5 ms·

He is highlighting the difference between these regions within the Soviet Union so what's the point of you comment other than signalling political correctness?

He is highlighting the difference between these regions within the Soviet Union so what's the point of you comment other than signalling political correctness? I believe that this election signals if anything, a popular rejection of political correctness to the point where discussions can't be had anymore.

the_duke 10y ago
crottypeter is probably objecting to the "Croatia & Slovenia" vs Yugoslavia / UDSSR and other generalizations. Which no one familiar with these regions would formulate it that way. The world is big, it's hard not to generalize countries and cultures you barely know.
nostrademons 10y ago
I was a little perplexed by the parent comment as well since I thought I was highlighting differences, but I upvoted it because, well, I learned something. He was polite in his correction, at least. FWIW, coastal Democrats are equally offended with being lumped in with Trump supporters, Scots would probably be equally offended with being lumped in with English, and Croatians would be equally offended with being lumped in with Yugoslavians, so at least I'm an equal-opportunity offender.
- DominikR 10y ago
  My parents came from Yugoslavia but I certainly wouldn't have been offended. I could give you information if I find that yours is wrong in some aspect but trying to guilt trip you for some offence that you certainly didn't intend to give seems wrong to me.
- WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
  A Croat here; I have no idea what you're talking about; Who the hell are Yugoslavians? Where does this ethnicity live? Before the breakup of Yugoslavia, some people identified as yugoslavian, yes - as one might identify as European today, but by far the majority of population identified as being one of yugoslavia's constituent ethnicities. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, practically nobody identifies as yugoslavian today - what would be the point, since that attempt at unification seems definitively dead to history now? I assume you meant "lumped with Serbs (as being Yugoslavian)?".
  - stana 10y ago
    Many who identified as Yugoslavians left in 90s and are now Americans, Germans, Australians or Canadians. They don't live in the Balkans because ethnically clean countries and ethnicity ranking so high on the political agenda is offensive to them. Many people in central Bosnia identified as Yugoslavians before the war and I would say most in the same region born in late 60s, 70s would have identified the same. So when someone says Yugoslavia, I think Sarajevo and Bosnia, not Serbia.
    - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
      sounds plausible, yeah. Looking at wiki on demographics of yugoslavia, croatia, serbia and bosnia is a bit interesting; 81', which appears the peak, has yugoslavian as the ethnicity of 5.4% of yugoslavia total, 7.9% of bosnia and herzegovina (and there it was even higher, 8.4% in 61' which isn't even remotely the case in the other 2 countries - serbia and croatia have fractions of a % in 61'), 4.1% of serbia, and interestingly 8.2% in croatia. Today ofc its essentially 0% in all of them. So by the end of yugoslavia, got relatively substantial but still by far the majority always identified with some specific ethnicity. Now I presumed most people revised their identification in 90' for political reasons/safety, but could be emigration as you say played a significant role too, especially in bosnia. And yeah, a fair proportion would prob be offended by an imputation of yugoslavian identity today, because of the ethnically divided politics. But I think further than that, a significant chunk of the people not too happy that yugoslavia failed and disintegrated (such as myself and I believe many left-leaning people around) still can't see much sense in identifying as being ethnically yugoslavian. Yugoslavia is no more; yugoslavian identity was a composite one in its rather recent origin; people knew specific ethnicities of their parents and choose to think of themselves as yugoslavian first, or interpreted having parents of different ethnicities as being that identity. As a political project - and it was that - it died just by the time it was getting any substantial traction, so seems rather pointless today.
      - stana 10y ago
        I guess I naively see it as an umbrella identity for the other ones and it makes sense if your parents from different parts, or don't like the divison of the 90s (It pretty much means - south-slavic). But it has been heavily politicized like anything else in the Balkans. Also current political leaders in the region doing their share to smear Yugoslavian identity probably to justify the division in which this political elite prospers, rather than see a return of some idea that will get people to look past their minor differences.
einr 10y ago
The OP was trying to generalize and make conclusions about culture, politics and economy based on geography -- coast vs interior -- of regions of a larger whole. But the USSR was not a nation or a homogenous union and Estonia (for instance) having been invaded, illegally annexed and made part of the USSR at one point does not in any way make it comparable to Russia. The point: there are a lot of very fundamental differences between these countries that are arguably more important and that would more easily account for differences in politics and economics other than geography. (Besides, Russia has coastline, too...) I want people to know when they rely on things that are wrong to prove a point, because that probably renders the point at least partially invalid. You can dismiss that as "signalling political correctness" but it is nevertheless the truth, and on a US-centric forum like this I think many are not aware of the situation.
- nj923f 10y ago
  You have a good point. I just wanted to add that Baltic States haven't even been the most liberal/democratic part of USSR. In fact, some of the Latvian authors had to go publish their works in Moscow/St. Petersburg, because it wasn't possible in Latvian SSR. Speaking with older generations here, and I mean native Latvians/Estonians who had studied in Moscow/St. Petersburg, they often mention culture shock which they experienced there, as there was the whole Counterculture thing going on in Russia which was unheard of in Baltics.
gotchange 10y ago
I don't think that winning by a margin of 100-200K votes constitute a popular rejection or repudiation or a mandate for Trump to destroy the "Political Correctness" boogeyman. Don't pat yourself on the back too, as this PC culture is not only exclusive to leftists but right wingers too have their own emotional buttons that when pushed right, they will be triggered and exhibit similar if not more intense behavior to those they openly despise and deride as SJWs on the left.

