Well, a bit more after this. 1) The question of Albanian ethnicity is more complicated than it seems. The national identity is one of language. But there are two quite physically and historically and regionally distinct groups that are "Albanian," the Ghegs and the Tosks. Most of the Kosovars are Ghegs. BTW, it is thought that the Albanians are descendents of the ancient Illyrians of Roman times, the Slavs only having come in starting in the late 500s after plagues wiped out much of the local population, especially the Greeks. 2) Although Clinton has justified the bombing with the claim that this will stabilize an unstable situation this is very far from obvious. Henry Kissinger of all people has noted that a successful independence movement in Kosovo might trigger a similar movement in neighboring regions of Macedonia with Albanian majorities, the overall population of Macedonia being somewhere between 23 and 33% Albanian. There were two wars fought before WW I in Macedonia and there is fear that Greece and Turkey could duke it out there. But a KLA victory could make this more likely, not less (remember Afghanistan?). 3) Wojetk claims that this is all a Pentagon, presumably US military-industrial complex show. Maybe. Certainly there are some parties who rejoice at getting to show off the B-2 bomber, not to mention getting a little extra action, promotions, etc. in. But I have also read in the Washington Post that there are a lot of staff officers who are very nervous and unhappy about this whole operation, especially the lack of clear goals and any reasonable exit strategy. 4) There was a vote about this in the US Senate, approving it by 58-41. Somehow in the midst of all its stories the W. Post failed to say who voted how, although obviously this was not party line. I gather most (if not all) of the 41 were Republicans. But, is there anybody out there who knows what the actual lineup was? Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Margaret <mairead at mindspring.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 4:53 PM Subject: Re: Protest against the Bombing
>Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
>>What the fuck are you talking about?
>
>Sorry if you couldn't tell! :-)
>
>>What self-determination? The
>>Kosovars are used in the same way as the Kurds were - as a human shield
for
>>the Pentagon demonstration projects.
>
>And do you think that's so from the Kosovari standpoint
>as well? I had rather supposed they were in it for
>their freedom, or <cynical> at least the right to be
>abused by folk who speak their language </cynical>
>
>
>>Besides, what does "ethnically albanian" mean. US is ethnically Native
>>American
>
>Really??? I'd always supposed the population balance
>changed irrevocably some 150 years ago, perhaps more.
>
>
>Perhaps you have a different meaning for the concept
>than i do? By 'ethnically albanian' i meant that the
>vast majority of people native to the area (i.e. they
>were born there of parents who were themselves there
>legitimately by agreements of the time) identify as
>albanian. That's my understanding of the current
>state of affairs in the region. Do you dispute that?
>Or do you have a different meaning for the concept of
>regional ethnicity?
>
>
>>- does that mean that all the yanks should be kicked out (although
>>bombing Washington DC does not seem as a bad idea)?
>
>It's rather funny. My folk are Highland Scots. We
>come from an area settled by 2 different groups of
>invad...er, immigrants, one from Ireland ca. 500 CE
>(the original 'Scoti', which meant, variously,
>'pirate', 'invader', or 'terrorist', take your choice),
>the other from Scandinavia ca 1000 CE. The area is
>thought to have been populated by the Picts, before.
>
>In Ireland, the 'Troubles' were nominally the result of
>the plantation of Ulster by the scots in the 1600s --
>the 'real' irish think the scots irish should at least
>be turfed out if not actually f.o.a.d. Oddly, they
>don't rewind their animosity and sense of place far
>enough to agree that perhaps the original irish
>inva...er, settlers of the Highlands and Islands should
>also be turfed out and shipped back to Ireland. I
>wonder why?
>
>All of that is by way of saying that unless we want to
>try to uproot everyone, everywhere and shoehorn them
>all into the Olduvai Gorge, which would be just that
>wee bit crowded, then we've to acknowledge that some
>invasions/immigrations/takeovers/callitwhatyoulike are
>now A Done Deal and Irrevocable. It's damned sad for
>the victims, and there probably ought to be
>compensation paid, but it's a guarantee of continued
>misery for everyone not to say Enough Already.
>
>I myself think we should draw the line at things that
>happened long enough ago that the participants and all
>who knew them in life are dead. I don't have any
>mystic reason for it, only the pragmatic idea that
>we've to draw the line somewhere. That would mean
>that, while we might want to bomb DC on other grounds,
>it would be disallowed to bomb on the grounds of
>restoring the Iroquois Confederacy to political
>control.
>
>>With all due respect, you have to clear your thinking of all the
>>media-implanted liberal shit.
>
>From your tone, then, you must not think much respect
>is due. :-L Does that really seem to enhance
>communication, in your experience?
>
>As to 'media-implanted liberal shit', i rather doubt
>you have any more authoritative sources, but if you do
>i'd certainly be glad to have pointers to them. I
>think we're all at the mercy of the corporate
>propaganda machines, but it's not clear to me that
>there's any perfect way around that problem.
>
>=margaret
>