|More news stories on Racial Identity|
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, June 1999
Why are bombs falling in Yugoslavia? Why do the Hutu and Tutsi keep slaughtering each other? Why can’t people in Los Angeles take Rodney King’s advice and “just get along”? Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a remarkable upsurge in ethnic, national, racial, and other sectarian conflicts that has baffled liberal policymakers who predicted “the end of history.” To the contrary, a UN study found that if a war were defined as armed conflict that produced more than 1,000 deaths, there have been 82 wars in a recent three-year period, and 79 of them were sectarian bloodlettings that took place within recognized national borders. The current NATO action against Yugoslavia has something of the look of the traditional war that pits belligerent governments against each other, but the real cause, of course, was civil disorder between ethnic Serbs and ethnic Albanians.
The explanations most commonly given for the persistence of this kind of fighting are almost always implausible. Colonialism does not explain why Hutu and Tutsi hate each other any more than slavery explains why blacks rioted in Los Angeles. Liberal sociologists come up with strained, ad hoc explanations of this kind because they refuse to accept the deeper, biological origins of conflict. In explaining why NATO had decided to kill Serbs, William Clinton did mention “nationalism” as one of the causes, but clearly thinks of it as a primitive, even embarrassing sentiment.
J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario has offered an analysis of conflict of this kind that links it to the basic biological mechanisms that govern how people—and other organisms—choose their associates. His analysis, known as Genetic Similarity Theory, is an extension of the sociobiological work of E.O. Wilson, William Hamilton, and others into the ethnic/national sphere. GST is firmly rooted in evolution, but its perspective and insights can be appreciated by people with other views as well.
Ever since Darwin, the willingness of some individuals to sacrifice themselves for others has been a riddle for evolutionists. If only the fittest survive, the genes for altruistic behavior should have been weeded out long ago. Any man or animal so foolish as to lay down his life for his fellows stops the genes for altruistic behavior dead in their tracks. Self-sacrifice should disappear, and evolution should have bred pure selfishness into people rather than mixing it with a dose of altruism.
Animals show altruism too. When a worker bee stings something trying to get into the hive, the stinger tears out of its abdomen and it dies—to protect other bees. If a small mammal notices a hawk or fox nearby and gives a warning cry so that others of its species can run for cover, it calls attention to itself and is more likely to be attacked. The animal’s own chances of survival would be best if it quietly ran into a hole and left the rest of the pack to the fox. Animals share food, rescue each other, and fight as a group rather than run away as individuals. But the most widespread and important kind of altruism is care of the young—and this suggests the evolutionary explanation for altruism.
For parents, children are packets of their own genes, and evolutionary theory has an obvious explanation for parental altruism: At least among the higher animals, parents that look after their young are much more likely to pass along their genes to succeeding generations than parents that do not. The genes that cause child-rearing and child protection are therefore very firmly built into all higher species. But altruism for close relatives serves the same purpose. Brothers and sisters share 50 percent of their genes and cousins share about 12 percent. Crucial human traits were formed when men operated in small, extended-family bands, and in this context it made good genetic sense for a warrior to fight for the tribe, since he was fighting for his kinfolk. When the famous British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane was asked for whom he would sacrifice his life, he replied only half-facetiously, “for three brothers or nine cousins.” Either combination adds up to more than 100 percent of one’s own genes, and from an evolutionary point of view it makes more sense to die if that means the others can live.
This explanation for altruism is called kin selection theory, and there is evidence for it in the animal kingdom. A female squirrel can mate with several males and give birth to a litter that contains the children of more than one male. This mixture of full- and half-siblings shares the same womb and grows up in the same nest but each can tell the others apart. They are more likely to come to the aid of full siblings and more likely to fight and quarrel with half-siblings. Another squirrel study likewise found that females give food to sisters but not to strangers. Similar relations are found in lion prides, where all the females are likely to be closely related to each other, and therefore cooperate to kill game. Chimpanzees occasionally kill other chimpanzees, but the victims are almost always isolated males from other bands.
It is not known how animals tell they are related, but even insects are capable of amazingly fine distinctions. When guard bees at a hive encountered intruder bees of 14 different degrees of kinship to them, the guardians let in those that were closely related and drove off the others. In another experiment, when frog eggs from several litters were put into a single tank, after they hatched, the tadpoles that were siblings congregated together.
