The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#16

Post by trekker » 06 Oct 2015, 07:56

»Yugoslavia did have problems. These ethnic groups lived somewhat segregated from each other, so that nation-states could be achieved by the secession of territories in which a single ethnicity constituted over 70 percent of the population. This had happened for short periods in the 20th century, and Yugoslavia’s Federal Constitution gave them the right to do so again. This was technically a federation of nations (narodi) and these, not republics, had the right to secede and form their own majoritarian democracies (Hayden, 1996: 786–7).« Michael Mann, page 362

I don't understand what Mann means by saying that Yugoslav nations »lived somewhat segregated from each other«. I don't know about any segregation. Member of different Yugoslav nations lived in one of the six republics and travelling around the country exactly as other Europeans lived in other European states. Each Yugoslav republic was a nation-state of one of the nations. Croatia was a nation-state of Croats, Serbia of Serbs. Albanians in Serbia (Kosovo) were called a nationality in the sense of a national minority, their nation-state was Albania. Since NATO intervention in Serbia in 1990's Albanians have two nation-states, Albania and Kosovo, with Albanian nationalists being active in Macedonia in 2010's, next to NATO-EU presence in Kosovo.

trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#17

Post by trekker » 06 Oct 2015, 07:57

»But Communist victory in 1945 suppressed ethnic conflict between these groups. Thereafter, Kosovo, not Bosnia or Croatia, remained the hot spot. Yet Kosovo only exploded late in the 1990s, well after the other provinces.« Michael Mann, page 359

»Nationalist parties did best, dominating the symbolic and sentimental realm, milking their sufferings under Communism. Leaders like Tudjman and the near-fascist Paraga in Croatia, Izetbegovic in Bosnia, and Seselj and Draskovic in Serbia had acquired moral authority under Communism, suffering imprisonment and beatings.« Michael Mann, page 367

Tudjman, Izetbegović, Šešelj and others of their kind were imprisoned because they were nationalist leaders not because of Communism (in whatever sense this word is used by Mann). Anti-nationalism was the basis of Tito's ruling Yugoslavia and forming his resistance movement in WWII. It was comprised in slogan Brotherhood and Unity ('bratstvo i jedinstvo' in Serbian) which no Yugoslav politician could question without consequence. A strong wave of nationalism (not mentioned by Mann) emerged in several Yugoslav republics in the second half of 1960's which lasted until 1971 when Tito acted firmly, cutting off nationalist leaders in Croatia (Savka Dabčević Kučar, Mika Tripalo), Serbia (Latinka Perović, Mirko Nikezić) and Slovenia (Stane Kavčič). They were all high ranking leaders of Communist parties in their republics. They and their supporters later accused Tito's regime of lacking democracy but Tito got approval even in USA for restoring law and order and preventing disintegration of Yugoslavia. One of the consequences of these movements were the 1974 Constitution and other modifications of the political and economic system in Yugoslavia. Even before that, in 1968, Albanians in Kosovo organized demonstrations demanding secession of Kosovo and its unification with Albania. They ddin't wait until 1990's, »well after the other provinces« as Mann writes. Besides, unlike Kosovo, »other provinces« were actually republics, therefore nation-states.


trekker
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 08:55

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#18

Post by trekker » 06 Oct 2015, 07:59

»Democracy killed off Yugoslav federalism (Snyder, 2000). Yugoslavs wanted rule by we, the people, but fairly free elections in the six republics between April and December 1990 brought rule by organic nationalists committed to majoritarian ethnic democracy. In accordance with the Constitution, the elections were organized by each republic separately, and so were almost all the parties.« Michael Mann, page 367

The Communist party of Yugoslavia itself consisted of Communist parties of each republic – that's why nationalist movement in 1967 – 1971 was possible within the existing system declared non-democratic. Even before 1990 elections were organized by each republic separately.

I disagree with Mann that »Yugoslavs wanted rule by we, the people.« People of Yugoslavia felt Yugoslavs by citizenship and Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians... by nationality. They felt Yugoslavs AND Slovenes, Serbs... One topic of dispute especially between Slovenia and Serbia was the suggestion of the latter to introduce Yugoslav elections based on the principle 'one man one vote' which would make Serbs (the largest of Yugoslav nations) prevail.

The feeling of one's own nationality was present among members of different nations in Yugoslavia as much as among members of any other European nation. They could live with that feeling as part of their identity without much trouble until it was politicized into nationalism aimed against other nations to bring to power men that had no vision of progress, just lust for power.

I disagree with Mann (Snyder) that »Democracy killed off Yugoslav federalism.« In Yugoslavia, nationalisms existed and grew strong before 1990, prior to introducing the political system of democracy. In 1990's federation fell apart with political system of democracy being introduced but events in 1970's reveal that federation could have fallen apart even earlier had there not been a strong anti-nationalist state and army leader. (Yugoslav army was 'the seventh republic' of Yugoslavia and Tito was its undisputed leader since WWII.)

