Allow me to clarify some things, this quiz uses the short names for countries. The Federated States of Micronesia don't have a short name. They're only known by their long name. Macedonia on the other hand is officially called the Republic of Macedonia (It hasn't been called Fornmer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in nearly 20 years). The Republic of Macedonia's short name is Macedonia.
Fun fact: Canada is one of the few countries that has no prefix (i.e. "Republic of...") which is the result of its unique relationship with Great Britain.
What, you're just assuming Canada doesn't have a nicer, snugglier relationship with Britain than Australia and New Zealand? I assure you, Canada and Britain's relationship is unique because it is the snuggliest out of all the Commonwealth countries. So many snuggles that Canada has to juggle the snuggles.
How has the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia been out of use for 20 years? Several countries have never accepted the name "Republic of Macedonia" because this interferes with Greece's national heritage (it creates the illusion that anything Macedonian is not Greek, which is horribly wrong). So, because of the ongoing naming dispute, most major international organisations (e.g. the UN, the EU, the IOC) refer to the country as FYROM.
By "several countries" do you mean Greece and only Greece? If not, then this is inaccurate. Greece has put pressure on some organizations to adopt their ridiculous stance, but no other country gives a crap. Greek and Macedonian nationalism were both birthed around the same time. And now they fight over this nonsense because their respective creation myths (a necessary component to any nationalist narrative) are contradictory; and also, of course, because of tourist dollars.
Probably also because it's the Balkans and hating your neighbors is a time-honored tradition.
Actually, kalbahamut, it's 16 coutries according to Wikipedia, among which Germany, France, Japan etc. And all these countries refuse to accept FYROM's claims because this country is the one employing ridiculous methods to falsify history and fuel irredentism, not Greece. Imagine Canada deciding to call itself "America" (well, Canada is part of the American continent, right?) and trying to use this to prove that the American Revolution, the American Civil War etc. are actually their own history. And that since these historical events took place on US soil, much of the US is actually occupied Canadian lands largely inhabited by oppressed Canadians. Such nonsense is exactly the impression that FYROM is trying to create. As to the stance of other countries, it's all a matter of political interests.
If Canada wants to change their name to America, let them. I honestly couldn't possibly care less. Even though your analogy is wrong. And obviously biased. And it would be a little weird for them to make that an official name. But if they wanted to be the Republic of America, or the Commonwealth Realm of America, or the Democratic Federation of America, or the United Provinces of America... that would be perfectly fine. Why wouldn't it be? It's their country. And yes they are in North America. And if Americans started whining about this and insisting that Canadians were "stealing" their history, as if such a thing were even possible, and changed all their signs going to the Republic of America to read "FCROA" just as a general F you to their Canadian neighbors... I would loudly and confidently call those Americans pathetic, petty, ignorant morons. I have no problem calling out my fellow citizens for stupidity or jingoism when they exhibit it, which is often enough.
and if then the Republic of America built a giant statue of George Washington in Ottawa, I wouldn't mind pointing out that this was a bit kitschy or silly. Thought I still wouldn't insist they change the name of their country. That would be stupid.
I would be happy to hear what makes the analogy so obviously wrong and biased, because the only major difference I can see is that any hypothetical attempts by Canada to promote a nationalistic narrative based on name changes and ludicrous statements about history would be of no international significance. The US has the power to ensure that, after all. On the contrary, in a region where nationalism, irredentism and claims about the oppression of minorities have very recently sparked public unrest, wars and genocides and have been used as an excuse for foreign intervention, one cannot just sit back while a neighbouring country is successfully trying to create widespread international confusion about historical issues in order to justify the promotion of an aggressive nationalist agenda.
You may think that we Macedonian Greeks are overreacting when we don't want road signs reading "Macedonia: 100km" while we are already in Macedonia, when we feel uncomfortable about people getting our nationality wrong if we say we are Macedonians, or about them thinking that Alexander the Great was not Greek. But pathetic morons we are certainly not, especially since there is a complex and possibly threatening political issue underlying the choice of name.
If someone asks you your nationality and you answer that you are Macedonian, then you deserve any resulting frustration. If someone asks you where you are from and you answer that you are Macedonian, then any resulting confusion ought to frustrate you no more than residents of Georgia the US state (correct answer: not at all). And Alexander was not Greek in the sense that you are using the word. Just because there existed a word Greek in ancient texts that contemporary Greek nationalists co-opted to describe the people of the country they invented doesn't mean that the word in both contexts now means the same thing. Further, it doesn't matter whether he was or not.
The main reason your analogy is absurd is that the United States is barely 200 years old. There was never any overlap between the territories of Canada and the US. Americans can trace their national history back to the Revolution pretty easily and there's no period inbetween then and the present when the country ceased to exist and the ethnicity meant something other than what it means today. Beyond the Revolution we are talking about some combination of Native American history, British history, French history, etc... which Canadians have at least equal claim to. It would be supremely stupid for Americans to claim that they are the true Brits and Canadians have no claim to the legacy of John Cabot, Jamestown, etc. and they don't do that. If Canadians want to build a statue of John Smith, Pocahontas, or King George, great. Go for it. It doesn't matter if they speak a different language in Quebec.
