Gilberto, I gotta ask, you say you're a Croat without much Salvic origin, correct? Do you spend so much time in the Italian forums because you might possibly be of Italian origin in Istria/Dalmatia, or just really really like calcio?
Croats were also victims in Yugoslavi All ethnic groups left homes in these parts, or what Croatia is today, with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The problem for Croats started when Italy started to lose, in 1943. After that confusion started to happen. Some tried to switch sides and be on the winning side. Many Croats remained consistent and left these parts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_repatriations All sides used double standards and sneaky politics. Croats who allied with Italy, didn't like the fact, when they saw that Italy collaborates with Serbian Chetniks, same as with Croats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetniks Photos of Pirzio Biroli with them, Momcilo Djujic even escaped through Italy in USA. Dobroslav Jevdevic with Italians in 1943, Chetniks and Italians in Jablanica, Herzegovina, 1943. Croatian Ustase started to do the same with Chetniks, forced conversations. Slovenes were always on leftist side, since 1990. I don't know for any leftist defeat on elections. Croats tried to break up Yugoslavia since 1960's with attacks on Yugoslav institutions abroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Revolutionary_Brotherhood Croatian Spring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Spring But it all failed. Yugoslavia was a target of Croats before WII, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_I_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velebit_uprising When Yugoslav option won after WWII, it meant to resolve all enemies of Yugoslavia, all collaborators. Everyone lost someone after WWII. The system was too strong. Yugoslavs used the fact that Italians opened concentration camps for Croats and Slovenes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_concentration_camp When Croatia became independent in 90's, they inherited the territory that was made by Yugoslavs, without Croatian desires in WWII. Croatian name was in decline, to provide advantages for Yugoslavia. That's why democracy seems as the nicest systems, so that people can decide where do they want to join. All these WWII options collapsed, because they were not consistent, often with two sided policy, often not sincere. Italian collaboration with Chetniks was understood as wrong in the eyes of those who fought for Croatia and those who fought for Yugoslavia. But it was an tactics. Support two sides, so that these two sides remove third side. Yugoslavia also used this argument against Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istria#/media/File:Fascist_italianization.jpg During WWII and after were many treason events. If someone wants to win, they must use clean and sincere politics, without going under the radar. This happened among the same ethnic groups, just because someone was leftist and other side was rightist. Majority of people lost lives there, because of conflicts inside one ethnic groups. Leader of Chetniks was eliminated because of leftist Serbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draža_Mihailović The fact how he ended was an motivating act for Serbs in wars in 1990's.
People of southern regions Dalmatia, Herzegovina usually don't have Slavic origins, or sentiment, or Pan-Slavic ideas. Istria and Bosnia have stronger Slavic elements. Much lighter, often with blonde hair, lighter shades of eyes. My ancestors were slavicized gradually, but it wasn't something made by force, since we are all aware of this fact.Those territories needed unification against Ottoman Empire, so people felt that they fought for the same cause, liberation against Ottoman Empire. Slavs are different from us. They used glorified rhetoric, the usual stuff about greatness. Northern Croats have that element. This is visible in sports: Robert Jarni, Robert Prosinecki - much lighter that people in South. South also has lighter people, like Dario Simic, Alen Boksic, but it's not some rule. Brother of Dario Simic is much more darker. http://arhiva.dalje.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2008/m10/x178184014491373723_8.jpg People without Slavic origins are usually of Romance speaking people, either Latin language, or Vulgar Latin, it depends which part, how high was the percent of literacy. Even my parents remember the church service which was spoken in Latin language. Bosnian Muslims and Serbs provoked such communities with name like: Latini. If someone lived in Sarajevo, this quarter would get the name Latinluk: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinluk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Bridge Slavs live mostly above Velebit Mountain, even there exists some mixture. Also many people left southern regions and went in north, because of the land. Tourism was not active in 18th, 19th century. There are people born in North with roots from South. Calcio was much more interesting in 90's, today I watch because of the old habit. Before we had six strong clubs, now 1,2.
