The Yugoslav idea?

[Stronk Serb]

Now this idea is about all South Slavs uniting in a single state. People had this idea because they were divided and oppressed in two diferent states, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. This idea started WWI when Gavrilo Princip shot and killed the Austrian heir to the throne Frantz Ferdinand. Later Yugoslavia was made but it was a poor attempt for a Serbian hegemony, the Serbs made 40% of the entire population, and other slavs had less say on the matter. Before WWII the government was fractured and parts were almost independent. After the war, instead of hailing the domestic nazi, fascist and other quinsling (dunno if I spelled it right) leaders, the people (for Serbs I am sure) hailed Tito just like they hailed the king, Ljotic, Pavelic and Nedic, and at the beggining of the nineties the same people shed blood of their neighbours. What are your opinions? Can this idea be fulfilled? How long will it take?

[EvanGr]

some states may be merged to form a nation sone not. for instance i think serbia with furom plus the serbian part of bih. slovenia with croatia because of the relegion. bih and montenegro will be on their own. so i dont think there will be a revive of old yugoslavia. thats my point of viw. sorry for the mistakes but i wrote this post from my phone.

[Cygnus]

Religion is the main factor that prevents the Yugoslav ideal from being fulfilled, and at this time after the Bosnian genocide there is too much disparity for Yugoslavia to come back.

[Stronk Serb]

some states may be merged to form a nation sone not. for instance i think serbia with furom plus the serbian part of bih. slovenia with croatia because of the relegion. bih and montenegro will be on their own. so i dont think there will be a revive of old yugoslavia. thats my point of viw. sorry for the mistakes but i wrote this post from my phone.

Religion is the main factor that prevents the Yugoslav ideal from being fulfilled, and at this time after the Bosnian genocide there is too much disparity for Yugoslavia to come back.

The problem is that many people think that because we have different religions, we are not all South Slavs. It was the Bosnians, Croats and Serbs fighting the Ottomans at Kosovo. When Gavrilo Princip shot Frantz Ferdinand, he didn't only do it for the mostly Orthodox Serbs or Macedonians or the Muslim Serbs or the Catholic Croats or Slovenians. Many took that shot as a cry for unification. After the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was formed, it was not the embodiment of the idea, it was a Serb hegemony. Socialist Yugoslavia was a good start but wounds left from WWII got the better of us. It is possible, but not in near future.

[tovaris]

The Yugoslaw idea aimes to unite a fractored "under one roof". And i do believe it is possible, if only the nationalists are filany and for good owerthrown and the people ruke themselves without some fanatic wispering hate and doubt into their ears.

[Stronk Serb]

The Yugoslaw idea aimes to unite a fractored "under one roof". And i do believe it is possible, if only the nationalists are filany and for good owerthrown and the people ruke themselves without some fanatic wispering hate and doubt into their ears.

Nationalism is a very bad thing. Patriotism is good, it means you love your country but do not see your people/countrymen superior to everyone else. The idea is great, why live under great powers or petty states which have no outside influence when you can unite into a more powerful and influental country? Unfortunately our leaders prefer narrow-mindedness to reason.

[tovaris]

Nationalism is a very bad thing. Patriotism is good, it means you love your country but do not see your people/countrymen superior to everyone else. The idea is great, why live under great powers or petty states which have no outside influence when you can unite into a more powerful and influental country? Unfortunately our leaders prefer narrow-mindedness to reason.

I do feel thow that a federation would not be the right way to go since it isto easy for some people to misuse such organjstion of the country. I am of the opinion that a confederation would be best for us.

[Vlerchan]

Nationalism [...] means you love your country but do [...] see your people/countrymen superior to everyone else.
In it's most extreme cases, yes. It's usually called ultranationalism as opposed to nationalism then, though.

Outside of that it simply means that one - the nationalist-in-question here - has an attachment with their own national identity. This may lead the nationalist-in-question towards the belief that it might be best if members of his own national identity rules over him as opposed to any other, believing that it is members of his own national-identity/ethno-group that will truly represent his best interests.

Whilst Patriot is the willingness to support (and/or love) your own country, regardless how fucked up their decisions or actions are, simply because you was born there.

[...] why live under great powers or petty states which have no outside influence when you can unite into a more powerful and influental country?
Because some individuals believe that they're more likely to get their best interests served by a government of which they feel shares the same (supposedly, through joint national-identity, inherent) self-interests.

Let's use the catholic Croats as an example: I'm sure a great number of them would prefer - i.e., it's in their mutual best-interests - for their government to further their religion or religious values. This becomes somewhat harder when your government is split between a number of individuals representing, and trying to further, a number of different religious beliefs.

[tovaris]

a lot[/b] harder when the government is split amongst a number of individuals of a number of religious beliefs, of which each is trying to further the agendas of said beliefs.

