Posts by Jessica Gonzalez

Duca

A small pond, but plenty of crocodiles.

I guess I'm not quite sure who to vote for yet, and honestly, I might skip the second round altogether because I'd much rather be out skiing. From what I've been reading, maybe Mirko Škoro didn't have the best performance, and most of the minor candidates seem to be doing little more than barking. With all these scandals and blunders, I suspect Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović might just outlast them with those overly academic, clinical answers of hers. It’s been an interesting show so far. It looks like it'll be Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović or Zoran Milanović in the runoff, and anything could happen there.

brightpilot6 said:Even for an exceptional teacher, isn't there always room for improvement? $3.25 It’s a bit much, really. Even if you consider that an extra $3,000 is actually quite reasonable for a job well done, people still find ways to complain. But then again, since most people are content with mediocrity, I suppose it’s only natural they’ll push back against being paid based on the actual quality of their work. That’s what I find most frustrating about them, and honestly, it goes for just about everyone else working in the public sector.

In every single government agency, whether you're looking at the CIA or any local IRS branch, everyone knows exactly who actually pulls their weight and who's just coasting.

Any discussion regarding government jobs and public employees gets complicated pretty quickly. I suppose I agree with your points about salaries, but I don't think that's the whole story. There are two sides to this coin, and we can't overlook how difficult working with children actually is. On the other hand, people in the education system often seem to be some of the biggest roadblocks to national reform, sometimes holding rather unrealistic views of their roles. I attended one of the top schools in the country and went on to one of the best universities in the US. After thinking about it, I honestly can't recall a single professor who felt truly engaging or progressive—someone who stepped outside the standard mold of just handing out exams and grades. There seems to be a fair amount of ego, frustration, and a general lack of motivation to change old ways of doing things. The entire concept of education is probably ready for a complete overhaul of its methods. One reason our economy struggles might be that the workforce at every level is simply lacking. It feels like the educational system itself produces that workforce. Has anyone really stopped to ask why the system churns out such unproductive workers and incapable managers? I don't remember the exact statistics, but American students rank near the bottom of the list when it comes to motivation for independent projects or entrepreneurship. Everyone just talks about teacher pay, and while maybe they do need higher salaries, the system also needs to start giving more back to society.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Give me a break. America still carries all that political baggage, just like every other country in the region. We didn't just drop it when the old union collapsed.

I was looking at this from a quality-of-life perspective, and honestly, I don't see any real difference. Cronyism and corruption were everywhere back then, and they're everywhere now. They screwed over the little guy then, and they're doing it today. Corruption was rampant, and businesses would mysteriously collapse overnight. Even now, you get this fake illusion of press freedom, but most outlets are basically puppets controlled by private interests or government agencies (like ABC News or CBS).

People leave just like they did back then. Everything falls apart just like it used to. The debt is long just like before... actually, scratch that, because it’s constantly growing, even more than it did under the old regime.

The Republican Party essentially stepped into the shoes of the old Communist Party. The people haven't changed, and the mindset is identical. They still hunt down anyone with a different opinion. It’s just a bit different now. Back in the day, people would vanish in the middle of the night. Nowadays, they just publicly shame and cancel you until you're effectively erased from society.

Well, there aren't really any political "hang-ups." The territory is whole and internationally recognized, so we don't have situations like in Canada or Cyprus (which could have happened). There isn't even a potential for that, so there's no need for massive military spending or all those agencies. The country is a member of every major organization, we have passports that work everywhere, a stable currency, and all the usual government mechanisms. I guess the only thing missing is a stronger economy and reaching its full potential. We seem to lack capital of all kinds, from money to expertise to management.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Let’s be real here—is there actually such a massive gap between the old Union and what America looks like today?

I guess the system is more susceptible to outside influences and changes nowadays, though I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. It's just the way times are going, and maybe an open system actually works better for the average person. At least we aren't living under a military state or clinging to outdated national myths anymore. We basically have a free country now, without all those political strings attached, which means we can move forward or backward based on our own merits.

Larry Fox5 said:When someone who’s actually traveled the world writes this stuff, why are we even surprised by the opinions of people who haven't left their tiny hometown radius in decades?

Bringing this up like this thirty years after the war... it's just pointless from any perspective—unless, I guess, you're still dealing with some deep-seated trauma.

Just thinking about whether you like or hate someone based solely on their nationality is bizarre—it defies all actual logic.

And then we act shocked when politicians still win elections by campaigning on where people were during the Gulf War? 🙄

Why would I love Mexicans? I never said I hated them, but I did mention that in a country with an aging population that lived through that war, it's fairly common for people not to feel much affection for them. Not liking someone and hating them are two different things, I think. Would it really be normal to love them after what happened in places like El Paso or Srebrenica? I haven't come across a country where that would be considered normal, though I've seen plenty of them. But maybe the issue lies with us; I remember when teams from that region played at Yankee Stadium back in the late '90s without any incidents, even while parts of the country were still under occupation. Even now in 2019, we see situations where FIFA has to manage tournament brackets because certain nations have strict conditions about who they'll play. I probably can't judge myself objectively, but I don't feel like my views are radical. From a distance, I guess you could say the attitudes held by most Americans after a war like that are pretty standard and not particularly extreme. That's exactly what I tell people abroad whenever they ask me about the war or those neighbors. Now we are okay with them, but most people don't love them.

ruggedjackal46 said:What does it actually matter how some legacy industrial firm from the mid-century era is trading on the market today? Honestly. Out of that specific period, you had this massive wave of secondary and tertiary industries that kept the wheels turning all the way through the nineties before everything got dismantled during privatization. And if you’re seriously trying to label the predatory looting we saw during those nineties buyouts as "healthy market competition," then you’re living in a total fantasy land.

