Balkan Ⓐnarchist

WORKERS' SOLIDARITY IN LUTON!

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:42:00 +0000

This morning, there was a march through the centre of Luton town and a gathering at the other end of the town centre. Members of a number of trade unions (or syndicates) participated in the march, and there were featured speeches at the gathering. Flags were waving, placards were held, whistles blowing, even some bagpipes playing, and workers' solidarity was there for all to see and hear. And I was there to offer my mere presence and support to their worthy cause and struggle!

I saw these unions represented by their placards and/or banners:

Unison (they brought those long banners and some held triangular ones)

UCU

Unite the Union (they brought their red banner with their name on it in white)

Coalition of Resistance

ATL (they brought their wide, yellow banner)

TUC (they pinned up a wide, pink poster saying "Pensions Justice" on it) [Corrected 2nd December 2011]

NUT (National Union of Teachers Luton branch brought their own wide, navy blue banner with a white dove holding a branch in its beak)

PCS

GMB

Luton Trade Union Council (recognised by a wide, red banner with their name on it in yellow)

NAPO (I saw a couple of them holding FDA leaflets).

I saw a long line of people arriving in the march (I was merely a spectator of that). The bagpipes mentioned above, plus drums and kilts, were all courtesy of the Luton Irish Forum, who were at the front of the march. I saw Gavin Shuker, the MP for the Luton South constituency, somewhere in the middle of the initial march (his speech was read out at the gathering). I saw three Socialist Workers placards there. And I saw one guy wearing a flourescent jacket with the Green party logo on (there were a few others wearing flourescent jackets, some with symbols of the unions mentioned above).

Based on my observation, I estimated about 200 people present at the gathering to hear the various speakers. The speeches were mainly about public sector cuts and how unfair they were on public sector workers, who were not responsible for the economic crisis we are in, yet could lose their jobs if the government gets its way. Also, there were speeches about teachers (who are particularly on strike today) and pensions ("It's not our fault we're living longer", to quote one of the speakers). A few Tory politicians' names were mentioned in a not so favourable context, one of them being George Osborne MP, "hiding in Brussels". And there was one poignant speech by a 68 year old trade union member, who said he was hoping to retire at 65 but couldn't, and certainly won't be able to under this "bloody government"! Not only that, he said was hoping that his four grandchildren would look after him in his old age, but with things the way are, it looks like he will have to provide for them instead!

The speeches finished at 12:50pm and the crowds started to slowly disperse from then on. Returning to the scene of the gathering, I found a white unite balloon on the ground, and took it home as a souvenir of the day (I just felt like it at that moment)!

21,000 Kosovo Serbs and counting seek Russian citizenship — an Anarchist perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:12:00 +0000

Last week, we heard news that over 20,000 Serbs in Kosovo are seeking Russian citizenship (read here). This news has come about not long after recent clashes had occurred at the border posts between Serbia and Kosovo, which occurred after local Serbs in the mainly-Serb north of Kosovo had placed barricades in response to Priština's imposition of Kosovan state customs officers (read here). However, most of those Serbs applying to become Russian citizens live in various enclaves further south from the major clashes in the north (read here). Also, away from the border crossings, a shooting incident occurred between ethnic Serbs and Albanians in the divided city of Kosovska Mitrovica (or simply Mitrovica), in which two Serbs got injured and a third got killed (read here).

As far as Serb nationalists are concerned, this is a painful reminder of how the Serbian people are losing their country bit by bit. And what adds fuel to their anger is how the government in Belgrade seems to be doing nothing about it. For me as an Anarchist Serb, however, I view this as a failure on the part of both states: a failure on the Serbian state, that its own citizens have lost faith in the country they recognise as their own to the extent that they're seeking another country's citizenship; and a failure on the Kosovan state, for not being able — or perhaps willing — to integrate these people, who still don't consider that region to be outside of Serbia, let alone recognise it as a separate country! And generally speaking, I see this as another failure of the whole concept of the nation state, another in a long list of failures and disasters stretching back to the 19th century as far as the Balkans are concerned, and especially over the course of the last 20 years in the former Yugoslavia.

Nation states are supposed to be states for one specific ethnic group, whose leaders and army will protect them within defined borders, even though many people within those borders do not belong to the ethnic group that that state is named after, and thus represents foremost. These people are considered ethnic minorities in relation to the majority population in such a state. And as it happens, all Balkan states have numerous ethnic minorities living within their borders.

However, wars have occurred when, in one country, one ethnic minority, led by hardline nationalists, seeks to unite their home region, in which they constitute the majority, with the neighbouring state that bears their ethnic name, which they see as their mother country. By uniting their homeland with their mother country, they would be increasing its borders, landmass and population, while "liberating" themselves from the state their homeland is already a part of, which they usually accuse of having treated them really badly in the past on the basis of their ethnicity! What I've just described to you is often regarded as "irredentism", of which there are many examples in Balkan history, and Kosovo is one of them.

But — and this is a BIG but — even in such regions, in which one ethnic minority actually constitutes the majority, there will also be ethnic minorities, who live there among the majority population of that particularly region in that country. And quite often the case will be that one of those ethnic minorities in such regions may actually constitute the majority population in that country as a whole! And it's precisely that ethnic minority that will demonstrate strong allegiance to the country their home region belongs to, even though they don't consititute the majority population in the region they live in!

In Kosovo, there have been ethnic tensions between the majority Albanians and minority Serbs for decades, tensions that not even the former Communist régime at the time could properly resolve, yet caused many Serbs to leave their homes in the autonomous province for central Serbia. Following Tito's death, Kosovo Albanian students lead huge protests calling for Kosovo's status to be raised to that of a republic within the Yugoslav federaton. Then came Milošević, who practically revoked the province's autonomy and made life very hard for the majority population in that province, to say the least. And in time, came a war which caused two waves of ethnic cleansing: the first wave was experienced by Albanians, and the second by Serbs and other non-Albanians; each wave being traumatic for either group(s). And let's not forget the smaller wave of ethnic cleansing that occurred during the 2004 pogrom against Kosovo Serbs in the full view of the then KFOR, which should've protected them. And finally, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008 (which I wrote about back then here), and has since been recognised as an independent and sovereign state by well over 80 states around the world. Needless to say, Serbia has refused to recognise Kosovo's independence since its proclamation.

_________________________________________________________

So have relations between Serbs and Albanians improved since independence? Well, I can't really answer that question, since I neither live there nor have I ever been there. Though from what I've heard, Serb and Albanian gangsters seem to be getting on really well there and have done so for years, despite Kosovo's political instability! (Read here)

In the sporting world, Kosovo Albanian sportspeople wish to showcase their sporting talents in internatonal competitions while representing Kosovo, though failing that, they may choose to represent Albania or another country — so long as it's not Serbia! (Read here)

Recently, we've had clashes at the border in the north, and now, there are 21,000 plus Kosovo Serbs, who wish to become citizens of Russia! This, in my Anarchist opinion, demonstrates a failure on the part of both the Serbian and Kosovan state, as explained above, but also as another example of the numerous failures that have come about due to the whole concept of the nation state, fuelled by ethnic nationalism. Nevertheless, nationalists under various banners will continue to justify the existence of their own native — or chosen — nation states, while dismissing others they bear a grudge against!

Commemorations in Varivode and Gošići, marking the 16th anniversary of the murder of Serb civilians following 'Oluja'

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 23:40:00 +0000

See the original article on eBritić.com in English and in Serbian

Yesterday, representatives of Croatia's ethnic Serb minority came to the Dalmatian villages of Varivode and Gošići to show their respect to the mainly elderly Serb victims, murdered by Croatian forces after 'Operation Storm' (Operacija Oluja). Nine Serb civilians of advanced years in Varivode lost their lives on 28th September 1995, while seven Serbs were killed in the village of Gošići on 27th August 1995. Like other unfortunate elderly people in nearby villages and elsewhere in the former Republika Srpska Krajina, they chose to stay behind in their homes during Oluja, instead of joining their relatives in the refugee columns fleeing Krajina, believing they would be spared on account of their age.

Slobodаn Uzelаc, ethnic Serb vice prime minister for regional development, reconstruction and return, said, “The names of those who were killing Serb civillians are not known, but their profiles are known and who they are.”

“They usually say, and incorrectly so, that Croatian Defenders (hrvatski branitelji) did this. Those people did not defend Croatia, instead they disgraced it, [by] committing a crime for political and personal reasons!”, asserted Uzelac.

Milorad Pupovac, leader of the largest Serb minority party serving the interests of that ethnic group in Croatia and president of the Serb national assembly (Srpsko narodno vijeće) in that country, explained that, “those guilty have neither been apprehended nor punished, because there was no desire for it. Nevertheless, there was time and a desire to focus on those who weren't guilty [of anything], only so they can hinder them from returning to their homes!”

“They were killed only a month and a half after Oluja”, Pupovac said in Varivode. “But 16 years later, those guilty are still not apprehended or punished, just like [nobody has been apprehended or punished] for the murders in Gošići, Mokropolje, Biskupija i Golubić (near Knin).”

He also highlighted that, “Remembrance of the victims of the war cannot be prevented, nor can anyone deny [someone else] the right to commemorate.”

Read more in Serbian/Croatian:

Nacional.hr — Anonimnost i sloboda zločincima na dar

Blic.rs — Komemoracija pobijenim Srbima u Varivodama i Gošićima

Homophobia in the Balkans

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:35:00 +0000

It is widely accepted as a given by a lot of people in today's world, that in every nation on Earth, regardless of ethnicity, religion or social class, there will always be some men and women who are born homosexual or bisexual, and some people born transgendered or intersexed. It has been established by many scientists in the last century (see here), and observed and speculated for many centuries before by Buddhist thinkers (see here), that these sexual orientations, gender identities and physical conditions collectively represent gender non-conformity among humans.

Persecution of homosexual people has occurred on numerous occasions throughout human history, often religiously motivated, but also motivated by other ideals, such as national pride or racial supremacy. In the last one to two hundred years, however, understanding of the nature of homosexuality among humans has greatly increased, and its widespread presence in human societies and cultures has received greater acknowledgement in the field of anthropology and other sciences (see here). This scientific recognition, that homosexuality and other forms of gender non-conformity are inherently natural phenomena, has provided essential factual support for LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) activism all over the world, helping to tackle homophobic prejudices and attitudes in various societies.

One way of dealing with homophobia in society is to encourage more gay people to "come out of the closet" — or simply "come out" — by openly declaring themselves as "gay", "lesbian" or "bisexual". However, this can be a very difficult thing to do — if not extremely dangerous — depending on personal circumstances. Nevertheless, to encourage greater visibility for LGBT communities and its members, "gay pride parades" are organised in various cities in different countries around the world to gather as many gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans people and straight supporters in one place to show a united front against homophobia in a given society. But what gay pride marches or parades in countries like Serbia and Croatia have shown to have in common is the level of far-right counter-protest, whose participants arrive to create an unpleasant atmosphere — or a nasty scene — at such venues, and the level of police protection that has to be afforded to these manifestations to protect the participants of such gay pride events from excessive violence against them!

Last year in October, there were 1000 marchers in a gay pride parade in Belgrade, not all of them gay or lesbian. But there also arrived 6000 far-right, anti-gay protestors to disrupt that parade and cause violence! A ratio of 1 to 6! And to prevent those 1000 threatened, gay pride marchers from being physically attacked by the 6000 strong, anti-gay counter-protestors, there had to be around 6000 armed policemen stationed in between them! And even that armed contingent didn't prevent anyone from getting hurt or any buildings from being vandalised. (Read here and here, and see pictures here.)

But more recently in the Croatian city of Split this past June, the ratio between the gay pride marchers and anti-gay counter-protestors was even more stark. On the one hand, there were 300-400 peaceful marchers waving rainbow flags and holding placards promoting greater acceptance of homosexuals in society; on the other hand, there was a cordoned off crowd of an estimated 10,000 far-right, anti-gay counter-protestors, shouting homophobic abuse and even raising their arms to make the Nazi salute! A ratio of 3 or 4 to 100! (Read here in Croatian; read here and here in English.)

In this article, I wish to discuss the homophobic attitudes that I have encountered while sharing company with other people from the former Yugoslavia, where I come from, and while surfing the net visiting various Serbian and Croatian sites and forums. Although these attitudes are not unique to the Balkans, they are, nevertheless, very prevalent over there and among members of diaspora communities in more liberal Western countries, that are more "gay-friendly" than their home countries.

Scientifically natural, socially acceptable, or neither?

Around the world, there is a revulsion among many heterosexual people towards homosexuality, particularly towards male homosexuality due to health and hygiene concerns regarding anal sex, even though this sexual activity is not exclusively practiced by gay male couples. This revulsion encourages the opinion that homosexuality is inherently "unnatural", i.e. not supposed to occur, or that it is a "disease", specifically a mental one, which can cause harm to one's general health. This opinion of it being a "disease", even an "incurable" one, is still very common among people in Serbia and elsewhere in the Balkans, despite health organisations like the Serbian Medical Society (Srpsko lekarsko društvo) openly declaring in 2008 that homosexuality is NOT a disease (read here and here in Serbian).

Having said that, many homophobes do acknowledge that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, i.e. some people are naturally predisposed to it, but nevertheless, they don't accept it as something normal, i.e. proper or appropriate. Moreover, homosexuality is considered by many homophobes to be a form of "sexual deviance". As such, you will hear many comments from many people in Balkan countries who compare it to paedophilia, and even to necrophilia, both of which are without a doubt abhorrent. However, the intention behind equating homosexuality with these two paraphilias and others is to create a moral parallel between homosexuality and the various paraphilias as being "equally repulsive", both physically and morally.

“No marriages for poufs or lezzas; no gays near my kids!”

A lot of people around the Balkans are morally quite conservative (some even nationalistic), and culturally quite traditional (some particularly patriarchal). And even though being homosexual is not a criminal offence in any Balkan country anymore, there is huge opposition towards giving gay couples the right to officialise their relationship through marriage. Such equal treatment for gay marriages, setting it on a par with straight marriages, opponents believe would undermine the foundation of traditional marriage between a man and a woman for reproductive purposes.

