Patriotism

[auscyclefan94]

I think we might be confusing an innate quality all humans have with consequent behaviour.

Humans are social beings - we are tribal - we are hard wired that way. That in itself means we have a basic need to belong. We generally feel more secure, confident, 'happy' if you like, when we are connected with other people.

How that innate trait gets used and abused as literally a call to arms is a different question. Patriotism itself - a pride in where I come from' - does not have to be a bad thing. Nationalism / jingoism or whatever you want to call it I think speaks more to the behaviour some of which is being referenced here.

I don't think it's a bad thing for people to celebrate their culture and their heritage but I'm not one for trying to represent mine as better than someone elses.

If anybody is interested there is a really interesting perspective here from David Logan - this might be a bit convoluted for some.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_logan_on_tribal_leadership.htm

Thank you...

 

[Ferminal]

Everybody has some level of patriotism. But I consider it a long, long way down my list of reasons to cheer for somebody in a sporting context. My country makes mistakes just like any other, my country is no better than anybody else's. Why should somebody born 10km from me under a different flag receive my support less than somebody born 600km from me under the same flag?

If you're as isolated as I am/we are then often its the logical choice.

I'm not going to support the German football team because its difficult to ever see footage of their games, let alone actually go to a game. Australia on the other hand play games everywhere around the country/region and every game is shown live on TV.

Supporting your local or national individual/team does not automatically denote blind patriotism.

 

[The Hitch]

If you're as isolated as I am/we are then often its the logical choice.

I'm not going to support the German football team because its difficult to ever see footage of their games, let alone actually go to a game. Australia on the other hand play games everywhere around the country/region and every game is shown live on TV.

Supporting your local or national individual/team does not automatically denote blind patriotism.

You are right, its possible to support a national team because you would simply like to see the scenes if they were to win, and the media attention that comes with it.

But in my case its the opposite. My parents grew up hearing about the heroes of the uprising and i grew up listening to tales about the heroes of solidarity. It would be a tragedy to me if one day children of mine were to grow up hearing tales about the heroes who kicked a ball.

 

[simo1733]

Not particularly. I've lived abroad a fair bit, and have found that for the most part I have more in common with people of similar life experiences from different countries than people with different life experiences from the same country.

I have to agree with libertine on this one.Whist some degree of patriotism is natural.it can manifest its self as irrational hatred of foreigners.And in times of war politicians use it in the most unsrupulous way to suppress opposition.

 

[RedheadDane]

Well, I guess I'm slightly patriotic when it comes to sport. I do cheer for Denmark whenever possible (and by "possible" I don't only mean taking part but having a chance. I don't think I would really cheer for a Dane in cross-country skiiing...)

 

[rhubroma]

Its funny how sport, perhaps more than any other phenomenon of modernity, generates a collective affinity for "home turf." There's something tribal in such a phenomenon that probably harks back to the primordial demands, evidently still firmly present in the subconscience, of survival through solidarity, loyalty and commitment against all would be rival clans and those who would attempt to displace and conquer one's established and traditional locus.

A funny thing happened to me, as an ex-pat living in Italy several years ago, which made me realize how long I've lived beyond my place of birth and how much I've come to identify my life with living in the Boot: namely, at the cycling events and olympics, I started rooting for the Italian athletes I had gotten to know in the dailies. And I actually watched the Squadra Azzura win the 06 World Cup, something which I had never done in the past. Whereas I have lost all touch with the big American sports I used to watch as an adolescent: football, baseball and basketball. This, more than anything, though, has probably to do with the fact that I don't have satelite TV and couldn't care less to have other sports occupying the time I don't already have. So a decline in, or rather more appropriately absence of, interest is also at work.

The great turning point was about the third year of a certain US rider and team dominating, in a style wholely inimical to my preferences and tastes, the Tour. Yet back in the 80's and 90's Greg Lemond was a young cyclists idol.

Times were different then...

 

[simo1733]

I would have said that the English are more notably patriotic than Australians (note that I didn't say British - I am referring to the George Cross wearing "Englishman")

Regardless, I agree with the premise that patriotism in anything greater than the level of "oh thats nice, an ____ won" is a clear sign of a sub-optimal intellect.

The level of, "he/she is better than other people because he/she is an _____" is just plain ***.

I see a lot of Australian food products with "Australian made and Australian owned" on the packaging. I have never seen that in English products.

