Writing about the Balkans and Cyprus is a semantic minefield for any reporter covering this region. As journalists, we strive for neutrality. But often here, seemingly innocuous words or phrases are heavily loaded with meaning. In many cases, there are no neutral terms. This is especially true when it comes to the names of places, peoples, and nations.
These are issues that are taken extremely seriously by governments and ordinary people. They may seem like silly disputes, but often they strike at the core of peoples’ identities. It’s easy here to offend with what you say — or don’t say. And in many people’s eyes, not taking their side is no different than being overtly biased.
Here’s a brief guide to three of the biggest linguistic tangles in the neighborhood:
Is Kosovo a country?
Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February 2008, with the backing of the United States and many other Western powers. But Serbia says that declaration was illegal.
So far, 62 members of the United Nations (out of 191) have recognized Kosovo’s independence. It’s not a member of the United Nations, but it is in the IMF. Even the European Union is divided.
So is it a country? And if not, what is it? A breakaway province? A self-declared republic? And if it’s not a country, what do you call its leaders? Can you be a prime minister if you don’t have a state?
Clearly, declaring independence alone isn’t enough to make you a country. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic declared independence from Azerbaijan, but not even its patron Armenia recognizes it.
Nor is recognition by some states in and of itself enough to qualify. Nearly 50 states and the African Union recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (usually referred to as Western Sahara). But few journalists outside of Africa would refer to it as a country.
Where is Macedonia? And who are Macedonians?
The southernmost bit of the former Yugoslavia refers to itself as the Republic of Macedonia, but it has been in a long dispute with Greece over the use of the term “Macedonia.”
The northern region of Greece is called Macedonia and is home to Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia. Greeks say they are the true descendants of Alexander the Great’s ancient Macedonian empire and that their Slavic-speaking neighbors are trying to steal their heritage — and perhaps even their land.
In Greece, and in international institutions like the United Nations, the country is referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM for short. Greeks call the citizens of the country “Skopjans,” after the name of their capital, Skopje.
The government of the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM is in fact trying to lay claim to the ancient heritage of Macedonia (most independent historians would say spuriously). They’ve renamed the Skopje airport after Alexander and plan to erect a giant statue of him in the center of the city.
But moderates point out that their country has no other name for itself or its citizens. If they’re not “Macedonians,” what are they? The also say Greece has no right to interfere with what they call themselves.
A UN mediator has been trying to hammer out a compromise, which would probably include some sort of double-barreled name for the country, perhaps with a geographical qualifier.
But for now, the dispute is more than a mere linguistic squabble. It’s keeping the country out of NATO and threatens plans for European Union expansion into the region.
How to you refer to the Turkish-controlled part of the island of Cyprus?
The government of the region refers to itself as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but Greek Cypriots refer to it as Turkish-Occupied Cyprus. In Greek Cypriot media, officials from the region are often qualified with “so-called,” as in “the so-called president of Turkish-Occupied Cyprus.”
Most Western journalists have settled on term “Northern Cyprus,” which satisfies neither side. Greek Cypriots in particular dislike the term and say they are the only legitimate government on the island, which was divided by force when the Turkish army invaded in 1974. Turkish Cypriots point out that the invasion occurred in response to a coup backed by Greece’s military junta that toppled the island’s legitimate government.
Greek Cypriots often fight the use of the term “Northern Cyprus.” When the Royal Academy of Arts in the United Kingdom organized an exhibit on Byzantium last year, for example, the Greek Cypriot Byzantine Museum refused to lend any artifacts unless all pieces from the northern part of the island were labeled as coming from “Turkish-Occupied Cyprus.” In the end, museum officials there told me, they could not come to a compromise and did not participate in the show.
Trying to figure out what to call the institutions and leaders of Northern Cyprus is also a linguistic nightmare. When Mehmet Ali Talat meets Dimitris Christofias, can you say two presidents met? And how to you refer to someone in the Northern Cypriot government? The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does hold democratic elections, but the only country that recognizes it is — not surprisingly — Turkey. Greek Cypriots say that using official titles for Northern Cypriot officials legitimizes an unrecognized state. They have a point, but we journalists have to call them something.
