Serbia v Kosovo
- Thread starter Dhimmi
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
That's as good as it gets with you. Now run along and find someone else to irritate with your pedantry....there's a good lad.
save catford
New Member
if you think pedantry is challenging the notion that nations are natural biological type organisms which have integral inherent parts and that those nations have a 'right' to certain parts of territory regardless of what the long settled inhabitants of that territory think then fair enough, but it's about as accurate an understanding as you have of bullying
if you want to buy into the romanticist reactionary bullshit pedalled by intellectual nationalist elites in belgrade (who wouldn't spend a night in kosovo if their life dependend upon it, but expect ordinary serbs to do so that can live out their romanticist desires from the safety of their comfortable metropolitan belgrade dwellings (a bit like the jewish lobby in new york) that kosovo is the heart & cradlle of serbia, a discourse that only really was invented in the 19th century (as all nations were doing at the time) then you go for it, but don't throw a paddy when someone comes along and points out the reactionary positions inherent in holding such a point of view
as far as the pedantry goes, let's count it up
from say the year zero to 1200 kosovo was part of god knows what, but not serbia -bulgars, byzantine etc.. - so 1200 years not part of serbia
from 1200 till 1459, kosovo was part of serbia, so 259 years being part of kosovo
from 1459 til 1913, kosovo was not part of serbia, so 452 years not being part of serbia
from 1913 till 2008, kosovo was part of serbia, so 95 years being part of kosovo
the final tally:-
kosovo was part of serbia for 355 years
kosovo was not part of serbia for 1,652 years
but as you say, kosovo has always been part of serbia........zzz
if you want to buy into the romanticist reactionary bullshit pedalled by intellectual nationalist elites in belgrade (who wouldn't spend a night in kosovo if their life dependend upon it, but expect ordinary serbs to do so that can live out their romanticist desires from the safety of their comfortable metropolitan belgrade dwellings (a bit like the jewish lobby in new york) that kosovo is the heart & cradlle of serbia, a discourse that only really was invented in the 19th century (as all nations were doing at the time) then you go for it, but don't throw a paddy when someone comes along and points out the reactionary positions inherent in holding such a point of view
as far as the pedantry goes, let's count it up
from say the year zero to 1200 kosovo was part of god knows what, but not serbia -bulgars, byzantine etc.. - so 1200 years not part of serbia
from 1200 till 1459, kosovo was part of serbia, so 259 years being part of kosovo
from 1459 til 1913, kosovo was not part of serbia, so 452 years not being part of serbia
from 1913 till 2008, kosovo was part of serbia, so 95 years being part of kosovo
the final tally:-
kosovo was part of serbia for 355 years
kosovo was not part of serbia for 1,652 years
but as you say, kosovo has always been part of serbia........zzz
Dimitris
Well-Known Member
Kosovo as well as the most of the Yugo area was ruled by the byzantine empire up to 1200 - this is when the slavs came in.
From 1459 and onwards we have the Ottoman empire that you completely "forget".
Basically up to 1913 and the Balkan wars you can not really say that there were real borders in all that area and that different countries-states did exist. During the Ottoman empire you had serbs, albanians, kosovars, turkish, slavs and greeks living all over the place at the Balkans with a lot of tention between them, but it is wrong to say that they belonged to any other "state" rather than the Ottoman empire.
Basically your approach to the balkans history is quite simplistic.
From 1459 and onwards we have the Ottoman empire that you completely "forget".
Basically up to 1913 and the Balkan wars you can not really say that there were real borders in all that area and that different countries-states did exist. During the Ottoman empire you had serbs, albanians, kosovars, turkish, slavs and greeks living all over the place at the Balkans with a lot of tention between them, but it is wrong to say that they belonged to any other "state" rather than the Ottoman empire.
Basically your approach to the balkans history is quite simplistic.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
How many do you need
? Mate of mine got to help clear up a couple of villages really unpleaseant tales .Unfortunatly albanians now want to do the same to the few remaining serbs .
gorski
customised free radical
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Your history appears to be slanted in a particular way. That is to say it favours the view that the West has constructed of Serbia and its people.
I think this remark is rather telling
Is it any less "romantic" than the KLA's vision for Kosovo? Is it any less "romantic" than the West's rose-tinted vision of a Kosovo run by the KLA?
