MISREPRESENTATION

THE FIRST AUSTRALIAN MACEDONIAN CHURCH

---

On page 213 of his text The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995) Loring M Danforth, Professor of Anthropology at Bates College (USA), writes the following:

In 1950 a group of immigrants from Florina, who identified themselves as Macedonians and who opposed communism, founded a "Macedonian Church of Saints Cyril and Methodius" in affiliation with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church of North and South America and Australia, which at that time was independent of the Holy Synod in Bulgaria.

In this critique we will show that the preceding statement and many others, underly a systematic approach by Danforth, whereby the real facts are misrepresented or simply ignored whenever they contradict his preconceived notions of "national identity".

First, rather than identifying the "Macedonians" concerned as Christians, whose only goal was to have their own Church, Danforth tries to imply that their motives were part of some anti-communist conspiracy. However Danforth neglects to disclose that these same people on no fewer than three separate occasions approached the then Macedonian committee for a community Church to be built and were rebuffed each time. The committee leaders, who were mainly communists (actually Stalinists) saw no value in projects which did not further internationalism. Since they, as atheists, definitely had no need of a Church, and reasoned there were ample existing Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian etc) available to their members.

Second, Danforth systematically attempts to "de-bulgarise", that is reconstruct, the nature of this Church as represented by its name, constitution and canonical hierarchy (see the true facts below, which Danforth completely disregards). At times this subterfuge becomes quite subtle. For example Danforth uses the word "affiliated" when describing the relationship between the Macedono-Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church Community "St. Kiril & Metodi" and the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church Diocese of North and South America, and Australia, whereas the constitution, duly signed and accepted on 27 Sep 1950, uses the term "an indivisible part of".

In the last paragraph on page 213, Danforth writes

Another group of immigrants from Florina, who identified themselves as Macedonians, but who supported communism, founded the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Saint George in 1959, which eventually became affiliated with the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia.

Again Danforth's simple statement disregards the important underlying facts, particularly on the issue of constructed identity, a central theme of his text.

First, can Danforth enlighten the readers why self-confessed atheists would need a Church? Communists of that era were particularly anti-religion. Was Danforth not aware of what was happening to religious institutions in the USSR? The group Danforth refers to were in fact the Macedonian Australian People's League, an organisation which worked closely with the Greek Communist Party of Australia. Examination of MAPL's publications, such as Iskra(Spark) or numerous other public documents, unequivocally shows that they identified, not as "Macedonians", but as "Slav-Macedonians". Therefore in early 1960, when a major protest was organised throughout Australia against Greek attempts to suppress the "Macedonian" language (actually the Greeks called it "Bulgarian"), all use of the word "Macedonian" was qualified by the prefix SLAV. For example the heading on a document resulting from a conference held in Adelaide on 2 Jan 1960 read

Resolution: An Appeal to the World by the Slav-Macedonians of Australia.

How can Danforth then completely disregard, how, why or even if, all these "Macedonians", who self-identified as "Slav- Macedonians" for so many years, have now become simply "Macedonians". Omission of this fact affectively invalidates Danforth's whole concept of identity "constructs" amongst Australian Macedonians. Rather than the common occurrence of siblings adopting different national identities, and effect of assimilatory processes, perhaps Danforth should have explained how a "Slav-Macedonian" becomes a "Macedonian"?

Second, Danforth does not qualify exactly what the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Saint George represented in an ecclesiastic sense. Since the Church was not part of, or recognised by any existing Orthodox diocese of the time, it is difficult to see how it could claim to be an Orthodox church, other than in name only. If we read I Chapovski, "The Macedonian Orthodox Church of St. George: a Cultural and National History" (Melb, 1992, p73) he reveals that the Church was created de novo by the following legalese

Queen Victoria had legislated that any eleven people who are citizens of the Empire, with their will and their signatures, may declare a church. Even if it does not exist, they can create it.

On any and all canonical criteria the Church was not Orthodox, and its supreme religious body was the elected Church committee, none of whom had any relevant theological experience or qualifications, other than being communists (Danforth's claim). Moreover, Danforth also fails to reveal that when the St. George Church finally "affiliated" with the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the latter was under the direct jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church. A fact deliberately withheld from Macedonian Australians, because if known the Church would have no support.

Academics, such as Danforth, have an obligation to either state the facts objectively, or openly acknowledge their bias on a particular subject. There is no justification however, for reporting incorrect or poorly researched material.