But more seriously, there is profound opposition towards allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children or have their own with the aid of surrogacy. Opponents believe that such a gay-friendly policy would go a step "too far", and would actually be highly "inappropriate" for children. In fact, many people think that gays should be kept away from children entirely, lest they "corrupt" them with their "immoral" lifestyle. Fot that reason, many parents actually would go as far as forbidding anyone, whom they knew was gay, from going anywhere near their children, even if it was a close relative, let alone their next-door neighbour! Therefore, it makes perfect sense to them that children should never be raised by gay or lesbian couples, as living with two fathers or two mothers constitutes an "improper" family setting for children to grow up in, which could "confuse" them in the long run. This fear that homosexuality can be "taught" or "spread" easily goes hand-in-hand with the strongly-held belief mentioned above that homosexuality is "unnatural" and/or a "disease". And the opinion that homosexuals should not be allowed around children can also go hand-in-hand with the belief that homosexuality is somehow "equal" to paedophilia.

Zero-tolerance towards “provocative” homos in their midst

A lot of heterosexual people in the Balkans are not homophobic at all; in fact, a lot of them do have gay friends and some even have gay relatives, whom they've accepted as such, instead of completely rejecting them. However, there are some straight people who are not actively homophobic as such, but rather passively so. For instance, they won't mind knowing that there are gay people living in close proximity to them, so long as they keep quiet about their "undesirable" sexual inclinations in public, i.e. they must always avoid discussing their love life and sex life with easily-offended straight people, who are "normal", and thus "acceptable", compared to them. This very common attitude among Serbs, Croats and others in the Balkans, is arguably more "moderate" compared to the more extreme views mentioned in this article.

Therefore, what gets on the nerves of these easily-offended straight Serbs, Croats etc. is when gays rights activists in their countries organise events like the Pride Parade and are actively seeking equal rights with the majority straight population, which they consider a "provocation", i.e. an "affront" to the accepted norms of society. Being so irritated as they are by these "provocative" gays, they wonder what the whole point of holding such "gay parades" is, considering that they as straight people don't hold corresponding "straight parades". In their own words, these easily-offended heterosexuals resent what they feel as having the gay lifestyle "rammed down their throats"; they don't want to hear about what gays "get up to in bed" or otherwise do when they're together, and they certainly don't want their children being "exposed" to such discourse either! As far as they're concerned, gays should just put up and shut up; they should keep their "undesirable" habits to themselves, and leave "normal" straight people out of it!

Suspicious foreign influence “promoting” homosexuality

Apart from the conservative morality, there is a stong sense of nationalism among the various Balkan nations, as alluded to further above, that has risen to fever pitch since the collapse of Communism in Europe, and has lead to a number of wars throughout the former Yugoslavia during the '90s. Therefore, it's quite easy for xenophobic attitudes to find their appropriate place in this populistic, far-right milieu, especially in Serbia, which has experienced foreign intervention on its territory at the end of the '90s.

With regards to gay rights issues specifically, the solidarity demonstrated by LGBT activists around the world, including those in Balkan countries, is perceived by far-right advocates and supporters in the Balkans as evidence of some kind of "concerted effort" by gays and other "sexual deviants" within a well-funded international "gay lobby" to infiltrate society, influence it to its detriment by "promoting" homosexuality as a natural and normal part of everyday life (something that they wholeheartedly reject), and even seeking equal rights with married straight couples, thus encouraging moral "decadence" and "degeneration" throughout society! (Read here (homophobic article) and here in Serbian.) But most "conclusive" of that suspicion of all, more so than those "provocative" gay rights activists within those various LGBT organisations active in Balkan countries, are: one, the human rights activists, who detail discrimination and attacks against LGBT people and speak up for their rights, as they are particularly suspected of being linked to and funded by liberal Western sources; and two, pro-EU liberal politicians in the region, who want their countries to follow the course of "Euro-Atlantic integration", who likewise defend gay rights activists' "freedom of expression" et al., and likewise are suspected of being linked to and funded by liberal Western sources themselves. Such support from human rights activists and pro-EU liberal politicians "confirms" the far-right's suspicion that there is detrimental foreign influence present in their countries, that "promotes" the toleration of "immorality" as something perfectly acceptable, and in so doing could undermine the fabric of society in their countries completely!

“Brave” patriots versus gay “pussies”!

It is well known that nationalism goes hand-in-hand with machismo, i.e. a sense of manliness. And given that there have been recent wars in the region, it's important for a man to be seen as a "true Serb" or "true Croat", who will be "brave" enough to fight for his people, i.e. be counted on to not let his people down should a conflict arise in the future. Therefore, being a "true Serb" or "true Croat" is equal to being a "true man". But for some reason, gay men are suspected of having no willingness to fight, and therefore considered "cowards", who can't be relied upon to fulfill vital patriotic duties. That's why, for a straight Serbian or Croatian man, to be considered "gay" by other men is like an "attack" on his manhood and personal pride. Any man who is considered "gay" is perceived to be not much of a man, and therefore not much of a Serb or Croat. So much so that to link "gayness" with one's highly-esteemed national identity is perceived as an "insult" to the nation's pride. Therefore, it's not surprising that websites with names like "Gay Serbia" (see here) are understandably offensive to anyone who considers himself a patriotic Serb! (There is a Croatian site that represents lesbians in Croatia called "CroL" (see here) . Perhaps patriotic Croats are likewise offended by that website's name?!)

Apart from "provocative" pro-gay websites, it's not difficult to find homophobic graffiti, posters and stickers on the walls of many buildings, containing hostile messages like: „Marš Pederi iz Srbije!“ ("Poufs, get out of Serbia!"); or morbid ones like: „Beogradom krv će liti, gej parade neće biti!“ ("[Through] Belgrade blood will pour, the gay parade will not be [held]!"). Other than messages on walls, among the far-right, Nazi-saluting crowd of protestors that gathered round to intimidate the small number of marchers during Split's recent gay pride mentioned above, there was one particularly threatening taunt being jeered at them: „Ubij, ubij, ubij pedera!“ ("Kill, kill, kill the pouf!"). But what is more shocking than the messages that are seen and heard in the region is how a lot of ordinary straight people in those countries consider the violent counter-protestors as the "good guys" in these stories, rather than the LGBT marchers, who bravely venture out to openly express a fundamental part of their personal identity.

Homophobic defense of the family and “sound reason”

In both Serbia and Croatia and elsewhere in the Balkans, there are very vocal right-wing and far-right individuals and organisations, that spread anti-gay rhetoric and promote negative views of LGBT people. One constant accusation they make against LGBT activism is how its promotion of their "alternative lifestyle" somehow constitutes an "attack" on the family as a pillar of society. Clerics from both the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia, and other right-wing organisations linked with them, have also voiced their religiously-inspired condemnation of homosexuality and gay marches, and have voiced their defence of the traditional family setting in the face of growing gay rights activism (read here in Serbian).

You will also find that a lot of very homophobic, right-wing straight people in Balkan countries feel "under attack" or "discriminated against" for being "normal" by gays and those of a liberal persuasion (read here in Croatian). In fact, homophobic outbursts and rhetoric are widely commended by such people as "healthy" and "reasonable" reactions to the "sick" and "immoral" promotion of LGBT "propaganda" and gay-friendly liberalism that supports it! And to top it all off, they resent any liberal politician from parties supportive of joining the European Union, who is vocally sympathetic to gay rights and promotes tolerance of homosexuals and other "sexual minorities" in their countries, with the intent of encouraging their societies to be more tolerant of diversity, and thus increase their countries' eligibility to join the EU. Homophobia, therefore, represents a morally-righteous defense to save the nation's "sound reason" (zdrav razum in Serbian and Croatian) from pro-EU, pro-gay, politically correct liberalism in their countries!

Not easy being a “sexual minority” in the Balkans

LGBT individuals enjoy a lot of acceptance in Western countries, and enjoy a strong presence in Western media. LGBT individuals in Balkan countries, on the other hand, are widely ignored, ridiculed or even demonised by much of the heterosexual majority population, and thus lack a strong presence in those countries' media. If they wish to openly disclose their sexual identity regardless of who's listening, they have to be very brave and have a lot of very supportive friends and/or relatives for comfort and security. Otherwise, they have to guard that aspect of who they are with their lives, and constantly be careful of what they say in public, be it around close friends and family or strangers.

Like much of life in the Balkans, politics permeates and divides people into two opposing camps: fervent nationalist currents against aspiring Euro-Atlantic integrationism. And the issue of homosexuality and LGBT rights likewise finds itself in this battle of ideas between right and left, that polarises Balkan society: between conservative nationalists (considered "primitives" by their opponents!), who play the homophobic card; and liberal pro-Europeans (considered "traitors" by their opponents!), who play the gay-friendly card! Nationalist and religious groups condemn left-leaning governments and organisations for sympathising with the "provocative" and "immoral" demands of "sexual minorities", when they could otherwise be dealing with far more "serious" issues(!); while pro-European and secular organisations condemn far-right groups for spreading homophobic intolerance branded "hate speech", that later leads to scenes of intimidation and violence branded "hate crimes". It is in this contentious political climate and tense social environment that LGBT people in Balkan countries find themselves, and without a doubt, it's not easy for them.

BEAUTIFUL FLAG!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:38:00 +0000

I'm an Anarchist, and I'm not particularly fond of state symbols. But I love this flag, which quite blatantly represents a thorn in the eye to all nationalist Croats and Serbs, who want to remain hateful of and separate from one another!

Read more about this bold flag of friendship here (in Croatian) and here (in English).

Serbian support for Gaddafi? Why???

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:40:00 +0000

First of all, let me say: LIBYA AL-HURRA!!!

Like many people around the world, I am glad that the Libyan people are finally ridding themselves of over four decades of Gaddafi's dictatorial rule over them. Although the fight ain't over, and although I'm not keen on military interventions by alliances like NATO, at least the widely-feared mass slaughter of civilians by Gaddafi has been prevented.

However, being a Serb, I've noticed that many of my fellow Serbs are not supportive of the Libyan rebels, but of the dictator that they're fighting against. This seemingly strange Serbian support for Gaddafi is very noticeable online, and on Facebook, you will find a group called Support for Muammar al Gaddafi from the people of Serbia, which numbers, as I'm writing this, almost 75,000 fans! And believe you me, there are many other Facebook groups similar to that one!

The question, however, is why there is all this Serbian support for the now toppled Libyan dictator?

Well in that above-mentioned group, they have slogans like "Podrška prijatelju!", or "Support to [our] friend!" Of course, like any popular Facebook group, they have pictures conveying their views. There is one picture with "Serbia ♥ Lybia" underneath a caricature of an impressive Gaddafi at the UN, with "Say 'NO' to Western Imperialism" at the top of it! And then there's another picture saying, "SUPPORT COLONEL! SERBIAN PEOPLE". What is more revealing about their support for Gaddafi is their utter contempt for various democratic activist organisations throughout Eastern Europe and beyond. They mock the "Otpor/Pora" symbols, used by various anti-government opposition groups in countries like Serbia, the Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, for their remarkable similarity to one another; as such, they perceive them all as being funded by a common Western source, or simply put, "paid by the West".

But more pertinently, these Serbs see the bombing of Libya as being morally equal to the 78-day bombing of their country Serbia by NATO in 1999, in response to Milošević's own crackdown on Kosovo Albanian rebels. And it was during that time that Colonel Gaddafi himself, among very few around the world, voiced his personal opposition to that bombing campaign of Serbia by the Western alliance. Therefore, it's not surprising that such Serbs support Gaddafi, a dictator reviled by many in Libya and throughout the world, rather than the rebels, whom they believe are full of Islamists serving some sort of Western interest in the region.

Some Serbs admire Gaddafi for being a friend of Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito, especially since many people from the then Communist Yugoslavia travelled to countries like Libya to work at numerous construction sites. Other Serbs are not so keen on Gaddafi because of his friendship with Tito, since they are of a more anti-Communist persuasion. But what both sets of Serbs agree upon, whether pro-Tito or anti-Tito, is their opposition to the West's intervention in the country's civil war on behalf of the rebels over there; they resented the West's intervention in the Yugoslav conflicts during the '90s, and likewise they resent this one in Northern Africa for the reasons shared above.

A polemic against my article "I'm a Croatian Serb!"

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:03:00 +0000

This is the polemic against my article I'm a Croatian Serb!, as posted in the Facebook group Ja Sam Iz Cetnicke Familije/I'm From a Chetnik Family by Dušan Ivančević. My quotes are in italics, while his responses are immediately below each:

In regrds to the article "Croatian Serbs"

“The identity of these Serbs has been forged by history and to a great extent by the politics of various rulers from different eras.”

Is the author trying to say that the Krajina Serbs became just that because of history and politics? That they weren’t Serbs at some point in time?

“Fundamentally, it is based on Orthodox Christian faith and culturally represented by numerous customs and traditions, many of them originating from Orthodoxy, while others vary upon region.”

Can we assume that the author is saying that, Krajina Serbs are not really Serbs but they are of people who are primarily Orthodox? Notice how the name SERB was left out of the phrase Orthodox Christians.

“My people are primarily descendants of Orthodox pastoral warriors (referred to by various names, including ‘Vlachs’, ‘Rascians’ and even ‘Illyrians’)”

This statement confirms my questions regarding the author’s intent.

“brought over and settled into the designated Vojna Krajina by the Catholic Habsburg Monarchy in order to repel further attacks and invasions by the MuslimOttoman Turks into central Europe. Our earliest recorded sightings in modern-day Croatia can be traced to the Middle ages, while our presence continued to grow since then thanks to multiple waves of Orthodox Slavs arriving from the Islamic Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries.”

According to many ancient historians, Serbs were settled in Southern Lika and Northern Dalmatia long before the Croats came to those regions. The author is clearly saying that this was Croatian land that a Catholic Empire gave to the Serbs.

“It was brought to Yugoslavia in 1941 with Nazi Germany’s invasion of the country, bringing with it fascist régimes like that of Ante Pavelić and his Ustaše, who committed a horrendous genocide upon Serbs and other non-Croats within their puppet-state known as the ‘Independent State of Croatia’.”

The Germans did not bring the Ustaše. The Ustaše were already existent in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and were supported by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

“Like the Nazis throughout Europe, the Ustaše also ran concentration camps within their puppet state, the most notorious one being the Jasenovac concentration camp, in which the death toll has been variously estimated between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands.”

This statement glosses over the number of Ustaša victims which I would consider an open door for revisionists.