Wars are fought for economic reasons but crystallise around ethnic and religious differences. If governments/rulers can provide a prosperous economic environment for their people/subjects then ethnic tensions dissolve away.....
Poland and Lithuania had wars, they belong to the same religion, just like conflicts between Ukraine - Romania, Ukraine - Russia. Scandinavian countries belong to the same religion, but they had wars. Religious wars happened mostly in France (Huguenots), England - Ireland (even though they belonged to the same religion earlier, before anglicanism), Germany had religious wars, other European countries had wars against Ottoman Empire (religious, territorial). Rulers were often betrayed from their own associates, close ones. Observe these rulers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doges_of_Venice These words repeated often: deposed, blinded, exiled, killed. Giuseppe Garibaldi was included in wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi He changed 4 politikal parties, obviously he couldn't develop his desires easy. Young Italy (1831–48) Action Party (1848–67) Historical Left (1867–77) Extreme Left (1877–82) Usually, unifications happen with right wing parties. This was unusual to achieve with left parties. War against Papal States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome You think that Vatican likes the reduced contemporary territory? But they can get what they want anyway. Why would someone, who is Roman Catholic attack Papal States? Territory. After that, he will make longer confession and everything is forgiven. Crusade wars motivated people who had peccato, personal mistakes. If they join, everything becomes forgiven. Inno al Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inno_al_Re Anthem of Two Sicilies, where king Ferdinand was promoted. Spanish - Saxon heritage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_I_of_the_Two_Sicilies So, when we join in that time, things were much different than in XX. century. The intention of all specific kingdoms, duchies, republics, realms was their own interest, until their rulers were defeated with the foundation of new government. Who would anyone abdicate with his own will, destroy his own power, unless if he isn't under some threat. That's why, it's irrational when we transfer today's situation, borders, personality cults in centuries before XX. Why would Grand Duke Leopold II leave the throne? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II,_Grand_Duke_of_Tuscany He was the last Duke in Grand Duchy of Tuscany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Tuscany ...because they lost, Leopold was also Roman Catholic, today he would probably support Fiorentina, but he worked for the interests of Habsburg Tuscany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italian_War_of_Independence Battle of Milazzo demonstrates the conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milazzo_(1860) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandage_in_Southern_Italy_after_1861 In one of the posts, I saw that Garibaldi was accepted in peace. All unifications in Europe had conflicts, conflicts were gradually small or large, depending on how strong opponent was. Too many of romantic versi about the conflicts in Europe. The fact is that many people liked to keep their priviliges and rulling status, without abdication through peaceful methods. So, they attracted the people of their own times, seducing them for their own interests. Even today, we can order people, what to do. If someone says to someone: Carry the egg in the spoon through several streets, for 1 hour, he will do it, just because money reward is mentioned. Also, people are ready to wait 2-3 days in line for the new smartphone, they accept to join in reality shows to perform different emotional breakdowns. If someone has mentally convincing story, he can attract people for his own purpose. Majority of people are just listeners, who obey some bigger subject, who are not independent and free in sense of personal freedom and free will. But people like to say that people today are free. They are mostly dependable. If some convincing, individual subject wants to create wars, people would join and they would fight without any reason for someone. Contemporary city mayors, prime ministers can achieve easy victories in every elections, as long as they provide jobs in state, city service. That's how they collect votes. Contemporary dukes, kings, only much more often without patrician heritage. People are mostly like chess figures, marionettes, who switch sides if they see the threat or if they see that their ruler, lord became weaker....
Ghana, Cameroon and Algeria bring in players from abroad that are of the same ethnicity. You can include Morocco as well. Zidane could have chosen Algeria, Ozil Turkey, Balotelli Ghana. Just as Rossi chose Italy. None of them should be considered imports. I stand by my original statement that there is not much diversity on African teams.
You say that, then go on to write numerous essays on here trying to prove the uniqueness of your own culture and people. Thank you @Calcio Pauly for exposing the hypocrisy of this man. Very well done.
