Milosovic is and was a scumbag
I wasn't going to comment on this online. I've been angry, and I still am, but I was going to avoid the subject of Milsovic because I felt that I had become didactic and one subject oriented, that it would be too easy to write whatever comments I made off as another genocide rant. Well, that all may be true, but frankly, I'm rather annoyed right now and I have a head ache, thus my evil tolerance has decreased.
Milosovic was a scumbag. He incited three separate genocides, four wars, killed his political opponenets and was overall, one of the people of this century who can truly be classified as having little to no redeeming qualities.
That being said, when I found out that he had died, I started cursing (and when my brother heard this and saw me looking at the newspaper, responded with "what did someone do wrong *now*"). Milosovic has been in the process of being tried in the Hague for four years, and it was just looking like they'd sentence him. FINALLY, sentence him. You know, try and convinct the leader of a country that committed genocide (as well as deteriorating the entire situation in the former Yugoslavia and inflaming nationalistic tendencies--I really do think the Hitler comparison fits here).
I support the death penalty for genocidal leaders, but I'd rather an international precident. Milosovic did die in jail, like he'd probably have died had he been sentenced to life in prison, which was what everyone expected. Still, it'd have been really nice to have on the books.
What concerns me more (and what prompted this post) is the way the newspapers have been handling his death. An article that originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times and was picked up by the Times Picayune ended by explaining how many Serbian citizens were taken in by his message, that he had given them a sense of purpose and had represented the idea of a stronger country. I have no quarrel with the presence of such people, but I question why they are mentioned. What purpose does mentioning this serve?
Indeed, such commentary simply seems to serve to "show the other side," that not everyone hates him. Such false objectivity is rather disgraceful. We don't show the "other side" of Hitler; why should we do so with his Serbian counterpart?
I don't believe in a hell, but if one exists, I hope that he goes there. My meaner instincts want Milosovic not buried at all (I could envision an Achilles-Hector-esque scenario being rather satisfying in this situation), but in general, I am ok with the way it is being handled. The president of Serbia denied requests for Milsovoic to be publicly displayed for his supporters' mourning (stating that the exhibit in the museum of chinese coins was more important!). He is being buried privately in Serbia with no public officials attending.
The best commentary I've seen so far about Milosovic came from Christopher Hitchens (whom I am still reading for some reason...). Really, the article is quite superb, and I suggest it to anyone even mildly interested (it doesn't claim to be unbiased, but frankly, I don't care). He states in the article http://www.slate.com/id/2137950/ that
"Only a Serb can truly feel the depth of the cultural and political and economic damage that he did, and the brave crowds of students who demonstrated in Belgrade in March 1991 shouting "Slobo Saddam" had it exactly right.
Or almost exactly right. Milosevic did not have quite the psychopathic power of a Saddam Hussein or an Osama Bin Laden. He was that most dangerous of people: the mediocre and conformist official who bides his time and masks his grievances. He went from apparatchik to supreme power, and though he rode a tide of religious and xenophobic fervor, it is quite thinkable that he never really cared about the totems and symbols that he exploited. In office and in the dock, he embodied the banality of evil."
Gah
Milosovic was a scumbag. He incited three separate genocides, four wars, killed his political opponenets and was overall, one of the people of this century who can truly be classified as having little to no redeeming qualities.
That being said, when I found out that he had died, I started cursing (and when my brother heard this and saw me looking at the newspaper, responded with "what did someone do wrong *now*"). Milosovic has been in the process of being tried in the Hague for four years, and it was just looking like they'd sentence him. FINALLY, sentence him. You know, try and convinct the leader of a country that committed genocide (as well as deteriorating the entire situation in the former Yugoslavia and inflaming nationalistic tendencies--I really do think the Hitler comparison fits here).
I support the death penalty for genocidal leaders, but I'd rather an international precident. Milosovic did die in jail, like he'd probably have died had he been sentenced to life in prison, which was what everyone expected. Still, it'd have been really nice to have on the books.
What concerns me more (and what prompted this post) is the way the newspapers have been handling his death. An article that originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times and was picked up by the Times Picayune ended by explaining how many Serbian citizens were taken in by his message, that he had given them a sense of purpose and had represented the idea of a stronger country. I have no quarrel with the presence of such people, but I question why they are mentioned. What purpose does mentioning this serve?
Indeed, such commentary simply seems to serve to "show the other side," that not everyone hates him. Such false objectivity is rather disgraceful. We don't show the "other side" of Hitler; why should we do so with his Serbian counterpart?
I don't believe in a hell, but if one exists, I hope that he goes there. My meaner instincts want Milosovic not buried at all (I could envision an Achilles-Hector-esque scenario being rather satisfying in this situation), but in general, I am ok with the way it is being handled. The president of Serbia denied requests for Milsovoic to be publicly displayed for his supporters' mourning (stating that the exhibit in the museum of chinese coins was more important!). He is being buried privately in Serbia with no public officials attending.
The best commentary I've seen so far about Milosovic came from Christopher Hitchens (whom I am still reading for some reason...). Really, the article is quite superb, and I suggest it to anyone even mildly interested (it doesn't claim to be unbiased, but frankly, I don't care). He states in the article http://www.slate.com/id/2137950/ that
"Only a Serb can truly feel the depth of the cultural and political and economic damage that he did, and the brave crowds of students who demonstrated in Belgrade in March 1991 shouting "Slobo Saddam" had it exactly right.
Or almost exactly right. Milosevic did not have quite the psychopathic power of a Saddam Hussein or an Osama Bin Laden. He was that most dangerous of people: the mediocre and conformist official who bides his time and masks his grievances. He went from apparatchik to supreme power, and though he rode a tide of religious and xenophobic fervor, it is quite thinkable that he never really cared about the totems and symbols that he exploited. In office and in the dock, he embodied the banality of evil."
Gah