“This apocalyptic war also divided Serbs into two rival camps: the communist, multi-ethnic Partisan movement, under the leadership of Marshall Tito, and the anti-communist, Serb-dominated Chetnik movement, formed out of the remnants of the Yugoslav Royal Army.”

This is also incorrect. The Yugoslavian Army in the Homeland was far more multi-ethnic than the Partizan paramilitary which consisted of about 95% Serbs, while the remainder being the head of the CPY were Croatian. These percentages of Serbs vs. Croat in the Partizan paramilitary did not change until 1943, when Italy capitulated, and hordes of Ustaše, both Croatian and “Bosnian” massively began switching over to the Partizan side.

“Both of these camps fought against the Ustaše, but also against each other, often pitting brother against brother, and even father against son. The war ended with the Partizans’ complete victory over German and Italian occupiers and over all rival forces in the country.”

Not true. Very few battles were fought between Partizans and Ustaše and practically none with the Germans . The battles were almost entirely Partizans and Ustaše or Partizans and Nazis against Mihailovich’s forces. Furthermore, the Partizans did not achieve complete victory over German occupiers. The Red Army did. Italy capitulated in 1943 to the Allies, not the Partizan paramilitary.

“I understand why Serbs and Croats talk, write and think in the conflicting ways they do. All this affects me very deeply as I am also a Serb from Croatia — or a ‘Croatian Serb’ — even though I don’t live there for most of the year.”

I’ve yet to hear a combatant from Lika or Dalmatia from that war consider themselves Croatian Serbs.

"The intention on the part of the ethnic Serb ‘rebels’ (as they were labelled by the Croatian media at the time, and still are today) was to either stay within the Yugoslav federation, or along with Serbia form a ‘Greater Serbia’, for which they received political and military support from Slobodan Milošević’s régime in Belgrade. A year earlier, ethnic Serbs showed their opposition to Croatia’s aspiration to seceed in protests that have been branded the ‘Log revolution’, for their use of timber to blockade roads connecting Serb-populated areas to the rest of Croatia. In relation to the outside world, the Republic of Croatia received international recognition, whereas Republika Srpska Krajina received none. Nevertheless, full-scale war erupted in August ’91, which brought about the displacement of over 100,000 Croats and other non-Serbs from their homes. This displacement, accompanied by destruction of property, violence and even murders of civilians, is considered an act of ‘ethnic cleansing’, as its aim was to remove ethnic Croats from the region. However, the Krajina-Serb authorities justified this act, claiming it was necessary for the “protection” and “security” of the ethnic Serb population in that same region. “

In this entire paragraph there is not one mention of Croatian pogroms against Serbian civilians prior to the out brake of war.

21 August at 06:44

This is my response to his polemic reposted at the General Mihailovich blog:

Alan Jakšić said...

Dušane, thank you for taking the time to read my article about Serbs from modern-day Croatia or Croatian Serbs. About its two versions: I originally received a fair amount of stick for using the term "Croatian Serbs" in the original. So when the article got published in Britić, I intended to edit it as quickly as I could, so as to reduce the frequency of that disputed term therein.

Just to clarify a few things: My article about Serbs from Croatia, or Croatian Serbs, is supposed to serve as an introduction to the issues that concern this population, to which I personally belong. It's not meant to be a in-depth, detailed look at our entire history and our customs.

I understand your concern when you complain that, "…there is not one mention of Croatian pogroms against Serbian civilians prior to the outbreak of war", and that, "This statement glosses over the number of Ustaša victims which I would consider an open door for revisionists". But like I mention above, my article is merely an introduction with the aim to inspire further interest and research into issues that concerns Serbs in Lika, Dalmatia, etc. That's all.

You criticise my use of the word "bring" in the sentence: "It was brought to Yugoslavia in 1941 with Nazi Germany’s invasion of the country, bringing with it fascist régimes like that of Ante Pavelić and his Ustaše…". However, I never in the slightest suggested that the Ustaše weren't already extant within Yugoslavia prior to the German invasion; just that the Nazis invaded and the Ustaša régime was established following their arrival. That's it.

You also feel the need to correct me when you explain: "The Yugoslavian Army in the Homeland was far more multi-ethnic than the Partizan paramilitary…" However, I never suggested that the Yugoslav Royal Army was always Serb-dominated, and thus never multi-ethnic; just that it was Serb-dominated, which, by the end of the war, was certainly true. And I doubt that you will doubt that!

Nevertheless, if you feel the need to comment about any article on my blog, feel free to leave a comment at my Balkan Anarchist blog, so I can respond to you quicker.

Pozdrav!

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:37:00 PM

__________________________________________________________________________

My article was shared on that same Facebook group on 20th August, 19:30. You can read various comments by some of its members, some slightly positive, while others rather negative. The main criticism being the term "Croatian Serb" itself (discussed previously here), while another commentator branded me an "anti-C[h]etnik" and warned other Serbs to not allow "those who want to make fools of us by trying to cause infighting amongst ourselves".

Like they say, you can't please everyone all the time!

To read my amended Britić article mentioned above, click here: Being a Serb from modern-day Croatia

BEAUTIFUL BALKAN PEOPLE!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:16:00 +0000

Here is a parade of BEAUTIFUL BALKAN PEOPLE — specifically the womenfolk among them — as seen on YouTube!

Starting with my own people…

SERBS:

CROATS:

BOSNIAKS:

MONTENEGRINS (There are many in Montenegro who don't identify as Serbs; however, to see those who do, please refer to the above video SERBS):

SLOVENIANS (Many of them don't consider themselves to be a Balkan nation, but I added them just so they wouldn't feel left out of this beauty parade!):

MACEDONIANS (There are many in Macedonia who don't identify as Bulgarians; however, to see those who do, please refer to the below video BULGARIANS):

BULGARIANS:

ALBANIANS:

GREEKS:

ROMANIANS:

ROMA (a.k.a. Gypsies):

TURKS:

And finally, an entry from outside the Balkans…

CHRIS BROWN!!!

What's wrong with saying "Croatian" Serb?

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:07:00 +0000

Recently I published an article about Serbs like myself from Croatia, called I'm a Croatian Serb! I received a few positive comments about it. However, I received a lot more comments from fellow Serbs criticising me for using the term "Croatian Serb" in an endorsing kind of way. The comments, via Facebook, were mainly in these veins: "I never use that term", "Nobody I know uses it", "We shouldn't divide ourselves according to this place and that place; we should just be Serbs", and "Nobody says "Serbian Croats" or "Serbian Albanians", etc, so why should Serbs from Croatia call themselves "Croatian Serbs"?". Some of them were in a mild tone, while others were more accusatory.

But more bizarrely, there was someone, I guess in Australia but also via Facebook, who told me that their wife thought that I was an "ass", and that, "if next time [I am] in Croatia [I] could stop by the ruins of her and her grandparents' house and then feel the need to call [my]self a Croatian Serb"! So someone I've never seen before, someone who's never met me in their lives, thinks I'm an "ass"! What a virtual slap in the face!

So I wrote and published a LENGTHY article, concisely describing the tragic history of Croatian Serbs and their varied present-day circumstances, and I even added a number of pictures next to the paragraphs, so nobody would get bored or tired while reading it. And what do most of the comments about my article concern themselves with? With the term "Croatian Serb"! What an intellectual slap in the face! And for what, exactly? For that DAMN label "Croatian Serb"!

So the question is why were these commentators so offended by me positively calling myself a "Croatian" Serb?

Well, you could be forgiven for saying that these critics are just being "shallow" for being fixated on labels, but this isn't just about labels. You see, it's also about people's personal experiences, i.e. their war-time memories, which they live with even today. And like I mentioned in the article that bears that term in its title, we Serbs from modern-day Croatia were caught up in a war that pitted us against the state of Croatia, which seceeded from Yugoslavia; our community was overwhelmingly opposed to independence for Croatia from the Yugoslav federation, and a war ensued between the Serb "rebels" (a label used by the Croatian media) of the short-lived state 'Republika Srpska Krajina'. And like I explained before on this blog, the war ended tragically for my people, the Serbs of Krajina in August '95. So bearing the recent history in mind, it's really not surprising AT ALL that many Serbs from modern-day Croatia do not wish to be labelled "Croatian Serbs".

So how did I cope and respond to this barrage of criticism? Well, I suppose I coped pretty well with it, and I even responded quite wittily to the more accusatory comments on my account. Surprisingly though, I wasn't the slightest bit shocked at being called an "ass"; I'm really not that bothered that someone on the other side of the planet thinks I'm an "ass" based on my rather positive use of the term "Croatian Serb". At least I mean something to someone I've never met, however unflattering it may be for me! And besides, you can't please everyone all the time, now can you?!

What really got to me more than anything was when that critic in Australia raised the issue of victimhood experienced by my fellow Serbs during the recent war in Croatia and further back in World War Two; apart from what his wife suggested (i.e. stopping by the ruins of her and her grandparents' house), he also suggested that I, "visit the grave of her relative that was crucified back in WWII by Ustasa, and the graves of those who were burned alive inside of a church in Glina in 1942". What was being suggested was this: that by endorsing the term "Croatian Serb", I'm showing "disrespect" to Serb victims from the last two wars, who've suffered at the hands of those who fought for some kind of Croatian state. That suggestion I found DEEPLY offensive, as many of my own relatives were murdered by Croatian fascists (Ustaše) during WW2, just because they were Orthodox Serbs, and many of my relatives' houses were burnt, bombed and looted in the recent war (as for my house, it got looted and later settled in by Bosnian Croat refugees).

However, this dispute, to me, represents a poignant example of the division between Serbs like me, who didn't live through the recent war in Croatia, and those hundreds of thousands of Serbs, who unfortunately did. For me, it is easier to say things like, "I'm from Croatia", or even "I'm a Croatian Serb", whereas for them it's not so easy. I'm sure a lot of them who live in Western countries like me do say that they're from Croatia to people who know very little about the Balkans, but I guess they will probably stop short of referring to themselves as "Croatian Serbs", all things considered.

Also, it's important to know that we Serbs are a nation always on the alert of any sign of division, that could lead to some degree of disunity. And indeed, some of the criticism I've faced has hinted at that possibility, however justified that was or not. And although a lot of these Serbs do hold very right-wing, nationalistic views, I don't believe it would be the least bit fair of me, as a left-wing anarchist, to dismiss them for doing so. Yes I'm angry at the intransigent Serb nationalists, who continue to promote the idea of a "Greater Serbia", despite its disastrous failure during the '90s! But nevertheless, my heart is always with those who've endured war and suffered loss, whether material or human, and especially with those from my hometown of Gračac and its nearby villages.

I put a lot of effort into writing an article about an issue, that is very close to my heart, i.e. my fellow Serbs from Lika, Dalmatia and other parts of war-torn Croatia. I wanted to discuss my people's tragic past and their varied present-day circumstances. I wrote about our refugees in Serbia, our returnees to Lika and other regions, and mentioned the presence of our people in the diaspora. And yet because of that one LOUSY label — that one GOD-FORSAKEN name — all my effort has been in vain, and my honest desire to discuss this issue has fallen on deaf ears … at least among fellow Serbs! So what has this taught me? Well, it's definitely taught me how one term like "Croatian Serb" can put a stop to a conversation quicker than you can say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"! That's what!

I'm a Croatian Serb!

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:10:00 +0000

I am an ethnic Serb born in Croatia, and having ancestry from that country as well makes me a 'Croatian Serb'. I come from Lika, a mountainous region on the Adriatic sea, but you can also find Croatian Serbs in other parts of Croatia like Northern Dalmatia, Kordun, Banija and Slavonija, and there is a large population of Croatian Serbs in the country's capital Zagreb.

The Croatian Serb identity has been forged by history and to a great extent by the politics of various rulers from different eras. Fundamentally, it is based on Orthodox Christian faith and culturally represented by numerous customs and traditions, many of them originating from Orthodoxy, while others vary upon region. My people are primarily descendants of Orthodox pastoral warriors (referred to by various names, including 'Vlachs', 'Rascians' and even 'Illyrians'), brought over and settled into the designated Vojna Krajina by the Catholic Habsburg Monarchy in order to repel further attacks and invasions by the Muslim Ottoman Turks into central Europe. Our earliest recorded sightings in modern-day Croatia can be traced to the Middle ages, while our presence continued to grow since then thanks to multiple waves of Orthodox Slavs arriving from the Islamic Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Nowadays, Croatian Serbs in Croatia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia have to face a number of political issues, most of which are contemporary and recent in origin, and include the legacy of wars, which have taken their toll upon them during the 20th century. The legacy of one war, that has left a deep scar on their psyche and even shaped it for generations since, is that of the Second World War. It was brought to Yugoslavia in 1941 with Nazi Germany's invasion of the country, bringing with it fascist régimes like that of Ante Pavelić and his Ustaše, who committed a horrendous genocide upon Serbs and other non-Croats within their puppet-state known as the 'Independent State of Croatia'. Like the Nazis throughout Europe, the Ustaše also ran concentration camps within their puppet state, the most notorious one being the Jasenovac concentration camp, in which the death toll has been variously estimated between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. This apocalyptic war also divided Serbs into two rival camps: the communist, multi-ethnic Partisan movement, under the leadership of Marshall Tito, and the anti-communist, Serb-dominated Chetnik movement, formed out of the remnants of the Yugoslav Royal Army. Both of these camps fought against the Ustaše, but also against each other, often pitting brother against brother, and even father against son. The war ended with the Partizans' complete victory over German and Italian occupiers and over all rival forces in the country. However, fifty years later came the recent war in Croatia, with many of its roots in the previous world war. This war tragically ended with more than half of the Croatian Serb population previously residing in Croatia in refuge, many of whom fled or were expelled from their homes.

Croatian Serbs who have returned to their towns and villages in Croatia following the war — or who have otherwise stayed there throughout the war — have to live daily with the legacy of the recent conflict. Living in the UK as I do, I don't have to confront this legacy that often. However, whenever I visit my homeland in Croatia, I notice it wherever I turn, a reminder of a conflict that I had no part or say in. And whenever I switch satellite channels to watch Croatian TV or visit relevant websites on the net whilst on the other side of Europe, I understand why Serbs and Croats talk, write and think in the conflicting ways they do. All this affects me very deeply as I am also a Serb from Croatia — a Croatian Serb — even though I don't live there for most of the year.

