[MGSA-L] "GENOS"

[Christos D. Katsetos]

George Baloglou wrote:

> ..... But if one looks at this word historically,
> there are problems. For example, in Axion Esti it clearly stands for the
> Greek nation ("tou Genous tov allo sikomo"/"the other revolt of [our] Genos").


First, my applause to Aristide Caratzas for his eloquent analysis in an earlier
posting.

The Patriarchal definition of ‘GENOS’ embodies both Greek-speaking and
non-Greek-speaking loyal followers of the Mother Church irrespective of ‘phyletic’
attributes or geographical boundaries.

You are quite right insofar as ‘TO GENOS TON ROMAION’ refers to Orthodox
Christians living in the Ottoman occupied territories. Traditionally, ‘TO GENOS’
has embraced Greek-speaking Romaioi/ Rum?Romioi?Greki (and later) Hellenes but
also equally, non-Greek speaking groups loyal to the Patriarchate. The latter
include the Slavonic-speaking ‘Grecomans’ as well as speakers of Latin-based
dialects, viz. Vlachs, Arvanites, and Arvanito-Vlachi [N.B. The turkophone Rum
(such as the ‘Karamanlides’) and the Arabic-speaking Rum are also part of the
"GENOS"].

When the Ecumenical Patriarch Vartholomaios addresses nowadays ‘To GENOS’ he does
so with the entire flock in mind.  How could the Mother Church vehemently condemn
‘racialism’ and in the same breath, attach the connotation of ‘phyle’ (race) to
the word ‘GENOS’?

Again, in the Patriarchal definition "TO GENOS" represents if you will- an
extension of the Rum Millet in?spirit. The national ‘cleavages’ and ‘awakenings’
of the 19th century Balkans have imparted a devastating fragmentation to the
totality of Romiosyni.

One of the key factors in the molding of the ‘national identity’ narrative in the
emerging Balkan nations was language.  However, in my view, language per se should
be not be construed as an a priori criterion of national or ethnic differentiation
in the prenationalistic period [vide infra].

[Below are excerpts from Basil C. Gounaris. Social cleavages and national
"awakening" in Ottoman Macedonia. East European Quarterly 1995; 29:409-426]

 "The existence of parties with national affiliations instead of ethnic groups
within the Christians of Macedonia and the undeniable fact that around 1900
national loyalties as a rule were not to be taken for granted puts the following
vital question: whether in the years preceding nationalism or under the thin layer
of nationalism the various Christian linguistic groups (Greek-, Vlach-, Albanian-
and Slav-speakers) corresponded to different ethnic groups. In 1903 Noel
Brailsford, a British journalist, met in Ochrid (medieval Achris), near the
Byzantine ruins, a group of Slav-speaking village boys. When he asked them whether
they knew who had built those ancient constructions they replied: `The free men,
our ancestors'. `Were they Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks or Turks?' asked the
journalist. The boys responded: `No they were not Turks, they were Christians'.

If the boys' answer represents an impartial or prenationalistic view, then it is
most likely that some illiterate, non Greek-speaking peasant members of the
Rumi-imillet in Macedonia (certainly not many amongst the fighting bandsmen), had
treasured their previous cultural loyalties as late as the early twentieth
century. In spite of all the ill digested national ideologies, they had been and
some still were Romii (Romans) or Rum (terms which had a strong religious
connotation), followers of the Ecumenical Patriarch, members of the Genos. This
was a notion, which in many parts (some Macedonian regions included) had not yet
developed into that of a modern national identity. They seemed to draw from an
Eastern-Orthodox Byzantine cultural tradition, which had amalgamated a variety of
regional and social subcultures, myths and memories, symbols and values. A
tradition, which had always disregarded linguistic differences and had created a
common mentality based on shared attitudes towards time, space, Muslim oppressors
(i.e. the Turks), and `civilized' Europeans."

As Aristide Caratzas points out, the ethno-linguistic diversity of the "GENOS" is
indisputable.  To this end, I should like to use the paradigm of the Vlachs in
order to illustrate the very important contribution of this 'ethno-culturally' and
‘ethno-linguistically’ distinctive group to the shaping of Romiosyni and the
creation of modern Greece and the modern Greek identity.