It’s hard enough to write about all this when you have time to consider your words carefully. Pity the poor broadcaster who has to navigate this minefield while live on air.
Nicole Itano
Nicole Itano is a freelance journalist and writer based in Athens, Greece. In nearly ten years covering international news, she has reporting from more than 25 countries in Africa, Asia and Europe and her work has appeared in The New York Times, ...
Read more about Nicole Itano ->
akritas says:
Dimitar
Nationality is a matter of culture and education and not genetic (mixtures) issue.
Who is the person that put blood standards as about the nationality (race)?
The racistS and the "white arryan" supremacistS that think the colour of the skin and eye or the blood markers are the definition of the race.
Modern Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained that language and that civilization from classical times to the present. I am not claim that genetic purity is an ideal for the Greek people and the others racist thinks.
Sforza put two others factors except the clusters and these are the language and the history.
Appelbaums remarked for nations with strong claims to territorial sovereignty, genetic data will be irrelevant; for nations with weak claims, such data will always be inadequate. Advocates who look to genetics for a decisive victory are certain to be disappointed.
FYROM has weak claims,
it used payed genetic analysies from wannabe labs like Igenea and Villena in order to support these waek claims,
Makedonski is a Slavic nation with a Slavic culture, language and identity,
theirs state -as also and Kossovo - is a American finding in order to make small controlled states.
Dimitar says:
This is a dispute created by Greece about the national sovereignty of the Macedonian people and state and about equality of human rights and freedoms! It is not about anything else!!!
Sir Slav says:
Macedonia was a single geographic entity until the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. As a result of the Treaty of Bucharest, Macedonia was partitioned among Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria. These regions are known as the Republic of Macedonia (independent since 1991), Aegean Macedonia (occupied by Greece since 1913), and Pirin Macedonia (occupied by Bulgaria since 1913). There are also small parts of Macedonia presently in Albania (known as Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo) and Yugoslavia (Gora and Prohor Pchinski).
Upon annexation of Macedonia's territory, Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria began terrorist campaigns aimed at expelling or forcibly assimilating the indigenous ethnic Macedonian population. Greece and Bulgaria continue this policy today by denying the existence of the large ethnic Macedonian minorities within their respective territories and refusing to grant them their basic human rights.
Click here for a detailed map of Macedonia, and to read about the "Partition of
Macedonia was a single geographic entity until the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. As a result of the Treaty of Bucharest, Macedonia was partitioned among Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria. These regions are known as the Republic of Macedonia (independent since 1991), Aegean Macedonia (occupied by Greece since 1913), and Pirin Macedonia (occupied by Bulgaria since 1913). There are also small parts of Macedonia presently in Albania (known as Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo) and Yugoslavia (Gora and Prohor Pchinski).
Upon annexation of Macedonia's territory, Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria began terrorist campaigns aimed at expelling or forcibly assimilating the indigenous ethnic Macedonian population. Greece and Bulgaria continue this policy today by denying the existence of the large ethnic Macedonian minorities within their respective territories and refusing to grant them their basic human rights.
The ethnic Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria do not wish anything more than the recognition of their fundamental human and national rights: the right to speak their own language; to assemble for peaceful purposes; and, the right to call themselves Macedonian without fear of persecution or discrimination.
The above is well known fact and the world knows about it. European Human Rights Commission is deeply in discussion with the Greek Government in regards to the estate of many Macedonians forced out of their homes. There are Macedonian even today in Greece and Bulgaria who frequently travel to Republic of Macedonia.
Dimitar says:
"... It is clear that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek, is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek
than, eg: the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks." Borza.
Akrita: Is Borza's statement clear enough for you? IE; the Ancient Macedonians were not "Greeks", simply because some of them spoke "Greek". Therefore, what claim do you have on the Macedonian name?