the_duke 10y ago

crottypeter is probably objecting to the "Croatia & Slovenia" vs Yugoslavia / UDSSR and other generalizations. Which no one familiar with these regions would formulate it that way. The world is big, it's hard not to generalize countries and cultures you barely know.

nostrademons 10y ago

I was a little perplexed by the parent comment as well since I thought I was highlighting differences, but I upvoted it because, well, I learned something. He was polite in his correction, at least. FWIW, coastal Democrats are equally offended with being lumped in with Trump supporters, Scots would probably be equally offended with being lumped in with English, and Croatians would be equally offended with being lumped in with Yugoslavians, so at least I'm an equal-opportunity offender.

DominikR 10y ago
My parents came from Yugoslavia but I certainly wouldn't have been offended. I could give you information if I find that yours is wrong in some aspect but trying to guilt trip you for some offence that you certainly didn't intend to give seems wrong to me.
WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
A Croat here; I have no idea what you're talking about; Who the hell are Yugoslavians? Where does this ethnicity live? Before the breakup of Yugoslavia, some people identified as yugoslavian, yes - as one might identify as European today, but by far the majority of population identified as being one of yugoslavia's constituent ethnicities. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, practically nobody identifies as yugoslavian today - what would be the point, since that attempt at unification seems definitively dead to history now? I assume you meant "lumped with Serbs (as being Yugoslavian)?".
- stana 10y ago
  Many who identified as Yugoslavians left in 90s and are now Americans, Germans, Australians or Canadians. They don't live in the Balkans because ethnically clean countries and ethnicity ranking so high on the political agenda is offensive to them. Many people in central Bosnia identified as Yugoslavians before the war and I would say most in the same region born in late 60s, 70s would have identified the same. So when someone says Yugoslavia, I think Sarajevo and Bosnia, not Serbia.
  - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
    sounds plausible, yeah. Looking at wiki on demographics of yugoslavia, croatia, serbia and bosnia is a bit interesting; 81', which appears the peak, has yugoslavian as the ethnicity of 5.4% of yugoslavia total, 7.9% of bosnia and herzegovina (and there it was even higher, 8.4% in 61' which isn't even remotely the case in the other 2 countries - serbia and croatia have fractions of a % in 61'), 4.1% of serbia, and interestingly 8.2% in croatia. Today ofc its essentially 0% in all of them. So by the end of yugoslavia, got relatively substantial but still by far the majority always identified with some specific ethnicity. Now I presumed most people revised their identification in 90' for political reasons/safety, but could be emigration as you say played a significant role too, especially in bosnia. And yeah, a fair proportion would prob be offended by an imputation of yugoslavian identity today, because of the ethnically divided politics. But I think further than that, a significant chunk of the people not too happy that yugoslavia failed and disintegrated (such as myself and I believe many left-leaning people around) still can't see much sense in identifying as being ethnically yugoslavian. Yugoslavia is no more; yugoslavian identity was a composite one in its rather recent origin; people knew specific ethnicities of their parents and choose to think of themselves as yugoslavian first, or interpreted having parents of different ethnicities as being that identity. As a political project - and it was that - it died just by the time it was getting any substantial traction, so seems rather pointless today.
    - stana 10y ago
      I guess I naively see it as an umbrella identity for the other ones and it makes sense if your parents from different parts, or don't like the divison of the 90s (It pretty much means - south-slavic). But it has been heavily politicized like anything else in the Balkans. Also current political leaders in the region doing their share to smear Yugoslavian identity probably to justify the division in which this political elite prospers, rather than see a return of some idea that will get people to look past their minor differences.

einr 10y ago

The OP was trying to generalize and make conclusions about culture, politics and economy based on geography -- coast vs interior -- of regions of a larger whole. But the USSR was not a nation or a homogenous union and Estonia (for instance) having been invaded, illegally annexed and made part of the USSR at one point does not in any way make it comparable to Russia. The point: there are a lot of very fundamental differences between these countries that are arguably more important and that would more easily account for differences in politics and economics other than geography. (Besides, Russia has coastline, too...) I want people to know when they rely on things that are wrong to prove a point, because that probably renders the point at least partially invalid. You can dismiss that as "signalling political correctness" but it is nevertheless the truth, and on a US-centric forum like this I think many are not aware of the situation.

nj923f 10y ago
You have a good point. I just wanted to add that Baltic States haven't even been the most liberal/democratic part of USSR. In fact, some of the Latvian authors had to go publish their works in Moscow/St. Petersburg, because it wasn't possible in Latvian SSR. Speaking with older generations here, and I mean native Latvians/Estonians who had studied in Moscow/St. Petersburg, they often mention culture shock which they experienced there, as there was the whole Counterculture thing going on in Russia which was unheard of in Baltics.

gotchange 10y ago

I don't think that winning by a margin of 100-200K votes constitute a popular rejection or repudiation or a mandate for Trump to destroy the "Political Correctness" boogeyman. Don't pat yourself on the back too, as this PC culture is not only exclusive to leftists but right wingers too have their own emotional buttons that when pushed right, they will be triggered and exhibit similar if not more intense behavior to those they openly despise and deride as SJWs on the left.