Louis,
Well, Tito's reluctance to let the Serbs back in
was a not-unreasonable decision in light of the
fact that he was going against promises that he
had made to let Kosmet remain a part of Albania,
as it was during the period of fascist rule, and which
was probably supported by a majority of the residents
at that time (U oh, more of the "majority" stuff. When am
I going to grow up and get over my human rights fixation?).
BTW, it is my understanding that during the period
of Serbian domination between WW I and WW II, Serbs
moved in and forced Albanians out. Again, neither group
has treated the other very well when it has been in charge.
It is not all a matter of "naughty Albanians, virtuous Serbs."
Yet another and deeper historical/political-economic
question has to do with where the strident and oppressive
Turkish nationalism came from. Of course the Turks ran
multinational empires for centuries, even before the Ottomans
if one counts the Seljuks and Mamelukes. During extended
periods, although hardly great progressives, the Ottomans
treated their minorities better than many other concurrent
empires, especially the European Christian ones. For all
the moaning and groaning of the Serbs about Turkish oppression,
the Jews and Christians were both treated not too badly under
the Ottomans, especially in their glory days as in the 1500s with
Suleiman the Magnificent. Later on the Ottomans became more
reactionary and repressive.
Things got nasty in the late nineteenth century as their failure
to industrialize caught up with them and they began to lose
territory to the European Christians and then faced revolts in
the early twentieth century from their Muslim Arab underlings.
Their defeat and loss of territory in the Balkans in 1878 especially
triggered nationalist movements among the Turks, especially the
"Young Turk" movement out of which Kemal Attaturk came, that
emphasized secular Turkish nationalism rather than the
multinational Muslim imperialism of the Sultan Caliph. This
exploded in 1905, arguably itself an anti-European-imperialist
movement, but resulted in new secular oppression, such as the
demand that Arabs wear fezzes that triggered the Arab nationalist
revolt. The emphasis on pan-Turanism and developing links
with the Turkic Central Asians developed at that time and has
been revived at the current time.
Ugh, I got to stop. Got to get some work done today, :-).
Barkley Rosser, (Obfuscator Extraordinaire!)
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 3:28 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6986] Rosser on Kurds/Kosovars
>>Louis,
>> Which would suggest that the revocation of
>>autonomy by Milosevic is a legitimate action for
>>them to be upset about.
>
>They were upset before revocation. They were upset after it. They were
>upset by social and economic differences between Kosovo and the rest of
>Yugoslavia. Nothing could have been done to mollify them, once the spark of
>secessionism set in.
>
>>It is true that there was
>>preferential treatment of the Albanians in Kosmet
>>from 1974-1990, the period of autonomy. But I
>>would not say that there was ever particularly an
>>"atmosphere of tolerance and good will" between
>>the Serbs and Albanians in Kosmet.
>
>Yes, the Albanians seemed unwilling to treat Serbs, Montenegrins and other
>minorities decently. Although I thought there was no need for me to point
>that out.
>
>>The preferential
>>treatment was imposed from above by Tito. Certainly
>>there was a reasonably progressive attitude coming
>>from him, and one that was pretty aware of the subtleties
>>and difficulties of the situation in the region.
>
>I am preparing a longer article on this, but Tito's role is troubling, as
>one might suspect. During WWII, the fascist rulers of Kosovo expelled
>100,000 Serbs but Tito refused to allow them re-entry once he took power.
>
>> Certainly what happened in Guatamala was naked
>>racism. But the Kurds are the same race as the Turks, last
>>time I checked.
>
>Barkley, the Kurds speak a different language. The brutality revolves
>around forced assimilation linguistically.
>
>> BTW, the Kurds are
>>getting repressed by all the nations in the neighborhood,
>>irrespective of their ideology, nominally socialist as in Syria
>>and Iraq, nominally Islamic capitalist as in Iran, or just plain
>>Kemalist state capitalist as in Turkey. Historical and politically
>>economic enough for you?
>>Barkley Rosser
>
>Sheer obfuscation. Kurds face discrimination everywhere they turn,
>especially working-class Kurds. Their traditional clothing, their language,
>their names mark them as outcasts. They suffer economically the way that
>American blacks do. That is why Kurdish nationalism is progressive, by the
>way. It has the same class dynamic as Irish and black nationalism.
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>
>(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
>
>