Religion has nothing to do with the goverment of a state, and it should never. The idea of separation of state and feligion predates the french revolution, and is at the core of modern democracy today!

[Vlerchan]

Religion has nothing to do with the goverment of a state, and it should never. This is a case where reality trumps rhetoric.

In Ireland there's limitations to abortion access, non-existent gay marraige; homosexuality was actually illegal until 1992, prostitution is a non-issue, divorce was similarly illegal until mid-way into the nineties, censorship of supposedly immoral material was rampant until quite recently. I could keep going but I'm sure you get the point. These restrictions are coming about not because our country is rules by the Catholic Church - Church and State are separate here - but our politicians still hold catholic values and represent an electorate who similarly hold catholic values.

So, you can spout whatever Enlightenment values that you want but that doesn't change the reality that religion still plays a large role in helping design legislation.

[Stronk Serb]

In it's most extreme cases, yes. Outside of that it simply means that one has an attachment with their own national identity and usually this leads to one wanting for their own ethno-group/national identity to govern them as they believe that members of their own ethno-group/national identity will have their best interests at heart - as was the case with the people of Yugoslavia.

Conversely, patriotism is the willingness to support (and/or love) your own country, regardless how fucked up their decisions or actions are, simply because you was born there.

Because some individuals believe that they're more likely to get their best interests served by a government of which they feel shares the same (supposedly, through joint national-identity, inherent) self-interests - i.e., a mutual self-interest amongst the catholic Croats might be furthering their own religion or religious values, something that becomes a lot harder when the government is split amongst a number of individuals of a number of religious beliefs, of which each is trying to further the agendas of said beliefs.

People think that way. The republics were pretty autonomous. They had their own treasuries, police force, trade agreements, held elections, had their own government and possibly laws. And like that, they had the same privileges of an independent state, yet they decided to ruin themselves.

[darthearth]

I do feel thow that a federation would not be the right way to go since it isto easy for some people to misuse such organjstion of the country. I am of the opinion that a confederation would be best for us.

I agree here. Given the history of the region a confederation should be the initial goal. I think that has to work first before any talk of further unification. Including Bulgaria for example would be historic wouldn't it? I would love to see it actually, people working together to make something greater.

[tovaris]

I agree here. Given the history of the region a confederation should be the initial goal. I think that has to work first before any talk of further unification. Including Bulgaria for example would be historic wouldn't it? I would love to see it actually, people working together to make something greater.

a confederation would be the ultimate goal so to keep as we say "tey peec in Bosnia". Bulgaria would be wery problamatic, historycly i mean. Thy were the enamy for many years see... and are rememberd as basterds for their actions during WWII. I would love to see all ths jugo(south)slavic nations united.

This is a case where reality trumps rhetoric.

In Ireland there's limitations to abortion access, non-existent gay marraige; homosexuality was actually illegal until 1992, prostitution is a non-issue, divorce was similarly illegal until mid-way into the nineties, censorship of supposedly immoral material was rampant until quite recently. I could keep going but I'm sure you get the point. These restrictions are coming about not because our country is rules by the Catholic Church - Church and State are separate here - but our politicians still hold catholic values and represent an electorate who similarly hold catholic values.

So, you can spout whatever Enlightenment values that you want but that doesn't change the reality that religion still plays a large role in helping design legislation.

You know chatolic conservatrive values are remarcably similar to ortodox and muslim traditional values.

[Vlerchan]

People think that way. The republics were pretty autonomous. They had their own treasuries, police force, trade agreements, held elections, had their own government and possibly laws. And like that, they had the same privileges of an independent state, yet they decided to ruin themselves.

I'm not going to pretend that I know enough about former-Yugoslavian politics to hold a pro-longed discussion on the states split. From what I gathered though whilst the republic held a huge degree of autonomy the larger ones continuously attempted to exert power or dominance over the other autonomous republics. Conflict stemmed from there. Tito's death in the early-eighties made controlling this even more difficult.

Or that's my understanding. Feel free to tell me if I'm gone wrong.

You know chatolic conservatrive values are remarcably similar to ortodox and muslim traditional values.
I'm aware that the traditional values of Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Islam are all similar, though by your implied self-admittance: not the same. This is where conflict may possibly stem from.

Example: William Butler Yeats was a member of the Irish senate about the time of it's formation. He was a Protestant. Ireland was largely Catholic. He was for the legalisation of divorce. Ireland wasn't, because it was largely occupied by Catholics.

I did not intend to be uncomplimentary. I should have said I do not intend to speak merely to the House. I have no doubt whatever, if circumstances were a little different, a very easy solution would be found for this whole difficulty. I judge from conversations that I have had with various persons that many would welcome a very simple solution, namely, that the Catholic members should remain absent when a Bill of Divorce was brought before the House that concerned Protestants and non-Catholics only, and that it would be left to the Protestant members, or some Committee appointed by those Protestant members, to be dealt with. I think it would be the first instinct of the members of both Houses to adopt some such solution and it is obvious, I think, that from every point of view of national policy and national reputation that would be a wise policy.