 

[Christian]

I think patriotism has a lot to do with the history of a country.

Take my country Luxembourg for example. There is a nice saying by a luxembourgish historian that says that we went "from being a country to being a nation".

One can say that the country exists in the same boundaries as today since 1839. Those were "arbitrary boundaries", as someone said earlier, they didn't always make sense, especially linguistically.

So at first people didn't have a great sense of nationality. It came throughout time though: first, in 1867, when Napoléon III tried to buy Luxembourg from the Dutch King Guillaume III (he ruled over Luxembourg in a "personal union", but Lux. and the Netherlands were two different countries). There was a strong opposition against this, and the saying "We want to stay what we are" (also part of a traditional folks song) formed.

Then in 1890, the male line of the dutch house Orange-Nassau died out, and Luxembourg got its own hegemonial line of sovereigns: Nassau-Weilburg. hey initially come from a completely different area in Germany, so again, the Luxembourgians did not identify much with them.

This changed in World War II, when Grand Duchess Charlotte became a symbol for hope and freedom during the Nazi occupation of the country. She had fled to London along with the government, but continued to issue messages of hope and fought for the eventual liberation of Luxembourg. Much unlike her sister Marie-Adelaide, who had collaborated with the Germans during WW I, and therefore became unpopular and had to resign.

In my opinion, that was when the sanse of patriotism as it still exists today was born: during the Nazi occupation. One could say, you don't realize what you got til it's gone.


Now take the other side of the Moselle, Germany. Since I live so close to the German border and follow a lot of German media, I know that patriotism is still a very touchy subject in the country. The word "national pride" always has a rather negative ring to it. It has changed a little bit, since the Football World Cup 2006 and since the young multi-cultural German team had a lot of success. However, when in 2010, lebanese immigrants hung the largest German flag from their house in Berlin-Kreuzberg, it was set on fire several times by left-wing activists, who consider all statements of patriotism a breeding-ground for potential Neo-Nazis.


When it comes to sports, I think you have to understand that Luxembourg is a particular case. Ever since Charly Gaul (that is to say since 1958), we have never been at the international top level of any sport. The national sport is football, and we are used to being completely smashed in every international game (except the recent victory against Switzerland in 2008 or 2009). Therefore, what is going on right now in cycling is completely exceptional and without any precedent. Also, since we're such a small country maybe there's a stronger sense of community, and it's easier to relate to the athletes, then say a person from Novosibirsk cheering for an athlete from Kaliningrad (to take the extreme example).

Anyways right now we're just having fun and enjoy seeing our flags on TV sometimes. We're conscious that it ain't gonna last forever ... but right now we're just enjoying the ride

 

[oldborn]

Are Tibetian people (it is very fancy to be on their side) are nacionalists?

I think yes they are, despite the fact that China eliminate slavery in Tibet, but every one loves Tibet and nobody care about it, because it is so cool to be Dalai- Lama fan club member. Are Chechnya people also savages? What about Kurds?

So nacionalism (by it original meaning) are not wrong and word which should be avoid. It is general rule that nacionalism and patriotism are privilegied for mighty nations, but when small one take destiny in their hands it is almost instantly called nacionalism.

Patriotism are generaly allround feeling, and there is nothing to be shame of, maybe globalism is today what patriotism were couple of years ago.

Every country is nacionalistic one by its definition, it should not be visible and aggresive as before (it is not modern anymore), economy, culture etc, took that role instead of arms.

Modern countries and nations are relatively new as Lux guy wrote.

 

[rhubroma]

Are Tibetian people (it is very fancy to be on their side) are nacionalists?

I think yes they are, despite the fact that China eliminate slavery in Tibet, but every one loves Tibet and nobody care about it, because it is so cool to be Dalai- Lama fan club member. Are Chechnya people also savages? What about Kurds?

So nacionalism (by it original meaning) are not wrong and word which should be avoid. It is general rule that nacionalism and patriotism are privilegied for mighty nations, but when small one take destiny in their hands it is almost instantly called nacionalism.

Patriotism are generaly allround feeling, and there is nothing to be shame of, maybe globalism is today what patriotism were couple of years ago.

Every country is nacionalistic one by its definition, it should not be visible and aggresive as before (it is not modern anymore), economy, culture etc, took that role instead of arms.