To cut a long story short, this is what happened in the early '90s: during the ethnic tensions that blighted Yugoslavia during the early 90s, the democratically-elected Croatian president Franjo Tuđman (pictured right) declared independence for Croatia from Yugoslavia in 1991 with the support of the majority of ethnic Croats through one national referendum. However, in direct opposition to Croatia's separatism from Yugoslavia, the likewise democratically-elected ethnic Serb leaders from various regions in Croatia also declared their own state in the form of the 'Republika Srpska Krajina' (named after the historical Vojna Krajina mentioned above), with its capital in the North Dalmatian town of Knin, following a number of local referendums with the support of the majority of ethnic Serbs. The intention on the part of the ethnic Serb 'rebels' (as they were labelled by the Croatian media at the time, and still are today) was to either stay within the Yugoslav federation, or along with Serbia form a 'Greater Serbia', for which they received political and military support from Slobodan Milošević's régime in Belgrade. A year earlier, ethnic Serbs showed their opposition to Croatia's aspiration to seceed in protests that have been branded the 'Log revolution', for their use of timber to blockade roads connecting Serb-populated areas to the rest of Croatia. In relation to the outside world, the Republic of Croatia received international recognition, whereas Republika Srpska Krajina received none. Nevertheless, full-scale war erupted in August '91, which brought about the displacement of over 100,000 Croats and other non-Serbs from their homes. This displacement, accompanied by destruction of property, violence and even murders of civilians, is considered an act of 'ethnic cleansing', as its aim was to remove ethnic Croats from the region. However, the Krajina-Serb authorities justified this act, claiming it was necessary for the "protection" and "security" of the ethnic Serb population in that same region. After years of intense fighting in certain areas, and numerous war crimes committed by both sides, the war ended tragically for the Serbs of Krajina in August '95, when the Croatian army conducted 'Operation Oluja', a military operation with the aim of capturing and bringing under Croatian rule the western territories of that short-lived state. It was during that time that a huge exodus of around 200,000 Serbs fled across Bosnia into Serbia towards Belgrade during the sweltering summer of that year, accompanied by intimidation and sporadic killings of Serbs in those long refugee columns, and of Serbs who stayed behind in their homes hoping they would be safe. Prior to 'Oluja' was 'Operation Bljesak' in May '95, which was similarly followed by the displacement of at least 15,000 ethnic Serbs. On both sides, there were numerous fatalities, many more wounded and incapacitated people, many psychologically traumatised people, and many people still unaccounted for, i.e. "missing, presumed dead".

As the land that was under Krajina came under Croatian military control thanks to 'Oluja', thousands of Serb houses located within that short-lived state were willfully destroyed: set on fire, grenaded, vandalised, and often looted and ransacked. Those houses that weren't heavily damaged, as was the case with my own property in Lika, were later handed over by Tuđman's régime to Bosnian Croat families, themselves refugees from the Bosnian war, with the aim of permanently altering the demographic structure of towns previously inhabited by ethnic Serb majorities.

Since the war ended, many Serbs have returned to their towns and villages, either to legally reclaim their homes from these Bosnian Croat settlers or to formally apply for them to be repaired or rebuilt by the local authorities. However, in terms of which age bracket most returnees belong to, they have mainly been elderly people, who have nowhere else to go but wish to spend the remainder of their lives in the places they were born and grew up in. It's rarer for younger generations of Serbs to choose to return to these same places, where they were also born, to reside there permanently, especially since there is very little in the way of job opportunities for them to take advantage of. The war-torn regions of Croatia are both physically devastated and economically ruined places, and much of the inhabitants of such regions, known as 'areas of special state concern', live on financial handouts provided to them by the state.

By returning to their homes now under Croatian sovereignty, ethnic Serbs return to a society that openly disregards their suffering during that war — or at least doesn't treat it as equal to that of Croat suffering. The exodus of my people in 1995 at the same time as 'Oluja', which included many of my own relatives from Lika and elsewhere, is considered to be an act of ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, the victory that 'Oluja' brought by eliminating the state of Krajina is celebrated as a national day of "thanksgiving" every 5th August, marking the end of what in Croatia is officially called the 'Homeland war'. Furthermore, there are still some Croats who question the nature of this exodus of Serbs from Krajina, claiming it was "self-inflicted" and refusing to consider it as equal to the previous ethnic cleansing inflicted upon Croats a few years earlier. Most importantly, the Croatian state has repeatedly denied any responsibility for this exodus; instead, they blame the ethnic Serb rebel leaders of Krajina for organising "evacuations" of the civilian population under their protection.

Due to the ruthlessly destructive and mutually unforgiving nature of that inter-ethnic war as described above, it's not surprising that there is so much resentment between Croats and Croatian Serbs even 16 years after the conflict ended. However, it is the Croatian Serbs who are receiving the most condemnation, and collectively so. Their significantly-reduced communities are largely ignored, whereas their identity is actively maligned, and everything they hold dear is regularly trashed; their cultural symbols and political views are despised and ridiculed, and even their present-day presence in Croatia causes bitterness in some Croats. So thorough is this break-up and alienation, that anything that links Serbs and Croats together, such as their shared language which was previously officially named 'Serbo-Croat', has been denounced and banished, condemned to oblivion.

Because of this atmosphere of hate, many Serbs — including people who are partly Serb from mixed marriages — feel they have no other option but to keep quiet about their Serb identity and ancestry, even making sure they avoid referring to themselves as "Serbs" in public, lest they attract the wrong kind of attention to themselves. Ironically though, such Serbs resort to such secrecy in a country that is these days considered to be home to a democratic society, in which minority rights are protected by law and everyone has the right to free speech — not to mention that Croatia aspires to join the multi-national European Union!

Following Tuđman's death in 1999, the situation for the Serbian minority in Croatia has improved in a number of ways, particularly in terms of their representation in Croatian public life and media. The most prominent political organisation is the Independent Democratic Serb Party, and its vice-president Milorad Pupovac appears regularly on the news and other TV programmes. Prosvjeta is a cultural society headed by Čedomir Višnjić that hosts a number of Serbian cultural manifestations during the year in different parts of the country, and holds many public forums discussing various issues of concern to Serbs in Croatia. Then there is the Serbian Democratic Forum lead by Veljko Džakula, a non-governmental and non-profit organization founded in 1991, which is dedicated to the promotion of minority rights, the reintegration of returnees and the strengthening of local communities.

Many young Serbs, the generation that witnessed the war as children, regularly return to visit during the summer. But, as explained above, most of them so far have not chosen to return to reside there, due to the lack of job opportunities for them to be able to afford to live there. However, there's also something else that I've personally noticed while visiting my homeland in recent years, that I feel is very important to mention: not only are ethnic Serb communities significantly reduced in number, they are also broken in spirit; not only is the Serb population of a particular region much smaller in comparison to 20 years ago, the sense of community spirit that used to exist among them before the war is at best fundamentally weakened today, or at worst completely lost. Nevertheless, relations between Serb returnees, local Croats and Bosnian Croat settlers are generally good, as each community wishes to maintain a pleasant atmosphere with others in the same locality.

Outside of Croatia, Serbia is home to the largest Croatian Serb population in the region, thanks to war-time circumstances. Upon their arrival in 1995, after travelling for days within those miles-long columns, they were placed in refugee camps across Serbia, which are known there as collective centres. A number of them were also settled in Kosovo, as part of Milošević's plan to increase the ethnic Serb presence in the largely ethnic Albanian province. However, Croatian Serbs are largely concentrated in the north of the country, particularly in Novi Sad, the provincial capital of Vojvodina, and in the country's capital Belgrade. They can be also found in large numbers in many towns and villages throughout Vojvodina, and in towns close to Belgrade like Batajnica and Zemun.

For years, Croatian Serbs in Serbia lived with 'refugee status', and a small number of them still do today. Although this status provided them with certain rights protected by their host country with regard to their circumstances, it has also served as a reminder to them of their war-time loss and their continued exile from their homeland, while other Serbs have shown resentment towards these refugees from Croatia for receiving "special" treatment from the state. The vast majority of them have found permanent accomodation, whereas some are still residing in the very same refugee camps they were originally placed in all those years ago. Nevertheless, those who have chosen to stay in Serbia rather than return to Croatia have integrated into life over there, especially the younger generations who came over as children at the end of the war.

Many Croatian Serbs have left Serbia to find a better life in wealthier Western countries like Germany, Austria and many others in Europe, while many others have gone further afield to the USA and Australia, settling amongst Serbs living there from other parts of the Balkans. And apart from the recent waves of migration, there is a generation of Croatian Serbs from an earlier wave made up of those who fought in the Chetnik army in World War Two against both the fascist Ustaše and the communist Partizans, mentioned earlier in this article. They fled Yugoslavia following the communist victory and settled in Western countries, destined to live a life of political exile among other Chetniks. Nevertheless, they started new lives in their new surroundings, eventually starting families with Serb or non-Serb wives. Their descendants also live there today, well integrated into Western society, but with various degrees of identification with their ancestors' homeland. Therefore, as a result of two war-time periods in the 20th century, the Croatian Serbs today constitute a very significant portion of the wider Serb Diaspora.

As you can see, I belong to a people that, although has endured wars for generations, has been especially traumatised by the past century's bouts of warfare. Twice within the last hundred years, we have seen our communities reduced under devastating circumstances caused by destructive politics. And yet, we are the people who spawned the world famous scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla, without whom our modern world would not be as modern as it is! From our people also came other renowned Serbs, like geophysicist and engineer Milutin Milanković, actor and musician Rade Šerbedžija, singer-songwriter Arsen Dedić, Serb Orthodox Patriarch Pavle, and many more famous Serbs with roots in modern-day Croatia. There are many Croatian Serbs around, and I'm one of them!

__________________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgements go to Ricky Yates (www.rickyyates.com) for allowing me to use his picture of the house under re-construction (shown above), taken in my hometown of Gračac in 2009 during his trip around war-torn parts of Croatia (which you can read about on his blog).

My land's only borders lie around my heart!

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Sun, 15 May 2011 17:45:00 +0000

Anthem
From the musical Chess

No man, no madness —
Though their sad power may prevail —
Can possess, conquer, my country’s heart;
They rise to fail!

She is eternal;
Long before nations’ lines were drawn,
When no flags flew, when no armies stood,
My land was born!

And you ask me why I love her,
Through wars, death, and despair.
She is the constant,
We who don’t care.

And you ask me would I leave her — But how?
I cross over borders, but I’m still there now!

How can I leave her?
Where would I start?
Let man’s petty nations tear themselves apart!
My land’s only borders lie around my heart!

Such beautiful patriotic lyrics from Tim Rice's musical Chess, which tells the tale of a world chess championship between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet in my humble, Anarchist opinion, at least a couple of this song's lines are somehow compatible with Anarchism's views of the world! Consider the following:

“…Long before nations’ lines were drawn, When no flags flew, when no armies stood…”

These two lines hark back to a "pre-state" time, when none of the attributes of modern states existed, in which the song's protagonist, chess player Anatoly Sergievsky's “eternal … land was born!”

In all fairness, the song is apolitical — dare I say rather anti-political. Consider Anatoly's “country’s heart”, which he declares is something that “No man, no madness … Can possess, conquer”. That's not to say that “their sad power” can't prevail elsewhere, though; as far as Anatoly's concerned, “Let man’s petty nations tear themselves apart!”

Nonetheless, the final, heart-rendering line reads:

“My land’s only borders lie around my heart!”

…by which the protagonist completely disregards the political borders men “tear themselves apart” over, in favour of his own heart-felt sentiments towards “her”, his land. And Anarchism has nothing against sentiments of belonging. Afterall, “She is the constant”, whom the chess player loves “Through wars, death, and despair”. And even though he does “cross over borders”, he's nevertheless “still there now!”

Gotovina and Markač convicted, Čermak acquitted

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:00:00 +0000

Yesterday, Croatian generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity (including murder, wanton destruction and plunder of public and private property), were both found guilty of eight out of nine counts of war crimes, and sentenced to 24 years and 18 years respectively. While general Ivan Čermak, likewise accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, was acquitted of all charges against him.

The judgement brought forward yesterday recognises that a “joint criminal enterprise”, with the aim to permanently remove Serbs from the region of the short-lived Republika Srpska Krajina, actually existed. And along with the three above-mentioned accused, a further four members were part of this enterprise: Croatian President Franjo Tuđman, Minister of Defence Gojko Šušak, and generals Janko Bobetko and Zvonimir Červenko. This enterprise “amounted to or involved the commission of the crimes of persecution, deportation and forcible transfer, plunder, and destruction”.

The charges Gotovina and Markač were convicted of were these:

Count 1: persecution as a crime against humanity;
Count 2: deportation as a crime against humanity;
Count 4: plunder of public and private property as a violation of the laws or customs of war;
Count 5: wanton destruction as a violation of the laws or customs of war;
Count 6: murder as a crime against humanity;
Count 7: murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war;
Count 8: inhumane acts as a crime against humanity; and
Count 9: cruel treatment as a violation of the laws or customs of war.

They were both, however, cleared of Count 3: inhumane acts (forcible transfer) as a crime against humanity.

The crimes against Serbs, which these three defendants were accused of not preventing or sanctioning, occurred during Operation Storm in August 1995, a military action during which the Croatian army brought under Croatian control land that was previously under Krajina since 1991. By doing so, they brought about near-complete defeat to the Krajina Serb rebels, reducing their break-away state to only a portion of land bordering Serbia. As stated in the Judgement summary here, the case against these three defendants concerned itself with the question of, “whether Serb civilians in the Krajina were the targets of crimes, and whether the Accused should be held criminally liable for these crimes”.

What is most most revealing, in my humbe opinion, is Gotovina's own words at the Brioni meeting at the end of July 1995. Responding to Tuđman, Gotovina was quoted as saying: “A large number of civilians are already evacuating Knin and heading towards Banja Luka and Belgrade. That means that if we continue this pressure, probably for some time to come, there won’t be so many civilians just those who have to stay, who have no possibility of leaving”.

The first sentance quite clearly shows that he was aware that many Serbs had already “evacuated” their homes and “headed towards Banja Luka and Belgrade”. However, the second one shows that it was also very clear to him that if they “continue this pressure” during the operation scheduled to be executed within days of him saying all this, more Serb civilians — and he does use the word “civilians” — would leave, except for those who “have to stay, who have no possibility of leaving”. This quote basically shows that Gotovina was clearly aware that any military action, which they were about to take, could lead to a great deal of the ethnic Serb population within Krajina leaving their homes in response to such “pressure”.

