You will by now have read dark remarks made by partisans of the Russian and Serb Orthodox viewpoint, to the effect that if one "secession" is allowed, then what is to prevent every Gypsy or Chechen or Ossetian from proclaiming their own statelet? You should, first, ask if the Bosnian Serbs ought not to have thought of this first and been better advised by the "realist" or Kissinger school that now weeps such hypocritical tears. You should, second, ask if you know of any case comparable to the Kosovo one, where a national minority was so long imprisoned within an artificial state.And isn't odd how the Serbs are starting to whine and pin just like Osama et al do over the collapse of Muslim rule in al-Andalus.
Of course, one ought to acknowledge that this is a calamity for the Serbs and indeed an injustice in the sense of an insult to their pride and history. But the injustice was self-inflicted. I remember seeing, in Kosovo, the "settlements" for Serbs that the Milosevic regime was building in a vain effort to alter the demography. And who were the bedraggled "settlers"? The luckless Serbian civilians who had been living in the Krajina area of Croatia until their fearless leader's war of conquest for "Greater Serbia" had brought general disaster and seen them finally evicted from farms and homesteads they had garrisoned for centuries. Promised new land on colonized Albanian territory, they had been uprooted and evicted once again. Where are they now, I wonder? Perhaps stupidly stoning the McDonald's in Belgrade, and vowing fervently never to forget the lost glories of 1389, and maybe occasionally wondering where they made their original mistake.
Friday, February 22, 2008
A moment of perspective.
I am never sure what to make of Christopher Hitchens. Mostly he reminds me of my great-grandfather who use to drink himself senseless in the backyard and then would have to be hosed down before he was carried into his bed by my uncles. The thing, about my great-grandfather Joe, was that he would have these strange moments where he would rage in a multitude of languages at imaginary demons with rare eloquence and insight - usually just before the drink rendered him completely blotto for the night. Hitchens in Slate on Serbian riots:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sorry Kate, you lost me.
And while I don't always agree with Hitchens (I do in most cases), I don't think he has much in common with your great-grandfather Joe.
Its the drink Shlemazl, Hitchens is a notorious boozer - though in Hitchens case - apparently he gets quite eloquent when under the cups.
Yes, but isn't the fact that Hitchens said it the only reason you know that Hitchens drinks?
He also says that he likes when people accuse him of drinking because irrelevant ad hominem means that he won the argumenet.
Well, his capacity for indulging in alcohol is widely and diversely reported so I think it’s safe to say the man gets into his cups regularly, and then I seem to remember a rather appalling video debate where he was obviously into his cups…definitely an off night for him. Though I would agree, demonizing a man for his alcoholism is not the way to win the argument. Besides, some of the people I grew up loving the most, were raging alcoholics which is probably why I drink very little.
Post a Comment