Modern countries and nations are relatively new as Lux guy wrote.

You touch upon the very notion or what it means to be a Nation.

You're right about the idea of nation being a very historically arbitrary and fluid concept. Often borders change, powers rise and fall, etc. I'm beginning to think that most so called nations are simply too large to accomodate the real tribal affinites that keep a society together, command respect for hierarchy and central authority.

We like to think in the post-colonial period in the West, that the Nation has always existed or, if it came about, was due to some divinely providential scheme. The reality is that regional and subregional forces are usually the ones which ditermine "local identity" and "belonging."

In this sense we are still a bunch of tribes grouped more or less into geographical spaces, more or less coagulated by a central ideology and cultural mores. Interests are, by contrast, decidedly more confined and disperate than that which entices us to be patriotic to the Fatherland.

Worst still is when one or several dominant States, made up of their various local realities, have come to carve up the map based upon their own strategic and economic interests. This happened in Africa, the Middle East and Asia and not too long ago...and the disastrous consequences we continue to face today.

Patriotism then, as you say, for those same strategic and economic interests, can become merely something instrumental to latch onto when leading to highly subjective and fashionable trends having to do with an incumbant struggle between two Alpha States. In the end, though, it is the weak and marginalized group that continues to suffer, while being exploited for the mediatic sentimental value it has in supporting the cause of the one side against the other. This is exaclty the scenario we have in the America-Tibet-China dialect.

In other words, when it is all said and done, what is anybody really doing for the Tibetans.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A nation and a state are different things. Hence we talk about Basque nationalism, Sorbian nationalism, Tibetan nationalism.

The nation state and the right of a group of people to self-determination is a very 19th-20th century Western concept. Before that, the concept of borders was more fluid, though people would identify with those who were ethnically, nationally, linguistically or culturally similar to them. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher whose hometown is now in Russia. The great Polish writer Adam Mickiewicz came from Wilno, now Vilnius in Lithuania.

That's why you get things like the Südtirolers fighting to save their identity (as, essentially, ethnic Germans) in northern Italy, and people who've never had a state of their own in the modern sense, like the Basques and Sorbs, showcasing their national identity, sometimes in less than sanguine ways.

Because of the modern concept of the nation state, nationalism and patriotism usually intertwine, but they don't map onto one another perfectly.

 

[rhubroma]

Because of the modern concept of the nation state, nationalism and patriotism usually intertwine, but they don't map onto one another perfectly.

Thanks, that rather sums it up eloquently.

 

[Christian]

A nation and a state are different things. Hence we talk about Basque nationalism, Sorbian nationalism, Tibetan nationalism.

The nation state and the right of a group of people to self-determination is a very 19th-20th century Western concept. Before that, the concept of borders was more fluid, though people would identify with those who were ethnically, nationally, linguistically or culturally similar to them. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher whose hometown is now in Russia. The great Polish writer Adam Mickiewicz came from Wilno, now Vilnius in Lithuania.

That's why you get things like the Südtirolers fighting to save their identity (as, essentially, ethnic Germans) in northern Italy, and people who've never had a state of their own in the modern sense, like the Basques and Sorbs, showcasing their national identity, sometimes in less than sanguine ways.

Because of the modern concept of the nation state, nationalism and patriotism usually intertwine, but they don't map onto one another perfectly.

Don't forget Franz Kafka or more recently Herta Müller.

In Spain they recently passed a law which revises the "estatut" of Catalunya, the first article was "Catalunya is a nation". The conservative party (PP) then considered it anti-constitutional, it is currently being revised ...

I always thought people in the Balkan were happy now that they had their own country, but I work with a guy from Montenegro and he says he actually liked it better when it was Yougoslavia, which he described a bit like the European Union, in the way that you could more easily cross borders and travel like you can now

As for Tibet, I agree with what someone said earlier that it is considered "cool" to be on the Dalai Lama's side. I think very few people actually know of the horrible, medieval conditions that reigned in Tibet before China took over, or of the Dalai Lama's connections to the Nazis. But of course many of the things which China is doing now regarding Tibet are pretty bad.

 

[TexPat]

A nation and a state are different things. Hence we talk about Basque nationalism, Sorbian nationalism, Tibetan nationalism.