Anyway while the USA has its share of creation myths, as all nationalist movements have and require, the American creation myths are not as far fetched as most because the history is so short. It's not a big stretch for Americans to claim Benjamin Franklin as one of their own. After the Declaration of Independence he had American citizenship so they have that in common and there's not a big separation in time, and no separation in terms of national identity since they're using the same Constitution today. It's not nearly the same thing as modern Greeks or Macedonians trying to lay claim to Alexander, who was neither Greek nor Macedonian, in the contemporary sense; but whose ancient kingdom existed in both countries, and whose descendants live in both countries.
Your rambling about aggressive nationalist agendas and genocides... come on are you serious? Yeah nationalism is stupid and leads to bad things. Greek nationalism as much as any other flavor. So why not let it go?
Despite the separation in time, I believe it is wrong to claim that Greece has no continuity as a nation. Greeks never seized to exist or define themselves as such, and elements that compose a national identity, most notably the Greek language, have stood the test of time remarkably well. State sovereignty and integrity are pretty much the only things the US has maintained better than Greeks, and I wouldn't call these crucial in terms of defining nationality. I am not implying that this is proof of ethnic purity or superiority. In fact, I believe anyone has the right to be inspired not only by the ancient Macedonian civilisation, but also by any culture or historical figure of the recent or distant past. Nevertheless, denying the connection between ancient or modern Greeks and Macedonia is a mistake in historical terms. The FYROM government has not only turned this mistake into a national policy, but they have also been promoting it precisely as proof of their own ethnic superiority.
Of course you can find such an absurd notion of superiority among nationalists around the world. The key factor in FYROM, and the reason why it is indeed aggressive and worrying, is that it is not only actively promoted by the state, along with a strong flavour of irredentism, but the main instrument of this promotion, namely the stubborn stance on the naming dispute, is also internationally condoned, with the resulting historical confusion creating an anti-Greek sentiment in connection with this issue even in the minds of educated people globally. In a similar discussion elsewhere on this very site, where comments are on average more educated than most places on the web, Greeks were collectively categorized as people with issues they need to get over. This is really saddening and unjustified, and one of the main reasons why we Greeks insist on not just letting it go.
You might believe it's wrong to claim that there is no continuity... but I'm sorry, you've been duped by the nationalist lie of your own country. There isn't any continuity. And you're wrong that Greeks never ceased to define themselves as Greeks. They absolutely did. When the entire Byzantine Empire covered all the lands from Italy to Iran, and all of it spoke Greek, the ethnicity of Greek did not exist. When the Ottomans came and conquered the same territory, and slowly the Turkish language and Muslim religion came to displace Greek and Orthodox Christianity, the term "Greek" was used to refer to members of the Greek Orthodox Church. It didn't mean the same thing that you think it means today. Language is often used to define a nation, but I find it an incredibly flimsy thing to base it on. If I am from China but learn to speak Japanese, does that make me Japanese? If I move to America and my children speak English, are they not Chinese?
and what is "Chinese" anyway (linguistically)? There are hundreds of languages and dialects spoken in China, to go along with hundreds of ethnicities. And yet China has more political, historical, and cultural continuity than Greece does. (I also believe Chinese nationalism is a lie, for what it's worth) It's all BS. Anyone can learn to speak a language. You don't have to be related to Alexander to speak Greek. And you could be his direct descendant and speak Bulgarian. The Israelis revived a completely dead language when they created their nationalist myth. So greater linguistic feats have been accomplished than the preservation of Greek.
You say it is a mistake to deny a connection between ancient Macedon and Greek Macedonia. Okay. Who does that? And how do you then go on to deny the connection between ancient Macedon and the Republic of Macedonia? Both places existed within the territory of Philip II's empire. Both contain his genetic heirs.
If the Republic of Macedonia's government is being petty and trying to thumb their nose at Greek Macedonians (and I know that they are).... LET THEM! Why bring yourself down to their level? Frankly both sides of this debate are acting like petulant children. Any anti-Greek sentiment that arises from this, I submit, is directly the result of Greeks loudly insisting on use of "FYROM," when everyone else sees how silly and pointless this is. If you wanted to be the mature ones in this dispute and just let it go as I suggest, there would be no anti-Greek sentiment. You are causing the very thing that you say you need to fight against. You would win the fight if you just stopped fighting.
I agree that language in itself is not proof of a nation's continuity, but the preservation of a language is an undeniable indicator of an ongoing desire to respect the tradition of one's ancestors, even more so when it has survived through Roman, Bulgarian, western European and Ottoman conquests. This respect for a common history and past and the will to honour it is what I believe defines a nation and its continuity, and it is also what has kept the Greek civilisation perfectly alive throughout many difficult centuries, its continuity not being some sort of fabrication necessary for religious identification, but a fact already documented by Byzantine scholars, still far from the necessity of a common conscience against an occupying force, in a state that actually never seized to identify itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire.
