[tied] Re: Bulgarica

> ******GK: No. I'll take your word for it. It's really
> quite beside the point, since the "Macedonian"
> proto-Bulgars were a tiny minority there.*****

You mean where? In the region of Macedonia? Not quite sure. I will
read again what the sources say and come back to you. I think I read
quite the opposite, including from some recent Macedonian studies.

> > (ET)George, I also notice that your comments on
> history
> > revolve around
> > ethnicity, sometimes connecting ethnicity,
> > self-determination and
> > language as though automatically. This is, indeed,
> > outdated and
> > unproductive.
>
> ******GK: I can't help what you "notice". But setting
> up straw men is never a productive exercise. "Bulgars"
> "Slavs" etc. are labels of convenience hiding a much
> more complex and perhaps elusive historical
> reality.******

The naming of ethnic groups are necessary in historical analysis,
unless you suggest better terminology or want to switch to
telepathy. We have to deal with the limitations of language in using
ethnicons. Yet *naming* people Slavs or Bulgars is much better than
really *labelling* them civilized or barbarian.

> *****GK: The word "confrontation" is not mine but
> Vassil's.

Yes, and it was a comment on your suggested picture of events. Wars
and confrontation. Why? Because being different suggests we should
fight. Typically 19th-20th-century Western European deformations of
thought.

But there is no way around the fact that

> they are the major groups mentioned in connection
> with internal Bulgarian developments in the last
> centuries of the first millennium AD.

The fact that they were mentioned separately says nothing on
confrontation. It speaks even less about confrontation with the
magnitude mentioned by you.

It's probably

> best to stick to the sources that we have and try to
> figure out what they mean rather than attempting to
> fit these ancient times into some very modern
> perspective.******

It is not a matter of modern perspective. It is rather getting rid
of the old political indoctrination - e.g. "nationalizing" on
ethnicities and languages. A purely Western Eurpean invention. Does
not at all apply for all peoples in history, thank God.

> *****GK: I trust the witness of our Old Ukrainian
> Chronicle (11th c.) more than the views of 20th c.
> Bulgarian scholars.

Who probably relied on more than just the Ukrainian Chronicle. If
you are interested in the project, I can make a check and send you a
list or works cited.

> "Integrated" is a neat euphemism.
> I would be interested in any substantial proof that
> the "coerced" Slavs [that's what good old "Nestor"
> said.

The Slavs were hardly coerced to take high positions of rulership and
take part in social life. Clearly documented. No euphemisms, just a
concluding comment after studying actual evidence.

> *****GK: Again it is Vassil who used the term
> "barbarians". I wondered if he also meant this of the
> Vlachs.******

Which means, the Vlachs being suggested as barbarians is still your
invention.

> >
> > The question is about the value and importance you
> > attribute to those
> > details, calling them such big names, btw. is this
> > your term applied
> > to the events?
>
> *****GK: As far as I know, if youre talking about the
> word "implosion".*****

Yes. I have never met this word in other analyses of the same
events, so I asked about the source.

>
> And again, you are drawing a weird
> > parallel between
> > Bulgarian
>
> *****GK: Bulgar or proto-Bulgar.*****

Okay, Bulgar, if this sounds better to you. In this case, the naming
is irrelevant to my comment. I disagree with your generalizations on
ethnicities. If you had said it about the Patagonians, I would have
reacted in the same way.

> ******GK:Very admirable sentiments. But latter day
> political correctness is no substitute for competence
> in source interpretation.*****

Later-day political correcteness is connected with the aggressive
attitudes of the sort: you are either like me or you disappear. No
middle way. Very wise. Oh actually, we have a new invention in this
direction: if you are not like me you SHOULD become like me (because
it is no longer legitimate to go and kill you just like that). The
same deformations I discussed above. It is impossible in western
thought to even imagine the other as being 1. different and 2. not
fighting with us.

> ******GK: See above re "confrontation". Aren't you
> being a bit anachronistic in implying that the
> "something" which survived for 1300 years is the state
> founded by Asparukh?*****

And the Slavs on the Balkan peninsula, and everyone who wanted to
take part.

> ******GK:Into what exactly? ****** (evolve)

I think finding the answer is to be left to yourself.

Eva