Humans show similar behavior. The immediate family is obviously the focus of intense loyalty and sacrifice, but every family reunion ever held is a tribute to the importance of kinship ties that go well beyond the nuclear family. The very idea of relatedness, the building of family trees, the search for ancestors—all these things reflect the importance of blood ties.
Recent research has uncovered less-well-known examples of the importance of kinship. Children who live in a household with a man who is not their father are many times more likely to be beaten or killed by him than by their biological fathers. Men are violent, but they rarely kill their own children. Identical twins, who have exactly the same genes, are willing to sacrifice more for each other than non-identical twins (who share only about 50 percent of their genes). Identical twins also show greater affection and physical attachment to each other, and suffer greater loss when their identical co-twin dies. Parents grieve more for children who appear to share more of their own traits than those of their spouses.
Prof. Rushton and others have shown that unconscious preferences for genetic similarity appear to be at work in human beings all the time. When people choose mates, colleagues, and close friends, they not only show cultural preferences, but genetic preferences within the same culture. Friends and spouses resemble each other in many ways, from their social attitudes to IQ scores to physical appearance. According to one study that determined similarity according to blood tests, couples who produce a child are 52 percent similar whereas couples chosen at random in a population are only 43 percent similar. In another study, best friends were found to be 54 percent similar, whereas random pairs of people were 48 percent similar.
Prof. Rushton offers even more surprising evidence for the power of genetic similarity to draw people together: Often what people have in common are the most heritable rather than the most obvious traits. For example, biceps size is only about 50 percent heritable because exercise can change it, whereas finger length is 80 percent heritable. People may well look into each other’s exercise habits, but probably no one measures the lengths of a potential mate’s fingers. Still, when spouses and close friends are compared on the basis of such measures, they resemble each other more on the traits that are the most heritable.
Twin and other studies show that some personality traits are under greater genetic control than others, and spouses resemble each other most on those very traits. Likewise, when IQ scores are divided into subtests, spouses have the closest scores on the most heritable subtests.
There seems to be a limit to the attraction of the similar, however; the taboo against incest is a near-universal protection against inbreeding. The most attractive match appears to be someone genetically similar but not a close relative.
Genetic Similarity Theory greatly confounds those who believe in the supreme power of social and economic environment. They would expect people to choose friends and spouses for those traits that are most influenced by environment. Body-builders should seek out body-builders and stamp collectors should fall in love with other stamp collectors. Instead, without even being aware of it, human beings gravitate towards others who resemble them in countless subtle genetic ways. Genetic similarity is the glue that binds individuals together as much as it binds nations together. Like gravity, we have felt it since the beginning of time, but we are only beginning to understand it.
Seeds of Conflict
Genetic Similarity Theory has important implications for the larger questions of peoplehood and nationality, and Prof. Rushton has not been afraid to take them up. If people make frequent, unconscious decisions on the basis of genetics when they choose associates from within their own ethnic group, it is impossible for them to ignore the even greater genetic distance that separates them from other ethnic groups.
In 1997, in the face of persistent late-20th century sectarian bloodlettings, the American and Canadian Psychological Associations undertook an “Initiative on Ethnopolitical Warfare” in the hope of understanding the psychology of these conflicts. This is a step forward compared to the purely historical or political-science approach that has dominated analysis so far, and may yield useful insights. In Prof. Rushton’s view, however, the problem lies in the very nature of man, and his biological inclination to identify with the carriers of his own genes.
During the long period of evolution that took place in nomadic, extended-family bands—and during which altruism was a particularly effective mechanism for group evolution—humans and proto-humans might sometimes come upon unknown groups of potential adversaries. It was important to be able quickly to tell if a stranger were one of “our people,” and humans have developed a great many different outward signs of what is, ultimately, genetic similarity. Evolutionists would argue they were developed for the very purpose of magnifying the underlying biological differences. Customs, dress, language, manners, and religion are therefore not acquired directly through the genes but for most people they might as well be. They are passed on almost exclusively from parent to child; someone who does not speak your language is not likely to be a relative. People who are not relatives are potential enemies.
Young children learn very quickly which groups with which to identify. By age four most Americans know what race they are and know that race continues from parent to child. By kindergarten or first grade, children are aware of many of the less obvious social and ethnic differences. They naturally identify with their own group; they do not have to be taught. Children are also famously cruel to outsiders, but in this they are only a little more unrestrained than their parents.
