Jump to content

Talk:Souliotes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GjinBuaSpata (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 31 March 2011 (→Arbereshe, Arvanites & Souliotes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"The Greek war of independence" Hutchinson's University Library, 1952 Christopher Montague Woodhouse page 38 - Souliotes were not Greek by race

According to this author Souliotes were not Greek by race. http://books.google.ca/books?id=MO8ZAAAAIAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Christopher+Montague+Woodhouse%22&q=souliotes#search_anchor —Preceding unsigned comment added by GjinBuaSpata (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also by Woodhouse [[1]].Alexikoua, the article doesn't say they are Greeks by race. (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slow removal of sources and text

@ Sthenel: Look 15 sources which were before which were reduced to one up to the existent status 0 while Albanian name disappearing altogether. First remove references then modify text tactic. Clear POV pushing. Aigest (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sthenel I'm going to have to revert you: Please discuss in the talk page rather than via edit summary when you make these controversial edits. We've been on this with Alexikoua a thousand times. --Sulmues (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so I've restored the lead back to the previous status, after the weird initiative by Zjthoues.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too with the consensus and I made a minor edit about the name of their dialect. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbereshe, Arvanites & Souliotes

I think that the fanatic interest on placing the Arbereshe, the Arvanites and the Souliotes within the modern Albanian nation or ethne (Shqiptars) with a supposed pure Thraco-Illyrian past is a complete mistake:

