This is an archive of past discussions about Souliotes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ahmet Q., with this edit you removed the information (a) that the Souliots themselves thought of themselves as Greeks, while the passage quoted clearly states that "none of them [=the "northern Greek warriors" among whom the "Albanian-speaking Suliots"] thought [...] of himself as less of a Greek for speaking little or nothing of the language" and that this was (b) in tension ("notwithstanding ...") with their having little or no Greek, which is also clearly stated in the passage quoted. You wrote in the edit description that "this is no exactly what the source is saying", but it actually does. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that the meaning itself changed with their edit, but I also don't think that statement they were not seen as any different is accurate when sources which discuss their settlement in Greece are taken into account. In some areas, Souliotes were accepted in local society and in some other areas they were distrusted and weren't wanted (Kostavasilis, Konstantinos (2002). Installations of refuges from Epirus and Thessaly in independent Greece 1832-1862 [Εγκαταστάσεις Ηπειρωτών και Θεσσαλών προσφύγων στο ελεύθερο κράτος 1832-1862] (Thesis). University of Ioannina. doi:10.12681/eadd/23070.) Again I think that we have to move away from an essentialist reading of why they were accepted or weren't accepted in local societies (religion, ethnicity) and understand that economic and political conditions dictated what happened. It's more pertinent to view Souliotes in the early Kingdom of Greece through the lens of how states manage refugees. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Maleschreiber, is it not the case that the two pieces of information that I mentioned in my first comment in this section and which are included in the passage quoted from Koliopoulos's text removed from the article's text with Ahmet Q.'s edit? I think so. But, if you don't think that the meaning of the text changed with Ahmet Q.'s edit (I do), then would be OK with reverting to the previous formulation? I did a cursory reading of the sections of the unpublished PhD dissertation that you linked and I failed to find something that contradicts what Koliopoulos (and Veremis) state. Could you please be of some help and point to relevant passages that directly relate to the point I raised? Thanks, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, now I had some time to check it in detail. The quote is Albanian-speaking Suliots and Hydriots, Vlach-speaking Thessalians and Epirots, and Slav-speaking Macedonians had fought in insurgent Greece along with the other Greeks, and no one at the time had thought of any of these non-Greek speakers less Greek than the Greek-speakers. which in the article was discussed as At the time of their settlement, the Albanian-speaking Souliots were seen by themselves and others as Greeks on a par with Greek-speakers, despite their modest knowledge or ignorance of the Greek language. which Ahmet Q. changed to At the time of their settlement, no-one thought that the Albanian-speaking Souliots and other non-Greek speakers were less Greek than the Greek-speakers.. The first wording includes a statement about self-identification, which the source doesn't include. Ahmet Q. changed this part to a wording closer to the original source. I'm still certain that even this wording is historically inaccurate as Kostavasilis (2002) highlights.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Maleschreiber, in what you quote in your message you have -I trust unintentionally- ommitted the second part of the quote, which is cited in its entirety in the article's footnote and parts of which I cited above in the very first comment that created this section, which, in fact, does include a statement about self-identification. For the convenience of yours and anyone else reading this discussion, I quote in full once again: "Albanian-speaking Suliots and Hydriots, Vlach-speaking Thessalians and Epirots, and Slav-speaking Macedonians had fought in insurgent Greece along with the other Greeks, and no one at the time had thought of any of these non-Greek speakers less Greek than the Greek-speakers. When most of the norther Greek fighters settled in southern Greece as refugees, none of them thought, or was made to think, of himself as less of a Greek for speaking little or nothing of the language, notwithstanding the ongoing deate on Greekness and Greek identity." [my emphasis] Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The source Koliopoulos & Veremis 2002 support Ahmedai's formulation. Maleschreiber, if you have other sources that are not in agreement with it, and you want to propose another formulation, please provide the relevant quotes. Otherwise Ashmedai's wording should be restored. – Βατο (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ashmedai 119: I did see this second sentence below the one which mentions Souliotes, but it doesn't directly mention them so I didn't take it into account. I think that conceptually the two sentences refer to different subjects. The sentence which directly includes the Souliotes doesn't refer to their self-perception. @Βατο: I expanded the article (Kostavasilis 2002) and in my opinion, it's evident that Souliotes both saw themselves as different from other groups and were seen as different by them. The motives were of course political and economic. In this context, At the time of their settlement, no-one thought that the Albanian-speaking Souliots and other non-Greek speakers were less Greek than the Greek-speakers in itself has to be modified as it is contradicted by the events of the early era of Souliot settlement in Greece.