After all, it was not only because there were wild animals that it was evolutionarily useful for people to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the group. Carnivores might make off with a child or two, but the greatest threat was always bands of strangers who might exterminate the whole tribe. What gave birth to altruism, therefore, were the wars and conflicts that are its very opposites. For this reason all peoples practice a morality of loyalty to their own people and a morality of suspicion or even hostility for outsiders. Prof. Rushton calls this suspicion of outgroups the “dark side” of altruism, and sees in it the roots of ethnic conflict.
Political scientist Walker Connor, who has written frequently on nationalism, defines a nation as “the largest group that commands a person’s loyalty because of felt kinship ties . . . the fully extended family.” It is no accident that people speak of the “motherland” or “fatherland,” and why patriotism is often seen as an extension of family loyalty. It is ties of blood that make fellow nationals precious and worth dying for. At the same time, it becomes easy to see the aliens who are threatening our precious nationals not just as strangers but as sub-humans. War brings out the best and the worst; when groups set about killing each other they often try to make it as painful, agonizing, and humiliating for the enemy as possible. At the same time, soldiers in combat sacrifice more willingly and more deeply than at any other time in their lives, and the love they may form for comrades-in-arms often lasts a life-time. Nations always promote patriotism because they know how powerful a force it can be.
(The official exceptions to this rule were the Communist countries, which were supposed to be building proletarian loyalties rather than national ties. However, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union the Communists quickly started encouraging deeply nationalist loyalties to Mother Russia, and officially named the conflict the Great Patriotic War.)
Prof. Rushton argues that there are many forms of ethnic competition short of bloodshed. He says that what we call “culture wars” can also be seen as “gene wars,” since different genes find different environments more or less favorable. People seldom see conflicts in these terms, but the United States is a perfect demonstration of what is at stake. A culture that glorifies sex and rewards unwed motherhood with food stamps and welfare benefits is a very favorable environment for certain kinds of genes, and those have proliferated prodigiously over the last 30 years. A culture that views crime as a societal failing for which individuals cannot be held responsible is one that has also made choices about which genes to favor. Likewise, there are very substantial reproductive consequences when America glorifies non-whites, reviles whites, and encourages miscegenation.
The debate over immigration is nothing less than a debate over the genetic future of the country. To let in people who are wholly unlike the natives is to accept the genetic equivalent of defeat in war and occupation by aliens. This is why no one has ever done it before and why, now that white nations are doing it, it arouses such heated opposition.
Genetic change brings an infinite number of other changes. In virtually every multi-ethnic society group membership is the key element of individual identity and cultural interests. In America, the audiences for many cultural events are almost completely segregated. In their leisure time, Americans of different races rarely watch the same television programs. Ethnic newspapers write about political events thousands of miles away from America. Housing patterns and school attendance show a very clear form of clustering by genetic similarity.
Prof. Rushton thinks of cultural markers like language, folkways, etc. as providing a “home” for certain genes that find such an environment favorable. In this sense, virtually all cultural and political decisions have genetic consequences—whose group is being favored and whose is not? Most groups view policies almost exclusively from their own point of view and support or fight them on this basis alone.
If follows from Prof. Rushton’s theory that it is folly for any group to cease to act in its own genetic interests on the assumption that other groups will do the same. All around the world, whites are welcoming non-whites into their countries with the implied understanding that because whites have decided ethnic nationalism is bad and diversity is good, everyone else will soon think so, too. By now it is entirely clear that non-whites support diversity only when it can be used to increase their own numbers and power. Once they are numerous enough to remake a locality or institution in their own image, any interest they once professed for “diversity” disappears.
The post–Cold War period had been a showcase for the renunciation of “diversity.” The constituent parts of the Soviet Union decided to become homogeneous units rather than parts of a diverse empire. The Czechs and the Slovaks decided the same thing. A number of peoples—the Kurds, Chechens, and Tibetans, for example—would certainly break away except that their rulers are prepared to kill tens of thousands of them to prevent it.