He's ethnically Ghanian but culturally Italian. Just like you are ethnically Italian and culturally Australian. You can change and adopt cultures but you can never change your ethnicity.
From wiki: An ethnic group, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation. Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Based on that definition Balotelli is more ethnically Italian than me and I'd assume you. I was raised by two people who spent their entire childhoods in Italy, I was raised my entire life in Australia. Balo was raised from 3yo by two people who spent their entire lives in Italy. He was born in Italy and raised virtually as an Italian his entire life.
There are no unique cultures, I mentioned that all modern countries were created through conflicts, conspiracies. Croatia is the same case, where have you seen in my words, that Croatia was created with friendly gestures. At first, they started Illyrian Movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement There were no reactions at all. After that, Ljudevit Gay (non-Croat) created the other movement, called: Croatian People's Movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ljudevit_Gaj Basically, majority of creators of this movement had non-Croat, or partial Croatian origins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavao_Ritter_Vitezović https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Juraj_Strossmayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanko_Vraz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juraj_Šporer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavao_Štoos The same "cape", or spider net of unification was made in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Istria, Dalmatia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juraj_Dobrila https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_Baštijan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matko_Laginja https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vjekoslav_Spinčić https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Kumičić https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Cukon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Franjo_Jukić https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grgo_Martić So, where is the hipocrisy, if all unifications happened with the same pattern: journalists, priests, historians were unified because of their own interests, they could not get what they wanted in other societies: Austro-Hungary, so they established their own society, where they could become prominent. In 1914. Croats sang the national anthem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_erhalte_Franz_den_Kaiser Emperor Franz (Austrian). In 1945. anthem was called Hey Slavs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey,_Slavs In 1990, the anthem was the song of Antun Mihanovic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijepa_naša_domovino Just like when Two Sicilies sang the anthem dedicated to Ferdinand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inno_al_Re 20 years later: Fratelli d'Italia. So, grandfather sang one anthem, father other and the son sang the third anthem. Very natural. So, one person can sing one anthem when he is in his 20's and he can sing other anthem when he is in his 30's, 40's. Napoleon made Republic of Venice weaker. Republic of Ragusa started to collapse. Ottoman Empire became defeated, Hungary got weaker, other ethnic groups had doubts for Austria. New space opened, for unification, nothing special, nothing natural. Provide slavicisation for them, de-germanize these ones, prevent hungarisation. They didn't came with gelato for the people and made a small talks. This was propaganda process through books, journals. I don't know, what is so special and unique in here. When I talk about history, I want to see how things happen in 10th, 15th, 20th century. I never said that this sentiment of 20th century could be placed on all centuries prior to 20th century. If you think, that unifications of modern states carried only romantic ideas, something noble with a lot of grace and pride, that's your opinion. If we can see wars, brainwashing texts during the process of unifications, things weren't so natural. Why would any family which had status nobilis would abdicate, resign, give the advantage to someone else, either to other families, or new state establishment? My ancestors and those families were noble families. Majority of these posts are out of personal experience. Today I must work eight hours per day, in 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, others worked for us/them. Now you see the nice irony. Personally, I like that period, more relaxing, without clock ringing at 7AM. Possessions remained, but it wasn't like before. Or, we can say like this with usual human weakness: I'm jelous, because some new people, without patrician heritage don't suffer with clock ringing at 7AM. When Republic of Venice started to lose power, they could take all noble families in their chariots and bring them in city of Venezia, what is today. Proof that state systems don't care much about the people. People only serve for the upcoming census, where people could be used for some benefits which people don't get. When we observe time intervals of Eastern Adriatic, it was like this: God protect Republic of Venice, after that God protect Emperor Franz, after that God protect king Alexander of Yugoslavia, after that WWII admirations for certain figures, after that Yugoslav admiration, after that Croatia admiration. So many "natural" events. The same happened in other soils, only with different names. Some people accept that it wasn't natural, some people rather use consolation