1.- The Arbereshe and the Arvanites always beared an "Albanian" conception about themselves in a geographical sence but not in terms of ethnicity. Arbereshe who immigrated to Italy, identified themselves as refugees from the Byzantine Empire. The same way the Arvanites in Greece.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Wrong. The Arberesh community consider themselves as war refugees that escaped from Ottoman repression. They came mostly from Himare and Morea, as well as from other part of Albania. The Arberesh had a great role in Albanian National Awakening especially during 19-th century. The Arvanites established their communities throughout the whole actual modern Greece during 13 and 14 century. Part of this migration was organized by Latin rulers of Attica and Morea. Byzantine Empire during that period had no control of these territories" (Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Byzantine Empire had not the effective control of most territories but Arvanites (and Arbereshe) were former Byzantine population, both culturally and in terms of religion, although some Arbereshe were Latin-rite catholics. The "Albanian" conception was as alien to them as the "Hellenic" conception was irrelevant to Byzantine Greeks at that time. Even though in the western world the Byzantines were regarded wrongly as Greeks, this is the reason why Arbereshe were labelled as "Greeks" (Greci) when they installed in Southern Italy. This categorization was kept up to the late 20's when Mussolini's expantionist visions towards both Albania and Greece, made Arbereshe to be "Albanians", even changing the medieval names for villages and churches. Piana dei Albanesi has been in fact Piana dei Greci for more than 400 years. Arbershe villages were forcibly added the term "Albanese": Shen Kostadini was made San Costantino Albanese, Shen Pali was made San Paolo Albanese, Fullkunara turned to Falconara Albanese, Shen Kola to San Nicola Albanese and many others.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Wrong: "Albanian" is an English word. Every one should understand that Arberesh call themselves Arberesh and not Albanian. Arvanites call themselves Arvanite and not Albanian. Shqiptaret call themselves Shqiptar and not Albanian. They all speak the same language. Of course they don't have the same citizenship, but they all know their origin. The "Albanian" conception was not alien, especially for them in Greece. While in Italy they are labeled as Greci, in Greece still today they call themselves Arvanites, not Ellines,not Roumeliotes, not Vllahos,.... Their identity is still alive. Two hundred years of forced Hellenization has done a lot of damage, but still the fire is warm. Ask them!--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I made myself clear that when I use the word "Albanian" I am refering to Shqiptars. Their Byzantine identity and their Balcanic origin is still alive in both Arbereshe in Italy (including keeping their language) as well as Arvanites in Greece. This identity does not include any sort of ethnic identification with Ottomanized shqiptar lackies or present-day Albania. People living in Central Greece, Thessaly and some parts of Northwestern Peloponesse were described by Byzantines as Ελλαδίτες (Helladites) and their theme was named Hellas (θέμα Ἑλλάδος). This way those who immigrated to Italy from Grecia were the Greci. The term Arvanites is how Arvanite speakers (and their descendants) are called in Greece of course, just the same way Greek people from different regions are called Maniates, Sfakianoi and Makedones in a regional (homeland) way. Nothing to do with the Alvanoi (Αλβανοί), meaning Shqiptars. I do not need to ask anyone: I served in the Greek army with Arvanite-blooded mates and my own grandmother was an Arberesh immigrant from Italy to Argentina. Fire is still warm, but has nothing to do with Hoxha's artificial one.Periptero (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering Albanians as ottomanized shqiptar "lackies" sound to me as kiosk propaganda worth to stay silent and smile instead only. HOWEVER for others who have had the chance to read about Ottoman Empire I would like to mention that the majority of Ottoman administration and most important position in the Ottoman hierarchy like Dragomans, Vallachian Vojvodes, Orthodox Mitropolites, City Primates, Region Archondes, Armatolies (kept by ottomans to preserve Byzanthine police structures), marine sailors, financial and tax administration.............. were not Albanians. These "lackies" positions were held by the Roms or Rums, the ones who in the past 150 years start calling themselves as Greek. Regarding Hoxha's history theme, Hoxha as a servant of Russian-Serb Orthodox Communists has completely deformed and kept in dark the whole Albanian history. During 50 years of communism there was not a single publication of any foreign author, and a complete lack of information. In his History books was never mention or shown for example that Napoleon Zerva was a souliot, or demographic description of the actual Greece by authors like Finlay were completely prohibited. Finally regarding what Arvanites feel today towards Shqiptars, can easily be compare with what Italo-Argentines feel today when they apply to get back their Italian identity and passport. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are getting off subject. The fact that there were "lackies" under Ottoman service from all Balkan ethnes - including Greeks of course- has nothing to do with the fact that Arvanites, Souliotes and Arbereshe reject being compared with Turkified Muslim Albanians. Matching Souliotes with Shqiptars is like matching Sphakianoi with Cretan Turks (Muslims). Arvanites today self-identify like Greeks either as the result of a process of assimilation (Albanian and academic majority argument) or a cultural conection (Greek argument), and do not consider themselves to belong to Albania or the Albanian nation. They call themselves Arvanites (in Greek) and Arbëror (in Arvanitika); the term Shqiptar (the same used by Albanians of Albania), is strongly disliked by Arvanites who definitely resent being called that way (Αλβανοί). Same thing happens with the Arbereshe in Italy who resent being named Albanesi. This is purely because they DO NOT identify with the modern Albanian state or modern Albanians. And regarding the Italian Argentines, I can assure that there is a strong difference: you may have the impression that Argentines of Italian descent are just coming back to their roots so as to catch a European passport and flee from crisis, but even though, they do not resent their Italian heritage, a fact that Arvanites, Souliotes and Arbereshe fully do with their supposed Albanian (Shqiptar) one. Plus, Arvanites and Souliotes do not need to apply for Greek citizenship. They are Greeks for at least 200 years.Periptero (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Turkified Muslim Albanians is only a fiction. Albanian were never Turkified. Albanians, both Muslims and Christians, preserved for hundreds of years their songs, dances, dresses (especially their fustanella), houses (kulla-albanian towers), and even their hair style. If there was someone who got Turkified, you can find that by hearing Buzuki songs and watching greek dance of Kreta or greek costume of Smyrna. This is why Greeks in their struggle of finding a new identity, especially after creation of Greek Kingdom, adopted many Albanian elements like fustanella, chamiko dance, etc to get back to their original roots. Regarding Arvanites, Souliotes and Shqiptars I agree with you that today they don't feel the same, and this make sense. Today for example we have North of Italy that consider South of Italy as "North Africa". Still, they are consider one nation, one culture, one history, etc. Even worse we have a Muslim from Pontus which speak greek and a Christian Karamanlides who speak turkish both nothing to share with each other, are consider greek. Why not shqiptars(both muslim and christians) and souliotes or arvanites which spoke and speak the same language, have the same way of life, came from the same area, historically consider by all as Albanians, should not be consider from the same nation? --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad that although we both have broad different opinions, in an academic spirit at least we can share our points with respect. I won't stick to the music subject that you point out since there is a important consensus in musical historians (which you may not agree) that exept for tsifteteli and zeibekiko it was Byzantine music the one that influenced Turkish one. But since you use the term “FICTION” you must be aware that much of the modern Albanian identity was mostly shaped by Comunist Albania (1945–1991) -focused on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue and appropriating Ancient Greek history as Albanian- which is fully regarded as fictional among serious circles. During this period, scholars, and particularly archeologists, were impelled to establish a connection between the ancient Illyrians and Albanians. Albanian nationalism attaches great importance to the possibility of Illyrian contribution to Albanian ethnogenesis. In this view Albanians claim to be descendants of Pelasgians such as the Etruscans and Illyrians but also ancient Macedonians and Epirotes which they also deem as Pelasgians. These ideas comprise a national myth (so as not to use your word “fiction”) whose scope is to establish a supposed precedence over neighboring peoples and to encourage movements for independence and self-determination, as well as irredentist claims against neighboring countries. This way, Aristotle, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Alexander the Great and Phillip II of Macedon were Pelasgo-Illyrian "Albanians" and so ancient Greek culture (and thus the result of the Hellenistic civilisation) had been spread by "Albanians" according to them. On the other hand, regarding the Greeks "national concience", according to Herodotus, Hellenes were defined by the four principles of Ὅμαιμον (omaemon/ same blood), Ὁμόγλωσσον (omoglosson/ same language), Ὁμόθρησκον (omothriskon/ same religion) & Ὁμότροπον Ἔθος (omotropon ethos/ same way of living). This belief is still present today. Even if the first part of the "equation" (omaemon), may be today out of the question for certain people, the other three parts are still universally valid (omoglosson & omotropon for sure, omothriskon by the switch from paganism to Christianity). There is an unbroken cultural history & tradition, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people for millenia. Other contributions were surely made in Greece by different peoples (Latins, Franks, Arvanites, Slavs, Vlachs, Saracens and even Turks) which have shaped together with the strong local Hellenic compound the modern Greek identity but it doesn't erase continuity with the Ancient. I see no match at all with Italy that you mention, where since ancient times the region had so diverese ethnes like Latins, Italics, Hellenes, Etruscans, Punics and Celts grouped all together, only sharing geography and never creating an ethnogenesis, not even when they were awarded Roman citizenship in Roman Empire times. Neither with modern Italians who have a huge cultural and ethnic diversity. Therefore Padanians (northern Italians) who claim Celtic descent feel they have nothing in common with Mediterranean (or Saracenic) southern Italians, hence their racism and secessionist will. The Italian state is nothing more than a political idea that does not reflect ethnic and linguistic reality. By contrary in Greece, the Maniots, Tsakonians, Moraites, Macedonians, Sarakatsans, Sfakiots, Cretans, Psarians, Roumeliotes, Epirotes, Arvanites and many other peoples (in geographical sence) regard (and regarded) themselves as either Greeks or at least ὁμοούσιοι Έλληνες ("omoousian" Greeks), that is to say to be members of the same nation, country and history. This way, Arvanites and Souliotes contributed greatly in the shaping of modern Greece by sharing much of their own identity (music, dances, ways of living and traditions) with whom they regard to be their legitimate kinsmen. This identity understood in a regional and cultural sence but not ethnic. It is both Arvanites (and Arbereshe) and Souliotes who do not believe to belong to the "Albanian" ethne and of course, do not identify with Albanian history and culture at all. Arbereshe in fact, are proud of their Balcanic and Byzantine heritages and to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of Arbanon but they neither identify themselves with present-day inhabitants of modern Albania nor consider themselves to be part of the same nation. Periptero (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information "History of modern Albania" start taking shape at the same time with "History of modern Greece". For every single author a book about Greece and Greek revolution without Albanian chapters was not proper and incorrect. That was not true for books about Albania. So was not Communism who created Albanian history but others and for sure not Fallmerayer. I don't want to spend time on how Italy is different from Greece and what an Arab-looking Greek of Crete with a blond hair and blue eyes of Suli share in their blood. I am just wondering what is going to happen with Bulgars of Macedonian 150 years from today. Are they going to believe that they are true decedents of Alexander, and will they cite Herodotus to convince the world? --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2.- The Souliotes, although most likely originally a branch of the Tsamides by being Orthodox Christians were the torch bearers of Byzantine Christianity, since other fellow Tsamides had fallen into Islamization.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Wrong. Souliotes were formed as community much later than the fall of Byzantine Empire (1204 or 1453). Suli till 1767 was under the influence of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (at the urging of the Greek church in Istanbul by Ottoman authorities). That is why some of their family names had slavic influences.(Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Although in this article it is stated that the Souliotes were originally a branch of the Tsamides, which is the main point that Albanians focus; in the Illiad (Ιλιάδα Η-234), a people called Sellous (Σελλούς) from Epirus are described among the first northwestern hellenic tribes. Tucydides later refers to their city state as Solion (Σόλιον). This conception was present among Byzantine Empire scholars. That before 1700 when the first "four villages" confederation was established the community was under the Archbishopric of Ohrid (therefore the slavic patronimics) is uncertain. Tradition was very important among Souliotic communities and their tales and songs refer both to continuity with antiquity and two main external population migration to their lands: the first being a contingent of Skendebey's army after his death and the second a migration from Pavle Orlovic's fiefdom in Novo Brdo, after the fall of the Nemanjic empire.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Wrong: Are you sure that Homer in Iliad has mention this Sellous from Epirus? Homer use words as the Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) — aka the Hellenes (Greeks), or Danaans (Δαναοί), and Argives (Ἀργεĩοι). While Greeks should work hard to define their position in this poem, Epirus was a term used by Corinthians colonists in Corfu to identify mainland. Homer died long time before this tale. Considering Suli as Sellous from Epirus it sound to me not correct, and will take years of light to prove it. Also among Orthodox Christians, antiquity was an alien concept. It was consider heretic. The worse enemy of antiquity tradition was the christian faith. For your information Cosmas of Aetolia was predicting greek language and prohibiting albanian language not because of Aristotel. He had a different agenda. --GjinBuaSpata (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the Iliad subject, it is pretty much clear to me, but of course it may be subject to an academic discussion in a broader sence than the one we are having here. We have evident different views. Anyway, the terms Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) or Danaans (Δαναοί) and Argives (Ἀργεĩοι) are general patronimics used by Homer to identify the Greeks. The term Sellous (Σελλούς) is a specific one (< θ. σελ- = φωτίζω), for northwestern hellenic tribes which for many scholars is the origin of the latter term "Hellene" (Έλλην). Regarding Christianity and Hellenism, I agree that they were opossites for ages. Being "Hellenic" meant being pagan. But Greek language had become the language for Eastern Christian religion. This way, Saint Kosmas asked all Orthodox Christians to establish schools and learn (Koine) Greek so that they might understand the scriptures better and generally educate themselves. He is still highly regarded even by Orthodox Albanians for the message that he gave. But we are entering matters of faith and it is not the scope of the discussion.Periptero (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is something interesting in Arnold Toynbee's book "The Greeks and their Heritages". In the Spanish edition ("Los Griegos: Herencias y Raices"), by Fondo de Cultura Económica, Printed in Mexico, ISBN 968-16-2515-3, pg. 204 it states that " ... the Souliot soldiers were Albanian Christians from Orthodox faith ..." whereas "... the Souliot peasants were of Greek origin..."(foot note 216). Periptero (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