Yugoslavia has broken up quite spectacularly into ethnic states, and has even drawn the United States into a war that could produce a few more. The usual American policy of promoting “diversity” at all costs is completely at odds with what is gradually becoming the objective of NATO’s war: establishment of an ethnically pure and essentially independent Kosovo. Having gone to war to stop the removal of Albanians from that province, it now feels it can win only if it removes Serbians.
NATO’s early miscalculations about the ease with which the Serbians could be made to do its bidding showed an unwillingness to accept the importance of genes, nationality, and ethnic loyalty. In Western countries, where patriotism is thought a little passé because it might interfere with the higher demands of diversity, it is easy to forget just how passionately a healthy people clings to its land and its heritage.
John Stuart Mill once wrote: “Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. . . .” Prof. Rushton shows why this has always been true. Unfortunately, most Western politicians act as if it were not.
(Posted on April 24, 2009)
A Rushton Bibliography on Genetic Similarity Theory
Gene-culture, co-evolution and genetic similarity theory: Implications for ideology, ethnic nepotism, and geopolitics. Politics and the Life Sciences, 4, 1986, 144 148.
Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1989, 503 559.
Genetic similarity in male friendships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 1989, 361 373.
Race, Evolution, and Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1995.
Rushton, J. P., & Nicholson, I. R., Genetic similarity theory, intelligence, and human mate choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 1988, 45-57.
To a certain extent, this is an argument that we should all be Hatfields and McCoys. It could also be interpreted as one giant excuse for the need of affirmative-action type policies. I really don’t think for whites, this is an issue however. Much the way the Soviets banded together for a cause (perhaps very much), the same could be said of Americans. Now, appearance is more important than family ties. Parents judge their own children, bestowing or withholding favor, not on how closely related they are, but by how physically attractive they are according to popular subjective standards.
Posted by Anonymous at 7:16 PM on April 24
“All around the world, whites are welcoming non-whites into their countries with the implied understanding that because whites have decided ethnic nationalism is bad and diversity is good, everyone else will soon think so, too. By now it is entirely clear that non-whites support diversity only when it can be used to increase their own numbers and power. Once they are numerous enough to remake a locality or institution in their own image, any interest they once professed for “diversity” disappears.”
This is true. Proponents of this suicidal social and racist scheme can only succeed so long as they enjoy the luxury of speaking from a position of power. As Whites become less and less the dominant group, it doesn’t take long to inherit the full measure of this folly.
Posted by Ronald at 8:15 PM on April 24
“A culture that views crime as a societal failing for which individuals cannot be held responsible is one that has also made choices about which genes to favor. Likewise, there are very substantial reproductive consequences when America glorifies non-whites, reviles whites, and encourages miscegenation.”
When Mr. Taylor wrote this about the “glorification of non-whites” in 1999, he had no way of knowing that in 10 years America would be ruled by a black-identifying mulatto. But now that we ARE ruled by a black-identifying mulatto (and a cultural marxist to boot!) the situation that worried Mr. Taylor a decade ago is far more worrisome today. Under our half-blood prince (h/t: Steve Sailer), every horny brotha who ever wants to get over on a white girl (which is estimated to be 95% of them, though that may be somewhat on the low side) can use the argument that between the two of them they could make the next President Obama.
Which, as Mr. Taylor (and Prof. Rushton) so eloquently argue, only strengthens their group’s numbers and their evolutionary standing — at the expense of weakening ours.
And our group’s numbers, I’m sure all AmRenners will agree, are dangerously weak enough already.
Excellent article, BTW. Profound, even.
Posted by Anonymous at 10:31 PM on April 24
Well, all I can say is that I don’t fit the mold here. I base all relationships on behavior, blood is irrelevant to me. I love my family but I don’t care who you are, you get no free pass from poor behavior just because you are related to me by genetics. I wish every family member of mine was a kind, caring, sharing person but that is not how it is and to avoid being exploited any further, I have had to write off a few people unfortunately. I think it is wrong to facilitate poor behavior using “blood” as an excuse to put up with it. If I wouldn’t want you as a friend, I see no purpose in having a relationship with you just because you are blood related.
Posted by Robert at 6:43 AM on April 25
“it is entirely clear that non-whites support diversity only when it can be used to increase their own numbers and power. Once they are numerous enough to remake a locality or institution in their own image, any interest they once professed for “diversity” disappears.””