Here's another
Stefan Dusan? The Serbian Empire? They both existed. Are you telling me that they didn't and that the Field of Blackbirds never happened? Of course.
save catford
New Member
i preusme this reply is in repsonse to nino savette and not me?
save catford
New Member
no, it exposes the history that fuckwitted serb elites have re(constructed) of serbia for the benefit of their own political projects, and you appear to be lapping that up
i don't care much for the KLA especially the likes of agim ceku who eagerly took part in operation storm when he was in the croat army (and i certainly havn't professed any support for them in anything i've said in this thread so away with your strawman), but as this argument is not about that anyway i'd prefer if you could (for once) stick to the actual topic being discussed
where did i say they didn't exist? i said the construction of the myths around them (especially 1389) to suite the distinctly modern political projects of the serb elites is very much a process started (like all other nationalisms) in the the 19th century, lots of clambering around looking for any old shreds of culturtal artefacts to mould the past in order to suit the requirement of (their) present
and in anyway if you want to get into all that, why if kosovo was so sacred to serbia and dusan did he choose skpoje as his base and there to be cornated as the king of all serbs, bulgars and greeks (or whatever it was), why was the nemanja's base in novi pazar/rasca and from milutin onwards it was skopje, and why if 1389 is so important did we have serbs fighting on both sides of that battle, why was that battle chosen as the one to remember when from a strategic point of view the battles of 1371 & 1420's were far more signficant in terms of the serb empires eventual demise? why did the serb empire run on for another 70 years if 1389 was the glorious defeat & subjagation that the nationalist myths keep pumping out? (even though the real demise came with dusan's death in 1355) i'll tell you one reason it was picked by the reconstructionists, it's because it fell on st vitus's day and allowed for a more fanciful myth to be built around it, and one other thing if 1389 is so important how come it was only incorporated into the orthodox church's national-religious calendar of celebration in the 19th century
in addition all that pish & myths built up around lazar is reconstructionist nonsense, the parallels with jesus and the last supper, the judas betrayal, the hero giving his life up for his 'heavenly people', etc.. etc.., it's blatant use of christian mythology to bolster an elite driven nationalist political project (which incidently is what most european nationalisms is rooted in)
there's more myths & falsities about 1389 than 9-11
(and once again i note you rely on the existence of an empire that crumbled 600 years ago to justify a nation claiming ownership of a piece of land in the here & now, i presume on this basis you'd agree with someone who says that ireland has, and has always belonged to britain, because it was once part of it's empire)
True. Now go and explain this to those upset Serb people and they'll see the light.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
save catford
New Member
how many upset people are there really? the western media seems keen to portray the demonstrations & violence we've seen in the last few days as representative of all of the serb people, and of course they do that as it fits in with the distinctively recently modern 'bad guys' image that the west has built up around serbs over the last 3 decades (in complete contrast to the 'good guy' image the british establishment constructed of them in the early part of the 20th century)
my reading of the situation is that the serb people have finally reaslised that they've been marched up to the top of the hill and down again (or rather left abandoned at the top) too many times by fuckwitted elite intellectuals/nationalists, and are finally starting to see that they've been used as pawns all along, milsoveic gambled with the people and the people lost. so no, although probably most will shed a tear and feel a sense of loss now that kosovo is officially no longer 'there's', i'd say that most have realised that they lost it a long time ago, and furthermore a concentration on the multitude of actual social & economic problems that they are facing in the here & now, day in day out, are concerns that are much further to the fore than that of a long lost jerusluem, and the less chance there is for those concerns to be portrayed by nationalist pricks as somehow due to the serbs not having a greater serbia or ownership of kosovo the better
save catford
New Member
me too
here's an example of a some serbs putting socio-economic priorities over nationalist mythological ones
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWZoKWBYXE
here's an example of a some serbs putting socio-economic priorities over nationalist mythological ones
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWZoKWBYXE
gorski
customised free radical
Quite. I put it up yesterday - just to see what's really on...
And what is it? Well,
1) the American way of living [aspirationally - the American soft power at work, the influence of the American sub-culture] or,
2) in Serbia and Kosovo today, a sheer survival struggle, as not so soft consequences of such "transition" for most [Serbs or not - and soon they'll all have to wake up to smell the shit they're in, rather than the coffee...] hit where it hurts the most, and it ain't their flag...
3) on top of that: hard American power - someone is spreading their worldwiev worldwide.... and it's gonna be really ugly, I fear, for a helluvalot of people, especially those at the bottom of the social scale, the cannon fodder...
Complete shambles!!!