and embrace the romantic dreams. I rather accept the time chronology instead of fragments taken from 20th century and placing them in 18th, 17th, etc. century. All logical patterns confirm that unifications were not natural. To make a new state, at first you need a person or an entire establishment to make a good rhetoric, convincing public speeches. If that doesn't work, you need 100 000 of soldiers, who accepted good rhetoric. After that they take bayonets, fucile, knives and start to promote the ideas. These elements seem much more convincing than literature and public speeches. In previous centuries, outlaws, hajduk were considered as something romantic. Today, they would be in prison, because of their crime, smuggling and hijacking. Even this was understood differently. I only try to be realistic without the atmosphere and passion. Balkan countries placed their 19th century conflicts in 20th century, just because they fought against Ottoman Empire for 500 years and this exhausted them through various intervals. In that periods, Protestant ideas started to happen in northern Croatia, but it was all removed, often with convincing and energy of Roman Catholics. This person wanted to implement Lutheran religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Flacius When someone becomes weaker, others notice this and start their own campaign. If you have time, you can find at least one natural unification in contemporary Europe. Without the conflicts, without journals, without priests, prominent figures who wanted to create the new establishment. In 22nd century, maybe we will have new establishments, states, or fragments created of modern regions, states instead of these modern states. The next generations will worship some other leaders, just like before. Who could predict the new name the North Macedonia and North-Macedonian language? Who could predict the Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) nation in 1989. year. Southern Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, Gibraltar, Kosovo...all newer states/ideas. Systems that rather accept differences instead of observation of similarities, something what Pauly mentioned few times.
Ghanian through origins, Italian through birth and he is between the cultures (Ghanian, Sicilian-Italian). Was he regionally Sicilian, since this is a strong choice for the people of Sicily? Hard to answer. Also, we need to see the relations in Ghana, when was Ghana name established, probably numerous different tribes were placed in Ghana system. From our European perspective, we rather consider them as similar/same. Australian culture is much more English, just like Canadian, New Zealand. If other ethnic groups arrive in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, they carry their own cultures, especially if they have Mediterranean heritage. I heard there many times: "They are the real Aussies, the English people". Maybe fourth, fifth, sixth generations embrace Australian culture at full extent, but 1st, 2nd, 3rd still have strong nostalgia sentiment. When they arrive back home, in Europe they feel that they were cropped in that time, 50's. 60's. So, they have difficulties in Europe when they want to charge their mobile phone, even charging adapters are different in Australia. That's the first thing that you buy in Australia. The greatness of Australia is that they don't pressure you that you leave your own culture, but ethnic football clubs vanished gradually. Maybe in public, they allow ethnic affiliations, but ethnic clubs are not suitable, because they gather thousands of people.
when are you going to write your series on the Roman Empire. A lot of these "nationalists" are under the misapprehension that the peoples of the city of Rome were homogenous for most of its history.
if you take a child at birth and you raise them in a completely different culture/setting to their birth parents what is their ethnicity? I interpret ethnicity as based on upbringing and see race based on genetic lineage.
Roman Empire was a golden age of European prosperity. But, it also had wars, conflicts. After Theodosius I. died, Roman Empire was divided. Matter of personal interests. This is in human nature, genes for survival, removal of powerful entities, creation of new cultures. I don't think that they are nationalists, they just like easier road of opinions, emotions. Nationalists don't exist for real. If anyone leaves his own state, this means that you are in pursuit of better life, out of people's homelands. Nationalists would be convinced in staying and suffering, no matter what happens: - Phylloxera, plague, cholera, measles, ebola, wars... That's why there are no nationalists, unless if someone wants to live in such environment. All people seek the safety, peace, economic development, health insurance, good schools, universities with reputation. The real and authentic nationalists remain and never leave. Imagine this scenario: If you are a nationalist and if you end in a new country, example Australia. If you experience their nationalism against you, newly settled person, you will instantly became democratic and make charges, because your human rights were sadly undermined. Nationalists of all country demand cultural, ethnic purity in their own countries. Despite that, people migrate and establish themselves in new countries. Two nationalists can't be friends, if they have different ethnic heritage in one state. They can be only virtual friends, through social networks. Two French nationalists can be friends in France, England, but they can't live in England and gain trust from English nationalists. Nationalists promote 100% of ethnic purity. With all those old civilisations, we can't be with 100% purity.