The nation state and the right of a group of people to self-determination is a very 19th-20th century Western concept. Before that, the concept of borders was more fluid, though people would identify with those who were ethnically, nationally, linguistically or culturally similar to them. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher whose hometown is now in Russia. The great Polish writer Adam Mickiewicz came from Wilno, now Vilnius in Lithuania.

That's why you get things like the Südtirolers fighting to save their identity (as, essentially, ethnic Germans) in northern Italy, and people who've never had a state of their own in the modern sense, like the Basques and Sorbs, showcasing their national identity, sometimes in less than sanguine ways.

Because of the modern concept of the nation state, nationalism and patriotism usually intertwine, but they don't map onto one another perfectly.

Well, said. I think you'll find what Max Bohm had to offer on the subject enlightening as well.
Simplistically, nationalism is yet another way that politicians can influence or manipulate the people.
I've always had a very strange view of it, despite being the son of a career officer in the US Army. As a kid, my whole world revolved around the flag, the pledge of allegiance etc, but I had trouble with it from an early age. In kindergarten, my lack of fervour in singing patriotic songs in the classroom--and I presume other forms of introversion--led Mrs Purdue, who was a very kind lady, to suggest to my parents that I be put in a class for reading.
In hindsight, I reckon that the sentiment in the US in the 1970's was one of shame in many peoples minds--and I think in my father's especially, who fought and killed in Vietnam.
As an adult working, travelling and living overseas, my identity as an American was something I've tried hard to conceal, which of course is very hard to do. I once told a Berber in Morocco that I was from Antarctica.
I don't mean to say that I am necessarily anti-American, though I admit being embarrassed about lots of different aspects of its culture, history and politics; it's just that the whole idea of where I was born having that much of a role in my identity is rather absurd.
As someone said earlier, it all seems so arbitrary.
Humanity first. Nation/state last.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I always thought people in the Balkan were happy now that they had their own country, but I work with a guy from Montenegro and he says he actually liked it better when it was Yougoslavia, which he described a bit like the European Union, in the way that you could more easily cross borders and travel like you can now

The problem with Yugoslavia was that it was born under the auspices of pan-Slavism from people dissatisfied with life under the Habsburgs or Ottomans; as long as a strong, powerful and popular leader (like Tito) was in charge everything was all well and good, but when Tito died you had the problem of succession; with several competing nationalities - divided primarily on religious grounds, with the Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Bosnians being the main culprite (well, less so the Bosnians, they were more collateral damage in the Serbo-Croat disagreement) - ruling effectively without causing irritation to at least one of these groups became difficult; the other problem came with location; the Slovenians had little problem seceding from Yugoslavia; they all lived in the same area, few of them lived outside, so that was their zone and all was fine. When the Croatian party's leader decided he wanted to secede, that was much more of a problem; lots of Serbs and Bosnians lived in Croatian territory, lots of Croats and Bosnians lived in Serbian territory, and lots of Serbs and Croats lived in Bosnian territory, and a desire to create a nation state means de facto uniting everybody of that ethnic or cultural identity - and with these three competing identities all living in a mixed population, that would require either forcible population exchanges such as those entered between Greece and Turkey or necessitated by the British partition of India, or a lot of argument over the placing of boundaries.

 

[oldborn]

The problem with Yugoslavia was that it was born under the auspices of pan-Slavism from people dissatisfied with life under the Habsburgs or Ottomans; as long as a strong, powerful and popular leader (like Tito) was in charge everything was all well and good, but when Tito died you had the problem of succession; with several competing nationalities - divided primarily on religious grounds, with the Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Bosnians being the main culprite (well, less so the Bosnians, they were more collateral damage in the Serbo-Croat disagreement) - ruling effectively without causing irritation to at least one of these groups became difficult; the other problem came with location; the Slovenians had little problem seceding from Yugoslavia; they all lived in the same area, few of them lived outside, so that was their zone and all was fine. When the Croatian party's leader decided he wanted to secede, that was much more of a problem; lots of Serbs and Bosnians lived in Croatian territory, lots of Croats and Bosnians lived in Serbian territory, and lots of Serbs and Croats lived in Bosnian territory, and a desire to create a nation state means de facto uniting everybody of that ethnic or cultural identity - and with these three competing identities all living in a mixed population, that would require either forcible population exchanges such as those entered between Greece and Turkey or necessitated by the British partition of India, or a lot of argument over the placing of boundaries.