And what is it? Well,
1) the American way of living [aspirationally - the American soft power at work, the influence of the American sub-culture] or,
2) in Serbia and Kosovo today, a sheer survival struggle, as not so soft consequences of such "transition" for most [Serbs or not - and soon they'll all have to wake up to smell the shit they're in, rather than the coffee...] hit where it hurts the most, and it ain't their flag...
3) on top of that: hard American power - someone is spreading their worldwiev worldwide.... and it's gonna be really ugly, I fear, for a helluvalot of people, especially those at the bottom of the social scale, the cannon fodder...
Complete shambles!!!
Ah yes, a profound statement of repudiation of nationalist criminal ways.
save catford
New Member
where did i say that's what it was
save catford
New Member
of course they'll be hoolies, but it doesn't stop some in the media making out that they are representative of the mass of ordinary serbs, or for others to try to make the point that all of serbia is raging about losing kosovo and this is the expression of that outrage
save catford
New Member
yeah true, some people
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
This is from 2006 but still has some interesting information ...
http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=689
http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=689
NOw thats a subject I could talk about for hours.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Such as? The Battle on the Field of Blackbirds took place. Yes or no?
I don't think that it is simply down to a group of "Belgrade elitists" to inject ideas into people's heads. You actually seem to be suggesting that the majority of Serbs are stupid and cannot think for themselves. Furthermore you have the cheek to suggest that I am "lapping up propaganda" from Belgrade.
Don't talk rubbish, there is no comparison to be drawn between the two.
Of course, you never actually said whether or not you support Kosovo's [unilateral] declaration of independence. Given your replies thus far, it would be reasonable to assume that you do.
save catford
New Member
christ are you really this thick? read my posts and you'll see exactly what i'm saying ,or let me put it in another way
i believe that jesus existed as a historical figure, i don't believe any of the myths attributed to him and the objective importance of such myths in the here & now, same goes for the myths around kosovo (i honestly don't believe i have to explain such simple concepts such as this). so to recap, it's possible to detach the objective happening of an event from the myths & stories attributed (retrospectively) to that event and therefore debunk the usage of such myths by nationalist fuckwitted elites to further their own dead end political projects
but even putting all that aside and if we stick with your literalist approach to things, in what way does the existence of a battle in 1389 have a bearing on the choices being made 600 years later by a group of people who happen to live in an area where the battle happened?
if you had any knoweldge of the tracetory & development of serbian nationalilsm since they became independent from the ottoman empire in the early 19th century you would see that it was been led, managed, directed & drove on by intellectuals, artists, poets, high church officials and opportunisitc nationalist politicians, and yes nationalism (just like religion) tricks peole into subordinating their own objective interests in favour of some mythical notion of the nation, we are all taken in by it to some degree or another. everything you have wrote so far to me suggests that in your desire to counter the (very real) binary view that is taken by the western media's approach to serbia, you automatically take diametrically opposite positions of that media (therefore enforcing the binary logic of such debates), it's a typically trot/liberal tactic
ireland/kosovo for some time never used to be part of britain/serbia, then for a few hundres years ireland/kosovo was part of britain/serbia, then they both detached themselves from that rule. in the later case you maintain that kosovo has always been a part of serbia, but in the former you deny any parallel. perhaps that's a lesson for you in relying on such shaky premises in the first position to justify your position
i pretty much do support it yes, i don't think it will do kosovo serbs or albanian serbs much good to be honest, they will still face the very same real socio-economic problems (and in reality there won't be much difference as all it will be will be a transfer from UN supervision to EU supervision), and there's a lot of potential for those troubles to be whipped up and used as fuel by nationalist currents, however the reason i support it is that i support the right for any group of people to have the decision making apparatus that they live under to be as close to them as possible, so in the same manner that i support scottish & welsh devolvement (but detest scottish & welsh nationalism) i support this move. i don't see why, from the comfort of a western keyboard, one should deny a group of people the right to make choices about their political framework. now that doesn't mean for a second that i have any illusions about the real ability of ordinary kosovo albanians to have any control over their lifes and in reality they are just swapping one bunch of ruling elites for another, but if you believe in the principle of a people's right to choose for themselves then i believe you have to support that right in practice as well, otherwise there's no point in having principles in the first place (unless you live in textbooks). i also for the record suppor the rights of the serbs in the northern part of kosovo to break away and also support the right of bosnian serbs in republika srspka to declare indepedence from bosnia. clearly judging from the tonal sense of disgust from you at the possibility that i might support the right of kosovo to seceede, that you don't really have much truck in the ideas of people being able to choose things for themselves, and must be instead made to be subordinate to i) the state elites decisions routed in a false mythology that dates back nearly a thousnad years or ii) what people on western message boards think should happen
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
It seems as though you were waiting for me to appear on this thread. Did you wait up all night in the hope that I would post?