lol you are going to upset a lot people with this post your point about the most passionate so-called nationalists living in multicultural societies is spot-on
Yes, but other more dominant culture notices this person as different. If one couple comes from Greece in Melbourne, example Ioannis and Despina. They get a child in Melbourne, he learns English, with his parents, but it's not that real English-Aussie style. When he comes at school, his Mediterranean appearance becomes evident and more dominant culture notices this. Publicly, they won't mention it. Privately, they will notice this. Because, new settler doesn't visit horse racing events in Flemington, Victoria, or in Sydney. New settlers live in suburbs, like Llandilo, Sydney or Sunshine, Melbourne. New settlers rather live in Carlton quarter in Melbourne. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-melbourne/melbourne-profile/suburbs/Pages/carlton.aspx At first, new settlers live isolated in Australia. First generations still have problems with English, I mean on all ethnic groups. If you take a child from Cameroon, if Australian-English couple adopts him and if he becomes educated only with Australian-English lifestyle. When he arrives at horse racing events in his adolescent age, all other Australian-English people will notice, that he is different. Even if he is named as: Jonathan Steven Radcliffe. Even if someone is educated fully in new country, dominant culture can notice, that he is different through appearance.
treating someone differently on the basis of their genetic traits is .......... racist If little Timmy acts just like everyone else his skin colour shouldn't matter.
I won't upset anyone, they all have enough of wisdom to clarify this. All these cities were created with domination of one culture at first: Melbourne, Sydney, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver. They developed this cities and attracted people of new cultures. Melbourne has around maybe 150 ethnic groups, but differences are made: the real Australian = English. And if they have nationalists, any other nationalist isn't wanted at all. Even if he talks constantly about purity and protection of national interests. If any nationalist doesn't want to work 100% at his working place in his birth state, than he isn't a nationalist. Nationalists would give everything for their country. I don't give 100% at working place, lets say 97%. But there are people who give 43%, 17% at their working place. If bar owner who is an nationalist places water in his whisky, so that he could serve the whisky to his customers, he can't be nationalist. If one Ioannis, who is an nationalist arrives in Australia, and if he meets Australian-English nationalists Jonathan, or Grady he doesn't have much chances to elaborate his views. Same goes, if Jonathan and Grady notice nationalists with names: Igor, Boris, Jean-Luc, Juan Francisco, Liam O'Gallagher, in Australia, UK, New Zealand, they won't have common topics. The real and authentic nationalists should return back home and share entire destiny of the people with themselves. Many people say: "Australia is a young country, nothing existed before 1850 year". OK, but leave from Australia and find older culture. If one country accepts 150 ethnic groups, this means, that this state (Australia) provides perfect conditions. I rather observe the quality of one system, instead of flags, songs, journals. If I can't live normally in one state, why would I stay there if something brings only desperation, tears and poverty. Nationalists can exist maybe in states where everything works fine, but they need migrants who would work in low paid industries, so that this state becomes great. I wonder would nationalists rather work in heavy metal industry or would they rather be supervisors of those heavy metal workers? I'm more talented for supervising assignments. Sincerely, I never had talent for physical jobs. The ancestors of nationalists needed to come from other countries, cultures before 100, 200, 500, 1000 years. The lineage of alleged purity demands much more centuries in one soil, community. That's why nationalists in all wars can't find the grain of wisdom and prevent these wars. War is an event where people who don't know each other end in wars. But their leaders know each other very well.
