Marshall Tito was a strong leader as was Stalin. Those who wanted independence or a different path were dealt with.
One can see just how strong and dictatorial these were. When they were gone people started killing each other all over again. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Paull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Le Pen's success Hi Cordell, Keith et al, I think I disagree to a certain extent. I seem to recall stories I heard about Sarajevo, how cosmopolitan it was and how the population had a large number of ethnically mixed marriages. This all, of course, before the death of Tito. However all this turned disastrous with Bosnian independence. The conclusion I draw is that, given a chance to mingle, the people will get along fine and tribal instincts will be individually suppressed. But the instincts of most over-testosteroned leaders seem to be to use those suppressed instincts to rise to power. Dennis Paull ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 06:09 AM 4/23/2002 Tuesday , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Agree with Keith. Our ideals seem to run ahead of what our genetic >endowment allows us to do. > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:06 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Le Pen's success > > >Le Pen's success in being voted in as one of the two candidates for next >month's Presidential election in France is headline news in every single >one of our newspapers this morning (and, I'm sure, in French newspapers >too). The headlines proclaim a sense of amazement and shock that this crude >anti-immigrant right-winger should have had so much success so far. > >(The left-wing parties will be telling their flocks to vote for Chirac, >even though he's a strong wight-winger and faces serious corruption >allegations. Apparently posters are already appearing in Paris saying: >"Vote for the Thief, and not the Fascist".) > >I'm amazed and shocked that newspapers and politicians are -- apparently -- >amazed and shocked. > >Next month we are going to have elections for local councils in England and >the British National Party (very similar to Le Pen's) is going to stand in >several northern towns and cities where there is constant racial unrest >between the indigenous English and Indian/Pakistani immigrants (and also >bitter hatreds between Hindus and Moslems among the latter). Without any >doubt, the BNP candidates will score sizeable votes and some candidates >might get elected. And then the newspapers and politicians will purport to >be amazed and shocked again! > >Of course, the newspapers are just stirring up controversy for the sake of >circulation. (I am sure that their experienced journalists are not in any >way surprised by these events.) It's the apparent naivete of the >politicians that's so significant. (Though again, I am sure that >experienced politicians are not really naive -- it's just that their >comfortable world has been disturbed.) > >All this shows that many opinion moulders who should know better don't have >much idea about the essentially tribal nature of our species. This in-group >out-group behaviour is one of our strongest genetic traits. We'll never >lose it. If the present cultural differences subside, then we'll invent new >ones. > >To try and prevent an onslaught of criticism from those one or two FWers >who might misinterpret me on purpose, I am *not* saying that we should >accept tribalism passively and put up with fierce racial riots in our >northern towns or 20ft steel walls presently existing between Protestant >and Catholics areas in Northern Ireland. All I am saying is that if our >politicians were better educated in our evolutionary origins and >anthropological history, then they could design legislation a great deal >more intelligently than they do now. (Out of 600-odd MPS in our House of >Commons, there are less than six with any sort of scientific degree, and >not a single one as far as I'm aware with any sort of qualification in the >biological sciences.) > >Keith Hudson > > > > > >__________________________________________________________ >"Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in >order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow >_________________________________________________ >Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >_________________________________________________
