Stephen G. Miller and his attempt to save 'Greekness of Macedonia'
It has been a while since the historian Stephen G. Miller sent out a "cry for help". Macedonia is Greek, and it must stay that way - was his story!
In a circular letter he tried to persuade other historians and academics to jump on his horse. At first, some did so, but nowadays his attempt is almost forgotten. Only almost, because some Greek nationalists still use his (poor) action at the time and the website he founded as the basis for their "arguments".
But Miler's attempt was criticized among scholar. Open criticism hit him in the German media. Uwe Walter sharply criticized this call in a column in the FAZ, the German historian described Miller's call as an "embarrassing historical-political call".
The British academic of Swiss origin Andreas Willi also criticized Miller's approach and the "arguments" he put forward.
And indeed, politics was the motivation for the American PHD Miller to write this (embarrassing) appeal. His appeal was nothing other than a direct letter to the US President Obama asking him to no longer recognize the Republic of Macedonia under this name.
He was basically demanding re-recognition. Before that, the USA had recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia.
11 "facts" that prove "Macedonians are Greeks"
Miller has pointed out eleven "key arguments" on his website that would prove that the ancient Macedonians were actually Greeks. We had some fun reading this and searched through these 11 facts, or, as he claims "Macedonia evidence".
And in doing so, we asked ourselves in amazement how such a PHD could even be recognized as such? (Note: Miller passed in 2021).
This has nothing to do with teaching history.
Miller did nothing more than any modern Greek "social media warrior" would do. He picks out a few "arguments", twists them a little and then tries to use them as evidence and sole fact.
Very questionable methodology! As we will show now, because:
Miller falsified ancient quotes and hides important details
For example, the eternal topic of "Philip vs. Demosthenes". This issue shows that Miller was completely manipulating and even falsifying ancient quotes!
Let’s see what he wrote on his website about the words the ancient Greek politician Demosthenes said about the Macedonian king Philip:
5) Doesn’t Demosthenes call Philip a “barbarian”; that is, a non-Greek?
Yes, he does. But beyond the fact that Demosthenes harbored a personal grudge against Philip because of the humiliation he suffered when he lost his power of speech at the Macedonian court (Aischines, On the Embassy 35), Demosthenes could call anyone he did not like a barbarian, including fellow Athenians (e.g. 21.150). The word, at least in some uses by Demosthenes and others, should be understood as a generic insult. Thus, for example, in some parts of the USA people are dubious that people from other parts are “real Americans.”
Here we must strongly disagree to Miller's "evidence"!
NO! Demosthenes did not call Philip II of Macedon a barbarian. He calls him "not even a barbarian who is neither a Greek nor related to Greeks!"
This is a classic falsification! First, he lies to the readers that Demosthenes called Philip a barbarian. Second, Miller fails to mention that Demosthenes called Philip "neither a Greek nor related to Greeks"!
Let's read the whole sentence that Miller distorts in his appeal! The passage is known as Demosthenes 9.31 from his Philippic (here taken/copied from the Tuft University website).
But if some slave or superstitious bastard had wasted and squandered what he had no right to, heavens! how much more monstrous and exasperating all would have called it! Yet they have no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave.
Why S.G. Miller is hiding this important words? It is obvious: it contradicts his cheap political thesis! It is actually a scandal that a scholar sells such distortions; one might even call it forgery.
Miller also manipulates about the language of the Macedonians
An important point in the constant question of whether the Macedonians were actually Greeks is, of course, the language of the ancient Macedonians.
Let's take a look at what Miller writes about this on his website:
2) Wasn’t there a Macedonian language distinct from Greek?
No. The inscriptions from Macedonia are all written either in Attic (koine) Greek, or a Greek dialect showing affinities both with the north-western ('Doric') dialects of Epirus and with the north-eastern ('Aeolic') dialects of Thessaly. This is the Macedonian dialect of Greek. If the ancient documents preserved today on stone reveal only those two possibilities, there is clearly no basis for a separate language.
It may be noted that Plato (Protagoras 341C), in referring to the Aeolic dialect of Lesbian authors, calls it “barbaric” by which he may intend crude or rough, but Greek all the same.
It might be noted that when the Roman conqueror in 167 B.C., Aemilius Paulus, called together representatives of the defeated Macedonian communities, his Latin pronouncements were translated for the benefit of the assembled Macedonians into Greek (Livy 45.29).
After the first word, we didn't need to continue the quote. Because what Miller claims is not a fact but a theory!
To this day, historians argue about which language was the native language of the Macedonians. There is no final consensus among historians or linguists. So how does Miller come to claim so?
It is again obvious that he wants to present his thesis as the correct one. sic!
Simply a scandal, as you could see from two examples. But it shows the methods used by Grecocentrics, Philhellenes or perhaps even academics sponsored by some Greek foundations or even the Greek state.