[Below are excerpts from the Academy of Athens Award-winning book by Asterios
Koukoudis ‘Studies on the Vlachs. 2nd Vol. (Greek edition)- The Vlachs: Metropolis
and Diaspora.’  Zitros Publications: Thessaloniki, 2000]

"A great deal of fiction also permeates the Vlachs’ nomenclature. We mustn’t
overlook the fact that the vast majority of the Vlachs, both within and beyond the
borders of Greece, refer to themselves as Armîn, pl. Armîni (Aroumanians), a term
which has the same root as Romios pl. Romii, which is what the Greek-speaking
populations called themselves until the term Ellinas pl. Ellines (Greeks or
Hellenes) reasserted itself.
 



It’s a fact that a number of historians and students of the Vlachs have ignored
the historical background out of which the modern Greek nation emerged. Since they
ignored or overlooked the Roman and Byzantine periods, it’s no wonder that they
disregarded the Vlachs too. And it was only to be expected that a variety of
self-appointed saviours and patrons should seek to claim the Vlachs out of this
limbo. But in the end, despite indifference and often rejection, the Vlachs have
emerged by their own efforts as a valuable component of modern Greek history and
the modern Greek identity. The history of the Vlach populations is an inseparable
part of the modern Greek experience and at the same time an important chapter in
Balkan history. Without a doubt, the Vlachs are one of the fundamental vehicles of
the Balkan dimension of modern Greece, a dimension which is sometimes disregarded
and sometimes extolled. But when Vlach-related issues come to be
regarded as taboo, then the most serious risk is that the Vlachs will start to
feel alienated from their own space and their own
homeland. Yet this sense of alienation conflicts with their collective memory,
which has always identified them with
Romiosyni. The Vlachs’ journey from the Ottoman millet-i-rûm to the
re-establishment of the Greek nation was essentially no different from that of
other groups, whether Greek-speaking or not, who in the same period (19th?20th
century) found themselves taking part in the nation-building ferment and changes
which helped to shape the modern Greek identity."

"Even after a millet-i-ullah (a Vlach (not ‘Romanian’) administrative division),
was recognised in 1905 [viz. by the Sultan], the Vlachs didn’t hasten to make the
most of the opportunity the Ottoman authorities had offered them, as the
Bulgarians had exploited similar opportunities in the past. This was because most
of the leaders of the local Vlach communities traditionally embraced the ‘Hellenic
idea’ and identified their own progress with that of the still tiny Greece.
Romanian propaganda failed to gain a foothold among the Vlachs of Eastern
Macedonia, for instance, whether settled or nomadic, the reason being that the
local communities all recognised the Vlachs as fundamentally modern Greeks. The
movement failed likewise in the Vlach villages on Olympos, where neither the
notables nor the ordinary folk felt themselves to be any different from the Greki
in terms of their modern Greek identity. Particularly in the areas of the Pindos
(Aspropotamos, Metsovo, Vlahodzoumerko, Vlahozagoro, Konitsa, Grevena, Grammos),
Olympos, and Askio, the identical modern history of the Greki and the Vlachs,
their joint participation in the armatoliks, the Greek War of Independence in 1821
and later rebellions (1854, 1878), the Vlachs’ prominent role in the local economy
and culture, their shared evolution, and their shared political sentiments meant
that the propaganda fell on stony ground indeed. There’s no clearer illustration
of this identification than the fate
of the village of Koutsoufliani after the Greek?Turkish War of 1897, when the
inhabitants elected to burn their houses down and cross over into Greek territory.
"

The Vlachs and the Greki may be two separate linguistic groups, but the rest of
their cultural differences, at least in the areas
where they’ve been in constant contact for centuries, have probably never been of
great significance, indeed have been a
negligible factor in their cohabitation and their shared history."

The joint struggle of ‘Greki’ and ‘Vlachs’ in the Greek War of Independence in
1821 and thereafter would be most consistent with the powerful words "tou Genous
tov allo sikomo"/"the other revolt of [our] Genos" ‘in the ‘Axion Esti’

Lastly, I thought that the definition of the word "GENOS" could not have been best
articulated but in the words of wisdom by an ordinary elderly Vlach.

Here again is a quote from Asterios Koukoudis’ book:

"I shall never forget what I heard from the simple people who gave the wisest,
clearest answers to my questions, drawn from their own profound experience.
Barba-Kostas Ziogas in Perithori near Kato Nevrokopi was one, and he told me:

‘Look, lad, the Greki aren’t more Greek than we are. We may be Vlachs, they may be
Greki, but all together we make up the Greeks.’ "

Christos D. Katsetos