Yes, cultures do like that. If Timmy acts like all others, the democrats will accept him as their own, but sincere democrats. But 20% of nationalists won't accept him, even if he makes everything as they make. If I end in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, my Mediterranean appearance would be evident for all of them. Democrats will accept me, but nationalists would say: "Look at this tanned one, why is he here, he is taking our jobs". Even if I work some low paid job in one shipyard, they will still think that I steal the job greatness. I noticed this personally, during my shopping times abroad, workers in the stores often ask me: Where are you from? Majority of these workers also came from other countries, because it's not so highly paid job. When I say from where I came, usually they accept me, because they consider Mediterranean as something nice, relaxing, exotic. They think it would be nice to have a vacation there. Probably, some have hostile sentiments towards me, but it's nothing major. In majority of cases, people are democrats, or they don't care at all, just trying to survive the day at work. You mentioned Roman Empire. People were divided on citizens and on slaves. Everyone had the interest to become free and move up in the Roman society. Rome brought many slaves for the citizens which would serve them daily. Gladiators were brought from some other parts of Roman Empire to amuse the local citizens. Someone who was free, with Roman upper-class life, why would he fought against the beasts in the arena? It makes no sense. If we want to discuss about Roman Empire, we need to use the time machine and end in those centuries, before, after the Christ. If we place sentiments of 20th, 19th century in 1st, 2nd century, we won't have any progress. All territories were complicated to conquer: Hispania, lands of Gauls, Germania, Picts, Illyria, Hellenic lands....especially in Africa, Asia...
I come back to my original point that most disgruntled nationalists are essentially disillusioned because of economic disadvantage or perhaps because they don't quite fit into the social fabric. These knuckleheads react differently when they are in close proximity to "inferior" races, even to the point that they identify common interests and develop friendships and genuine affection for the "other". People however need the opportunity to collabarate whether it be in the workplace or in communal settings. The real divide is a class one, rich v poor and you and I share more in common with ordinary people regardless of background. Focusing on cultural/ethnic and racial is classic "divide and conquer" tactics from the ruling classes to make us forget our common interests so that we don't buck the system.
If we all visit Thailand, Chad, Laos, Djibouti or any similar state, we would be all inferior there, all Europeans. Nothing unusual. But I accept that, I try to behave normally when I visit foreign countries. One funny example. When I was in Melbourne, I walked a lot, I ended in China Town, quarter close to the Federation Square. I ended in less commercial streets and I noticed that people started to observe me. No one said anything, but it was evident that I am not a Chinese person. After that I ended in Myer, shopping place, far from observations. In Australia you can't see Aboriginal people in down town of Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, etc. in their own clothes (kangaroo fur), painted faces, bodies as something urban. I could saw them as music players, didgeridoo, that's how they earn money. But if you walk on the streets, you won't see them often. Many of them mixed with Europeans, so people don't notice them so often. Because they think, they are European. There are many things in Australia that remind on England, or UK. Victoria Market, plenty of monuments, their royalty members on horses, exhibition hall names... Nationalists need to have 100% ethnic or racial purity if they want to have any sense of logical understanding. In ex-Yugoslavia, people of mixed ethnicities became extremely nationalistic. Drazen Petrovic - took Croatian side strongly. Stojko Vrankovic - took Croatian side strongly. Sinisa Mihajlovic - took Serbian side strongly. He named his house in Italy as Serbia. Who names his house? He talked about the Serbian greatness, nation, Serbian race, but his mother is Croatian and his Serbian father has Romani (Gypsy) origins. This was unknown among Lazio fans. He made apologies to Croatia, saying that it's his own country also. Mihajlovic had one press conference and one mobile phone, which recorded his words had the anthem of Hajduk Split. Observe his reaction. The song title is: Dalmatia, my flourished rose. At the end he said: "Dobra pesma", "Good song". But he would rather be anywhere else. Because he knew that Serbian nationalists will see this video. He should smack the phone, or throw somewhere to be accepted more. He forced