I see you are familiar with Balkan, wel, well

Well, are Kim il Song, or Nicolae Ceausescu were/are popular among people. Yes they are, but that doesn not change the fact they are dictators.

For events that cause Yougoslavia born, you are mainly wright, but as long such a kingdom/state has all nations involved with equal human, politcs, economy rights, when that has been changed (if ever egsist) some wars can be very tragic.

It is a realy nice example how nation/state can be born, and i have a trouble to understand it, and i am a Croat. That process end in 1970.

So main reason for Y fell apart is not "dictator with human face" dead, but USSR crash and economy failure. In Y every one has a job, there was no fear to end up on street (most cases), but you could be shot, or end up in jail if thinking not mainstream, because your very popular dictator get angry.

Muslims in Bosnia never exists as a nation (not religion) until 1971 , are the Judaism/beeing a Jew is nation or religion, prety much as Shiia or Sunni feels Iraqi citizens. They were Croat or Serbs or any other nation or tribe, until Turks invade those regions. So Europe )Germany, France, Britain and modern days US) do not want to see Muslim state allone in hart of Europe, not Croats or Serbs.

Your words: "and lots of Serbs and Croats lived in Bosnian territory, and a desire to create a nation state means de facto uniting everybody of that ethnic or cultural identity", where did you read that?

Are you Familiar with Serb politician Ilija Garašanin document called "Načertanije" from 1844, i bet you not, that document desribe this:

"Iz ovog poznanja proističe čerta i temelj srpske politike, da se ona ne ograničava na sadašnje njene granice, no da teži sebi priljubiti sve narode srpske koji ju okružavaju". Exactly same words you choose of idea to unite all Serbs in arround countries in one Big Serbia, is that allready known.

Well, if you ask some Serb you gonna get another answer, bu at least we did not as Christian Montenegro friend bomb Dubrovnik. We had some mistakes also, but who has not.

It is a more complex subject then we thoughts.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Muslims in Bosnia never exists as a nation (not religion) until 1971 , are the Judaism/beeing a Jew is nation or religion, prety much as Shiia or Sunni feels Iraqi citizens. They were Croat or Serbs or any other nation or tribe, until Turks invade those regions. So Europe )Germany, France, Britain and modern days US) do not want to see Muslim state allone in hart of Europe, not Croats or Serbs.

Your words: "and lots of Serbs and Croats lived in Bosnian territory, and a desire to create a nation state means de facto uniting everybody of that ethnic or cultural identity", where did you read that?

Until Turks invaded those regions, then yes, they were Serbs and Croats. But Serbs and Croats are ethnically very similar, but are divided primarily along religious lines. Muslim Slavs therefore differentiated themselves from their former identities as Serbs and Croats along religious lines again.

My words on the nation state question? Well, it's a simple fact that when you have a mixed population - as there was in Y with Croats, Serbs and Muslims - there will not be a uniform, even distribution throughout. Some areas have more Muslims than Croats, some more Croats than Serbs, some more Serbs than Muslims. When Y broke up, whereas the relatively unmixed Slovenes had little trouble, the question of what land belonged to who in the bulk of Yugoslavia caused trouble - after all, much as the borders between Germany, Poland and Russia have only ever been fixed by war, there had never been a set of nation states in the modern sense in the Balkans before so there were no historical boundaries between Serbian, Croat and Muslim/Bosnian territory to call upon (and even if there were they would probably predate the Ottoman invasions and thus the Muslim population would have made division problematic). Traditional nation-state doctrine, the "right of a nation to self-determination", as followed by most of the Western powers, requires for a population to be pretty much homogeneous, which was impossible in the Serbo-Croat area when Y collapsed. Many Croats who lived in the territory claimed by Serbs would complain about it, and many Serbs who lived in the territory claimed by Croats would do the same. Both countries laid claim to at least part of the territory in which the Muslim population formed the largest percentage, on the basis that it was historically Serbian or Croat territory.

Are you Familiar with Serb politician Ilija Garašanin document called "Načertanije" from 1844, i bet you not, that document desribe this:

"Iz ovog poznanja proističe čerta i temelj srpske politike, da se ona ne ograničava na sadašnje njene granice, no da teži sebi priljubiti sve narode srpske koji ju okružavaju". Exactly same words you choose of idea to unite all Serbs in arround countries in one Big Serbia, is that allready known.