3.- Tosk Albanians and Epirote Greeks according to genetic evidence have very few differences. How is it posible ? The fact is that southern Albania has been inhabited by Epirotes who were considered semi-Hellenic. But the most certain fact is that Tosk Albanins and Epirote Greeks share both an older Pelasgian origin. Here is the connection between true Albanians and Greeks.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Close. To put your thoughts on right track you should separated Epirote term from Greek. Greek was a term used by the westerners for religious purposes only. Greek as a nation was created 180 years ago when Roumeliotes and Arvanites together with Moreotes ( under the control of England, Russia and France) decided to create a new state and to call no more their language Romaika. Also regarding “genetic evidence” there is no such thing unless you are referring to color of skin or assumptions.(Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Modern Greece is a newly formed nation, true (and made up of different subgroups: Sarakatsans, Aromanians, Arvanites, Slavophones etc). But Hellenic people are among the oldest nations in the world, and as such is the Greek language. I cannot separate the term "Epirote" with "Greek" since historically Epirotes were members of the Doric Hellenic tribes. Modern Epirotes are Greeks in national terms since they belong to the Epirus province in Greece and bear Greek citizenship. The strong Greek minority in Norther Epirus, present day Albania may not be part of Greece, but still belong to the Hellenic nation. But what I was trying to express is something else. According to genetic studies there is much genetical link between Arbershe and Tosks (southern "albanians") with Epirote Greeks, than between Arbereshe and Tosks with Ghegs and Kosovars (northern "albanians"), implying that southern "albanians" are indigenous or ancestral Balkanic populations whereas northern "albanians" are foreigner and relatively modern inhabitants of the region. This is what is called the "Pelasgian connection". Here is where I find fully mistaken to have Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes categorized as "albanians", as a whole same nation. I suggest you read an article "Y-STR variation in Albanian populations..." by Gianmarco Ferri et al in the International Journal of Legal Medicine. Also try the "Albania" label on Dienekes Pontikos genetics blog.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... to continue