The core of the problem in Yugoslavia were economic difficulties which couldn't be overcome. Slovenia and Croatia took advantage of their superior economies, Serbia of controlling federal government's and central bank's funds, others had difficulties to keep the pace, but each one believed that others were the problem. In such soil nationalisms got a chance to grow strong. In the period of economic prosperity nationalist movements are insignificant because people are satisfied with their living. When the economic crisis comes and people get frustrated, looking for the scapegoat, nationalists are there to point their finger and lead the way. Observe European Union since 2008.

User avatar
Haven
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 07:27
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#19

Post by Haven » 07 Oct 2015, 22:37

trekker,

I will be returning to this soon, I now have quite a bit to think about.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#20

Post by wm » 09 Oct 2015, 23:39

Exactly, democracy didn't kill off Yugoslav federalism, Yugoslav federalism has been dead from the beginning.
Yugoslavia was a top-down solution to a nonexistent problem, imposed on the people living there by Serbian nationalists (because it made their country larger) and a few wishful thinking adherents of the ideology of Yugoslavism - the unity of the South Slaves, a war-time anti-Austro-Hungarian movement.
Even before the WW2 Yugoslavia was a failed state, and later, after the death of Tito it failed on the first opportune occasion. The failure was in fact a win for democracy and people's rights. The subsequent wars were the direct result of seventy years of forcing an unworkable ideology on the people living there without their consent.
AJFFM wrote:I do not know why Armenia is on the list but Nazi Germany sure needs to be on it
Still, the Nazis gained power using semi-legal means and maintained it using illegal, undemocratic means. Nobody asked the Germans if the wanted the war with the Allies, with the USSR, with the US, or if they wanted to gas people.
So it wasn't a failure of democracy because there was no democracy in the Nazi Germany. In the thirties it was an authoritarian state like many others in Europe.
AJFFM wrote:The problem was never in Liberalism, the problem was always that a majority of societies themselves were not liberal enough to accept others.
Well, if a society require a particular kind of people/adherents of some ideology - liberalism in this case to be stable and viable - the society will fail eventually, like Yugoslavia. People support those who express their wishes and needs, in the long term they are not interested in ideologies.

Many of the former European kingdoms accepted others without being liberal. For example the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was multinational and tolerant, and its kings frequently even weren't Poles or Lithuanians.

Stalinist Russia, Maoist China were nationally blind and despite this they both were evil empires.

User avatar
Haven
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 07:27
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#21

Post by Haven » 10 Oct 2015, 00:05

trekker wrote:Michael Mann's book is about ethnic cleansing. I believe that ethnic cleansing IS an euphemism (not just »might be« - The SAGE Dictionary of Sociology) which should be put out of use. It is used by perpetrators and their supporters to avoid speaking of mass murder, genocide etc. Referring to the reality of dead smelling bodies in blood of civilians left behind armed groups as ethnic cleansing (to clean!) is indecent. With all mass killings in WWII explained without the term ethnic cleansing there's no need to introduce it now. And it is certainly not a modern phenomenon. It happened to native inhabitants of north and south Americas, Australia … long ago.

The term is also wrong. Mass killings committed in Yugoslavia by Serbs, Croates, Albanians... in 1990's were not committed by ethnic groups but by members of different nations/nationalities. When Germans occupied the eastern part od Slovenia (Untersteiermark) in 1941 they immediately started with deportation of tens of thousand of Slovenes and settling Germans from abroad to make the land German. That was what today is called ethnic cleansing but I see no need to use that term to describe actual events. And neither Germans nor Slovenes were ethnic groups. Even nazis who percieved both as ethnic groups (different races) felt themselves aryans AND Germans. Slovenes felt as Slovenes only.
First, let me thank you for the way you take issue with Mann in the case of Yugoslavia. Your point-by-point explanation was informative. Being that I am not that proficient with the Yugoslavian case, I will not attempt to defend Mann. But I did appreciate the time and detail you spent on it.

I came to this book primarily because of his work on the genocide perpetrated by white settlers in North America and, of course, the Holocaust.

But I will attempt to address some of the issues you brought up. Now, remember that Mann is not interested in who is using terms like “ethnicity”, “nationalist”, “nation”, and “ethnos.” That is not say he not interested about that in general. But for this work, he will accept the perpetrators’ definition of themselves and the words they use to describe themselves. He already assumes that some of these claims are going to be inconsistent.

So, for the Nazi case, they begin to adjust and refashion who would be considered a German and/or German citizen. Slowly, Jews who had spent their whole life and a few generations in Germany and considered themselves to be German, were no longer part of German citizenry. It’s apparent that the Nazi’s did not share the definition of “nation, nationality, ethnicity and religion” that, say the German communist or even German liberal aristocrats. So it is apparent that the meaning of “nation, nationality, ethnicity and religion” fluctuates between multiple communities within these societies.

Even the term ‘democracy’ is always in flux. The United States was understood to be a democratic republic and saw no problem with democratic citizens involved with human chattel slavery, as long as the slaves were Black/African. As a matter of fact, the United States placed a strict racial hierarchy within its democratic republic. Non-whites were allowed to exist, but within very strict parameters. It was, by all measurements, a nation built on privileging whites.

Now, your example of the Scots and the Kurds (and I would add Palestinians)

I’m going to give an example, a story, if you will.

