When reading about this difficult topic, I think it is important to weigh both the political and humanitarian aspects of the breakup of Yugoslavia. In particular, the background section that described the formation of a second Yugoslav state stood out to me. Naimark states that this entity was formed to “resolve the ethnic tensions between the various nations of Yugoslavia” (Naimark, 140). This made me think, in a more general sense, the effectiveness of further separating different ethnic groups and the deep divides that it can cause. In this situation, I think it was extremely necessary due to the severe ethnic cleansing that took place, but, I feel that a separation can have adverse effects in the future. I think that this method works against itself to foster discrimination through increased racism and xenophobia. Do you think (in general) that the answer is to further divide ethnic groups, and in turn, does this marginalize these groups? Can you see how something like this may cause future issues among ethnic groups and contribute to further xenophobia and ethnic hatred?
Europe’s Long 20th Century (HIS270 S21)
A Contentious Continent
I think that the separation groups was necessary as well but does increase divides. At the end of page 141 and into 142, Naimark tells of historians that saw the conflicts as very old and deep rooted. I believe that there was some deep rooted grievances but after Tito’s death, the separation just reared its ugly head again. It is a good thing that each person can belong to a nationality but the militarized nationalism is more of the issue here.