4.- The Arberesh consider themselves as the genuine Albanians and do not like to be confused with the modern Albanians (Shqiptars), since they deem these to be the result of foreign ammalgamation (mostly Turkish and Slavic). At this point the same happens with the Arvanites who regard themselves as Greeks but with Pelasgian roots and do not consider themselves as part of the "Albanian nation".Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Term "Shqiptar" was used only by residents of Albanian and was used strictly between Albanians, as an internal code to differentiate the foreigner element. “Shkip flas” which mean “speak clearly” was used in the same fashion as the Slavic nations use term “Nasha jezik”, “Nashka” or “Nashka”. The Arberesh still today consider themselves as Albanian. (Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Arbereshe consider themselves Arbereshe, not Albanians (Albanesi in Italy). My grandmother's family has been living in Southern Italy since medieval times. Two of my cousins are majors in two Arbereshe villages and I can assure you that Arbereshe feel no connection to modern Albanians at all, besides the geographic link. Arbereshe see themselves as the descendants of Ancient Pelasgians and do not even share the Thraco-Illyrian official Albanian hypothesis of their supposed ethnogenesis. In fact, many Arbereshe were among the most vehement against Albanian immigration in the early 90's and so on. Modern Albanians are considered by Arbereshe as the result of the ammalgamation with Turks, Gypsies and Slavs.Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Ridiculously wrong. There are hundreds of authors describing Albanian as uncivilized,.... BUT never none of them called them Gypsy or with dark skin. Your description sound perfect for South of Italy or Greek Islands, BUT not for Albanians. ALSO just for your information De Rada and other arberesh of Italy were founders of "Albanian Rinascimento" and were proud to be Albanian.(Unsigned Answer)
-REPLY: Arbereshe were always proud of being the original Albanians, and I agree that they are the ones who kept true "albanianess" alive. The fact that the "Rilindas" took many of these thoughts in the early 20th. century so as to give birth to the modern Shqip identity, does not mean that there is continuity between both movements. Canti di Milosao, which is the literary symbol, refers to the fifteenth-century !!! There relies Arberesh pride, not in being the succesors of Turkish vassals. The Albanian awakening sponsored by the Arbereshe is based upon the belief that we Arbereshe are the true Albanians and followers of Skenderbey's spirit; therefore the necessity of not falling into assimilation so as not to dissapear or follow the fate of most Shqips who lost their Christian faith , since they mostly fell into Islamization and Turkification (or Ottomanization if you prefer), a fact that Arbereshe reject and repulse. Arebershe are proud to be pure Albanians, and Christians. There is no link on to the establishment of modern Albania as a sovereign nation, based upon prior Muslim pashaliks in the Arbereshe awakening. There is no link neither with Hoxha's official Albanian story. I do not mean to offend anywone, but just understand this feeling: Arbereshe are true Albanians, Shqips are something else (and skin colour has nothing to do with this belief).Periptero (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... to continue