Your opinion on "genetic purity" is an attempt to subvert the Macedonian claims that independent genetic researchers have confirmed, and that is that today's Macedonians are an autochtonous people to Macedonia! Nowhere do Macedonians claim "genetic purity".
Nasos says:
Well written, bravo Nicole!!!!
historictruth says:
Dimitar you write that the Fyromians are the direct descetns of the ancient macedons. Then like a clever "propagandist" you use Borza to support your cause. Lets see what Borza has realy written about the Fyromians:
"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. "
Eugene N. Borza, "Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999
So lets repeat what Borza has written about the Fyromians:
"cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom"
"who have had no history, need one. "
This is a typical example how Fyrom takes information out of content and try to use if for their propaganda.
Lets continue what Borza real have written about the ancient macedons and their Greekness
Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded 'by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest GREEK STOCK; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians",
Eugene N. Borza, "Makedonika", Regina Books, Claremont CA
This is a typical example why the historians of the world are fed up with the Fyroms historical and politcal propaganda
historictruth says:
Propagandist like Dimitar has in lack of historical evidence turned to the science of DNA. He is now writing that their should be studies that confirms the Fyromians as descents of ancient macedons. This is a completely lie. Their most faoumouse DNA repors is called - Villena. The coclusion where that the Fyromians where the oldest people in Europe and the Greeks are ancestors of Ethiopians. Lets see what the real Genetics had to say about the matter?
The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
Neil Risch
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Alberto Piazza
Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
historictruth says:
The borders between Greece and Serbia were defined in 1913 on the basis of the advances of the armies of the two nations during the first Balkan war. The border between Greece and Bulgaria was defined at the Treaty of Bucharest. Since then, the borders of the three nations had remained the same. Macedonia, a region mostly of Greece since ancient times, was divided into three perhaps even four parts, with Greece keeping the largest portion of about 50%, then-Yugoslavia receiving about 35%, Bulgaria about 10% and a small percentage eventually ending in Albania. The Greek people on the portion of the Macedonia part in Greece have been there since time immemorial -- over more than forty centuries before the Slavs arrived. The language spoken in the Greek region since antiquity is Greek, whereas the language of the former-Yugoslavia portion is a Slavic dialect of Bulgarian (Marline Simons, The New York Times, February 3, 1992). As a matter of fact, the portion of Macedonia in then-Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern Branch of the Roman Empire. The people who ruled over Serbia spoke Greek. Constantinople was their headquarters. Their main trade was to the South and East...
Joseph C. Harsch, American journalist, "The Christian Science Monitor", January 29, 1992
historictruth says:
The Greek War of Independence, which came to a successful conclusion in 1832, affected less than one half of the Greeks in the Turkish Empire. It did not bring freedom to the Greeks of Macedonia and Thrace, of Crete and the Aegean Islands, nor to the more than two million Greeks in Asia Minor and Constantinople.
Henry Morgenthau, "I was sent to Athens", Doubleday, Doran & Company, inc (1929)
sh says:
In today’s FYRM there is an Albanian flag and language, there is a Greek flag and language, there is an Bulgarian flag and language, ok hmmm, trying to imagine “Macedonian, flag and language???, nope, cannot think of one, no language no flag cause there is no one, it doesn’t exist, also trying to imagine which flag did Alexander the Great have, one with the sun, which is one of Albanian God. So with these facts, what language today’s FYROM use, officially Bulgarian and Albanian? I wander why???
(And how was he Albanian in any way? Well, first of all Alexander was son of Philip II and Olympia. Olympia was the princess of Epirus, a province in Northern Greece, considered to be modern day Albania, and ancient territory of Albanian tribes. This relation of Alexander having Albanian blood is considered somewhat feasible and acceptable by the history books, but we want to stretch out the enigma of Alexander.
Also, there is the conquered territory of Alexander. When looking at a map of his advances, oddly enough Illirium and Northern Greece is not touched by his armies. Yet, the Illyrian and Northern Greek tribes did not have armies capable of facing the Great Alexander. But Alexander considered them as one, they were all Albanian. Alexander could not possibly conquer his own land. That is why this area remained untouched.)