#Euromaidan and #DANSwithMe - discussion on protests in Eastern Europe

[Winner]

The most vocal and aggressive part of protesters are indeed nationalists, so it's understandable that people from Southern and Eastern regions of Ukraine (ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking population) generally are not inclined to support them. People's opinion on the issue is getting polarized.

Of course it's purely an accident that the regime keeps hiring thugs to provoke violence in anti-gov demonstrations, in order to be able to say exactly these things about the opposition...

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not untrue that Ukranian politics is increasingly broken down along Europhile vs. Russophile lines. Even the Ukranian ultranationalists, who aren't particularly pro-Europe, are still heavily defined by their Russophobia.

 

[red_elk]

Of course it's purely an accident that the regime keeps hiring thugs to provoke violence in anti-gov demonstrations, in order to be able to say exactly these things about the opposition...

Sure, there are no ultranationalists and russophobes in Ukraine and all aggression from protesters side is a regime conspiracy. Ukrainians just love Russians as it's perfectly clear from internet discussions

 

[Tahuti]

Well, yes. I foresee (all right, hope for) a proper institutional struggle within the EU. We already have some hints from the EP that they won't allow the member states to screw them over the EC appointments when the Barroso commission leaves office.

It would be naive to think that the member states will surrender influence voluntarily. EU insitutions simply need to get more assertive and try to seize as much clout as they can. It requires strong-willed people at the helm, which I am not sure applies to Baroness Ashton.

With some proper foreign policy coordination, EU should be able to effectively transform its economic power into diplomatic influence.

In the light of the recent debt crisis, the EU is primarily seen as a vehicle to promote the interests of Germany. And in some ways, this view is justified. I wouldn't be surprised if the drive towards Federalisation would be spearheaded by the very countries that resent Germany's influence, including even the UK. Of course, the other possibility would be a common rival outside the EU, including either the USA or Russia, naturally.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

That is not the preferred nomeclature.

I guess it's not but I prefer to call things what they are. There is a problem with ghetto culture in ethnic gypsy communities in Bulgaria, a quite serious one. No intent to use neither "uneducated", nor "gypsy" in a derogatory way.

Sure, there are no ultranationalists and russophobes in Ukraine and all aggression from protesters side is a regime conspiracy. Ukrainians just love Russians as it's perfectly clear from internet discussions

Because internet discussions are a good, proportional sample of the general feelings of the population, and not a place for the people with most vocal opinions to brag about their hatred. Sure.

 

[Traitorfish]

They are themselves derogatory words. If you don't intend to be derogatory, don't use them.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

They are themselves derogatory words. If you don't intend to be derogatory, don't use them.

I do fail to see how "gypsy" is derogatory. It relates to an ethnic group, the same way as Basque or Armenian does. For me, "People of Romani origin" sounds absurd, pretentious, and most importantly - insulting in the same way African-American (he's black, dude; he probably has never been to Africa, nor has his mother or father, nor had his grandparents before). Or as if somebody calls Russians "Euro-mongols" or South Africans "Afro-Dutch".

 

[Tahuti]

For me, "People of Romani origin" sounds absurd, pretentious, and most importantly - insulting in the same way African-American does, or as if somebody calls Russians "Euro-mongols".

Not all "gypsies" are Roma. Some are Sinti. I'm sure there are countless of other "Gypsy" groups. It is considered considered offensive because it lumps together several ethnic groups. But I guess Greeks, Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians can be collectively referred as "Balkanic" people.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

Not all "gypsies" are Roma. Some are Sinti. I'm sure there are countless of other "Gypsy" groups. It is considered considered offensive because it lumps together several ethnic groups. But I guess Greeks, Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians can be collectively referred as "Balkanic" people.

Indeed. I fail to see how it is offensive just because it's a collective term for several ethnic groups with similar culture. Should a German person be offended if I refer to him as "German", and not "Bavarian" or "Prussian"?