5.- The Souliotes and the Arvanites bravely fought for Greece independence because it meant fighting for Christendom and Byzantium against the Muslim enemies. They never considered the "Turkalbanians" as their brothers. Since modern Albania represent the installment of a recognized "Turkalbanian" state, as the figures depicting a broad majority of Muslim population show, therefore there is no proper sence about labelling the Souliotes within a "modern" albanian context. It would be a mistake such as labelling Bosnian Serbs within a Muslim Bosnian context.Periptero (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Turkalbanian is only a fiction created to occupy Albanian territories after the fall of Ottoman Empire. Regarding Souliotes or Arvanites inspiration about old Greece and Byzantine Empire, you better consider Russian Empire instead. Souliotes or Arvanites knew about Greek civilization as much as the Apaches knew about Maya civilization.(Unsigned Answer)
- REPLY: Lambros Koutsonikas, one of the main Souliotic leaders refered to the Souliotes in his collected memoirs, as the descendants of Hellenic Epirotes who gathered in the mountains to flee from Roman army attacks. Athanase Psalidas, who was Ali Pasha's clerk stated in his writings that the Souliotes were "Greek fighters" (Γραίκους πολεμιστές) remnants of Ancient Hellenic tribes. Meli Pasha, Ali pasha's son refered to the Souliotes not as Romans (Ρωμαίους) or Rums (Ρωμιούς) which would imply simply Christians, but as Romegans (Ρωμέγους) which means local Hellenes. I appreciate the irony within Apache and Mayas, but it seems that there was a little knowledge about Hellenic and Byzantine civilization at the time. Never forget that tradition was the main way of communication in highlander societies. Periptero (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't thing that the above answers are of Zjarrit (check history log).Alexikoua (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a series of a 5-point statements which were refuted and discussed in this Talk Page. So as to allow other people to follow correctly the subjectes dealt in this discussion I edited the "talks" as follows (Statement-Refuting Answer (unsigned) - Reply (by myeslf). It would be interesting that the person which performed the refuting POVs would sign his opinion.Periptero (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not signing my comments. Each time that I reply to your "FIVE POINTS" I didn't have time to log as GjinBuaSpata. However I would like to continue this discussion in the near future, as I see that you have deleted some of it and deformed some other.--GjinBuaSpata (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither deleted nor deformed.- The whole contents of your positions are there. I just re-scheduled the "personal" discussion we were having in a "forum-style" into a much more neat development of arguments for other users to be able to get involved and share their opinion in this matter as well.Periptero (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miller

