7 ms·
This is pay-walled, but here's a summary: The country we now call "Macedonia" (i.e. The Republic of Macedonia) was formed in 1991 after Yugoslavia broke up. Gr
by chadash 8y ago
This is pay-walled, but here's a summary:
The country we now call "Macedonia" (i.e. The Republic of Macedonia) was formed in 1991 after Yugoslavia broke up. Greece didn't like the name, because "Macedonia" was already the name of a large region in Northern Greece. This would be similar to a region of Quebec bordering the US breaking away from Canada and calling itself Maine. Some Greeks apparently felt that the Republic of Macedonia's name implied that it had territorial ambitions for parts of Northern Greece. As a compromise, the country will now be called North Macedonia.
- cautionarytale 8y agoIf a Canadian state decided to rename itself Maine, pretty sure Americans would have zero f*s to give about it. To quote Peter Griffin, "Who cares?!!".
- DrScump 8y agoOr as attributed to Al Capone: "I don't even know what street Canada is on."
- pavlov 8y agoInstead of Maine, you can find a better analogy at the opposite end of the United States. There’s a Mexican state named Baja California and a US state named simply California. Exact same thing as this Macedonia business.
- baron816 8y agoThere’s also a state north of Mexico called New Mexico.
- labster 8y agoThat state was named in the 1500s by Spanish explorers. If it was a political name at all, it was probably in reference to Aztlan and Mexican politics.
- rspeer 8y agoThere's a province of Indonesia named Papua, on the island of New Guinea, bordering the country Papua New Guinea. I have no idea what the inhabitants think about this or if anyone even cares, but it sounds quite confusing.
- pwinnski 8y agoExcept the "Baja" in this case (or its lack in the USA) is like the compromise, "North" Macedonia. The situations would be more analogous if the Mexican state were called simply "California" or the US state were called "Baja California."
- pavlov 8y agoIn both cases, the bigger and more powerful side got to keep the plain name and the other side had to settle for a geographic prefix.
- pwinnski 8y agoAs I understand it, both sides had prefixes: Baja and Alta. After the US took Alta California, they dropped that prefix. Mexico was never forced to add one.
- pavlov 8y agoThey dropped the prefix because Mexico wasn't in a position to object. I wouldn't be surprised if many expected at the time that the newly founded US state would annex Baja eventually.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoWe had that opportunity -- the guy negotiating the treaty decided San Diego was far enough.
- s_trumpet 8y agocounterpoint: the Indian state of West Bengal and the country of Bangladesh (lit. Land of the Bengali).
- DrScump 8y agoThe Baja peninsula includes two separate Mexican states: Baja California and Baja California Sur.
- forinti 8y agoI think this analogy shows that names don't really matter: military superiority does.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- na85 8y ago"Might makes right" is not a new concept.
- labster 8y agoNot really correct. The peninsula consists of two Mexican states: Baja California Sur, and Baja California Norte. The United States dropped the "Alta" from Alta California after the process of defeating Mexico. I consider us all Californians, though, despite the political boundaries.
- pavlov 8y agoMaybe the previously-Alta California should follow the Mexican example and split into separate north and south states? That would fix issues with federal political representation, at least.
- macintux 8y agoGiven its population, California (U.S.) could and arguably should split into several states. An even division into 5 states would still leave them around the size of Washington.
- labster 8y agoAs soon as anyone explains how water would be apportioned in the new system, I might consider it.
- DrScump 8y agoBaja California Norte No, just Baja California, or officially, the "Free and Sovereign State of Baja California" (Spanish: Estado Libre y Soberano de Baja California), according to its Wikipedia entry.
- dghughes 8y agoI know this is always unpopular but, how about the name America? I refer to the country south of me as "the US" or "the USA". To me as a Canadian I live in the Americas so I could be an American. Growing up nobody I knew called the US "America" you'd even hear "the Boston States", I have no clue how that originated. But I've noticed over the past decade or two it's become more common for people in the US to refer to their country as America. I know it's a shortened form but still, to me, it's weird because: Europe, Europeans Africa, Africans Asia, Asians Americas, ? (demonym for people of the entire region?) I know some people counter with it's "North America dummy!" but wouldn't that mean the USA should be the USNA?
- russellbeattie 8y agoThe terms America and Americans have been used for hundreds of years, not just the last decade or two. I've had this same conversation with Mexicans and people from South America. The U.S. was the first independent country in the Americas recognized by foreign countries and remained the only one for many years. The term American had been used by the British for years to refer to the colonies, and was adopted by the country itself. In his farewell address, George Washington said this: "The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation." More than that, this is just what citizens of the U.S. are called. New Zealanders are Kiwis and Brits are Brits and Canadians are Canadians. Every nationality has a name, this is ours. The continents shouldn't be called America anyways, as Amerigo Vespuci had little to do with its discovery or exploration, but that's the way it is. In other words, this isn't some evil American power grab, and an insult to the rest of our Western Hemisphere neighbors, but a quirk of history that won't change any time soon.