The court's chamber established that, “the motive underlying these legal instruments (i.e. “related to property which came into force after Operation Storm”), as well as their overall effect, was to provide the property left behind by Krajina Serbs in the liberated areas to Croats, and thereby deprive these Serbs of the use of their housing and property”. Therefore, the “the imposition of restrictive and discriminatory measures with regard to housing and property, considered in conjunction with deportation and other crimes against Krajina Serbs, constituted persecution”.

The court's chamber also established that, “the forcible displacement committed by members of the Croatian military forces and Special Police, by the unlawful attacks on towns in the Krajina on 4 and 5 August 1995 and by the commission of other crimes later in August 1995, constituted deportation. Among the many Serbs who left the Krajina during and after Operation Storm, the Chamber concluded that at least 20,000 were deported in this manner in August 1995”.

With regards to the shelling of Benkovac, Gračac, Knin, and Obrovac on 4th and 5th August, it was found that this action “constituted an indiscriminate attack on these towns and an unlawful attack on civilians and civilian objects”. And again about my hometown Gračac in Lika and near-by Donji Lapac: “Special Police members took part in the destruction of a substantial part of Gračac on 5 and 6 August … [T]hey also participated in the destruction and looting of Krajina Serb property in Donji Lapac on 7 and 8 August 1995.”.

------------------------------------------------------------

On a personal note: as a Croatian Serb from one of the affected places mentioned above, I'm pleased to hear that the humiliating and degrading ordeal experienced by my relatives and their fellow Serbs while fleeing their homes in August '95 has been legally recognised as part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to have my people removed. This judgement is a legal recognition that the suffering my family and my people endured then was unlawful, and what occurred to their property after their departure was likewise a form of persecution.

Amnesty International welcomes this judgement as “the first step to truth and justice for many victims of crimes committed during ‘Operation Storm’ in Croatia in 1995”, which furthermore shows that “even the most high-level perpetrators of crimes under international law cannot evade justice”.

However, I am also aware of the perceptions of many Croats, who don't want to treat the suffering of my people as equal to the suffering of their people, and who see this as the Hague merely being “fair” on the Serbs at the “expense of the truth”, thereby bringing into question the validity of the court, no less!

A big demonstration has been held on Ban Jelačić square in the capital Zagreb, where they had a huge TV screen for the public to see the verdict. Devastated protestors shouted “Betrayal! Betrayal!”, accused former president Stipe Mesić, former prime minister Ivo Sanader and current president Ivo Josipović of being “war criminals”, and that the war is “still on”! And one former war-time minister admits that his name is on a list of war criminals, but that he'd rather be on that than in government!

(Funny how they branded president Josipović a “war criminal”. He himself is “shocked” by the conviction, and is “convinced that a joint criminal enterprise in the defense of Croatia didn't exist”. He also declares that, “Today, regardless of the conviction, the Homeland war will remain a just and defensive war, in which we retained our freedom and democracy from the aggression and the policies of the criminal régime of Slobodan Milošević”.)

Infuriated by the conviction, one former Croatian soldier from Zadar has smashed a shop window, severely wounding himself in the process. And bizarrely, one former Croatian general attorney has even accused Great Britain for this conviction! Of course, none of this helps when you have a prime minister like Jadranka Kosor, who tells you that “protests cannot change anything”!

There is no doubt that the defense team, which represented the two convicts and the acquitted Čermak, will appeal the conviction against Gotovina and Markač. But surely all these court cases dealing with traumatic war-time experiences, the politically-charged interpretations of recent history based on those experiences upheld by ordinary people who endured them and promoted by omniscient politicians who peddle them, and the all-round bad blood between nations should teach all us Balkan folk, whatever our ethnic or religious identity and however many blows history has dealt us, that statism is ultimately pointless and war is not worth anyone's blood. In my Anarchistic and Pacifistic opinion, states, along with anything that justifies their continued existence, and wars, along with anything that justifies their constant occurence, should belong to the past!

============================================================

Reference:

See the eight-paged ICTY's Judgement Summary quoted extensively in the above article in italics: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/tjug/en/110415_summary.pdf).

Further ICTY literature:

Also see the ICTY's Press Release (condensed version of the above Judgement Summary): http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/press/en/PR1402e.pdf

Amended Indictment against Ante Gotovina: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina_old/ind/en/got-ai040224e.htm

Amended Indictment against Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/cermak/ind/en/cer-ai051214e.htm

APRIL FOOLS!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:00:00 +0000

APRIL FOOLS!!!

If you've read somewhere about British Serbs being "the worst offenders when it comes to calling in sick during the year", and if you've even seen "figures" showing 19,000 Serbs each year skiving off work, then be under no illusion that it was a JOKE!

There’s no such thing as “ethnic sick leave”, the BuDWaLUa quango or its “chief executive” Dirk Bena! And the table showing those figures comparing Serbs with Scots, Irish, Welsh and Italians, is FALSE! None of it's true; it's a JOKE!

Personal admission: I came up with BuDWaLUa as the quango’s acronym, basing it on the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian word budala, meaning “fool”! As for the chief executive’s name Dirk Bena, his surname is based on a dialectal word from Lika and the surrounding regions bena, likewise meaning fool; however, I chose his first name based on its similarity to an even ruder word – but you don’t have to worry yourselves about it! ;-) And finally, statistics, damn statistics! The table showing those figures comparing Serbs with other ethnic groups was invented by me! It is ALL an April Fools' joke!

However, the truth is – this is the truth, honestly! – there really is a magazine called Britić, which caters for the UK’s ethnic Serb population. Its chief editors really are called Stan Smiljanić and Aleks Simić. And it was Stan who “briefed” me on the details of this plan for the magazine’s April Fools’ joke, which I gladly took part in! Svaka ti cast, Stane!

So, once again…

APRIL FOOLS!!!

British Serbs guilty of “ethnic sick leave”

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:00:00 +0000

British Serbs guilty of “ethnic sick leave”
01/04/2011

British Serbs are officially the worst offenders when it comes to calling in sick during the year, it has been revealed.

Surprising statistics published in a report today show an unmistakable correspondence between British Serbs’ ethnic holidays and the days of the year they most often call in sick to work.

The figures displayed on the chart below are based on decades of research by Britain’s union of Determined Workers against Lateness and Unauthorised absence (BuDWaLUa), which aims to tackle the problem of lateness at the workplace and absences during the working year. Dirk Bena, chief executive of the above quango, stated in a press conference publicising his report’s findings this morning, “What we are presenting here is a prime example of what our organisation brands ‘ethnic sick leave’. And what our startling figures show is that members of our country’s ethnic Serb community are by far the worst offenders of this workplace malpractice, topping the polls way above other communities, such as the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Italians.”

“Over the last 15 years, we have observed consistently on 7th and 14th January, days on which Serbs celebrate Orthodox Christmas and New Year’s day respectively, are the days on which at least 19,000 British Serbs each year without fail – and despite the global recession! – report a sickie to their employers!”, explains Mr. Bena. “However, there are also many other days they call off sick during the year, but with less regularity than the first two, e.g. St Sava’s day on 27th January, St Nicholas’ day on 19th December, and St George’s day on 6th May”, which Serbs celebrate 13 days after the same patron saint’s day is celebrated throughout England.

Figures courtesy of Britain’s union of Determined Workers against Lateness and Unauthorised absence (BuDWaLUa), showing ethnic groups in the UK, and the days on which they were absent from work over the last five years, taking into account the recent global recession:

Such news is received very grimly and indignantly by members of the British Serb population and by various organisations throughout the country representing this community, which has felt much maligned by the national media over the past twenty years. Quick to jump to the defence of his fellow ethnics is Stan Smiljanic, chief editor of the British Serb magazine Britić.

“These figures are such an exaggeration!”, thundered Stan. “And as such, they merely follow a trend of negative and defamatory press seen and felt over many years by us British Serbs!”

Stan’s colleague Aleks Simic, on the other hand, calmly insists, “Instead of engaging in stereotyping people like this report does, our pioneering magazine Britić, which aims to promote Serb culture and language within the UK amongst our various members, including people from the earliest migrations of Serbs from the Balkans into this country following World War Two and in subsequent decades, wants to create understanding, inspire appreciation and encourage tolerance of our unique community and our fascinating customs by the rest of the Great British population.”

To see Stan Smiljanic and Aleks Simic’s response to this report in full, visit the Britić website.

Bakunin on Serbia

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:15:00 +0000

Here is a section of Russian Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's critique of the state in his work 'Statism and Anarchy', written in 1873, which concerns 19th century Serbia. And being a good Balkan Anarchist, I had to share this on my blog!

In this text, Bakunin observes how young, intelligent Serbs, who left their towns and villages full of patriotism and love of freedom, returned from various European centres of education to their homeland, only to become no better than self-serving bureaucrats sponging off the very people they originally intended to liberate from centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule!

Bakunin mentions "Turkish Serbia" a couple of times, which judging by the context of these five paragraphs, refers to the then Principality of Serbia, which enjoyed a certain level of autonomy within the Ottoman Empire at the time he wrote this.

Some Preconditions for a Social Revolution

…

The Serbian people shed their blood in torrents and finally freed themselves from Turkish slavery, but no sooner did they become an independent principality than they were again and perhaps even more enslaved by what they thought was their own state, the Serbian nation. As soon as this part of Serbia took on all the features – laws, institutions, etc. – common to all states, the national vitality and heroism which had sustained them in their successful war against the Turks suddenly collapsed. The people, though ignorant and very poor, but passionate, vigorous, naturally intelligent, and freedom-loving, were suddenly transformed into a meek, apathetic herd, easy victims of bureaucratic plunder and despotism.

There are no nobles, no big landowners, no industrialists, and no very wealthy merchants in Turkish Serbia. Yet in spite of this there emerged a new bureaucratic aristocracy composed of young men educated, partly at state expense, in Odessa, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Paris, Germany, and Switzerland. Before they were corrupted in the service of the State, these young men distinguished themselves by their love for their people, their liberalism, and lately by their democratic and socialistic inclinations. But no sooner did they enter the state’s service than the iron logic of their situation, inherent in the exercise of certain hierarchical and politically advantageous prerogatives, took its toll, and the young men became cynical bureaucratic martinets while still mouthing patriotic and liberal slogans. And, as is well known, a liberal bureaucrat is incomparably worse than any dyed-in-the-wool reactionary state official.

Moreover, the demands of certain positions are more compelling than noble sentiments and even the best intentions. Upon returning home from abroad, the young Serbs are bound to pay back the debt owed to the State for their education and maintenance; they feel that they are morally obliged to serve their benefactor, the government. Since there is no other employment for educated young men, they become state functionaries, and become members of the only aristocracy in the country, the bureaucratic class. Once integrated into this class, they inevitably become enemies of the people…

And then the most unscrupulous and the shrewdest manage to gain control of the microscopic government of this microscopic state, and immediately begin to sell themselves to all corners, at home to the reigning prince or a pretender to the throne. In Serbia, the overthrow of one prince and the installation of another one is called a “revolution.” Or they may peddle their influence to one, several, or even all the great domineering states – Russia, Austria, Turkey, etc.

One can easily imagine how the people live in such a state! Ironically enough, the principality of Serbia is a constitutional state, and all the legislators are elected by the people. It is worth noting that Turkish Serbia differs from other states in this principal respect: there is only one class in control of the government, the bureaucracy. The one and only function of the State, therefore, is to exploit the Serbian people in order to provide the bureaucrats with all the comforts of life. [My emphasis in bold and underline]

You can read the rest of Bakunin's critique of the state here hosted by the Marxists Internet Archive at Marxists.org, home to a library of literature by a number of social thinkers including Karl Marx, whose theories Bakunin criticised at great length! Indeed, it was precisely the intellectual and philosophical dispute between these two revolutionaries, which gave rise to the ideological distinctions between Marxism and Anarchism.

However, what I find so prophetic about Bakunin's observations of Serbia in the 19th century, is how relevant it is to — and very descriptive of — today's Serbia in the 21st century! Although this was written before Serbia secured its independence from Turkey, before the Balkan Wars, the World wars, the Monarchic and Communist Yugoslav states and the break-up of the latter, today more than ever, especially following the nationalistic and statist wars and political turmoil of the 1990s, Serbia is still home to a freedom-loving yet ever-apathetic people, who have fallen — and can still fall — victim to bureaucratic plunder and despotism, while listening to patriotic and liberal slogans being touted by a variety of politicians, some of whom have questionable scruples to say the least!

The Economics of Anarchy

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:43:00 +0000

'The Economics of Anarchy', at Anarchist Writers

This article from a couple of years ago offers an informative insight into various economic concepts and recommendations promoted by Anarchism, along with Anarchism's long-standing and fundamental critique of Capitalism. Referring regularly to French Anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's timeless quote "Property is theft!", the article reminds the reader what is meant by that radical phrase and how it applies to the world of work. Particular attention is given to how self-Management, Mutualism and libertarian Communism would function differently from Capitalism once workers take control, while treating Collectivism as a bridge between Mutualism and Communism "with elements of both".

The writer of this article in 2009 observes:

Capitalism in crisis (again!) and the failure of state socialism could not be more clear. Social democracy has become neo-liberal (New Labour? New Thatcherites!) while this year also marks the 20th anniversary of the collapse of Stalinism in Eastern Europe. With its state capitalism and party dictatorship, Stalinism made the disease (capitalism) more appealing than the cure (socialism)! In this anarchists should be feel vindicated – the likes of Bakunin predicted both these outcomes decades before they became reality.

The prediction the above writer is referring to is embodied in Russian Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's likewise timeless quote: "…[F]reedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice… Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality".

