4 ms·
Right after mentioning Serbia I’m thinking either the author had an old map (very common in the US) and has noticed this town before, or identifies as being fr
by vmception 5y ago
Right after mentioning Serbia
I’m thinking either the author had an old map (very common in the US) and has noticed this town before, or identifies as being from Yugoslavia from growing up there at one point (and adopting some identity politics that still separates Serbia), or thinks its synonymous to call the region yugoslavia like the region of nordics has its own name which would just be wrong
- dmurray 5y agoYugoslavia/Yugoslav/South Slavic is a handy name for the region and the language family. Unfortunately it's no longer a neutral name because there was a country with that name and using it might be seen as calling for reconstituting that country and in particular, uniting several nations under Serbian rule. I think these days we're meant to use "the Balkans" and understand by context that we don't mean Greece. But it's much less precise. That said, in this context "a town in Croatia" would have been correct, uncontroversial and more precise.
- infiniteL0Op 5y ago
- ggm 5y agoI grew up with a colourful "visit Yugoslavia" poster in my bedroom in the sixties. I still think about it. Happy smiling ethnic/folkloric dressed people. Thirty years later, at each other's throats.
- BerislavLopac 5y ago> understand by context that we don't mean Greece Or Albania. Or Romania. Or possibly Bulgaria.
- mjd 5y agoThis explains exactly what I was trying to do. Thanks for understanding. I agree that I should have given up and just gone with “a town in Croatia”. I have corrected the article.