What I learned from all of this...

After doing lots of research on both sides of the issue, I have come to the feeling that I have some sympathy for FYROM. While I don't exactly agree with what they are doing still, I think I finally got around to understanding where they are coming from for wanting to be Macedonian. As I thought about it, I began to think how it might feel to not have an identity to relate to. Keeping that feeling in mind, I began to understand why the mixed people  within FYROM might try to cling onto something. Macedonian isn't reflective of their race as a people, but it is reflective somewhat of the region that they are within. By that context I can understand their actions and see some justification for it. What I don't agree with still and find completely moronic is the fight over the history. While they are a mixed people they are Slavic; this means that there is no way they can be Macedonian as a racial group and with that there is no way they can claim Macedonian history. I fear that if they keep up the twisting of facts when it comes to their identity, one day Greece may lose that aspect of their history.

Through all this research that I have been doing I have grown to understand their side a bit, and accept it. Greece wants FYROM to name itself some different entirely, but if that can't be reached then at least name themselves northern Macedonia. The northern Macedonian bit would allow them to recognize themselves as a part of greater Macedonia which is fine, but not take the core history away from Greece. Earlier I was completely opposed to this, but after researching some I feel sympathy and can agree with it.

In addition, I managed to stumble upon these maps that show the Balkans before FYROM and once FYROM was created. I thought they were pretty interesting to see for visual purposes.

 You can see how the sudden emergence of a Macedonia would bother Greece whose northern territory is called Macedonia already.

Skopians

I was thinking about using the term Skopian in my paper to describe the FYROM Macedonians. The term Skopian comes from the capital of FYROM Skopje. There are those around the world, in particular Greeks, who refer to those living in FYROM as Skopians rather than Macedonians for obvious reasons. After thinking this out, I decided not to go with using that term as it is biased against those who live in FYROM. It would have been nice to use though because it creates an easier to understand distinction between Greek Macedonians and FYROM Macedonians. After doing more research on the term, I found it was a term more of slander rather than something to distinct. It was a good think that I didn't. As some examples;

"Skopian: a native of Skopia. 
It is the true and rightful name for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", it's inhabitants are Slavs with a Bulgarian Dialect, Tito brainwashed them into thinking they were Macedonians." -urban dictionary

Even though it is Urban Dictionary, this is just one example of the slang behind using the term Skopian. Google images tend to show more colorful pictures about Skopians unfortunately. The point to all this is I never knew the level of slang behind this term. I always have seen it as a word marking distinction between the two opposing sides. Nevertheless, its still good to point out the term for others in case of future reference.

Map of FYROM showing Skopje, Greece included south for relative location

Direction of my Paper

Earlier this week I had begun my paper and have written the first five and a half pages. When I came back to my paper last night and re-read it, I had gained some inspiration to the point where now I like my last two pages or so a lot. I feel like with the entire product I have avoided a bias through the use of positive words. This paper definitely goes against what I originally came into writing this thinking. While I am not sure if this was a smart tactic or not, I feel like I avoided bias over the course of the last two days by bringing up each side of the argument and then pointing out a flaw or two to each. This seemed to keep the paper balanced because neither side had an apparent edge over another.

In addition, I feel good about my paper because of my choice in presented information. Rather then going into an extensive history lesson for each side, I showed the rhetorical tactics of each side and gave a brief example of information they would use to support their given tactic. This doesn't mean that I avoided each sides argument, but I tried to stray away from using their line of rhetoric because it was flawed. This was shown through brining up the third side of the argument. Overall I like the way my paper is turning out on its final edits. I feel accomplished because I didn't slander one side over another.

Small Rhetoric at hand?

I was on youtube looking for what sort of popular reactions there are to the Macedonian controversy and I couldnt help but stumble upon some strong nationalistic videos. Rhetoric at play? I think so...

FYROM Macedonians protesting against Greece in 2008

Greek Macedonians protesting in Melbourne, Australia against FYROM in 2007

I am interested to see how these two sides will react to future resolutions. I know talk about FYROM joining the EU is coming up again; I wonder how those will turn out.

Reoccurring story in the news...

Today when I was about to get started on my research paper, I became distracted and of course logged onto Facebook first. While there, I stumbled across a story through a page I am subscribed to about the Macedonian issue.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hHwdATCnuOr-rLsAEiYO-3oxSM_w?docId=6350311

After reading the article, it discussed the story I mentioned earlier. The country of F.Y.R.O.M is taking Greece to U.N. courts because of Greece's veto of FYROM into NATO. The previous story discussed the Macedonian side of the issue and this one brought in the newly released Greek side of the issue. One aspect of the article I found to be very interesting was the tid-bit about land takeover with time. One portion of the article states, "[The name Macedonia for FYROM] implies that at some point of the future they will have to be attached to that country". This quote and the concept behind it is interesting. It is a dynamic of the argument that I have not yet seen. Prior to this article, all the information about the land argument was simply, 'the name Macedonia implies land claims'; nothing has ever went into detail about it really. Overall this article was interesting and now I might try to find some scholarly work to back up the statements here for incorporation into my paper.

Today's Research

Today I began to formally create an outline for my controversy paper. As I began to write each paragraph in what will be consequential order, I began to match my current sources with each paragraph. I would ask myself, "which source should be used to address the topic of this paragraph"? As I was doing this, I began to refine my sources and eventually learned that some of the sources I have gotten previously aren't necessarily good for the paragraphs I had in mind. This fact caused me to look online some more for new sources and about after an hour of researching I stumbled upon a book which was absolutely fascinating!

