Approaching its adulthood as an independent (sic) and democratic (sic) country, Macedonia is facing another evaluation of our consciousness, which by its seriousness and paradigmatic nature will in a great degree direct the survival of this country. The topic of the ethnic genesis and the ethnic individuality is the crucible of our collective level of truthfulness, and this truthfulness, which as a trait of the basic strength of any human, institutional and any entity, will also shape the inner strength of the entity called the Republic of Macedonia.
After the cosmetic and the enforced - truly selective and with all the obstacles democratic changes in Macedonia - the great forgery about the alleged Macedonian ethical feeling that the Former Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia proclaimed the spiritual foundation of its existence, appeared on the surface. We are talking about our Revivalists and Revolutionaries: Joakim Krchovski, Kiril Pejchinovich, the brothers Miladinov, Grigor Prlichev, Rajko Zhinzifov, Jordan Hadzi-Konstantinov Dzinot, Partenij Zografski, Marko Cepenkov. Vojdan Chernodrinski. Dedo Iljo Maleshevski, Dimitar Pop Georgiev - Berovski, Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev, Nikola Karev, Jane Sandanski, Gyorche Petrov, Pere Toshev, Hristo Uzunov, Dimo Hadzi Dimov and a host of others. All of them, adding here the greatest parts the life of
Krste Petkov Misirkov, inarguably felt as Bulgarians, in their actions always looking for different models, fought for the protection of the Bulgarian spirit in Macedonia.
This is the direction of the attitudes the famous Croatian historian Ivo Banac proclaimed in the show "Vo centar" ("The bull's eye") on "Kanal 5". In the interview broadcast on 6th of December given to the journalist Vasko Eftov, he said that the existence of the Macedonian nation could be assigned to the second half of the 20th century, and the first shoots of the Macedonian ethnic identification appear in the 1920s and 1930s. Furthermore, Banac has clearly stated that the Slav Macedonians have experienced two national integrations, and for the first one he says this: "It's not secret that the Macedonian revolutionaries had always felt and declared as Bulgarians".
Ivo Banac graduated and got his MA in "Stanford" university, and now he is a lecturer at "Yale". Therefore, his attitudes have certain weight. What is quite interesting for us is that Banac, not in vain called by Eftov "the greatest scholar of the Balkan history", with respect to the ethnic genesis of the Macedonian nation claims something opposite to our official historiography.
So, what are the news, the shock, the topic and the impulse for the journalist? What is the new realization? For the part of the Macedonian public which, at least in respect of the historiography's dogmas, support the political, media and the (spread in many parties) intelligence establishment it is the claim of the international authority of the historian science Banac that those who today feel Macedonians have Bulgarian roots. Why then journalist Eftov, who is a representative of the dogmatic and inherited from communism media rule, did not openly and hardily confront Banac's statement, which is quite opposite to the theory of the ethnic individuality of the Macedonian nation, proclaimed only here, and from 1944/45 onward? Knowing that any further penetration into the subject of ethnic genesis would not suit him, Eftov, by fixating on the positive answer of Banac, instantly shifts the focus from the temporally unsuitable (for the official Yugo-Macedonism) placement of the Macedonian nation and the citing of its Bulgarian roots. And by doing that he disobeys the basic journalist rule: to follow up with cross-question the new and shocking in the statements of the guest; notwithstanding he previously was unbelievably stubborn with the questions, requiring positive reply form Banac about the existence of the Macedonian nation. In the moments around the final question about the ethnic genesis he even suggests to Banac, hoping to get a confirmation that the ethnic Macedonian consciousness appeared 100 or 150 years ago. With this constructed time framework, Eftov is not just in total opposition to Banac (and the world historiography), per se, but is also in opposition to the dervish of the Yugo-Macedonism Blazhe Ristovski, who in his interview for "Vecher" on December 3rd talks about "a nation which has been carrying the Macedonian name for centuries. Why doesn't Eftov, or some other truth-loving journalist doesn't confront the opposite views of those two established authorities, one of them around the world, and the other just from Tabanovce to Gevgelija.
At one level, Eftov switches the attention, wanting to extend the Yugo-Macedonian illusions, but at other passes the ball to the "dervish" to make him complete the filthy job instead. At the beginning of the program he ran the following statement of Ristovski:
- Our revolutionaries realized imported policies (thinking about the beginning of the 20th century - author's notice), they were not on the Macedonian national identity positions, but declared themselves Bulgarians, Greeks."
Well, apart from the shameless, psychosomatic, relativism equidistant of "Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs" - our revolutionaries had never declared themselves Greeks or Serbs - only Bulgarians - this statement of Ristovski should implant a frustration and a feeling of guilt for something that has been accepted by the international historiography long ago. According to Ristovski, Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev (although not clearly listed with their names) and their fellow fighters should be proclaimed guilty of not propagating the positions of the Macedonian national identity, in a time when, according to Banac, there was no such identity.
These accusations for those that gave their lives for the Macedonian freedom come from a person alleged to had been collaborating, under the codename "Folklorist", in the past system with the "former" National Security Service in Macedonia. This was testified in "Makedonsko Delo" magazine 10 years ago by a man who identified himself with his first and last names and claimed to have been the go-between in the interaction between the Service and "Folklorist".
The full extent of the wicked manipulations with the historical facts could be seen in one of the previous shows "Vo centar" of the journalist and host Vasko Eftov, broadcast on November 22nd. In it, during the interview of Amfilohie Radovich, the Serbian Orthodox Church's Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Coast, at one point, Eftov, with reproaching tone qualifies certain claims as identical to the ideas of Vancho Mihajlov for Macedonia as Switzerland on the Balkans, that does not have ethnic Macedonians, but part of the nations from the neighboring countries.
Eftov faithfully conveys the thesis of Vancho Mihajlov, but cowardly avoids to tell that identical views about Macedonia had also Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gyorche Petrov, Hristo Tatarchev... and we have not seen evidence that the people in their times held opposite views. One could suppose Eftov did not know about the identical ethnic feeling of Vancho Mihajlov and Goce Delchev, but in the interview with Amfilohie Radovich he inserts a statement from Ivo Banac, which means the interview with the Croatian historian was already recorded and our journalistic star was already confronted with the unbearable truth.
What kind of a man and a journalist would intentionally hide the truth and manipulate it? What kind of a country would bullyingly forbid its citizens to continue feeling Bulgarians and organize themselves on that basis; while at the same time there are cities, townships, squares, streets and institutions wit the names of a number of characters from the Macedonian past who also felt Bulgarians and with their actions negated the ethnic individuality of the Macedonian nation. It is logical to conclude that the hypocrisy within the historiography is also reflected in the politics, the economy, and the business....
Could we possibly superpose on all the internal levels (including the culture, the entertainment industry, the sport , the journalism) the Yugoslav consciousness and insist that the world should not call us the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?
It doesn't take much wit to understand that the overwhelming number of the inter-ethnical problems and the problems with our neighbors stand on the ground of the forgery of the ethnic genesis of the Macedonian nation. Is our stubbornness about the truth helpful or hindering the survival of the Macedonian state. When would we honestly give the answer?