Well, if you ask some Serb you gonna get another answer, bu at least we did not as Christian Montenegro friend bomb Dubrovnik. We had some mistakes also, but who has not.

It is a more complex subject then we thoughts.

I'm not familiar with that particular text, but it does show all the auspices of the 19th century nationalist awakening in the Slavic countries, which many people were swept up in. There were plenty of auspices of pan-Slavism, which is also possibly at play here (although it sounds imperialistic, taking all Serbs in, we must also remember that the Sorbs in Germany use the same word for themselves).

Basically, you're at an Anglophone forum. Much of the population of this board is Western European or New World. Many of those areas (though a long way from being all) have had relatively homogeneous populations and fixed borders that they're familiar with; their ways of understanding the volatile situation of mixed populations, life under imperial subjugation by people different to them (ie not like Americans and Aussies, the majority of whom are ethnically the same as the imperialists who they won their independence from), population transfers, the threat of losing your own cultural identity and so on... they are going to be simplified, because they're simply experiences we don't really remember. It's obviously something that's very fresh in the memory in the Balkans.

 

[oldborn]

Muslim Slavs therefore differentiated themselves from their former identities as Serbs and Croats along religious lines again.

They were until 1971 when cenzus held on, Yugoslavs but with Islamic religion. After that they could choose to be eather Muslims or Yugoslavs. It is complicated because such a theory in fact was "prison for nations" as we discovered in 90 s.

My words on the nation state question? Well, it's a simple fact that when you have a mixed population - as there was in Y with Croats, Serbs and Muslims - there will not be a uniform, even distribution throughout.

There was as i remeber 6 republic and 2 independit republics under Serbia (Kosovo was one of them). All has borders, and majority nations were those which names represent republics. Those borders were prety much historical ones exept Bosnia, cause Austro-Hungaria annexed it after Turks, so Croats and Serbs lost their regions where their lived before.

Some areas have more Muslims than Croats, some more Croats than Serbs, some more Serbs than Muslims. When Y broke up, whereas the relatively unmixed Slovenes had little trouble, the question of what land belonged to who in the bulk of Yugoslavia caused trouble - after all, much as the borders between Germany, Poland and Russia have only ever been fixed by war, there had never been a set of nation states in the modern sense in the Balkans before so there were no historical boundaries between Serbian, Croat and Muslim/Bosnian territory to call upon (and even if there were they would probably predate the Ottoman invasions and thus the Muslim population would have made division problematic).

Well i must disagree with you on that, those are words of Badminter Commission back in 1991:

"On 20 November 1991 Lord Carrington asked: "Can the internal boundaries between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia be regarded as frontiers in terms of public international law?"

Applying the principle of uti possidetis, the commission concluded on 11 January 1992 that "The boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, and possibly other adjacent independent states may not be altered except by agreement freely arrived at." and "Except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become frontiers protected by international law."


So borders was internationaly recognized by EU. What Serbia got to do with Slovenia, nothing, but they try to invade it. If you have some pockets with non domestic population in other countries, that do not give you wright to invade someone, it is imperialism.

Traditional nation-state doctrine, the "right of a nation to self-determination", as followed by most of the Western powers, requires for a population to be pretty much homogeneous, which was impossible in the Serbo-Croat area when Y collapsed. Many Croats who lived in the territory claimed by Serbs would complain about it, and many Serbs who lived in the territory claimed by Croats would do the same.

Well we had boundaries. There was no legal wright to claim that some teritory was mine or yours. Every one had states, but someone could not live with that.

Both countries laid claim to at least part of the territory in which the Muslim population formed the largest percentage, on the basis that it was historically Serbian or Croat territory..

Yes i must agree with you, are you some historian or what?

Basically, you're at an Anglophone forum. Much of the population of this board is Western European or New World. Many of those areas (though a long way from being all) have had relatively homogeneous populations and fixed borders that they're familiar with; their ways of understanding the volatile situation of mixed populations, life under imperial subjugation by people different to them (ie not like Americans and Aussies, the majority of whom are ethnically the same as the imperialists who they won their independence from), population transfers, the threat of losing your own cultural identity and so on... they are going to be simplified, because they're simply experiences we don't really remember. It's obviously something that's very fresh in the memory in the Balkans.

Yes i am much aware of that.