There are more than a few whites enriched to the point of saturation with blessed diversity already who must understand this reality, at least on some level of the subconscious, and agree. Of course the whole cause of life today is to completely ignore any and all day to day maladies that fall on whites and to play up any perceived grievance that occurs to persons of color, and to blacks specifically, even when there’s no objective truth in the matter. Especially when it’s not true. Perhaps Crystal Gail Mangum can give us another speech highlighting this important issue?
Posted by Anonymous at 8:42 AM on April 25
Homo Sapiens is a primate and therefore a tribal creature. This truth will never be acknowledged by the left.
Even more interesting then war, is the human capability for altruism. Altruism is guided by a “positive emotion” which makes you feel good. It is most likely that this trait was incorporated into the human biological constitution on behalf of food-sharing, a strategic move in times (before the Neolithic Revolution) when you could fail to bring home the bacon. The need to rely on others was important. To prevent “free-riding” nature gave us the hatred of selfishness, which (together with intelligence) allowed human beings to punish free-riders and remind them of their social duties.
The left, with its detesting love of the exotic other, is like a band of junkies who will do anything to get a daily “fix” of that good feeling you get from acting selflessly (and non-patriotic). Unfortunately for us, their feel-good-cosmopolitanism is not being properly punished. Their altruism is beyond selfish, because they are not aware that while others are fighting to keep the social bonds strong, they are willingly destroying it on behalf of their emotional fix.
Of course this cannot go on for ever. Human nature is strong. Wilson said:”It is inconceivable, that human beings could be socialized into radically different repertories of other groups such as fishes, birds, antelopes, or rodents. Human beings might self-consciously imitate such arangements, but it would be a fiction played out on a stage, would run counter to deep emotional responses and have no chance of persisting trough as much as a single generation. To adopt with serious intent, even in broad outline, the social system of a nonprimate species would be insanty in the literal sense. Personalities would quickly dissolve, relationships disintegrate, and reproduction cease.”
So we will have to come to terms with this and punish the leftists somehow, or perish. From sociobiology we know for sure that the leftist dream will never come true, because “humanity” is not an organisation of sterile sisters and halfsisters performing functionally-specialised Labor for the benefit of the colony (the reason why communism wil never work), but we are primates, who cannot “turn off” our love for our kin, friends and country. These sentiments are the product of millions of years of evolution. There are other tribes in the world, who still live up to this and aren’t botherd by political correctness. Imagine them getting more and more power….
Greetings from the Netherlands,
(excuse me for my bad English)
Posted by MrSmith at 10:36 AM on April 25
“Once they are numerous enough to remake a locality or institution in their own image, any interest they once professed for “diversity” disappears.”
I disagree with that statement. There are neighborhoods, schools, cities, colleges, and police departments, that are mostly or almost entirely black. They also have official worship of diversity, by which they mean fellow blacks.
Posted by Anonymous at 1:58 PM on April 25
An excellent article. The point about the folly of Whites allowing non-Whites into their countries is well taken. I would challenge one thing though. Yugoslavia did NOT “draw America into its wars”. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. America CHOSE to interfere in ex-Yugoslavia where it had NO BUSINESS to do so at all.
Posted by Anonymous at 3:55 PM on April 25
“NATO’s early miscalculations about the ease with which the Serbians could be made to do its bidding showed an unwillingness to accept the importance of genes, nationality, and ethnic loyalty. In Western countries, where patriotism is thought a little passé because it might interfere with the higher demands of diversity, it is easy to forget just how passionately a healthy people clings to its land and its heritage.”
I lived in this region during the late 1990s. Everyone in the former Yugoslavia, but everywhere in that region of the world including Turks are incredibly proud of their “nationality.” Not long ago, the term “race” was used interchangably with “nationality.” We easily forget that even Winston Churchill used the term “race” to describe the American people in his “History of the English Speaking Peoples.” All the current nations with the exception of Albania once were Empires and the ancient borders of any particular empire overlaps others. I can also tell you that people in the Old World nations more often view themselves as they have been in their greatest glory, often a time long before the U.S. was ever dreamt up.