- dgut 8y agoIt's irrelevant what Washington or anybody else said. The common name for the North and South American landmasses is America (note: not Americas). The land between Canada and Mexico has no more rights to that name than the rest of the continent (or continents, depending on what model you prefer). Abroad, Hollywood has popularized the use of "American" to refer to citizens of the USA. Also, most languages don't have any other way to refer to US citizens because of its odd name. I'm only aware of Spanish "estadounidenses". It's no different than if the most powerful European country were to call themselves Europeans alone.
- justboxing 8y agoClutter-free, paywall bypass. https://outline.com/8tASn6 https://outline.com/8tASn6
- everdev 8y agoJust the name evoked fears of territorial ambitions or is there history of "North Macedonia" and "Greek Macedonia" being unified? And did Greece suggest "North Macedonia"? If I was worried about territorial ambitions, I don't think "North" would allay my fears.
- Keyframe 8y agoNot the greatest analogy, considering both the greek region and the republic were both part of ancient kingdom of Macedonia, and neither modern instance has (much of) any continuity link to ancient Macedonia. I was there last year. It's a great country to visit as a tourist. There are much political issues still at large there. With Greece, there's that dispute over who has 'the right' to Macedonia. IMO, neither. There was no Greece and there was no (republic) Macedonia back then. There's an argument about language I've heard, that is that Macedonians spoke Greek. Could be, but things change. It's not like local populace disappeared when Slavs rode in. History is complex, yo and it's in no ones interest to bicker over it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- conmarap 8y agoGreece didn't exist as a united country, but for Alexander the Great, who spent his school years in Athens, and tried to unite all Greek states into one Hellenic country, yes, the history belongs to the Greeks and not a Slavic tribe that found itself in the region 900 years later. Not to mention that they were given a written language by the Greeks of the Byzantine empire.
- Keyframe 8y agoWhat I'm saying is that I'm not convinced modern greeks are the same as those 2500 years ago. Lots of things happened, people moved, shuffled, ottoman empire was there for 500+ years, etc. In same way, I'm not convinced Macedonia vas vacated, completely void of people, and settled by slavs ezclusively.
- toasterlovin 8y agoI don’t know about Greece specifically, but the modern population of Italy are descendants of Italians from Roman times. There has been no population turnover to speak of. I would expect the situation in Greece to be similar; I’m not aware of any historical instances of wholesale genocide and migration there...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- conmarap 8y agoIt doesn't only imply territorial claims over Greece's region, but also the history of the ancient Greek Macedonia, Alexander the great and so forth, which is clearly part of the Hellenic history. Besides publishing official maps that depicted the region of Thessaloniki as a region of their country that was occupied by Greece, they also bluntly used Greek symbols, texts and even antiquities to further their propaganda. This is a far more complicated problem than simply just a naming issue.
- cafard 8y agoI have often wondered what Demosthenes would have thought of this. The Hellenes of the Philip's and Alexander's day were not fond of Macedonia, and (if I recall correctly) thought them more barbarian than not.
- miopa 8y ago(Peoples) Republic of Macedonia was formed on August 2, 1944, as federal unit in Yugoslavia, hence the provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In 1991 independence was declared, but the only real change was loss of economic integration and military protection. There was (is) a substantial ethnic (Slavic) minority in the Greek park of Macedonia that identified themselves as Macedonians, which was treated pretty terribly by the right wing Greek authorities after the Balkan Wars: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greece-apos-macedonian-slavic-heritage-054509455.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greece-apos-macedonian-slavic-heri... (My father was not allowed to visit his birthplace in the Greek part of Macedonia because his Yugoslav passport had the slavic name of the town). It is this issue that is the real reason for the dispute, not Ancient Macedonia. The serious Macedonian academic institutions (and almost all of the people that I know) don't claim that we have any cultural relation with them.
- oliwarner 8y agoI don't think your example does the region justice. A short tussle over some border land isn't what happened here. The region of "Macedonia" has been fought over for millennia and more recently carved up into Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria by the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest and then re-initialised in 1991 when Yugoslavia dissolved with Greece and Bulgaria still holding land acquired in 1913. The Republic of Macedonia really had no more claim to the name than Greece and they've both been being dicks about the whole thing for the last century. But that's Balkan politics. Pain, strife and abject suffering over stupid shit that shouldn't be a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(region) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(region)