EDIT: Anyway, that was a wee thread hijack. Back on topic; if you wish, we can start a "political correctness related to ethnic naming conventions" discussion thread. As a Bulgarian I sure have a lot to add, especially on the N word (which was the non-offensive way to call a black person in Bulgarian until the strong English influence of the late '90s - present day happened).

 

[red_elk]

Because internet discussions are a good, proportional sample of the general feelings of the population, and not a place for the people with most vocal opinions to brag about their hatred. Sure.

It has nothing to do with proportional sample and general feeling of the population. It's about general feelings of those who went to protest.
Just wondering, do you also think the people who attacked police were provocators hired by regime? And it's absolutely impossible that from ~100.000 of protesters occurred a few hundreds aggressive ones who started fights?

 

[AvalancheMaster]

It has nothing to do with proportional sample and general feeling of the population. It's about general feelings of those who went to protest.
Just wondering, do you also think the people who attacked police were provocators hired by regime? And it's absolutely impossible that from ~100.000 of protesters occurred a few hundreds aggressive ones who started fights?

No, I don't think that they were provocateurs. I, myself, would've attacked the police. After all, they are a bunch of government employees who are paid with our tax money to enforce law, yet the government uses them as mercenaries to shield them from "public's approval". We were talking about ultranationalists; I don't believe all of them are provocateurs, but certainly there's a bunch that is paid by government lobbyists, as proved by several journalist reports this summer in Bulgaria.

 

[Traitorfish]

I do fail to see how "gypsy" is derogatory. It relates to an ethnic group, the same way as Basque or Armenian does. For me, "People of Romani origin" sounds absurd, pretentious, and most importantly - insulting in the same way African-American (he's black, dude; he probably has never been to Africa, nor has his mother or father, nor had his grandparents before). Or as if somebody calls Russians "Euro-mongols" or South Africans "Afro-Dutch".

What do the Romani themselves feel about this? In Britain, they've have made it known that they considered "gypsy" derogatory and would prefer to be referred to as "Romani", or where appropriate as "Romanichal", "Roma" and "Kale", referring to the native, Eastern European and Hispano-Welsh populations, respectively. Who am I to declare this "pretentious", and insist upon the use of a term considered by its referents to be derogatory?

I wouldn't much appreciate it if somebody insisted on referring to me, rather than by the preferred term "Irish-Scots", by the rather less considerate term "dirty great Taig"; should I not extend the same courtesy to others?

 

[Borachio]

Indeed. I fail to see how it is offensive just because it's a collective term for several ethnic groups with similar culture. Should a German person be offended if I refer to him as "German", and not "Bavarian" or "Prussian"?

EDIT: Anyway, that was a wee thread hijack. Back on topic; if you wish, we can start a "political correctness related to ethnic naming conventions" discussion thread. As a Bulgarian I sure have a lot to add, especially on the N word (which was the non-offensive way to call a black person in Bulgarian until the strong English influence of the late '90s - present day happened).

I'm very much afraid that the g word is considered as offensive as the n word. It's just the way it is.

If you wish to deliberately offend people, then you should indeed continue to use them.

And just for your information calling a German a Kraut, or a French person a Frog, might well be considered offensive.

I don't mean to be difficult, but words do have what is called a "register". Some words are simply offensive in some languages, and every user of a language has to simply learn what the various registers are. (I'm sure it's exactly the same in Bulgarian.) But generally speaking, these matters are not simple.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

I'm very much afraid that the g word is considered as offensive as the n word. It's just the way it is.

If you wish to deliberately offend people, then you should indeed continue to use them.

And just for your information calling a German a Kraut, or a French person a Frog, might well be considered offensive.

I don't mean to be difficult, but words do have what is called a "register". Some words are simply offensive in some languages, and every user of a language has to simply learn what the various registers are. (I'm sure it's exactly the same in Bulgarian.) But generally speaking, these matters are not simple.

Ok, guys, if you wanna continue with this topic, we can start a new thread?