Yugoslavia was a Communist dream of uniting people through a system that now has a very strange parallel with the Socialist policies of the EU and the Left in Britain, the US and nearly all “Western” nations. What is interesting about this article is not its theories of genetic cause in nationalism; there are no DNA studies quoted here – it is more of a new theory in Social Anthropology and I see scores of openings for exceptions and interjunctions in the article. But what is interesting to me is that Yugoslavia is a region comprised mostly of Slavs who speak languages so similar (although sometimes using a different alphabet) but that it required a very strong and “charismatic” man to force it and it only lasted the span of his lifetime. (The former Kingdom of Yugoslavia was so short lived that it hardly qualifies for mention and there was a dispute from the start over who ought to be King).
I was married there exactly ten years ago this month. I learned that in the older days, to marry outside of your own village was considered a great shame. So today, one of the “games” played at the wedding reception is the ransoming of the bride by her brothers. In Serbian weddings (three day events) the brothers still expect to be paid off. In older times, they would block exits from the village until the ransome had been paid. I suppose this also developed in the idea of the “dowry.” But brothers also look out for their sisters there – a remnant of functional chivalry, I suppose.
The lesson that the West refuses to learn from the example of Yugoslavia. They can’t recognize that forcing ethnicities with any sense of pride in their history – i.e., a culture of any real consequence or meaning – does not work. Marshall Tito arrested decentors, imprisoned political adversaries and moved people around in order to “balance” the pseudo nation of Yugoslavia. He used a secret police and tight border control to acheive this as well. He brilliantly played the Soviet Union and the U.S. for every bit of monetary aid he could drain and he did quite well. He formed the Non-Aligned Nations Movement and twesked his nose at all with now American allies like India and even Cuba as co-members.
If we look at England today, we can see the Titoist secret police forming up. It appears the the technique of the West is now to destroy ethnic identity in order to acheive what Marshall Tito failed to do using much more direct methods. But it is a huge gamble. And what this article does address is the unlikly future of a people devoid of their respective cultural histories – being happy. I believe it will end in a massive humanary stew (Alice was right!) of useless revolts and human squalor unto self-annilhilation.
Just look at this latest swine flu gift direct from Mexico City, whose sewers and water supply have long been substandard. This is the future also; pandemics and disasters like acidification of the oceans. But Jesus won’t be coming to save you. We are now living within the text of many a science fiction novel.
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:01 PM on April 26
“An excellent article. The point about the folly of Whites allowing non-Whites into their countries is well taken. I would challenge one thing though. Yugoslavia did NOT “draw America into its wars”. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. America CHOSE to interfere in ex-Yugoslavia where it had NO BUSINESS to do so at all.”
Posted by Anonymous at 3:55 PM on April 25
I was there as a private civilian working on a visa for a native MD with the public. I speak now of the Kosovo Action. You don’t know what you are talking about. Although there are many historical arguments to be made on many topics here and I am NOT completely unsympathetic to Serbs, the greater question was the stability of Southern Europe. Milosevic was an ultra-nationalist with Mussolini – Stalinist tendancies. His paramilitary troops raided and robbed both Bosnian AND Bosnian Serb homes in the early ’90s. They were nothing but thugs and sadists. Milosevic had declared that ALL of former Yugoslavia would learn to read, write and speak in Serbian. This was intolerable for Slovenes and Croats who not only have their own proud nationalisms, but used the Roman Alphabet, not Cyrilic. He threatened Croatia and Slovenia with new attacks. Look at your map, this was a threat to all of Southern Europe. The human and economic disruption would have been catastrophic and set Europe back decades. The radical Muslims in Sarajevo could have been dealt with differently, but Milsevic could only think in Medeival strategy.
My wife and I were able to watch tv broadcasts from Belgrade and witnessed the most ridiculous propaganda techniques being employed. We cheered when that television station was knocked out by a US warplane.
I personally heard and even witnessed atrocities that no sane human could allow. Albanians are WHITE people, even if they are backward and Muslim. And you are WRONG – this was a NATO action, NOT a US one – even though the US took part. Neighbors Italy, Austria and every European nation were involved. THIS was NOT “interferrence.” It was the one time I was proud to see the US involved in doing something intrinsically good.
I recommend this Anonymous and anyone else who wishes to write with a little more than American political interpretations of non-American events to read two books; “Balkan Ghosts,” Robert Kaplan and “Black Lamb, Grey Falcon – A Journey through Yugoslavia, Rebecca West.”