I'm right about you though: you not only have a tendency to read what you want in my posts, you also have a nice line in sneering comments as you have here
Are you really this much of a bully that you cannot communicate without resorting to abuse? From the moment you first replied to me, you've done nothing but sneer. What I find curious about you and other MATBers, is the way in which you cannot communicate without resorting to either abuse or smears.
You might try breaking up your extraordinarily long paragraphs too.
I'm right about you though: you not only have a tendency to read what you want in my posts, you also have a nice line in sneering comments as you have here
Are you really this much of a bully that you cannot communicate without resorting to abuse? From the moment you first replied to me, you've done nothing but sneer. What I find curious about you and other MATBers, is the way in which you cannot communicate without resorting to either abuse or smears.
You might try breaking up your extraordinarily long paragraphs too.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I see you couldn't resist using the words "trot" and "liberal" here. That's a giveaway if ever there was one. It's also rather nice of you to tell me what's in my own head.
So what you're saying here is that it is only Serbia who engages in national myth-making?
save catford
New Member
a response to every subject under the sun in that post, except of course, the substantive points of the topic under discussion, very telling
how do you get on when you pick up a book by the way? (re paragraphs)
gorski
customised free radical
I don't have a problem with long paragraphs! 
I don't - but for different reasons than you, as you'll see later. Basically atomisation is not the answer today - we see other, better solutions, then going back to XIX ct. dangerous stuff!
Agreed, as I wrote earlier, here and elsewhere. These are the real issues!
Indeed, which is why I would go in the opposite direction from what you just sketched.
Agreed on nationalism as such.
But here lies the really unpleasant problem. If you are to fight it - how do you do it? Like New Labour fights nationalism [tabloids] by actually embracing the terminology, the rhetoric and the agenda? In order to stay in power, needless to say...
I say not by pandering to it and going to the future with your back turned to it but turning into the future, facing it - all of it's challenges and opportunities. The EU is doing it, so it's not like we have to invent the wheel all over again.
I'll tell you exactly why: within 20 years they [Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosnians etc.] shall all be in the EU and the very ground from under the nationalists' legs will be removed!! Or at least we have that opportunity at our disposal. The conditions for the possibility to become reality are there!
Then, the principle of taking the decisions as low as possible, as closer to the people affected comes into play much more effectively. Why? Because those countries will for a long time be dependent on the Western EU for the functioning of their states, which they can't pay for.
Also, there will be recourse to justice if their leaders are seriously corrupt etc. - at the EU level. As things stand, for instance, Turkey's leaders can pound Kurds with impunity and no consequences for it will be felt by the decision makers.
Moreover, the wider considerations have been forgotten [by you, rather gallantly, I have to say]. You seem to be doing the Milosevic/Tudjman thing all over again: you do not ask for the price to be paid for your "vision"!
Wider still: Modernity has the tendency you mention - to draw everything from a single principle. You forgot at least 1 other major principle and that is the sovereignty. Who decides who votes on an issue? Under which conditions, by which procedures etc.?
In all things Human there is no such thing as a single principle from which one draws all the conclusion, even though some have tried it, forgetting the Ancient Greek lessons on the topics! Modernity sometimes [in some of its strands] "thinks" that it has found the "universal single law" [gravity, if you wish] by which to order everything around. But there is none in all things Human!!! There are always many possibilities and perceptions, interests and different principles to be considered, never just one!!!
Or else - yet more conflict!!!
Sure, the principle is sound but it must be weighed by wider considerations and other principles. Textbooks should have told you that. You conveniently forgot it. The Sovereignty principle, that is.
Moreover, the "domino theory" in particular applies here!
Therein lieth the danger!!!
You really are NOT thinking critically here, which is a shame, as I thought that so far you did precisely that, in your otherwise excellent analysis! You took nationalism as such to the cleaners, as a critical thinker should! But here you have failed to do any such thing!
The conclusion, I have to say, is quite emotional. It is grafted onto the sound premisses in an almost violent and totally careless manner! Non sequitur!! It is completely illogical to conclude that - from all of your previous principles, used in the preceding analysis!
