Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 22 2018, @08:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the What's-in-a-name?-(Juliet) dept.

The Macedonian parliament has begun the process of changing the country's name, ending a long-running dispute with Greece:

Macedonia's parliament has ratified an agreement with Greece to change the former Yugoslav republic's name at a plenary session that was boycotted by the main opposition party.

Lawmakers on June 20 voted 69-0 to ratify the agreement, which changes the country's formal name to the Republic of North Macedonia. [...] Lawmakers on June 19 launched the process of ratifying the accord, as hundreds of protesters gathered in the center of Skopje for a third day to vent anger over the deal.

[...] The agreement, signed by the two countries' foreign ministers on June 17, ends a 27-year dispute between Athens and Skopje and paves the way for Macedonia to begin membership talks with the European Union and NATO.

But it will take months to complete and faces several hurdles along the way, with President Gjorge Ivanov pledging to veto the deal. That would force lawmakers to repeat the vote, and if the deal is ratified again – this time with an absolute majority -- then Ivanov will be unable to block it.

Also at NPR and Reuters.

See also: Why all the furor over Macedonia name change? It goes back to Alexander the Great


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:51PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @12:51PM (#696714)

    I am reminded of this because as per the article, the mayor is saying that Alexander conquered and occupied India. I can feel his urge to use India as an example of everything Alexander or Macedonians were not, but Alexander neither conquered not occupied India. India is where he lost, and consequently instilled a deep urge in the West to go back and conquer the east. There is a plaque in London which says, in Sanskrit, that Greek women were enslaved and prostituted by the Indians.

    So the question comes, why use this lie in an argument? It is common in all nationalists I have met, they deliver one historical lie after another even when they don't have to. Is it denial of a deep seated inferiority complex? It is perplexing. Does power rely on lie or does it rely on truth.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday June 22 2018, @03:12PM (1 child)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday June 22 2018, @03:12PM (#696776)

    After gaining control of the former Achaemenid satrapy of Gandhara, including the city of Taxila, Alexander advanced into Punjab. The Battle of the Hydaspes river against a regional Indian King, Porus, is considered by many as the most costly battle fought by Alexander and his armies. Subsequently, his army refused to cross the Beas River, fearful of the powerful Nanda Empire which lay to the East along the banks of the Ganges. Therefore, Alexander turned south, advancing through southern Punjab and Sindh, along the way conquering more tribes along the lower Indus River, before returning into the west.

    It sounds like he did conquer parts [wikipedia.org] of India. India wasn't a unified thing until circa WWII.

    Admittedly they sound like small parts of India.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday June 22 2018, @03:21PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday June 22 2018, @03:21PM (#696782)

      It of course always depends on what you consider part of "India". If you include what is now Pakistan, which historically was a part of India, then Alexander conquered quite a lot of India. If you only consider what is now India, then he only conquered one of the fairly major provinces.

      It's also worth noting that the reason he stopped had everything to do with his subordinates refusing to go any further, and nothing to do with losing battles (unless the historical accounts were falsified to make Alexander look better, of course).

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Friday June 22 2018, @04:16PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Friday June 22 2018, @04:16PM (#696805) Journal

    It doesn't need to be *true*, it just needs to *believed* by a sufficient minority. Self-consistency is not required, either!

    Umberto Eco tried to explain this a bit in his essay on Ur-Fascism. And he was an expert on words and meanings.

    Read his essay [nybooks.com], it's a bit difficult but it pays off!

  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Friday June 22 2018, @07:19PM (1 child)

    by loonycyborg (6905) on Friday June 22 2018, @07:19PM (#696900)

    The entire issue of Alexander is irrelevant. He was neither greek nor slav. Macedonia is name of particular geographic region irrespective of ethnicity of inhabitants which is currently divided by Republic of Macedonia and Greece. So at least from this point of view it totally makes sense to name it Republic of North Macedonia instead. But bringing up Alexander the Great is pure bullshit sophistry.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 22 2018, @11:59PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 22 2018, @11:59PM (#697042) Journal

      Maybe they should name it Alexandria.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.