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:24 PM on April 26
Reply to Whiteplight:
No you are wrong. I have read many books about the Balkans and do not need your info. The “NATO” intervention was 90% an American affair and was illegal under international law. The USA used NATO precisely because it could not get U.N. sanctioning for its illegal aggression. NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance and Serbia had neither attacked nor threatened to attack any NATO country. What you say is complete and utter rubbish. America attacked Serbia for the same reason it attacked Iraq. Neither country was within America’s orbit of control. The foreign policy and military elites of the USA believe in American hegemony and need to “justify” their enormous budgets. America turned a blind eye to Turkey’s countless atrocities against the Kurds and won’t even acknowledge the Armenian genocide. Obama was even just in Turkey saying how he supported her admission to the E.U. (as if that should actually be the Europeans decision or something!) But of course Ankara follows Washington’s directions so that’s all that matters. Nor did America do anything to China over Tibet or Russia over Chechnya. But of course, unlike Serbia, both Russia and China are quite capable of defending themselves against any American aggression. How would Americans like it if Serbian warplanes bombed the United States for 78 straight days because Americans didn’t want to recognize the new independent Hispanic southwest? If anyone wants to read REAL information about the Balkans and America’s moronic foreign policy I strongly suggest ANTIWAR.COM. in particular Nebojsa Malic. America should have avoided its Balkan intervention. We had no dog in that fight.
Posted by Anonymous at 1:45 AM on April 27
“If anyone wants to read REAL information about the Balkans and America’s moronic foreign policy I strongly suggest ANTIWAR.COM. in particular Nebojsa Malic. America should have avoided its Balkan intervention. We had no dog in that fight.”
Posted by Anonymous at 1:45 AM on April 27
Again, I was there, witnessed it and the prelude to it. You are spewing PC nonsense that can only be produced from a distance and by people either sharing allegiance with Milosevic or blind liberal peaceniks who think ANY war is evil. I even sat in on a UN roundtable discussion of the situation at a private home of a university professor in Slovenia in 1999. The UN could not be directly involved because it has been dominated and controlled by Middle-Eastern politics. I also witnessed, being in Europe the amount of European involvement, which was much larger than you or some other Americans like to claim. The website you provide is an automatic giveaway of its bias and narrow subjectivity, while the books I quote are first, Balkan Ghosts, the book that influenced Clinton to initiate the Kosovo action and second, Black Lamb, Grey Falcon is a well known English classic among any who actually study history, or even literature.
Posted by Whiteplight at 1:22 PM on April 27
Anonymous at 1:45 AM on April 27 is absolutely correct. America MUST have a war at least every 7 years or so. Otherwise, what’s the point of being a General? Also, of course, our war industries need profit.
These wars do not need to be moral or even in the interest of the USA. For example, Bush’s war in Serbia was against our ethnic kin, and managed to create a new Muslim nation in Eastern Europe. Note that we idolize Lincoln, because he refused independence to a break-away region (the South). Yet, we cynically bombed the H*** out of Belgrade to force them to divide their nation and to give away their historic homeland to Muslim immigrants. Then, in Georgia, we say that that South Ossetia should NOT break away! Pure evil and arrogant hypocrisy!
Posted by Anonymous at 3:11 PM on April 27
“All around the world, whites are welcoming non-whites into their countries
WHOAAAA there, as can be read on these pages, not ALL of us are so welcoming of these invaders.
Posted by SKIP at 2:00 AM on April 28
For example, Bush’s war in Serbia was against our ethnic kin, and managed to create a new Muslim nation in Eastern Europe
Yes indeed, we (the U.S. of MUSLIMS) did in fact create the biggest beachead for the muslims in Southern Europe, something the muslims had failed to do for hundreds of years. And the muslim invasion has been going full blast since then.
Posted by SKIP at 2:05 AM on April 28
The U.S. had no business interfering in the Balkans. It is a non-strategic area that was of no concern to America. Right now here in Toronto, a huge crowd of Tamils are screaming bloody murder outside the U.S. consulate. They want the U.S. military to intervene in Sri Lanka. You got that? TAMILS in CANADA want AMERICA to intervene in SRI LANKA. It is all madnesss. The USA is not and can not be the worlds’ “dirty Harry”. Give me Bismark (I would not sacrifice the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier for the Balkans) over Clinton-Albright anytime.
Posted by Anonymous at 8:05 AM on April 28