The reasons are given above. This is a retrograde move in the opposite direction, back to nationalism!!! And we do have a viable and quite exciting new option in freely giving up sovereignty in a co-operative manner, through negotiations -> EU style!!!
You sense of strategy [your critical thinking on the subject] has completely [and quite suddenly] failed you, I'm sorry to say!!! [Sounds really strange. It would be interesting to hear more from you on the subject - as to what you base it in?]
No, this can be done but it shouldn't be unilaterally for all the above reasons. One ought to be able to see wider than one's own arse. Moreover, the world ought to be able to see wider than a single case. The consequences may be really grave if this principle, you are uncritically advocating, is pushed forward.
The way forward is NOT by going back towards atomisation and by default strenghtening that which you have attacked so well in your previous critical analysis!
I don't - but for different reasons than you, as you'll see later. Basically atomisation is not the answer today - we see other, better solutions, then going back to XIX ct. dangerous stuff!
Agreed, as I wrote earlier, here and elsewhere. These are the real issues!
Indeed, which is why I would go in the opposite direction from what you just sketched.
Agreed on nationalism as such.
But here lies the really unpleasant problem. If you are to fight it - how do you do it? Like New Labour fights nationalism [tabloids] by actually embracing the terminology, the rhetoric and the agenda? In order to stay in power, needless to say...
I say not by pandering to it and going to the future with your back turned to it but turning into the future, facing it - all of it's challenges and opportunities. The EU is doing it, so it's not like we have to invent the wheel all over again.
I'll tell you exactly why: within 20 years they [Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosnians etc.] shall all be in the EU and the very ground from under the nationalists' legs will be removed!! Or at least we have that opportunity at our disposal. The conditions for the possibility to become reality are there!
Then, the principle of taking the decisions as low as possible, as closer to the people affected comes into play much more effectively. Why? Because those countries will for a long time be dependent on the Western EU for the functioning of their states, which they can't pay for.
Also, there will be recourse to justice if their leaders are seriously corrupt etc. - at the EU level. As things stand, for instance, Turkey's leaders can pound Kurds with impunity and no consequences for it will be felt by the decision makers.
Moreover, the wider considerations have been forgotten [by you, rather gallantly, I have to say]. You seem to be doing the Milosevic/Tudjman thing all over again: you do not ask for the price to be paid for your "vision"!
Wider still: Modernity has the tendency you mention - to draw everything from a single principle. You forgot at least 1 other major principle and that is the sovereignty. Who decides who votes on an issue? Under which conditions, by which procedures etc.?
In all things Human there is no such thing as a single principle from which one draws all the conclusion, even though some have tried it, forgetting the Ancient Greek lessons on the topics! Modernity sometimes [in some of its strands] "thinks" that it has found the "universal single law" [gravity, if you wish] by which to order everything around. But there is none in all things Human!!! There are always many possibilities and perceptions, interests and different principles to be considered, never just one!!!
Or else - yet more conflict!!!
Sure, the principle is sound but it must be weighed by wider considerations and other principles. Textbooks should have told you that. You conveniently forgot it. The Sovereignty principle, that is.
Moreover, the "domino theory" in particular applies here!
Therein lieth the danger!!!
You really are NOT thinking critically here, which is a shame, as I thought that so far you did precisely that, in your otherwise excellent analysis! You took nationalism as such to the cleaners, as a critical thinker should! But here you have failed to do any such thing!
The conclusion, I have to say, is quite emotional. It is grafted onto the sound premisses in an almost violent and totally careless manner! Non sequitur!! It is completely illogical to conclude that - from all of your previous principles, used in the preceding analysis!
The reasons are given above. This is a retrograde move in the opposite direction, back to nationalism!!! And we do have a viable and quite exciting new option in freely giving up sovereignty in a co-operative manner, through negotiations -> EU style!!!
You sense of strategy [your critical thinking on the subject] has completely [and quite suddenly] failed you, I'm sorry to say!!! [Sounds really strange. It would be interesting to hear more from you on the subject - as to what you base it in?]
No, this can be done but it shouldn't be unilaterally for all the above reasons. One ought to be able to see wider than one's own arse. Moreover, the world ought to be able to see wider than a single case. The consequences may be really grave if this principle, you are uncritically advocating, is pushed forward.
The way forward is NOT by going back towards atomisation and by default strenghtening that which you have attacked so well in your previous critical analysis!
Similar threads