This book that I found had been written solely to address the controversy that I was looking into. Originally when I was researching, I was looking up texts that contained ancient text used in current arguments to support the modern scholars arguments that I could have also used. My problem though was, without the ancient text, the scholar themselves would be basing their words off of mere opinion. This led me into looking at the works cited pages of these scholars and I found numerous scholarly works that they had indirectly cited. Looking into these, I found massive amounts of knowledge that I have not known before. Now I am thinking of getting rid of most my old sources and replacing them with newer ones I found tonight. Nevertheless I now must rethink how I was to structure my paper.

Controversy in the News

I was doing some research just right now and oddly enough I stumbled on a story in the news pertaining to my controversy. While the issue is just about 20 years old, it is still alive in the global spotlight as seen by this 7 hour old article.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ghf7xZQvptuaxWGqM2ZNuhvsxi7Q?docId=6316544

The article is basically talking about how F.Y.R.O.M is taking Greece to international court over Greece's decision to block F.Y.R.O.M from joining NATO. Greece blocked their entry because of the remaining dispute over the Macedonian name. Until the issue is solved, Greece will also block F.Y.R.O.M's entry into the European Union.

Nevertheless, F.Y.R.O.M argues that the name dispute is being handled by the UN and that using that as a basis for vetoing NATO membership was not proper (in simple terms). Greece will release a counter argument Tuesday which should prove interesting and add to the swath of information on the controversy. While this story is not directly related to the immediate controversy (has to do with NATO), it still provides some good insight.

 

Change of Topic

After doing some extensive research on the destruction of ancient sites in Turkey, I have learned that this topic will not be possible. Many of the sources on the issue are popular and anything that is remotely academic is well off topic and/or very outdated. Because of this inconvenience I have chose to switch my topic to something that I know I will be able to find lots of research on and that is the controversy about Alexander the Great and Macedonia.

Since the 1990's, with the collapse of Yugoslavia, many new countries within the Balkans had formed. One of these countries is what is now known as the Republic of Macedonia, or more properly, the Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. Located right above historic Macedonia within Greece the similar names created dispute.

Looking at this map, the green marks Macedonia as a region in Greece. Right above that is F.Y.R.O.M which claims the same name. Greece see's this as a claim on their territory and without getting into too much detail the two countries are still in dispute. To add injury to insult, F.Y.R.O.M is also claiming that Alexander the Great (King of ancient Macedonia) is their main historical figure whereas Greece refutes this through historical proofs. The issue over Macedonia is two pronged; one over land/name and the other half over history/Alexander the Great ownership.

Research Dilemma

Byzantine Hagia Sophia

Earlier when I was researching for my potential controversy topic I stumbled into some road blocks. Thinking that there would be lots of information on my potential subject, I soon learned that there was not much of anything. What I thought would be good key terms such as "Turkey and Archeological decay", "Turkey and UNESCO danger list", and even "Denigration of antiquities in Turkey" ended up showing things that did not relate at all to my subject. I tried to be even more specific by searching specific places/things such as Allianoi, Hagia Sophia, or even the walls of Constantinople, but none of those turned up any results. The closest thing I have gotten to related information is archeological accounts but unfortunately those are not good enough. I will continue to search for academic sources but if nothing remotely close shows up, I might have to change my subject to something else such as the controversy of Alexander the Great.

Allianoi

Walls of Constantinople (Near Belgrade Gate)

Research Proposal

Research Proposal

For my potential controversy paper, I would like to look into an issue pertaining to the classics community. The classics community is a community of scholars, students, and other interested individuals who study art, literature, history, philosophy, government, politics, and much more from ancient cultures; particularly Greece and Rome. The reason that I am a part of this particular community is because I am currently a classics major student and prior to being on I was an interested individual in the classics. Both as a classics major student and an interested individual, I have done a great deal of research on ancient history and more significantly have traveled across seas several times to visit old sites pertaining to things I have done personal research on. The matter surrounding the visiting of old sites brings me to the issue that has been, and still is facing the classics community.

Currently around the entire old world, but in this particular case Turkey, many ancient Greek and Roman sites are being neglected/ damaged. This neglect/damage is happening for a wide variety of reasons. In the case of Turkey though, they argue that this process is occurring because they lack funds necessary to upkeep many of the old sites which is why they are being left in neglect. While this would appear understandable, many political/economic based parties within Turkey are pushing to destroy some of these sites in order to provide economic stimulus which is much needed for them in certain regions. This currently can be seen in certain places such as the Roman city of Allianoi which is being buried by sand in order to build a dam/floodplain over it to provide a boost in the agricultural economy there. In addition, those who support the degradation of the historical sites within Turkey cite cultural/ethnic reasons for letting them fall apart.

On the flip side of the coin, those who protest the neglect/damage of Ancient sites within Turkey are the members of the classics community. They argue that the neglect/damage of the ancient sites is purely wrong and that they must be preserved for educational purposes worldwide. Damaging the sites is something that is irreversible in most cases (such as the damn project near Allianoi). If Turkey were to preserve the sites, they could generate money from revenue which in turn would help maintain the sites.

Overall there is more to each side then that, but for the most part that is the general grasp of each opposing side. Nevertheless I propose my line of inquiry which is as follows; “Is it right for Turkey to neglect/damage these sites when taking their economic/political situation in consideration”?