Here is the link again: 'The Economics of Anarchy', at Anarchist Writers

Activist Post: Anarchist Utopia

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:19:00 +0000

Activist Post: Anarchist Utopia, by Milo Nickels

This is an interesting review of what the word Anarchy means and what Anarchism stands for. The writer Milo Nickels does an honourable job dispelling the myth that Anarchy is synonymous with "chaos", for which I, as a self-proclaimed Anarchist, take my hat off to him. However, Milo does go on to remind the reader that Anarchy is an "impossibility" due to "human nature", which he describes as being "fraught with greed, aggression, lust, and ignorance". Nevertheless, I particularly like these paragraph:

Although the vast majority of societal ideals [including Anarchism] and visions of utopia [like Anarchy] are unobtainable, simply because they are bound by human nature, this does not mean that we should stop striving for those societal ideals or seeking those utopias. Just as we will never wipe out all racism, all terrorism, all poverty, or all greed, we will never be able to eliminate all government. But the grim reality that we can never be perfect, should not stop us from striving as a people to be better. We can always have less racism, less terrorism, less poverty, less greed, and less government.

…

The real road to achieving an anarchist utopia is not through violence, disrespect, and chaos. All of these activities only lead to more government. An entirely free society, where government is no longer necessary, can only exist where people respect one another, accept responsibility, treat each other fairly, and have compassion for their fellow man. In short: we don't need government if humans are humane. [My emphasis in bold and underline]

Here is the link again: Activist Post: Anarchist Utopia, by Milo Nickels

You Don’t Own Other People

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:17:00 +0000

You Don’t Own Other People

An honest article by Kevin Carson from the Center for a Stateless Society, which subscribes to the market Anarchist school of thought. I definitely agree with the morality of these four paragraphs:

We anarchists don’t believe other people are our property. We don’t believe we have the authority to tell other people what to eat, drink, smoke, or who to have sex with. We’re not their boss. We don’t own them. And we have no right to act through the government to do things we have no legitimate authority to do as individuals. In other words, we anarchists actually believe the things the authors of your civics texts claimed to believe [i.e. "…government exercis[es] only powers delegated by the governed, government’s function [is] to protect the rights of the individual…"].

The big difference is, we’re consistent about it. We judge all groupings of individuals, even groupings that claim to represent a majority of people in a community and call themselves a “government,” by the same moral principles that govern individuals. The legiminate powers an individual possesses — the right to life, liberty and property, and the consequent power to defend those rights without harm to innocents — can be exercised cooperatively by any number of individuals in concert.

But even if they comprise a majority of people in a community, they have no rightful authority to bind those who did not freely join their cooperative venture. No group, including a group made up of a majority of individuals in a community, has any powers or rights beyond those already possessed by its individual members. Individuals cannot delegate any powers to a government that they do not possess as individuals.

Like any other association, a government exists for the ends of its members, and has no authority over anyone outside it. The state has no aura of majesty, and exercises no divine power. Like any other human association, it has only those legitimate powers which individual human beings can rightfully grant in the first place. [My emphasis in bold]

Here is the link again: You Don’t Own Other People

Facebook's Zuckerberg pledges to give away wealth - Economic Times

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:58:00 +0000

Here is an article from the end of last year on The Economic Times website explaining how the founders of Facebook and other very wealthy Americans have promised to part from a significant portion of their great wealth to charities and other good causes!

Facebook's Zuckerberg pledges to give away wealth - Economic Times

'Against The State, Part 1', on CBC.ca

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:24:00 +0000

Here is an interesting look at the history of Anarchism in 19th century France presented by Philip Coulter on CBC Radio, paying a visit to Paris and tracing the footsteps of the Anarchist movement there!

Against The State, Part 1 on CBC.ca

Response to comment by "Anonymous" - 23 June 2010 00:01

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:13:00 +0000

Following the publication of my extensive article Being a British Serb - living in contrariety, regarding British Serbs like myself, I received a comment from an "anonymous" person, who expressed views regarding recent Balkan history still held by many Serbs today. Here is his comment in full:

Sounds like the Brit Serbs are too cowardly and/or lazy to defend their own people in a negative atmosphere. With "Serbs" like these, no wonder Serbia doesn't do well.
Furthermore I see you push a lot of the mainstream media false accusations and propaganda against Serbs - at least you seem to agree with it or believe it is true unquestioningly - when in fact and true analysis of the claims show they fall apart. The Balkan wars WERE set up and there was bias against Serbia and Serbs from the start. It was planned to break up Yugoslavia into little pure or ethnically divided statelets. Britain was one of the countries involved with this along with the U.S. and Germany, and still others went along. So many of the "witnesses" against the Serbs have proven themselves bald-faced liars at the Hague. Yet the Hague allows these perjurers to get their propaganda set as the official "truth". There were also staged-for-the-cameras incidents in Bosnia and even some UN personnel and international officials testifying for the prosecution (against Serbs) have admitted Muslims DID stage and provoke attacks and further were witnessed killing their own people (other Muslims) to have the Serbs blamed.

23 June 2010 00:01

Putting aside his view on British Serbs' "cowardly and/or lazy" nature and Serbia's progress in the world - and whether the two are linked - I wish to respond to the main substance of his comment, which unfortunately was not about British Serbs. And I will do so in point by point fashion, and I will refer to the anonymous person in the second person, thus creating a dialogue between myself and him/herself.

"…I see you push a lot of the mainstream media false accusations and propaganda against Serbs - at least you seem to agree with it or believe it is true unquestioningly - when in fact and true analysis of the claims show they fall apart."

Serbs, Media, Justice and Me!

Serbs, Media, Justice and Me! contd.

did

a lot

genuine

all

single

"The Balkan wars WERE set up and there was bias against Serbia and Serbs from the start."

end

beginning

"It was planned to break up Yugoslavia into little pure or ethnically divided statelets. Britain was one of the countries involved with this along with the U.S. and Germany, and still others went along."

end

months

"So many of the "witnesses" against the Serbs have proven themselves bald-faced liars at the Hague. Yet the Hague allows these perjurers to get their propaganda set as the official "truth"."

everything

traumatised

are

as well

all

full

various

too many

"There were also staged-for-the-cameras incidents in Bosnia and even some UN personnel and international officials testifying for the prosecution (against Serbs) have admitted Muslims DID stage and provoke attacks and further were witnessed killing their own people (other Muslims) to have the Serbs blamed."

single

Milošević

were

both

Markale

Stanislav Galić

five

So Anonymous, you blame the West for breaking up Yugoslavia rather than Serbian nationalism, which caused so much ethnic tension before the wars, and then destroyed millions of lives during those wars? You either deny that our war-time leaders ever committed ethnic cleansing - i.e. expelling people from their homes - or you accept that they did all that, but it all was done for our "safety" to "protect" us from "Ustaše" and the like!

I was just like you - in fact, I used to dream how one day I would liberate my people from "lies"! Alas, that was not to be: those "lies" I detested turned out to be actually true, whereas those "truths" that you are convinced by turned out to be disgracefully false.

So I'm sorry Anon, sorry if I've disappointed you. Call me a "traitor" or whatever you like! Be rude at my parents' expense, why don't you! Think however you want to think, but know that you can never change the truth, especially that which has passed before us, however much you wish you could.

Being a British Serb - living in contrariety

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:34:00 +0000

I'm a British Serb, i.e. a person of ethnic Serb origin living in the UK. I personally was not born in Britain, but many other British Serbs were. I can speak Serbian - or Serbo-Croat - fluently as it is my mother tongue and I use it regularly, whereas many of my fellow British Serbs do not speak it as proficiently as I do, but they do understand it in spoken form. Both my parents are Serbs, which, according to most people's understanding of national identity, makes me "100% Serb"; while many of my fellow British Serbs are from mixed marriages, in which one of their parents is a Serb and the other parent is usually of British or other European origin, making them 50% Serb and 50% English or Irish or something else.

Being a Diaspora population, British Serbs are an ethnic minority subject to the culture and language of the majority population. British Serbs tend to live in small communities in big towns, and therefore, their social interactions with other people can sometimes be with fellow Serbs, other times with people who are not Serbs, and occasionally with both Serbs and other people from Britain and the rest of the world! They also tend to spend most of the year in Great Britain and only a few weeks in the year - if ever - in their Balkanian homelands, which they call "zavičaj" or "ognjište".

Serbs have been coming over to the UK from the former Yugoslavia since the end of the Second World War, following the recent Yugoslav wars, and in between the two war-torn periods. They settled into Britain's industrialised environment arriving from a largely rural background, raised in a strongly traditional, patriarchal spirit. Serbs, who were born here, have grown up in those same urban areas settled into by their parents, and have thrived in a vibrantly modern, multicultural society.

Serb immigrants have to various degrees integrated themselves into this Western society, founded on liberal democracy and free-market capitalism; while their children have inherited much of their parents' traditional values stemming from the Balkans based on faith, customs and history. And it is precisely by examining this case of cultural inheritance and cultural dichotomy will we understand what it means to be a "British Serb".

Which language do you speak?

As far as language is concerned, British Serbs born in the former Yugoslavia obviously speak their native language fluently, though many of them can also speak English just as fluently, depending on how long they've lived in the UK - sorry, correction: depending on how much interaction they've experienced with other English-speaking people while living in the UK.

Based on personal experience with members of my ethnic community, I've discovered that living in the UK for many years does not alone make a fluent English-speaker out of a British Serb! In fact, because many Serb immigrants enjoy most of their inter-personal interactions with other Serbs and other former Yugoslavs, both during work and after-work hours throughout their everyday life here, many of them never become fully fluent speakers of the host nation's language, even though knowledge of English is a practical and vital necessity for working and living in this country.

On the other hand, British Serbs who were born in Britain and went to British schools often don't share the same level of proficiency in speaking Serbian that their parents have. Nevertheless, they do understand it when spoken to them or around them, due to exposure to the language within the family and community since childhood.

However, when it comes to passing on the language to the next generation, those British Serbs who can barely speak their parents' language often don't teach their children to speak Serbian as a first language; rather they pass on some Serbian phrases to them once they've already mastered another language, i.e. English, both at home and at school, thus breaking the chain of language transmission linking the generations, while also raising a generation of British Serbs who never attain even a minimal understanding of their ancestors' language (not that they really need it in this country anyway)!

Where d'you come from?

We British Serbs are very proud of our family history and origins, as such pride is instilled in us by our parents and grandparents. Even though we live far away from our Balkanian "ognjišta" (meaning "hearths") on the isle of Britain, we have been raised with Serbian legends and stories about our "preci" (meaning "ancestors") from our various "zavičaji" (meaning "home regions"), that have been passed on from generation to generation, stirring up within us a passionate pride and an indelible sense of glory!

But when it comes to explaining our origins to other people in the UK, we British Serbs tend not to boast about our cultural heritage to other Britons; in fact, for much of the last 15-20 years, many of us have been inclined to keep our Serbian ethnicity a personal secret, as a way of avoiding the stigmatisation surrounding the word "Serb" created during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Unfortunately, none of us can avoid admitting our origins forever, and yet being asked, "Where are you from?" can be such a sticky situation for us!

As a rule, British Serbs from Croatia, like myself, have found it easier to just tell people that they're from Croatia, which is a popular country for Brits, thus conveniently hiding the fact that they're ethnic Serbs; likewise, British Serbs from Bosnia have also found it easier to just tell people that they're from Bosnia rather than admitting the whole truth that they belong to those same Bosnian Serbs like indicted war criminals Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić; and of course, the same rule applies to British Serbs from Montenegro, a land seemingly free of war criminals and wars! But what about British Serbs from Serbia, the former pariah state of the infamous Serbian hard man Slobodan Milošević, the Butcher of the Balkans; how on Earth do they explain to people where they or their parents come from? Why yes, they just say they're from Yugoslavia instead!

Speaking of which, many British Serbs still refer to their country of origin as "Yugoslavia", even though that name is no longer featured on any modern world map! Some of them prefer to use that name to avoid saying "Serbia" (as mentioned above); some use it because they long for those days of living in an internationally respected country, which co-founded and co-led the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, and which was also home to a relatively decent society - albeit a communist one - that lasted for nearly fifty years since World War Two; while others use that name because they're so out of touch with their homeland, so out of touch with all the current affairs and trends over there, that they can't be bothered to refer to it as anything else!

Your surname is…?

Other than being asked where we come from, another annoying - yet comparatively more essential - question we get asked all the time by everyone we meet throughout our lives is, "How do you spell your surname?" Most of our surnames end in -ić or -ović/ević, just like other Serbo-Croatian surnames from the Balkans written in the Roman alphabet (in the Cyrillic alphabet, it's written like so: -ић and -овић/евић. But since we live in a country whose main language only employs the Roman alphabet and doesn't use accents on any consonant, British Serbs are compelled to write their noble and glorious surnames without those decorative yet honourable ticks like so: -ic and -ovic/evic.

Surnames borne by us Serbs in Britain range in size; some of them are short ones, while others are much longer. Bear in mind, however, that short Serbo-Croatian surnames are not always the easiest ones! Nevertheless, some of us have relatively easy surnames like Popović, Zarić or Radusin; but others amongst us have more difficult to pronounce surnames, which for English-speakers look really unusual, like Stojisavljević, Krcunović and even Brkljač!

Serb immigrants are proud and fond of their surnames, and would never consider changing the spelling of their surnames to make it easier for English-speakers to read or pronounce near-correctly - let alone changing their surnames completely. Afterall, they did grow up in a country where they didn't experience any serious problems with their surnames. And a favourite pastime among Serb immigrants is watching the cast and credits at the end of TV programmes to see if they can spot a Serbian name and surname among the rolling credits!

However, British-born Serbs, who retain their surnames' original spelling thanks to their parents not changing them, have to consider whether to pronounce their surnames the way they're pronounced in the former Yugoslavia in the company of English-speakers unfamiliar with Serbo-Croatian linguistics, or whether to pronounce them in a way that would sound more familiar to English-speakers but unlike the original pronunciations. And of course, it's British-born Serbs who are the ones who are compelled to spell out their surnames time and time again for their whole lives, and whose children and grand-children will have to do the same for years to come, even when their immigrant parents and grandparents are long gone!

What's your community like?

In this country, there are significant Serbian communities in London boroughs like Hammersmith and Ealing, or further north in towns like Bedford, Corby, Leicester and Derby, and Yorkshire towns like Leeds and Halifax. In such places, you will often find a Serb Orthodox church like St. Sava's church in London and St. Elijah's church in Corby, which get packed during Christian holidays like Christmas (or "Božić"), Easter (or "Uskrs/Vaskrs"), and saints' feast days (or as we call each of them "Krsna slava").

