Postmodern Cover for Gitlin's 'Yes'

[t byfield]

> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 20:05:21 -0400
> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
> 
> >'the recolonization of yugoslavia': as though YU were a solid,
> >homogeneous, and abiding entity that merely and passively was sub-
> >ject to the wills and wiles of great powers. 'yugoslavia' is the
> >name for what seems to have been the very transient period during
> >which the great powers exerted less direct influence over the re-
> >gion; but it was formulated through the very aggressive suppres-
> >sion of its component cultures--basically, *tito* colonized it.
> >as you may have noticed, he died, but the mechanisms and balances
> >he established lived on--and are, in large part, responsible for
> >the fiascos of the last decade.


> To add to Christian's comments on the above, I found it rather interesting
> that despite opposite opinions on the NATO bombings, both the anticommunist
> members of the anti-NATO Serbian-American protesters and the Western media
> seemed to agree with t on the above point.  

a lot of other people agree on these points too--they're hardly
rocket science.


> Yugoslavia certainly had its internal problems (firstly politico-economic 
> problems), 

politics and economics are aspects of culture. small wonder, then,
that they would express themselves 'culturally.'


> but to blame the current state of affairs on 'Tito's suppression 
> of its component cultures' is to suppress the truth of history (by letting 
> imperialism off the hook, among other things).  

at least you had the courtesy to include what i actually wrote
before proceeding to distort it. please to go back and read it.


> Also, if anything, Yugoslavia may have erred on the side of promoting 
> the 'unity in diversity' idea in the cultural sphere as a _substitute_ 
> for a solution to the politico-economic problem that it couldn't find:

i think you've got it backwards.

cheers,
t