Appart the fact that is very outdated (published first in 1927) it tells nothing for the origin (eg "their origin.....") but only for their situation in 19 century. So no WP:RS on their origin (which is explained by other authors) and WP:OR of the contributor. Aigest (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suliotes belonged to the Albanian nation. "A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government" —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They fought for Greek independence, not Albanian. That should tell you something. Anyway, if you read the talkpage history, there is a longstanding consensus to not include ethnicity in the lede, for a variety of reasons. Athenean (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking specific references and ignoring a mountain of bibliography can become very disrupting as in the recent case. Also Anna please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek fighters fight for USA these days. Are they American? Also X please low down your edit-warring nature, wikipedia isn't the right place for nationalistic fights would suit you more. You seem to be very interested in Albanians. You edit everything related to Albanians! Maybe that is a nationalistic fight! Suliotes were Albanians there is NO doubt about that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They had Albanian "blood", therefore they were Albanians? This isn't the 19th century. Greek fighters fight for USA these days??? What on earth does that even mean (not that I'm interested or anything). And a strong warning to stop using insulting edit summaries like these [2]. One more such instance and I am taking you to WP:AE. Enough. Athenean (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please do report me. I think chances are I am going to do the same thing for you. And I never said they have Albanian blood. Please do not try to confuse me. I said they have spoken Albanian language, they belonged to an Albanian clan. Saying they are not Albanian is similar to other Anti-albanian claims: Albanians do not exist as a nation, or that Albanians came from Caucasus. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anna claiming ethnic purity about everything in wikipedia is something we should avoid. Also please respect Dbachmann's very precise instructions.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Alexikoua when did Anna claim ethnic purity?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming ethnic purity. You are putting words in my mouth. But removing they are Albanian whatsoever is also not realistic. You can say they were Albanian, fought for the Greek War of Independence and assimilated. It is this simple. Or, if there is anything confusing about their nationality, we can say. There is a dispute about Suliotes nationality: some sources say they were Greek, some Albanian. But then we would have to agree that most sources claim them as Albanian. Also we will have to put Byron into consideration, he has much material about them. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this 100 times, we're not going to go over it again. Read the talkpage history, where a consensus was reached to keep ethnicity out of the lede. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have never seen a consensus on this. You may not use WP:Lede, because Greece did not exist when the Souliotes were doing their wars. And besides consensus may change according to arguments presented. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to read the talkpage a bit more. And 2 editors (you and Anna) are not "consensus may change." Athenean (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, for that matter consensus might change only because 1 editor only brings better arguments than 100 others who are not as enlightened. --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we have not a single argumement apart from trolling. Please be more precise in general instead of saying that Greece didn't existed so they should be termed Albanians (?).Alexikoua (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity & Identity