It is perhaps the deepest political passion with this nation that North and South be united into one nation. If it ever comes that North and South unite the North will not give up any liberty which she already possesses under her constitution. You will then have to grant to another people what you refuse to grant to those within your borders. If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North [Protestant]. You will create an impassable barrier between South and North, and you will pass more and more Catholic laws, while the North will, gradually, assimilate its divorce and other laws to those of England [Protestant]. You will put a wedge into the midst of this nation. I do not think this House has ever made a more serious decision than the decision which, I believe, it is about to make on this question. You will not get the North if you impose on the minority what the minority consider to be oppressive legislation. I have no doubt whatever that in the next few years the minority will make it perfectly plain that it does consider it exceedingly oppressive legislation to deprive it of rights which it has held since the 17th century. These rights were won by the labours of John Milton and other great men, and won after strife, which is a famous part of the history of the Protestant people.

Read More: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0005/S.0005.192506110009.html

I bolded the most important part of the entire quotation: Yeats suggests that whilst they are only minor differences as presented within the dogma of the two religions it, such differences would stop the North [Protestant] and South [Catholic] of Ireland from ever being a single unified nation of people. Yeats, I'll add, was right; to this day a great number of Northerners still don't want to be ruled by what they consider a 'Catholic Government'.

I'll also mention that despite the huge similarities between Shi'ah and Sunni Muslims there's still major conflict going on between them in the Middle east.

_______________________

Though you're forgetting something in your response: Catholics (in Europe, anyway) have over the last century begun to move away from their more traditional views and embrace (a degree) of social liberalism, Muslims have by-and-large refrained from doing so - I'm not so sure about Orthodox Christians, though I've been given the impression by a Greek friend that they're not as liberal as Catholics have become. Whilst you may argue that the traditional values of those three majority faiths of Yugoslavia - or anywhere else; I'm more concerned with the ethno-religious conflicts in genereal here - are similar you'll find that the three majority faiths do not support imposing these traditional values on individuals to the same degree - which in turns creates a much larger conflict between ethno-religious groups than you put across in your last post.

Note: this doesn't mean that multiculturalism in a single nation is impossible; it certainly is. The ethno-religious conflict that I'm referencing here seems to only occur when two prerequisites are met: a) there's a large concentration of a certain group in one area; b) the religion is tied to a distinct ethno-group which holds lands in or around the state they currently find themselves residing in.

[tovaris]

similar[/b], though by your implied self-admittance: not the same. This is where conflict may possibly stem from.

Example: William Butler Yeats was a member of the Irish senate about the time of it's formation. He was a Protestant. Ireland was largely Catholic. He was for the legalisation of divorce. Ireland wasn't, because it was largely occupied by Catholics.



I bolded the most important part of the entire quotation: Yeats suggests that whilst they are only minor differences as presented within the dogma of the two religions it, such differences would stop the North [Protestant] and South [Catholic] of Ireland from ever being a single unified nation of people. Yeats, I'll add, was right; to this day a great number of Northerners still don't want to be ruled by what they consider a 'Catholic Government'.

I'll also mention that despite the huge similarities between Shi'ah and Sunni Muslims there's still major conflict going on between them in the Middle east.

_______________________

Though you're forgetting something in your response: Catholics (in Europe, anyway) have over the last century begun to move away from their more traditional views and embrace (a degree) of social liberalism, Muslims have by-and-large refrained from doing so - I'm not so sure about Orthodox Christians, though I've been given the impression by a Greek friend that they're not as liberal as Catholics have become. Whilst you may argue that the traditional values of those three majority faiths of Yugoslavia - or anywhere else; I'm more concerned with the ethno-religious conflicts in genereal here - are similar you'll find that the three majority faiths do not support imposing these traditional values on individuals to the same degree - which in turns creates a much larger conflict between ethno-religious groups than you put across in your last post.

Note: this doesn't mean that multiculturalism in a single nation is impossible; it certainly is. The ethno-religious conflict that I'm referencing here seems to only occur when two prerequisites are met: a) there's a large concentration of a certain group in one area; b) the religion is tied to a distinct ethno-group which holds lands in or around the state they currently find themselves residing in.


You irish do tend to uverdo the whole religion thing. The anglikan and chatolic religion is one the same thing.

Anywhoo ever heard the fraze peec in Bosnia? You have three religions thre nations... living in that country in a federation pecefully. Now if they who had seen the most blodshead in the past ower these irelevant things can live in peec in a federation. Ill be damed if we cant all live in a confederation!