Considering the above, and the fact that, as you said anyway, using alleged bloodlines to lay claim to history is pretty much nonsense whatever nation we are talking about, if Slavic Macedonians indeed respected ancient Macedonia and its civilisation, I would be happy to embrace the connection between the two. Yet what FYROM keeps doing is a laughable falsification of historical facts about Macedonia and Alexander (a unifier of nations, by the way) in an attempt to maintain the integrity of a state linguistically composed mostly of Bulgarian and Albanian speakers, by fanaticising the population about their national superiority and the rightful nature of irredentist claims against their neighbours. This is evidently such a blatant display of both disrespect for history and aggression towards Greece, that carelessly accepting FYROM's position on the dispute would be a self-inflicted blow not only to Greece's diplomatic position, but also to the Greeks' own respect towards their past.
I see what goes on in the Republic of Macedonia as reactionary. Having spent a lot of time in Skopje and Thessaloniki. The Greeks are a lot more emotional about this than the Macedonians are, and the people in Skopje mostly think of their own government as ridiculous. If the Greeks would stop insisting on stupid crap like changing all of the signs pointing toward Macedonia to "FYROM"... then I bet the Macedonians would stop trying to antagonize Greece. It's just petty bickering on both sides and they both distort history to their own ends. I've also visited the "Museum of the Macedonian Struggle" in both Skopje and Thessaloniki. Going by the one in Thessaloniki it's like the country of North Macedonia doesn't even exist. At least the one in Skopje concedes that there is a Greece.
I guess it would be annoying to go by FYROM. Having the name of the country you were once part of would be annoying. I would hate for my country to be the Former British Republic of Ireland or whatnot. (I know that's probably not what it would be, but I'm bad with words). It would just be a reminder that we were part of that country, and all the work for independence and seeing us as our own nation would sort of disappear. I don't now the full story of FYROM, just saying if I was Macedonian or probably wouldn't like it to much.
hoping that you would disappear is exactly what Greece had in mind when they invented the ridiculous named "FYROM" for the Republic of Macedonia (now known as the Republic of North Macedonia)
Actually there is the name of the Dominion of Canada, however it's not used in any official contexts. The name Republic of Ireland is also not used in any official contexts though (the country is officially just called "Ireland"), but everybody still recognizes it as the country's longer/more formal name.
I think ROI is used sometimes just to differentiate from Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. ROI is used in some sports for example.
I regularly forget, well think late of mexico, i used to allways forget greece. (And east-timor samoa and sierra leone on bigger quizes). And often uk and us slip out mind aswell
This comment section is a perfect demonstration of humanity's stubborn determination to argue over literally nothing and pretend to be fired up and emotionally invested in something they found off Wikipedia >.>
Israel and its Arab neighbors remind me of seven brothers laying claim to their deceased parent's land. One brother claims that the land is his because he lived there with and took care of their parents while the others were out traipsing around the world. The other brothers claim that, whether or not they were present, they have a right to inherit, as they are rightful heirs of their parents.
Which "brother" do you imagine took care of the parent and which did the traipsing? Because both Jews and Muslims have lived there since the 12th Century.
Micronesia used to work on this test. Can you put the same disclaimer that you put for Macedonia to explain why it got taken off, for those of us coming back to re-test ourselves?
I think JetPunk rather uses official English names given by the country itself and accepted by the UN. The official English name was changed to Myanmar. While some countries governments use Burma international English media rather uses Myanmar.
Just because a country plays in a different country's domestic league, it doesn't mean that it is part of that country, it may just be too small to host a national league since it is literally only one city.
My was all the comments just full paragraphs? Myanmar was one I almost missed. Many people call it Burma so was confused. That country should be in a grey box to avoid confusion.
It's funny.. I can sit here and name every country on earth.. For some reason when I have to narrow them down specifically to what letter they start with, I blank!!
Fun fact: Canada is one of the few countries that has no prefix (i.e. "Republic of...") which is the result of its unique relationship with Great Britain.
Probably also because it's the Balkans and hating your neighbors is a time-honored tradition.
Your rambling about aggressive nationalist agendas and genocides... come on are you serious? Yeah nationalism is stupid and leads to bad things. Greek nationalism as much as any other flavor. So why not let it go?
You say it is a mistake to deny a connection between ancient Macedon and Greek Macedonia. Okay. Who does that? And how do you then go on to deny the connection between ancient Macedon and the Republic of Macedonia? Both places existed within the territory of Philip II's empire. Both contain his genetic heirs.
Martinique is not its own country.
Kiwis will know.
in 1775, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio
and I believe also Indiana and Illinois were all in the Province
of Quebec which, I believe, is in Canada.
Your Learning but really slow
Oh, where's Solomon when you need him!
to point out the insanity of kinship infighting. In the end, nobody wins.
Montserrat, that is in Carribean
Whyyyy
This beats or equals 5.7% of test takers
The average score is 11
Your high score is 3
WE LOVE THIS SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This beats or equals 5.7% of test takers
The average score is 11
Your high score is 3
Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozam, Mali, Mauritius. Africa has a lot.
Asia has: Malaysia Mongolia Maldives. Europe has Malta, Monaco Montenegro.
And then there’s Mexico.