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the second sentence of Koliopoulos & Veremis 2002 is not directly referring to them, hence subject to interpretation. Anyway, it also refers to a different context. Thank you for your additions from Kostavalis 2002 into the article, now it is clearer. – Βατο (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I moved that information in the Historiography section as it was located out of context. Ashmedai, feel free to propose other formulations or placements according to that source. – Βατο (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Maleschreiber claims that the two consecutive sentences of the paragraph "conceptually [...] refer to different subjects" and concludes that the statements made in the second sentence do not concern the Souliots. This is just absurd and a blatant misinterpretation on his part. Bato now says that the second sentence is "subject to interpretation". Could one of the two please provide the interpretation s/he has in mind? Who are included in this group of "northern Greek fighters [who] settled in southern Greece as refugees" and were "speaking little or nothing of the [Greek] language", but are conceptually distinct from the "Albanian-speaking Suliots," the "Vlach-speaking Thessalians and Epirots, and Slav-speaking Macedonians" who "had fought in insurgent Greece along with the other Greeks"? If the two sentences are (in your view) referring to different subjects, could you please enlighten the understanding of those, such as myself and Ktrimi991 (see here), who are (in your opinion wrongly) thinking otherwise as to what is the group or concept that the second sentence of the quote refers to? Which is that group of "norther Greek fighters [who had] settled in southern Greece as refugees" and were "speaking little or nothing of the [Greek] language" that is "conceptually" distinct from the "*Albanian-speaking* Suliots [...], *Vlach-speaking* Thessalians and Epirots, and *Slav-speaking* Macedonians" who "had *fought* in insurgent Greece along with the other Greeks" that are mentioned in the sentence? What language other than Greek were they speaking (and other than Albanian, Vlach or Slav), whence in the northern Greek lands had they come to settle as refugees to Greece (other than Suli, Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia) and how come they are described -by some coincidental coincidence in manner simiar- as fighters, just like the group of the previous sentence? Thanks, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Ashmedai 119, it is subject of interpretation because it does not mention directly Souliotes, however, unlike Maleschreiber, I agree with you, but with the last comment in particular: that the second sentence refers to northern Greek fighters including Souliote fighters. That said, your formulation: At the time of their settlement, the Albanian-speaking Souliots were seen by themselves and others as Greeks on a par with Greek-speakers, despite their modest knowledge or ignorance of the Greek language. is WP:OR because it is not explicitly stated by the source (WP:SYNTH). As I've already stated, feel free to find another wording including also the proper contextualization of the two sentences in agreement with the source. – Βατο (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is WP:SYNTH. Kostavasilis (2002) highlights a very clear sequence of events about Souliot settlement in Greece which is obviously not corroborating the abstract statement that they weren't seen as "different from other groups". They were definitely seen as different and saw themselves as different from other groups. If we want to extend our historiographical inquiry to Slavs or Vlachs who settled in Greece, I'm absolutely certain that I will be able to find many more sources which highlight how differently they were treated in comparison to actual ethnic Greek refugees. That the emerging Greek nation of the 19th century had to find ways to integrate non-Greek communities which it did integrate slowly throughout the 19th century is a reality. But to say that all of these groups where already integrated when the Greek Kingdom was founded and nobody saw them differently isn't a statement based on what archival research highlights. The same statement is true for all emerging national identities of the 19th century which had to integrate other identities into a pre-existing ethnic one which had to change in order to be inclusive of new elements.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Ashmedai 119 claims that writing that "Souliotes in particular considered themselves distinct from other communities" is "false information"[1]. This is exactly what the source says. That a group from Arta considered itself distinct too - in some minor aspects compared to Souliots - doesn't change the information about the Souliotes who throughout the text are characterized by many other differences unlike the group from Arta. In discussing the case of another group from Epirus, Kostavasilis writes that "there is an obvious difference of this case to the one of the Souliotes". The terms "autochthonous" and "heterochthonous" in historiography don't just mean "native-born Greeks" vs. "foreign-born Greeks", they mean "native" and "foreigner" or in a more contextualized version "native-born" vs. "foreign-born" but in any case they are used to show a clear division, which in the case of ethnically different communities includes many other connotations. There is a reason why most groups considered "heterochthonous" were also not ethnic Greeks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The installation of Souliotes in Zapanti came into conflict not only with the ambiguous situation which was created in Western Greece (..) but mostly with the fierce reaction, as we saw, of the autochthonous inhabitants and their refusal to share their land with the heterochthonous Souliotes. (..) The intense reactions of the Roumeliotes toward the decisions of the government to install the anestioi (homeless?) Souliotes in Zapanti give birth to a series of questions about the character of these movements. Do they have only a local character as economic interests were under dispute, or do they follow a broader mentality in the Greek space which shows regionalist refusal towards everything foreign and an entrenchment of their own particular feeling of superiority? Historical research and the sources agree that regionalist differences and disputes played an important (negative) role (..) The case of the reactions in Zapanti may have as its foundation economic elements (..) it does, however, essentially show a broader mentality which exists at that time in Greece, a mentality of regionalist refusal towards anything foreign and an entrenchment of a "sacred" particularity. When the representatives who asked the government to stop the settlement of Souliotes, invoked, among other arguments,the sacredness of the land, the blood-stained earth "where in these fields so many monuments and remains of the locals are buried", this is exactly what they display. Their regionalist consciousness and their refusal to accept any infringement of their socio-political and economic normality. I don't think that anyone can read such historiographical-archival research and still claim that nobody saw anyone else as different. The Zapantiotes obviously refer to a specific cultural identity which differentiated at least a part of the population of Greece from specific groups. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