players that they sing Serbian anthem while he coached Serbia. They could just say: "Why, you are not 100% Serb also, maybe 30%". Dino Radja, who is an Croat, started to change his view and behaves as much more as Yugoslav. Vlade Divac, who is an Serb, took Serbian side very strong. Robert Prosinecki - took Croatian side, but not so strongly, he behaves much more as an Yugoslav. That's why he managed to coach Red Star Belgrade, Bosnia and Herzegovina, but obviously he can't coach any Croatian club. He was a part of headquarters of Slaven Bilic. Montenegro was also divided. Predrag Mijatovic took Serbian side. Dejan Savicevic took Montenegrin side, even he has Romani (Gypsy) origins. Zlatan Ibrahimovic is much more Yugoslav. Croats want him because he is Roman Catholic. Bosnian Muslims want him, because of his father and surname Ibrahim. He also has Arbanasi (Albanians of Zadar who came before 300 years in Zadar) and Romani origins. That's why nationalism is silly, they end in slippery slopes just because of some songs. In many countries (users of this thread), we would be all inferior, if we would end there. In Montreal, we need to learn French, in Toronto we need to embrace English culture and influence, same as in Australia, New Zealand. In Egypt, we need to accept Arab culture and become inferior with our own cultures. Today, we observe pyramids of Egypt as something majestic, but people who made these mega-structures were slaves who worked for their lords and pharaoh figures. Today, Arabs of Egypt try to embrace this part of Egyptian past to get more history. If we end in countries, where alcohol is forbidden, I doubt that any nationalist would have beer and walk around. It's all about balancing and subordination. If we end in African countries, we need to respect their system, even if it's different and often strange from our European. But we need to protect ourselves and live with low profile where we need. As descendants of our ancestors, we can be grateful that we exist today, our ancestors survived so many things. The strongest specie members survive at the end. It's all about survival, mix and mingle to resist, to protect your life. In the last 2000 years, our ancestors worshipped so many figures, systems, countries, kingdoms, realms, duchies, republics, ended in wars for them if they judged that that they are in threat or danger. All normal and rational people act as sunflowers, they transfer the focus for their own interests, otherwise there is no survival. Vlach people of Balkan Peninsula were placed in today's modern countries/ethnicities, because they were not organized and they were spread around in mountains. Some say that they were not aware that Roman Empire collapsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs Morlachs also ended in contemporary nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlachs Examples of Morlachs: Zvonimir Boban, Davor Suker, Dario Simic, Ante Rebic, Sime Vrsaljko and many, many others. As you can see Roman Empire left them, so that they end in conflicts with Slavs, Ottomans, Avars and others after. Ancestors of Vlachs SPQR flags, but in 5th century they were forgotten and still are, because we don't see them in census. But they exist as an gene, hundreds of thousands. If footballers are so patriotic, why do they open betting places, casinos in their countries. Or they participate with certain percent of ownership. Aren't these institutions something that brings sadness to the people, leaves them without money? They won't open health institutions, educational institutions, playgrounds for the children, like they always say: We play for the fans, children and their joy and smiles. Addiction in betting and casino's are huge social problem. If they open something nice, it's again through people donation or they buy their tickets where they promote the project. Today, no one wants Vlachs, because they ended as shepherds, semi-nomadic people of Dinaric mountains. They made cheese, butter for coastal noble families. They are also Nigri Latini. Their territories were less attractive, Dalmatian hinterland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro...their occupation was less attractive, their homes were shepherd cottages in mountains. Key proof that rulers only care about the better territory, more exclusive residential cities and places. No one wants to sleep in a poor hotel close to the gas station, people rather prefer high end places. Basically, only Alberto Fortis cared about Vlach-Morlachs and he investigated their customs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fortis Vlachs remained, but they melted with other contemporary groups. There are much more arguments, how nationalism is obscure and irrational. They adore their own people, I guess. Only if they live in prominent parts. All state systems acted like that. There are no exceptions, the difference was the quantity of conflicts and victims.