During the 1970’s, a sociologist from Britain wanted to demonstrate how religion and ethnicity and nationality can overlap. So imagine Northern Ireland during the troubles: A young man is picked up off the street in Belfast by men with guns. They ask the young man, “Are you Protestant or Catholic?” He responds, “I’m an atheist!!!” The men with guns respond, “Are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?”

From that joke I see how religion gets fused with ethnicity and national identity. Let’s pick it apart. The sociologist reminded the class that there was a prominent minority of Protestants living in Ireland, but by virtue of being Irish, Protestant extremist would still label them “Catholic.” He goes on to explain, that Protestantism was not really at stake for most of the Protestant militants, but if you were pro-British, but within the discourse and rhetoric of the politics of Northern Ireland, Protestant became a stand-in for the Scots, Welsh and English.

Now this same joke was used a few years later by an anthropologist from Beirut, with a few changes: Some men with guns snatch a young man in the streets of Beirut and ask, “Are you a Muslim, Jew or Christian?” The young man responds, “I’m an atheist!!!” The men with guns respond, “Are you a Muslim atheist, a Jewish atheist or a Christian Atheist?” Again, understanding the politics of Lebanon during the 1980s, this seems totally plausible. But once we dig deeper, we know there was a split between Shia and Sunni. There was also split between the various Christian groups some seeing themselves as Phoenicians (or even French in some cases) while others viewed themselves as Arab and Christian. We know there are Christians and Muslims that are Israeli, and there are more Jews who are not Israeli than are, and yet…I have even heard hard-core Zionist use “Jew” interchangeably with “Israeli.”

All that to say, Mann is not concerned the precision of the perpetrators definitions, but instead how they use their own definitions to justify genocide.

(As an aside, I live in the States, and I had always understood ethnic cleansing as a term for violence. I didn’t know until recently that there was a “non-violent” use of the term.)

User avatar
Haven
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 07:27
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#22

Post by Haven » 10 Oct 2015, 00:07

I meant:

Now, remember that Mann is not interested in who is using terms like “ethnicity”, “nationalist”, “nation”, and “ethnos” CORRECTLY!

I should have added "correctly."

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann

#23

Post by AJFFM » 10 Oct 2015, 00:52

wm wrote:
AJFFM wrote:I do not know why Armenia is on the list but Nazi Germany sure needs to be on it
Still, the Nazis gained power using semi-legal means and maintained it using illegal, undemocratic means. Nobody asked the Germans if the wanted the war with the Allies, with the USSR, with the US, or if they wanted to gas people.
So it wasn't a failure of democracy because there was no democracy in the Nazi Germany. In the thirties it was an authoritarian state like many others in Europe.
But it was through democracy that the Nazis reached power and when they kept it illegally no one whispered. Fascism failed in the UK and especially in France (inter-war period and the Algerian Putsch) despite popular support because the majority of people refused to kowtow to the armed well organised minority.

Liberalism died in Germany well before Nazi ascendency and for a long time it had what Victor Orban calls "Illiberal Democracy". Once a man commanding blinding support of millions of ideologues reached power and decided to grab it for good people accepted it because they themselves were not believers in a liberalism that saw 49% of the votes go to their ideological opponents and were willing to live in golden shackles instead of real liberalism.
wm wrote:
AJFFM wrote:The problem was never in Liberalism, the problem was always that a majority of societies themselves were not liberal enough to accept others.
Well, if a society require a particular kind of people/adherents of some ideology - liberalism in this case to be stable and viable - the society will fail eventually, like Yugoslavia. People support those who express their wishes and needs, in the long term they are not interested in ideologies.

Many of the former European kingdoms accepted others without being liberal. For example the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was multinational and tolerant, and its kings frequently even weren't Poles or Lithuanians.

Stalinist Russia, Maoist China were nationally blind and despite this they both were evil empires.
But liberalism is not an ideology, that is the perverted American sense currently used in political discourse, it is a way of life. The US experiment, so far, worked precisely because no matter how much a group hated another group liberalism was always the rule that everyone adhered to and thus fascist tendencies were always defeated in the end no matter how much support it had (the KKK had 2 million members in 1930 when there were no significant racial riots, a generation later the civil rights act was passed despite massive racial riots). The fascists, racists or whatever perverted ideology they had were eventually defeated and the accepted their defeat silently and indeed some became enthusiastically supportive.

Yugoslavia failed because it was a phoney construct to begin with enforced either by military suppression (the kingdom phase) or military suppression (communist phase) and everyone knew it. What made things bloody is fascistic nationalism not democracy. None of the leaders of the war was a democrat or a liberal.

As for despotic liberalism of the 18th century that is another discussion that has no place here. Suffices to say religious freedom was the epitome of liberalism in the 18th century and no very much so today. Indeed suppression of religious freedoms (the harmless self-imposed on one's self kind that is regardless of country or religion) is seen today as "defending Liberalism" or "Secularism". Racism was also not a major issue then either in racially uniform societies where former slaves or Jews married white girls in England and Germany with little objection.

Identity politics and ideologies are a 19th century phenomenon.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”