simply states that he's a Macedonian, and he doesn't mean it regionally, that's a fact. And here's your interpretation: he meant it regionally. As Ireland said before, do we always have to say ethnic German, ethnic French in order to be precise? Besides, what about the letter from Karev to Delchev? iNkubusse? 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You are basically arguing in circles. This discussion is over for me. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then. iNkubusse? 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the interview

We seem to have focused too much on the first few lines of the dialog. As GriefForTheSouth says, he Karev describes himself as "Bugarofon", a person who things like a Bulgarian, like every other Bulgarian. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that he doesn't give a description of the term 'bugarofron', it's interpreted later. iNkubusse? 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by a Macedonian scholar. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And since when do you take Macedonian scholars as normal people? I thought they were all delirious. iNkubusse? 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The more I read your disputes the more trivial this whole thing seems to me. He said Bugarofon not Bulgarian therefore he did not say he is BulgarianIreland101 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Inkubusse, so do you agree or disagree with the assessment of the Macedonian Scholar? ForeignerFromTheEast 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends on which one, but my opinion really doesn't matter. iNkubusse? 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Elefteria Bambakovska. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter

Letter from Nikola Karev to Goce Delčev:

1902

Dear G(oce)

... In Kruševo and Bitola the night blockades appear almost every day, and a lot of affairs throw people in jail. We shouldn't wait anymore, Goce. It is time for us to stand up and fight. We shouldn't wait for freedom from Greeks, neither from Bulgarians, but we Macedonians should fight for our Macedonia, ... As I am concerned, nobody can take away my courage and my patriotism. I am proud to report to you, that all our men are prepared to fight, with guns in their hands.

N(ikola)

“Сами ние да се бориме за наша Македонија”, (Необјавено писмо на Никола Карев до Гоце Делчев) – Nova Makedonija (Skopje) year XXIV no. 7744 (5 May 1968) p. 8.
Ok so this letter has some sort of a source - could you, please, specify if this is some sort of a nationalist newspaper or something? It needs heavy sourcing. --Laveol T 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^  Letter from Karev to Delchev, "Сами ние да се бориме за наша Македонија", Нова Македонија (Skopje) year XXIV no. 7744 (5 May 1968) p. 8.
Here is the note for the letter. --Laveol T 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Macedonian"

Mr.Karev has referred to himself as "Macedonian" in a number of articles that I have seen here. He has never referred to himself as a "revolutionary from Macedonia". Weather some of you think Macedonian meant Bulgarian or Albanian or French or Dutch is irrelevant. What is important is his act of self determination and that is what should be respected in the article. Ireland101 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I do not care which of the old editors you are, just try to ease a little bit. Start by looking at what I proposed at Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board and, please, try to really discuss and work with the others. --Laveol T 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Laveol I am having trouble understanding you. You are the one that who has been deleting all of my changes and has been posting defamatory remarks on my user page. I have consistently been posting on talk pages and have tried to work things out. Unlike yourself I do not have enough time to watch this site twenty four hours a day so I think you are the one that should "ease" a little. I have also had enough of you attacking me and claiming that I am some "old editor". I propose that we have the head Wikipedia office verify weather this is true or not. If this is true I get banned, if it is not you get banned. I think this is only fair as you seem sure that this is the case and spare no effort to defame my reputation every chance you have. I have seen your notice board and it can be usefull in cases where there is no declaration of self determination. This is not the case in this article as he clearly states he is "Macedonian"Ireland101 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I've said something wrong or accused you of something that you have not done. It strikes me though that nooone that is innocent for something would say if asked something (not related to the subject) that he has never done this and that and that he is completely innocent for things he has not been accused for yet. --Laveol T 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What is one supposed to say if they are falsely accused of something? Are they supposed to agree or disagree? Ireland101 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is you weren't accused of anything. --Laveol T 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This[[2]] is not an accusation? Ireland101 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...Новинарот, чиј идентитет на крајот е означен со иницијали, ни ја открива личноста со која се сретнал, со следниот краток осврт: Во Битола ја имав среќата и честа да се запознаам со еден бугаризиран Македонец - учител, член на Комитетот кој се вика Карев. Со овој човек случајно се запознав во хот. "Монастирион", односно "Отел Монастир", како што го викаат во Битола. Карев се држеше многу резервирано кон мене се до оној момент кога "Гркот од Крушево, по име Папагудас" не ми го претстави. Потоа се ослободи и откако погледа лево-десно ми призна дека бил "бугарофрон" и член на Комитетот...Jingby 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please translate that into English for transparency. Ireland101 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Како ја коментирате содржината на интервјуто. Што значи терминот бугарофрон?

Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"! Jingby 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop writing in an unknown language as this is an English website and we cannot understand what you are saying. The fact that you continue to do this leads to the assumption that you might be conspiring in secret so that no one can understand you.Ireland101 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Please do not make unnecessary changes when direct article names exist. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the well-known talk page for the Ilinden Uprising aticle. They're two separate uprisings, merged into one article, I believe so. iNkubusse? 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)