If you live in the above-mentioned places, where the largest concentrations of British Serbs in the country are, you can feel like you're part of a vibrant community of like-minded people with whom you share a common origin. But if you live outside of them, being a Serb in Britain can be an especially lonely experience. In fact, there are many of us who live most of our daily lives without seeing a single fellow Serb for most of the year! And because many Serbs have moved around the country over the years, many of them have lost touch with fellow Serbs, whether immigrant or British-born, and find themselves outside of any Serb community in the country. Therefore, it's not surprising that many British Serbs often feel that they're the only Serbs where they are!

Upon their arrival to this country, Serb immigrants tend to conglomerate in areas where there are already existing Serbian communities to keep company with other Serbs, which is practical since many of them come to Britain barely speaking a word of English. Because of that tendency to settle into places where there are already some Serbs, most of their daily interactions with other people are with other Serbs, thus forming close-knit communities of immigrants that maintain strong links with the home country, be it Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia or Montenegro.

British-born Serbs, on the contrary, spend most of their time - and their lives - with people who are not Serbs at all! They go to school here among children from a variety of different backgrounds, with whom they make friends and find girlfriends or boyfriends. When they grow up, they find work among fellow Britons, and later on, get married and raise their own families here, either with Serb or non-Serb spouses. Unfortunately, many of them have few Serb friends - even none - with whom they can celebrate their Serbian culture or discuss Serb-related topics (as indicated above). And although their parents take them to their homeland to visit family over there during their childhood, many of them rarely visit their parents' country of origin as adults, and therefore can easily lose contact with however many Serb relatives they may have back home.

So, what does it mean?

Living my life as a British Serb has so far been an experience full of contradictions. As detailed above: you have Serbs, on the one hand, who've spent most of their lives in the UK but have never become fluent in English; while on the other hand, you have Serbs born in this country who have never attained fluency in Serbian. We are proud of our origins and inspired by our ancestors, but don't boast about either in order to avoid prejudice and exclusion. Moreover, we have wonderful surnames each with a colourful history, but nobody can say them properly except for ourselves! And there are those of us who keep in contact with fellow Serbs and "zavičaj", and others amongst us who've lost all contact with fellow Serbs and "zavičaj"!

But what is the future for our community in this country? Well, it could look a bit like this: at one end of the "British Serb spectrum" will be a community of middle-aged and elderly Serbs, who'll keep themselves to themselves, but will continue to maintain links with their homelands till the end of their lives - unless they go back there to spend their retirement; while at the other end will be younger generations of Serbs, half-Serbs, quarter-Serbs and eighth-Serbs, who will completely assimilate themselves into the mass of British society, and who'll have little to no idea what their ancestral land looks like (to be fair on them, they're better off not going there anyway)!

And the main reason why this could be the case for British Serbs - or maybe is the case already! - is simply because there just aren't that many of us on this island anyhow! According to all population estimates, our ethnic community, made up of waves of immigrants into and natural births in this country, only numbers in the five figures and no higher. And although there are concentrations of Serbs in certain towns and cities in Britain, there are many others who are dispersed throughout this country, isolated from any major community.

But whatever the future holds for us British Serbs, whichever language - or languages - we will speak, and however many of us there will be in the UK, the most important thing for us to do is to remember that we are British Serbs; that we came from the Balkan peninsula, bringing our names, customs and Orthodox faith along to the British isles, where we have adapted to and integrated ever since - or are trying to!

The three best pictures of the year

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Mon, 31 May 2010 01:03:00 +0000

Here we go!

Nuff said!

Kistanje Blues - street names leading to controversy

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:53:00 +0000

Kistanje is a pleasant and lovely town in the centre of the Bukovica region in northern Dalmatia, that holds a special place in my heart. However, it's been getting a bit of bad press last month, and it's all due to street signs!

You see, national minorities in areas of Croatia where they make up the majority have a right to bilingual signs and the choice to name streets after famous people from their areas and historic events that are celebrated by their community. Recently, the town council in Kistanje has been mulling over which streets to rename and after whom. However, it has not been plain sailing, and it has caused a heated debate and controversy. (See here on Slobodna Dalmacija)

When you go round towns and cities in Croatia, you will always find streets named after the country's wartime president Franjo Tuđman and other controversial individuals like Ante Starčević, and not long ago, there were streets named after Ustaše like Mile Budak (they've since been removed). For Serbs who have returned to Croatia or regularly visit there hometowns and villages, such street signs represent an insult to their national identity and collective memory. They aren't bothered too much by streets named after medieval kings like King Zvonimir or Tomislav, but they would rather see streets in places where their people are in the majority bear the names of famous local Serbs.

In Kistanje, ethnic Serb town councillors have proposed their plan of renaming streets and squares in Kistanje after local Serbs. Ethnic Croat town councillors do approve of some of their proposed name changes, but strongly disapprove over changing Franjo Tuđman's street in the centre of the town leading out to the city of Knin further east.

Most of the ethnic Croats living in Kistanje are Janjevci, who were invited by Tuđman from Kosovo, from whence they came, to settle into houses abandoned by Serbs following the war, as part of his own "humane resettlement" programme in the 90s. Following the return of many Serbs to Kistanje and the restoration of their ownership of their property, a new housing settlement, simply known as 'Novo Naselje', was built for these Janjevci. Not long ago however, Janjevci living in that settlement have protested over their living conditions, raising their grievances about the state of their settlement, the muddy state of streets there, and complaining how the ethnic Serb officials have shown no real interest in helping them.

Most vocal for changing street names in Kistanje is councillor Božo Šuša, member of the Democratic Party of Serbs ('Demokratske partije Srba', DPS), who is one of the authors of the proposal. He has raised his dissatisfaction at the speed of the implementation of article 13 of the consititutional law for the rights of minorities, guaranteeing minorities the right to name "settlements, streets and squares [after] people and events that are significant to the national minority" in Croatia (see the Consitutional law for ethnic minority rights here in Croatian). Veljko Džakula, leader of Šuša's DPS, has also questioned, "Why does 'Franjo Tuđman street' and 'Ante Starčević [street]' have to be everywhere?"

In response to Šuša's - and even Džakula's - comments, there was a protest by Croatian veterans from the recent war led by Tomislav Čolak on Kistanje's town square. Not a Serb was in sight, as Mr. Čolak was asserting that "every place in Croatia will have in its centre streets named after Croatia's fathers" like Ante Starčević and Franjo Tuđman, even dictating to Serbs who they should or shouldn't have streets named after! Unbelievable. Other than that, he resorted to personally inquiring from Mr. Šuša of his whereabout on 4th August, 1995, which is a common ploy used against Serbs in Croatia. (You can hear his superficially mild yet verbally arrogant speach here, followed by a statement by another veteran calling for municipalities like Kistanje to be abolished due to concerns of bureaucracy!)

This looks like a classic case of "two worlds colliding" as far as post-war, inter-ethnic relations are concerned: one community looks at the world in one way, while the other looks at everything in a completely different way! Serbs would like to see street signes bearing Tuđman's name to bear different names, as they have a very low opinion of the late president based on their experiences of his policies towards them, and don't wish to be reminded of him in their hometowns, which sounds reasonable enough. However, many Croats see Tuđman as the man who brought their country independence from Yugoslavia, who fought to win its freedom from Serbian aggressors - a term offensive to Croatian Serbs who fought against the Republic of Croatia. As far as they're concerned, he is a Croatian national hero, even though he proved himself not to be a champion of human rights, and even allowed corruption to flourish after the war! Not surprisingly, any initiative to demote their war-time leader, such as this one with the street names, is nothing short of a "provocation" by Serbs.

This is understandable in plases in the world traumatised by war, in particularly inter-ethnic conflict in the Balkans. But what's worse, and is evident in this case, is the inconsiderate nature of Mr. Čolak, however gentle his tone of voice was, and others like him who wish to impose their view of history and their ideas of how things should be done upon others, even though they know that people in the Serb community don't agree with them. Firstly, he reiterates his view of history, which he has a right to do since he fought for his country Croatia, but then he proceeds to tell Serbs what's good for them and what's not! How bewildering.

The Serbs in Croatia find themselves in a morally difficult position. They do feel the stigmatisation against their people and the scorn of their Croat neighbours over the war-time antics of some of their co-ethnics, which includes serious war crimes against non-Serbs. Those responsible for such offences should be brought to justice, but many still walk free, and that contributes to the hostility that many Croats still feel towards all Serbs. Croatian Serbs do, however, wish to rebuild their communities, and at least moderately assert their identity in a multi-ethnic Croatia. However, ethnic Serb organisations and leaders often find themselves at the receiving end of right-wing Croatian nationalists, who always seem to find every reason under the sun to undermine and degrade their efforts of establishing their voice in modern-day Croatian society. And the disdain towards the general Serbian community in Croatia was obvious in the words and in the voices of Tomislav Čolak and his colleague who spoke at that protest last month.

Džakula says it best, describing this issue and others like so: "Everything that Serbs initiate is a trigger for Croats. But, why did those who named those streets that way not [care to] think [how] that [would be] a trigger for Serbs?" (Original quote in Serbian/Croatian/Serbo-Croat here)

Shockingly, only a few days after that protest, someone or some people devastated a commemorative cross in the village of Varivode near Kistanje. The cross was erected in 2004 to commemorate the murder of nine elderly Serb civilians who had stayed in their homes following 'Operation Oluja' in 1995. As you can see in the comments under that article on the Jutarnji List website, a few of them are genuinely dismayed by this incident. Unfortunately though, one of the commentators felt it was acceptable to end his comment with "ZA DOM SPREMNI", a notorious Ustaša slogan. (Even worse, you can see his name, surname and photo, since the comments came through via Facebook! Shameless.)

As you can see, April has not been a nice month for Kistanje folk. But putting aside these bad news, let's end on a lighter note! St. Nicholas' church in the hamlet of Bezbradice just outside Kistanje has been almost completely renovated, and just yesterday a joyful gathering was held to celebrate the church's renewed exterior and interior. The event was attended by 500 to 1000 locals, religious dignitaries from the Serbian Orthodox Church, folk music and dance groups, Croatian and Bosnian officials, and received coverage from the Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian-Serb media alike. All in all, it went ahead and passed without a single incident. (See pictures of the renovation in action on Moje-Kistanje.net.)

Serbs, Media, Justice and Me! contd.

noreply@blogger.com (Balkan Ⓐnarchist) — Fri, 21 May 2010 02:44:00 +0000

In this sequel to Serbs, Media, Justice and Me! published a couple of months ago, I shall go into further detail to explain my former views on the subject of Serbs in the media and the justice that followed, and further reminisce on my gradual change of thought.

As I explained in the above article, my views on the Yugoslav wars of the 90s were much like the views of many other Serbs then and today: I used to believe that Western politicians supported homegrown separatists at the expense of vast Serb populations in those seceeding republics, and most insulting of all, the Western media was falsely accusing us of starting the wars, thus leading to the break up of the former common state, even though it was NATO that bombed Serbia for 78 days in 1999! I also used to believe that all the stories of Serbs committing war crimes and worse stuff on non-Serb populations to be gross lies and propaganda used to further advance the anti-Serb policies in the region. And finally, I used to look at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the Hague as a "kangaroo court", a propaganda outfit to disseminate the same lies circulated throughout the world, so that their rulings could be used by anti-Serb politicians at home to implement their harmful and inconsiderate policies against the wishes of the Serbian people.

I no longer think in the way I've detailed above; in fact, I've changed my views by a 180º turn! I now no longer blame the West for the break-up of Yugoslavia. Instead, I acknowledge that Slobodan Milošević, along with his colleagues, were indeed responsible for creating a climate of ethnic tension and fear among the people of Yugoslavia that was conducive of war, and eventually caused wars to happen. I now appreciate how Serbian nationalism created a lot of fear among all the other former Yugoslav nations while blinding Serbs to what was really happening around them, thus, I now better understand why there is a lot of hatred between people there. I now accept that my fellow Serbs in Bosnia did indeed cause the most bloodshed of all the sides, and worse still, planned it all in advance and received lots of support et al. from Belgrade throughout the conflict. And I also now accept that the Hague Tribunal, whatever its faults may be, is a genuine court of law, that has from its establishment strived to uncover the truth of what had happened in those wars, who were to blame for it and bring them to justice.

This change in opinion didn't happen overnight and I certainly didn't accept everything I was discovering in one gulp; it took months for me to completely renounce my former views on the recent history and current affairs, and quite often, I found it easier to just accept one truth at a time, as a lot of what I was discovering was just too much even for me to take in!

However, what I'm detailing here is something that would be deemed deeply "unpatriotic" and even "treacherous" by many of my fellow Serbs even today, thus making my views certainly "contraversial" by Serbian standards! Nevertheless, I believe it can only be a cathartic process for me to explain why I used to think in the ways I thought, which is also the way in which many Serbs still think today.

(I also feel that I missed out a lot of rather important opinions in my original article, which is why I've published this article as a continuation of my previous article on the this issue!)

------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly and fundamentally, I found the whole idea of "Greater Serbia" as detailed by the Western media utterly repellent, and as far as I was concerned, completely un-Serbian. This tied in with the accusation that it was us Serbs who started the wars, and not the secessionists that we blamed the wars on.

What I could never believe was that Slobodan Milošević was "champion of a Greater Serbia", as claimed in the Western media. Me and my parents, like many Serbs in the Diaspora with access to satellite channels, used to watch RTS SAT (Radio Televizija Srbije Satelitski Program) during the war years and throughout the 1990s. And whenever we saw Sloba on RTS SAT, he always advocated Yugoslavia, never "Greater Serbia". Those who did advocate "Greater Serbia" always seemed to have come from the ranks of the Serbian Radical Party (Srpska Radikalna Stranka) under ultra-nationalist Vojislav Šešelj.

In all his public statements, Milosevic praised Yugoslavia and its multiethnic society, thus giving the impression that he was opposed to the inter-ethnic tensions that were brewing, and instead of secession wanted Yugoslavia to stay together. Šešelj and his Radicals, on the other hand, were openly vocal about the creation of a Greater Serbia, with its westerly border at the Croatian towns of Karlovac, Karlobag, Virovitica.

However, one of Sloba's famous sayings was, "All Serbs in one state". Many people believed he was referring to the formation of a "Greater Serbia" to contain all Serbs, while others thought he was referring merely to Yugoslavia as the state for all Serbs to live in. This is such an ambiguous statement on his part: does he mean "Greater Serbia" or just Yugoslavia? He made quite a few ambiguous statements like that one, which can be interpreted in many ways, and that's one of the reasons why many Serbs still can’t believe that Sloba was part - let alone head - of a "joint criminal enterprise".

