'Yugonostalgia Takes Hold in Slovenia'

[M.R.]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...69&ft=1&f=1004

This is an article published on one American website, it's funny because they obviously have no clue about Slovenia. They even wrote that we are a Balkan country ("Slovenia has been hailed as the great Balkan success story").

[Menydh]

Isn't it about time that the countries of the old Yugoslavia start putting their past behind and look forward to the future?

I know that the wounds are recent, but the times when countries could afford to let the wounds long open is not the present time.

Anyway, it doesn't make sense to say that many feel nostalgia of Yugoslavia if Slovenia is performing so well. I wonder if they think before writing. Or if they think any hour of the day.

However, nostalgia for the now defunct Yugoslavia might come for many if Slovenia was submerged in a Liberal Capitalist economy and it was hit by a crisis. After all, the Socialist regime in Yugoslavia was the softest that existed, to put it mildly.

Still, it is not probable. With such a small population and the natural resources (and beauty, as I can attest) that it posseses, together with its most convenient geographical location, Slovenia is likely to become a small Switzerland in the future (if there is a future), with little effort.

[M.R.]

'Yugonostalgy' is popular between teenagers (who were 2 or 3 years old when Yugoslavia collapsed), it's simmilar phenomenom like Che Guevarra T-Shirt - young people without identity need symbols with which they can identify, so they wear Tito T-Shirts or other Yugoslav symbols. There are also 'Slovenian' POP-music groups which sing in Serbian and talk how great Tito was and also support killing of innocent Slovenians after WWII by communists ("they were traitors").

Nostalgia about Yugoslavia is not a 'hit' here, only loosers sympathize with Yugoslavia here. Also it's funny how they want to put Slovenia in Balkans when is obvious that we are a Central European nation (both culturally and geographicaly we aren't part of Balkans).

Yugoslavia was a big mistake for Slovenia, not only that we lost many Slovenian lands because of Yugoslavia and because it was trying to destroy Slovenian national identity in every way, but it was also a complete disaster speaking about economy. We have quite high standard now, but it could be much better if we weren't in Yugoslavia (maybe even as successful as Switzerland). Communists also murdered whole generation of educated Slovenians.

[Galaico]

I'm sure many Slovenians suffered under Tito's regime, but you must admit that Yugoslavia was the land of freedom compared to the USSR and to the Warsaw Pact states.

I understand the desire for independence of the Slovenian people as they are the most differenciated nation of all those which made up Yugoslavia, if I'm not wrong Slovenian language began separating from ancient South Slavonian in the 9th century, while for example Serb and Croatian are still very close nowadays, considered the same language by most people (Serbo-Croatian).

I support the idea of the disgregation of former Yugoslavia, as it was an artifitial nation, but it has been done in a wrong way in my opinion, it has weakened all the European nations in the region in favour of Muslim Bosniaks and Albanians.

Slovenia seems to be alright, Croatia needed to be independent, despite their linguistic closeness to Serbia they hate each other, but Serbian land in Croatia and vice-versa should've been exchanged, Bosnia and Herzegovina should have been divided between Croatia and Serbia, Montenegro should still be united with Serbia (Croatians in Montenegro to Croatia, and Albanians to Albania), Kosovo should have been depolluted of Albanians, and FYROM should have been divided between Bulgaria and Serbia (Albanians to Albania).

The apparition of small states with large Albanian minorities such as FYROM or Montenegro will only provoke future Kosovos.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Galaico

I'm sure many Slovenians suffered under Tito's regime, but you must admit that Yugoslavia was the land of freedom compared to the USSR and to the Warsaw Pact states.

True, you can always find a worse regime. However, that doesn't change the fact that Yugoslavia was crap.

I understand the desire for independence of the Slovenian people

Any nationalist should. The desire for independence of my country derives from traditional Slovenian nationalism from 19th century.

I support the idea of the disgregation of former Yugoslavia, as it was an artifitial nation, but it has been done in a wrong way in my opinion, it has weakened all the European nations in the region in favour of Muslim Bosniaks and Albanians.

I think this is logical end for such artificial state as Yugoslavia was.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Franjo Malgaj

Also it's funny how they want to put Slovenia in Balkans when is obvious that we are a Central European nation (both culturally and geographicaly we aren't part of Balkans).

Culturally it belongs to central Europe, but geographicaly... That's another thing. There are many theories about that. Some will say yes, some no.

[Menydh]

For historical as well as geographical reasons, some countries are at a crossroads of cultures. That's the case with Slovenia.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For historical as well as geographical reasons, some countries are at a crossroads of cultures. That's the case with Slovenia.

You are right, but I think that's the case with almost all ex-Yugoslavian countries.

[Menydh]

For Slovenia to be at a crossroads of cultures, it means that it is a point where the East meets the West in the South of Europe, as it is European in its full sense.

But that's not the case for other countries which are at a crossroads between Christendom (Europe) and Islam (not Europe). The so-called "alliance of civilizations" is a delusion to hide the reality of the "clash of civilizations".

Where one is a meeting point, the other is a point of conflict.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For Slovenia to be at a crossroads of cultures, it means that it is a point where the East meets the West in the South of Europe, as it is European in its full sense.

But that's not the case for other countries which are at a crossroads between Christendom (Europe) and Islam (not Europe). The so-called "alliance of civilizations" is a delusion to hide the reality of the "clash of civilizations".

Where one is a meeting point, the other is a point of conflict.

You are right, again. But the first time you just said:

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For historical as well as geographical reasons, some countries are at a crossroads of cultures.

You did not say what cultures...European, non-European. And that lead me to the conclusion that all ex-Yugoslavian countries (or maybe the whole Balkan) are crossroads.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by lasuurcnis

You are right, again. But the first time you just said:

You did not say what cultures...European, non-European. And that lead me to the conclusion that all ex-Yugoslavian countries (or maybe the whole Balkan) are crossroads.

Yes. And on my second post I still said that they were at a crossroads. Only that the implications of being at a crossroads are not the same for all countries.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Yes. And on my second post I still said that they were at a crossroads. Only that the implications of being at a crossroads are not the same for all countries.

ok, ok, let's finnish this. YOU ARE RIGHT

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Galaico

...Serbian land in Croatia...

I am sorry, but what are you talking about? What "Serbian land" in Croatia? There is no such thing. Every part of Croatia is either historically or ethnically Croatian for centuries.

Originally Posted by lasuurcnis

Culturally it belongs to central Europe, but geographicaly... That's another thing. There are many theories about that. Some will say yes, some no.

Actually Slovenia (and Croatia for that matter) are both culturally and geographically part of Central Europe. The current geo-POLITICAL term Balkans was imposed during the mentioned in Yugoslavia and it still lingers...they even came up with the new term "Western Balkans".

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

I am sorry, but what are you talking about? What "Serbian land" in Croatia? There is no such thing. Every part of Croatia is either historically or ethnically Croatian for centuries.



Actually Slovenia (and Croatia for that matter) are both culturally and geographically part of Central Europe. The current geo-POLITICAL term Balkans was imposed during the mentioned in Yugoslavia and it still lingers...they even came up with the new term "Western Balkans".

Dubrovnik is in central Europe and Bosanski Novi, Bihac or Novi Sad (for example) not? Yeah, that makes sense.

[Menydh]

Lol!