Modern Albania as a state had to build its own history and so they try to paint everything Albanian oriented to build a concience among their people. This way they place Alexander the Great, Pyrros of Epirus, Skanderbeg, Karaiskakis, Ali Pasha, Markos Botsaris, Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad Ali, Kemal Atatürk, Fan Noli, Sulejman Demollari, George Tenet, Hakan Sükur, Eliza Dushku and many others as members of the same "Albanian" nation.

But very few modern-day Albanians can claim they descend from the Souliotes, instead a considerable portion of modern Greeks can, as Souliotes are listed among the subgroups of the modern Hellenic nation (based mainly upon a geographical and cultural position).

Unfortunately modern Greek historians also need to make everything sound Hellenic to prove a racial purity and continuity from Antiquity to Byzantine Greece unto now-a-days. This way they tend to forgett that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic state, with Hellenism as the cultural cohesive pattern, which not necessarily reflects being Greek.

As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.

Since neighbour states have always been Greece's foes, the Greeks tried to hide and get rid of every sort of alien compound that may be found in Greek history, this way they denny the existance of "minorities" inside their borders.

I think this article should not try to reflect modern nationalist point of views, because it will otherwise be biased either it leans towards Albania or towards Greece. Certainly a Byzantine context or even an Ottoman context are the suitable, pointing out these people's local identities and that the remnants of the Souliotes and Arvanites are today integrated in the populations of Greece, the same way the Arbereshe are in present Italy.Periptero (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said. However, I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia. Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy, that is for sure. But it seems there are no Italian editors with inferiority complexes editing around! —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that staunch nationalist POV's totally attempt against WP spirit, no matter where they come from. When chauvinistic fanatism is induced in articles they distort the scope of this project. Personally I do not seek any sort of "albanophobia", but a necessity about setting things right and true. Placing Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes within a whole and same "modern" Albanian nation is not only nonsence but deliverately against these people's feelings and beliefs. I also consider that trying to understand ancestral behaviours with a XXI Century view (what is mostly happening throughout this Talk page) is a complete distortion. And regarding inferiority complexes, there is no way possible (in terms of history, culture, civilization) in which Greeks can feel themselves inferior to Albanians, as a matter of fact it is just the opposite-which by the way is not a good attitude-. As per Albanians, although they are the Greeks' poor and under-developped neighbour they shouldn't feel inferior neither, because they have also many glorious aspects in their own history where to rely their pride on. I come from a very mixed background (watch my user page) so I really believe in the understanding of peoples, and much more when they are neighbours and share very much in common.Periptero (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Suliotes and Arvanites are very much similar with Arbereshe in Italy" it probably helps that the souliotes and arvanites got to know what it means to be a tourkalbanos first hand and stayed far away.. "I am afraid this Albanian nationalism in WP is a reflection of a distinctive Albanophobia" no its just the fact that your country hasnt gotten over hoxhaist propaganda where you are living illyrians, the arvanites are your "brothers", you are always helping out the poor greeks in some way etc...85.75.248.252 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"to prove a racial purity" periptero...you are wrong, the greek 'national historian' PAR EXCELLENCE..Paparrigopoulos completely disregarded any racial theories (he wrote that all modern day peoples are a mix so claiming purity in any case is wrong) and that was the path even the most chauvinist greek historians followed with few exceptions (as Mackridge writes no Greek really thought in racial terms when talking of ethnos and genos in the 18th - early 19th century..it was Fallmerayers excesses that brought that kind of discourse into Greece)..btw what you wrote about the 'pure' sphakiots and maniots belongs to a certain stream of outdated greek anthropology that tended to find ancient 'remnants'so its a bit odd that you bring it up in a discussion supposedly trying to AVOID 'racial' implications..anyone who wants to know what the souliotes 'were' and how they changed throughout their history should read Vaso Psimouli's 'Souli kai Souliotes' where the subject is treated seriously without albanian and greek nationalist interference (why is Karaiskakis in the pantheon...? do albanians claim the Sarakatsani as albanian too now..?)85.75.248.252 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chap, if you happen to read the whole story then you would find that it all started when I was changing words with some Albanian writers explaing why in my humble view placing Arbereshe, Arvanites and Souliotes inside the same "Albanian" context was wrong. But in the other hand, I must be honest and accept that staunch Greek nationalists fall into the same sin that the Albos. Regarding what you wrote I can answer that:
a) Paparigopoulos is the modern Greek historian para excellence, I agree. But the fact that he has been excellent does not necesarily mean that this was the only offical story told in Greece. Just take school history books (Istoria tis Byzantinis Autokratorias tou Zervou or Istoria ton Neoteron Chronon tou Kafentzi both of the OEDB) and try to find if minorities other than Greeks are mentioned. It's all Greek to them ! (Pun intended). Fallmerayer's assertion that "not a single drop of pure Ancient Hellenic blood runs through the veins of modern Greeks" is in fact the counterpart about the previously stated and I agree that it was the spark that light the fire. What I want to point out is that fanatism always distorts the truth.
b)The tale about the Maniots being called "i katharotati fili ton ellinon" is not that outdated. I was constantly congratulated by my mates and superiors in my military in Greece some 15 years ago just for the simple fact of having a Maniot grandfather. Anyhow I quote myslef: As a matter of fact, universal consensus in Greece, tend to label the Maniots and Sphakians as "the purest branch of the Greeks", which should mean that other branches are not that pure. In simple words, admixture from every other ethnes certainly occured.. I am nothing more than trying to show that the whole above discussion in this talk page (if they were either from Albanian or Greek origin) is irrelevant and the important thing -according to me - should be the fact that Souliotes and Arvanites identify with Greece the same way Arbereshe do with Italy.
c) Anyway, I personally believe that racial continuity or discontinuity within nations is a matter which is becoming irrelevant in the XXI Century. Plus, with the development of Genetics many barriers that used to divide people will be falling. Try reading some very interst stuff in Dienekes' Pontikos Genetics blog.
d) I think it would be really useful for this article and WP in general that you quote and cite important statements from the Psimouli's book. Periptero (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


we agree on most serious matters (my comment about Paparrigopoulos being a defining historian of the greek national narrative was only about racialism never amounting to much other than fringe writers IMO..i cant say i really remember my, relatively recent, schoolbooks though lol but in my place we had plenty of non greek speaking greeks too so..) though of course i still dont agree about any such 'ancient' group like the sphakiots, maniots etc..its an overall outdated mode of thinking that was abandoned by serious scholars..if it lingers in the minds of some people like you said it doesnt mean anything as many such stereotypes do obviously...indeed its the same with the shqiptars-arvanites-arbereshe where i also agree with you and im sure if slightly more reasonable albanian (and greek..) users joined in things would be much easier for all of wiki..take care87.202.140.189 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Souliotes&oldid=421661583"