I eventually realised that this was the impression that the Serb-nationalist media at the time, and Serb nationalists today, wanted to keep us under (Milošević = Yugoslavia, Šešelj = "Greater Serbia"), when in reality, the Serbian state under Sloba was deeply involved in the wars in the neighbouring former Yugoslav republics, providing support to the Serb nationalist leaders who fought precisely for a "Greater Serbia".

But what you must understand is that most Serbs, like myself, don't support the formation of a "Greater Serbia"; the truth is most Serbs just wanted Yugoslavia to stay together, my parents included. The fact is most sane and intelligent Serbs in the world think "Greater Serbia" is a mad and ridiculous idea; no normal Serb would ever consider "Greater Serbia" a good idea either in theory or in practice, myself included.

However, the Serbian public, at home in the Balkans and abroad in the Diaspora, were subjected to contradictory accounts coming from many media outlets, including the Serbian state media at the time, the Croatian and Bosnian state media, and the wider Western media. Understandably, this has led to a lot of confusion that can be detected even today.

Due to receiving many mixed messages about what was happening, many Serbs living outside of the warzones were particularly confused about what was really going on in Bosnia, Croatia and later in Kosovo. Other Serbs were more certain, placing their faith in their fellow Serbs and dismissing opposing views. However, because Serbs were so chronically misinformed, they did not realise who the real culprits of everything that was going wrong around them were. And because they did not know what was really going on, they could not rise against those responsible for it soon enough. Of course, that's exactly where the leaders of Serbia at the time, and their colleagues in the other republics, wanted us to be: in a state of confusion, so that we could not rebel against them.

----------

Secondly, and for a long time, I used to refuse to accept that Slobodan Milošević was responsible for all the bloodshed of the 1990s and for leading that "joint criminal enterprise"; such accusations I deemed unbelievable and part of a wider scheme of slur and slander at the Serbian people's expense. And I also found constant reference to Sloba and his "henchmen" so ungenuine. Instead, I remember watching his trial on satellite, and I'm ashamed to say this, but at the time, I honestly admired his performance at the dock of the ICTY; I truly believed that what he was sharing with the world from the Hague was the "truth", with which he was "destroying" the "lies" of the Western media!

Long before his trial, I remember watching RTS SAT in the 90s with my parents, as mentioned above, when it was under Sloba's control. My impression of Sloba, based on the image presented by RTS SAT under his state's control, was that of a positive and reasonable statesman, who advocated peace and humanitarianism and once held International Children's Day in Serbia! I was a child/teenager back then, and I chose to believe the Serbian state TV of that time over the "un-patriotic" bloc lead by people like the late Dr.Zoran Đinđić and Nenad Čanak, including B92 TV.

We also had access to RTCG (Radio Televizija Crne Gore) with our satelite, and that channel for us represented the "anti-Serb" Montenegrin bloc led by Premier/President Milo Đukanović, whom we despised as a traitor to the Serbian people and as someone secretly involved in the mafia! But that channel also offered the Voice of America in Serbian, which we likewise disbelieved, as it pretty much said the same things that were being told on the Western media but in Serbian.

However, my change of view regarding Milošević came about by precisely reading what ordinary people who lived in Serbia under his rule had to say on the Internet, as that is my most reliable way of finding out a variety of different opinions amongst Serbs that I cannot readily access living here in the UK.

Although I had heard of how Milošević repressed his political opponents at home in the Western media, I did not consider any of those stories to be valid; I always thought that those accusations were fundamentally "anti-Milošević propaganda" funded by the West that I and many other Serbs blamed, and I'm afraid to say that I also thought that a lot of the unrest in Serbia was the fault of the pro-democratic forces themselves causing trouble!

Nevertheless, I made the plunge and started reading many accounts of democratic activists striving against a régime they saw as the cause of their country's social, economic, political and moral turmoil, and in turn for many problems in neighbouring former Yugoslav republics due to war. What astonished and fascinated me the most while examining their literature was the high moral character of the individuals within the pro-democratic scene in Serbia, something I had previously under-estimated - or rather did not believe was possible, as I used to think that these people and their institutions were supported by Western countries. Their dedication to human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and everything else that is conducive of an open and tolerant society was second to none.

Now, I did notice that these anti-Milošević people were obviously people who supported politicians like Đinđić and Čanak and their policies. But I slowly realised that their support for such individuals did not make what they were saying any less real; in fact, it only strengthened it! And I came to appreciate the fact that people who lived in Serbia at that time know far better about what was happening in their own country and society than someone like me who was living in the Diaspora watching a satellite channel run at the time by state that wanted to keep me in the dark.

And by examining their views word by word, it dawned on me that everything that Đinđić, Čanak et al. were saying and had said over the years was actually precisely what millions of ordinary people in Serbia regularly saw and felt going on around them. And so I finally accepted that all the anti-Milošević rhetoric from people in Serbia, people I had thought were "Western-paid traitors", was based on fact, and that the people of Serbia had every right to look upon Milošević and his régime as the cause of all their country's woes and see him as a failed president who brought nothing but trouble to everyone.

This enlightenment was crucial for me, 'cause if Milošević was that bad to his own people at home, then it's very easy to believe that he was no better - and even worse - towards his neighbours!

----------

And thirdly, for me and for many Serbs, the whole idea that we started the wars, and even worse, committed the highest number of war crimes and the grossest atrocities of all the sides, was completely unacceptable as it seemed so impossible on the one hand, but also very offensive on the other.

One of the reasons why it was difficult for me to believe that my fellow Serbs could do so much wrong to our neighbours, was because our parents, grandparents and more distant forebears had been victims of similar wrongdoing in the last one hundred years. In fact, throughout our history, and that of other Balkan nations, we had been at the mercy of many empires, be it the Roman Empire followed by the Byzantine Empire, between the Ottoman and the Habsurg later Austro-Hungarian Empires, and finally Nazi Germany, the Third Reich, whose criminal legacy is still painfully remembered today.

During the Bosnian war, there was a lot of very anti-Serb opinion in the media of Western countries, which influenced the general public's understanding of events in Bosnia. Both televised and radio news bulletins were full of headline stories about what was going on in Bosnia, usually implacating the Bosnian Serbs, such as the Siege of Sarajevo and the snipers who terrorised the people of that city. Now I was too young at the time to understand what exactly was going on, let alone be aware of different sides to the story. But what I did understand as a child was that I didn't want anything to do with it!

As I grew up, I learnt about what was happening in Bosnia and Croatia according to the Serbian side and subsequently based my own opinions on such interpretation of events. I started thinking in much the same way as many other Serbs were thinking, "How could the Western media accuse us of committing such terrible crimes; what about the suffering that our people have endured during those wars and in earlier periods?" It seemed to me that the Western media ignored - even dismissed - our view of history, which was especially hurtful to us Serbs who were and are living in the West. Of course, we don't expect everyone around the world to be expert historians, but most of us Serbs didn't expect the media in Western countries and all its journalists to be so dismissive of our sentiments.

As a British Serb, I remember the anti-NATO demonstrations in London by diaspora Serbs in response to the bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo war. They held placards with comical and/or angry messages like "National American Terrorist Organisation" (a pun on the NATO alliance's abbreviated name), while others held placards with the message "Save Our Serbia" (an alternative definition of the international distress signal SOS).

As mentioned above, we remembered the anti-Serb climate around the country during the Bosnian war just a few years earlier. Many British Serbs felt very uncomfortable with the overt anger expressed against us by our fellow Britons, and our natural, knee-jerk reaction to all of this - regardless of whether we had access to satellite channels or not - was to believe that this hatred was completely based on lies spread by the media. And when Kosovo broke out, we likewise believed that this was another anti-Serb campaign lead by the media in our host country.

In the end, these people, British Serbs, were left feeling disregarded by Blair's government, yet many of them had helped elect him only two years earlier. This feeling of not being listened to by their country's government has lead to a general sense of apathy among British Serbs as far as politics in either the UK or the Balkans is concerned, which is still felt today. No wonder many of us are disillusioned with politics in general, and worse, actually prefer to live in apathy rather than have an opinion!

I, on the other hand, did not become apathetic or lose interest in politics. Following the Kosovo war, I developed a very pro-Serb view of the wars for all the reasons described above in this article and in the previous one. I spent much of my free time as a teenager sojourning websites which promoted the opinion that the West interfered in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia, and which focused purely on Serbian victimhood without any meaningful reference to the victimhood of other former Yugoslav nations - instead, they were openly denying, minimising and/or justifying it! Needless to say, these sites left me in a lot of doubt about many atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs et al. during the wars, while cementing my belief that the West was pursuing and continues to pursue anti-Serb policies. Ignorance is bliss!

As I was building my identity, I learnt a lot about Serbian history, Balkan history and European history, not to mention the national histories of certain nations. Afterall, history is one of my favourite subjects, along with linguistics!

As far as history was concerned, I was developing my own opinions on history based on what I was reading on the net, from websites like the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, visited by people from all over the world, and the Serbian cultural/historical/anthropological website Projekat Rastko, which offers a wide array of literature.

At first, I preferred the comfort of the Serbian point of view, as I was often offended by the mainstream Western opinion on the recent history, and even more by the Croatian point of view, particularly when examining the discussions pages on Wikipedia's numerous articles on the former Yugoslavia, often full of accusations and defamation coming from all sides! But as my skin became thicker, I started researching other interpretations of Western Balkan history, including the Croatian opinion and that of others, with which I became more and more comfortable confronting. On the one hand, I wanted to familiarise myself with their side of the story; while on the other, I wanted to find something in their story that I could disprove and brand as a "lie".

This process of familiarising myself with the other side/sides of the story gained momentum precisely during the time that I started changing my views on Milošević, Bosnia etc. And not only was I discovering how the other former Yugoslav nations felt about what happened to them and all around them, I was also starting to read more "neutral" points of view, i.e. works by internationally-recognised scholars - genuine historians, as opposed to the pseudo-historians out there - like Marko Attila Hoare, Marcus Tanner, Tim Judah, and many more. I read their work with a true sense of inquisitiveness, and I found their work to be highly informative and even inspiring; they explained the various aspects of the recent wars and other periods by focusing on the facts, without resorting to expressing their ethnic hostilities or advocating a national agenda. What a breath of fresh air that was!

Thanks to all my research, which at times was profoundly emotional for me, I developed a more informed view on the recent history and more distant periods of history. In fact, I developed a sense of critically analysing individual interpretations, along with an ability to compare contradicting points of view in order to discover whether they have anything in common!

For instance, when comparing the Serbian and Croatian national narratives, I've found that that these narratives are indeed based on certain historic facts, but what makes both of them unique - or similar, depending on how you look at them - is that they relate specific interpretations of facts. And it is these interpretations that help forge people's national identity, something they share only with a select few.

However, the problem with both narratives is that they tend to concentrate on the favourable aspects of history, while ignoring or just minimising the less favourable bits. And when they relate wars, they always depict their nation as the innocent victims on the one hand, and justified heroes on the other. And because of that tendency, both narratives encourage the people who hold onto them to only want to see things in a way that is favourable to their nation, or as I put it, to have a "self-gratifying" view of history.

In the end, I came to understand that history can be a very complicated thing; it can seem to be full of contradictions on the one hand, and full of anomalies on the other. This is particularly the case with nations affected by constant war throught their histories. At one given moment in time, members of one nation were victimised by members of another; while at another moment of time, members of that originally victimised nation were victimising members of the nation that victimised them first!

I am not trying to in any way relativise any period or event in history, as each has its own gravity. Rather, I wish to point out that different people have experienced a variety of different things, but that's not to say that other people haven't experienced very similar things too. And that's why I believe that it's only when we compare different points of view in an objective manner with a spirit of inquisitiveness, can we finally discover what is true and what is false; what is diffrent and what is similar; and what is unique and what is shared.

------------------------------------------------------------

And so, it turned out that all the things I used to believe in, like that the West conspired with local separatists to destroy Yugoslavia and blame the Serbs for it with their media to justify further anti-Serb policies, are the real lies. And as I started accepting that, I also came to realise that Serb nationalist propaganda really was propaganda afterall: a combination of truths, half-truths, and outright lies. So many times I've heard Western journalists saying that the régime of Slobodan Milošević fed the Serbian people propaganda, and yet I never believed that! It turns out they were right all along.

I now accept that the two biggest practical problems with the Serb nationalist interpretation of history, constantly peddled back home in the Balkans, are one, it is unreliable when it comes to establishing historical truth, and two, when applying it in a legal setting, it is useless and fruitless.

I mean, let's forget about the Hague tribunal itself; there are loads of courts in the world and plenty of lawyers too! If we were to take anything that has been branded as "evidence" by proponents of the so-called Serbian point of view into any court of law in the world, it would be discredited and any case based on such "evidence" would be thrown out of court altogether. Now why would that happen if such claims were really true? Maybe the whole system and establishment is set up against us Serbs? Why of course, it's all done to spite us! But how can anyone live their lives thinking in such a way? I know I used to think like that myself, but I don't want to think in such an irrational and spurious way anymore. And what good would it do to maintain those same views based on discredited claims anyway? All we'd be doing is embarrassing ourselves on the one hand, and convincing Croats, Bosniaks etc. that we're no better than we were before, and as such not worth bothering with even now more than a decade after the wars.

But I also came to another very important conclusion: not only is the Serb nationalist point of view actually difficult to prove in any court of law - let alone the Hague, more importantly, it was also morally wrong to promote such interpretations of history. Indeed it is a fool's crusade to pursue such a version of the "truth", as it is full lies. But worst of all, it doesn't really help Serbs at all to continue fostering the argument that the West is "guilty" for the break-up of Yugoslavia, that Milošević was an innocent "hero" or that certain war crimes committed by Serbs were "lies", because that can only impede any honest attempt at reconciliation between Serbs and Croats, or Serbs and Bosniaks, etc.

In the end, all my research into recent and more distant history in the Balkans has convinced me once and for all that all brands of nationalism, especially the extreme, far-right variants, are both practically and morally wrong; while blind patriotism among ordinary people I realised is practically unhelpful and morally obstructive.

Minor edit: 13th July, 2010.