 

[Traitorfish]

Might be worth having a mod split it, yeah, because it's a worthwhile discussion to have on its own.

 

[Souron]

While Yeltsin was still a kleptomaniac, under him, Russia did came as close to liberal democracy as it could get.

Yeltsin promised change and prosperity and fell short. My point was not to critique Yeltsin, but to point out his role in Russian disillusionment.

It will not be a panacea. But the best way to bring down authoritarian and prevent them from coming back is to deprive wannabe dictators of sources of money they can pay their cronies with in exchange for repressing the populace. In Russia, oil and gas is a major part of it. In African countries, it may be development aid. In Pinochet's Chile and Mubarak's Egypt, it may be US military aid.

Perhaps you are right. I am not optimistic about such a strategy, myself.

 

[Winner]

It's not untrue that Ukranian politics is increasingly broken down along Europhile vs. Russophile lines. Even the Ukranian ultranationalists, who aren't particularly pro-Europe, are still heavily defined by their Russophobia.

Sure, there are no ultranationalists and russophobes in Ukraine and all aggression from protesters side is a regime conspiracy. Ukrainians just love Russians as it's perfectly clear from internet discussions

And Russia has its share of violent Russia-über-alles racists as well. Your point is what, exactly?

Because my point is that the regime (both Yanukovych's and Putin's) likes to exaggerate and overblow the role of the ultranationalists and use them to discredit any opposition against their crony kleptocracy. It's a classic scare tactics designed to drive the Russian-speaking part of Ukraine away from pro-democracy, pro-European course.

In the light of the recent debt crisis, the EU is primarily seen as a vehicle to promote the interests of Germany. And in some ways, this view is justified. I wouldn't be surprised if the drive towards Federalisation would be spearheaded by the very countries that resent Germany's influence, including even the UK. Of course, the other possibility would be a common rival outside the EU, including either the USA or Russia, naturally.

UK is set to leave the EU, either as a whole, or just England, depending on the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Unless the English politicians man up and start tacking the virulent europhobia that's prevalent on the island, they're about to become a non-entity with zero influence on European politics.

As for Germany, a lot depended on the local election and now on the outcome of their coalition talks. We'll see. What I am saying is that the European institutions should play a more pro-active role and interpret their powers rather liberally. Politics is made by people, not treaties.

 

[red_elk]

And Russia has its share of violent Russia-über-alles racists as well. Your point is what, exactly?

My point is clearly expressed in my message (quoted at the top of this page). That the most vocal and aggressive part of protesters are nationalists, that they discredit the movement and that it's understandable that the Russian people don't want to associate with them.
Not sure what you mean by your Russia-is-lynching-negroes-too statement. Yes, if so-called liberal opposition leaders want to ally themselves with the guys carrying swastika and killing immigrants, they should not be surprised if this tactics backfire.

 

[Tahuti]

UK is set to leave the EU, either as a whole, or just England, depending on the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Unless the English politicians man up and start tacking the virulent europhobia that's prevalent on the island, they're about to become a non-entity with zero influence on European politics.

Nothing is ever set. There can always be a major event that turns the tide. Or there can be a major black swan event that strengthens an already appearant trend. Indeed, Cameron promised his Euro referendum - which would lead to a landslide defeat of continued EU membership - but that may never happen. He could recant his promise or be defeated by Labour in the next elections.

Besides, should Scotland vote for independence, it may very well lead to a British 180 turn on Europe. One in favour of continued British EU membership.

 

[Yeekim]

While Yeltsin was still a kleptomaniac, under him, Russia did came as close to liberal democracy as it could get.

...probably because he, unfortunately, largely discredited "liberal democracy" in Russia for decades to come...
And the West shares certain responsibility for letting him get away with it.

That the most vocal and aggressive part of protesters are ultranationalists, that they discredit the movement and

With my addition in bold, isn't this true almost by definition?
Anyway, they may be most vocal and aggressive, but are they also significant in the way of numbers?