En relación a [CrashList] Financial Times: Milosevic's murky fo, el 6 Apr 01, a las 6:51, Mark Jones dijo: > Mr Milosevic claims that whatever he did, he did for Yugoslavia. The argument is > simple. But is it true? It will take years to fully investigate the vast web of > financial arrangements that underpinned Mr Milosevic's 13 years in office. In 1833, after an incursion by an American whaler captain who destroyed the self-defence capacities of the Argentinean population there, a British ship occupied the Malvinas, in an outrageous action of colonialism which is still to be repared. The new lords subjected the population there (all of them Argentineans of the humblest origins, _gauchos_ in the scientific sense of the term) to ruthless conditions of life. A year later, the "native" peones rebelled against the British scum. They were routed, as could not be otherwise. Their leader, a gaucho by name Rivero, was taken to justice and shot, etc., etc., etc. One and a half hundred years later, when Argentineans during the late 1950s were beginning to regain our national awareness, the figure of the Gaucho Rivero stood up as a banner for those who wanted to restore our national pride against the wave of self-deprecation that had been installed after the patriots lost the battle of Pavón in 1860, and the immigrants had been drilled in the oligarchic-imperialist version of our history after the 1880s. Then, the "Argentinean" Academy of History -in fact a political body who cares that the oligarchic version of history is not modified- passed a "law", according to which the Gaucho Rivero had been no patriot at all, he had been a criminal just as the British authorities wanted us to believe. Why? Because he had not struggled for the homeland, he had struggled _just for the money_ Colonialists are always very wary about the personal morality of those who oppose them. As if the great leaders of the bourgeois revolutions had never taken advantage of their position in power in order to enlarge their own personal fortunes. This piece of melancholy moralism by the FT is simply shit. It was shit two hundred years ago, so that it is, technically speaking, stale shit. I want to do a comment here: it is not that I am a Yugoslavian (I would be very proud to be one, but being an Argentinean is enough for my aspirations to glory). The fact is, however, that these issues on the morality of the losing side in a war against imperialism are raised in order to destroy the morale of the defeated people, more than to bolster the morale of the winners. And as we said in the working class neighborhood where I grew up, it is a matter of honor to say, when the bully is attacking the kid, "al pibe lo defiendo yo". FT is bullying the Serbian people, not Milosevic, here. So that I feel forced to stand up and say that "it is me who defends the kid". Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