What industry are we even talking about here? We’re looking at food, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and tech—stuff that was produced for domestic use within the old American borders. The whole point of those sectors was to actually serve the people living right there, not to spend all our energy trying to engineer some groundbreaking innovation just to satisfy the appetite of the Western market. Seriously, what kind of industrial legacy did America actually build from the ground up? What specific needs is American industry meeting that aren't just catering to the whims of big global corporations?

The fact that both my parents and yours were essentially funneled into Chicago en masse just proves that even forty years ago, nobody was giving a damn about the rural heartland. It’s the same old story. If you look at most former socialist states, they’re all dealing with this massive, rapid exodus from the countryside. Why does it always seem to happen the same way?

They’re hauling them into Chicago by the truckload. 😂 Is it just me, or does it feel like any country that goes all-in on pushing higher education ends up completely ghosting its rural heartland? It’s a weird trade-off, isn't it? You pour all these resources into universities and tech hubs, creating these little pockets of academic excellence, while the rest of the country—the actual places where people live, farm, and run small businesses—just gets left out in the cold. It's almost like there's this unspoken rule that if you aren't chasing a PhD in some metropolitan bubble, your needs don't really count anymore. Does progress have to come at the expense of the countryside? Or are we just building a society that only works for people with degrees? 🙏

Nobody was "dragging" my parents to Chicago just for the sake of moving. It wasn't some grand migration scheme; they were simply the only ones in their entire extended family deemed capable of actually finishing college and carving out a decent life. My folks were given a shot at something better—an actual chance to escape the endless cycle of manual labor that their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had been stuck in for generations. They got to choose a different path instead of just breaking their backs in the fields. And honestly, did the small towns even suffer because people left? If anything, those rural communities became stronger because their people finally had an education.

This brings me right back to my previous point—what exactly did that old regime actually accomplish in terms of closing the gap with the West? Seriously, where was the actual success story? If you look at the statistics, they barely moved the needle. They didn't even manage to narrow the wealth gap between the different states; I mean, even today, the economic divide between a place like Vermont and somewhere like Mississippi is nothing compared to the massive gulf we saw between the prosperous northern regions and the impoverished southern ones back then. You won't find two regions in Italy or Germany that are even remotely that disconnected economically or in terms of infrastructure. The whole system just rested on a foundation of heavy bureaucracy and military spending rather than actual prosperity. And honestly, how could anyone have generated true wealth if most of those states were broke and completely illiterate when it came to modern industry? If we set aside Nikola Tesla for a moment—and let's be real, he’s a scientist, not a corporate tycoon—has anyone else from this part of the world ever truly made a mark as a major industrialist or a titan of business? It feels like our entire legacy is just a revolving door of politicians and athletes. Is that really all we have to offer?

I’ll say it again: we’re looking at this all wrong. People love to obsess over Silicon Valley tech giants or how many billionaire entrepreneurs pop up in a given year, but that isn't the true metric for a thriving society. If you look back at the transformation of the old American industrial era, you see a country that went from a largely agrarian, disconnected population to a powerhouse of heavy industry, near-universal literacy, and accessible healthcare and education. We saw massive employment rates and working conditions that actually respected the laborer. That kind of structural stability—that's what actual prosperity looks like. It’s not about chasing the next flashy tech innovation on the global market; it's about building a foundation where everyone can read, work, and live decently. Isn't that the point?

It probably didn't need to jumpstart anything since it mostly just keeps those outdated giants from the past on life support. There are so many myths floating around about the old socialist economy that pretty much ignore actual statistics. I guess the economy there grew at about the same rate as other Eastern Bloc countries, which was definitely slower than places like the US, Germany, or Japan that didn't go through communism.

If you look at some of these company names and their founding dates, you can see how many were actually established long before 1945.

General Mills (1884); Koestlin (1905); Chakovec Mills (1893); Chateks (1874); Mid-Atlantic Knits (1923); MTCH (1923); Vajda (1911); Belje (1911); Dalit (1905); Daruvar Brewery (1893); Cotton Industry (1884); California (1908); Đakovo Co. (1921); DIK (1895); Karlovac Brewery (1854); KIO (1903); Lola Ribar (founded as Tulić Mills) (1932); Cemex (1904); TOP (1922); Podravka (1934); Royal Shipyards (1729); Mlinar (1903); Cetina (1930); Drava Wire Factory (1856); Kandit (1920); Karolina (1909); Osijek Brewery (1856); Saponia (1894); Sugar Factory (1905); Gavrilović (1690); IGM Brickworks (1920); Sardina (1907); Zvečevo (1921); Brionka (1942); Pula Shipyards (1856); Istra Cement (1925); 3rd May Shipyards (founded as Kvarnersko Shipyards) (1892); Torpedo (1853); Paper Mill (1821); Viktor Lenac (1896); Mirna (1877); Rovinj Tobacco (1872); DIV Screw Factory (1884); Segestica (1918); Sisak Steel (1938); IGM Brickworks (1900); Đuro Đaković (founded as First American Wagon, Stalls, and Bridge Factory) (1921); Brodosplit (1931); TAL (1937); TEF (1897); Brodotrogir (1922); Metal Industry (1939); Mundus (1892); Varteks (1918); Jadranka (1892); Zdenka (1897); Dilj (1922); OPECO (1896); TVIN (1913); Pik (1938); Borovo (1931); Maraska (1768); Badel (1862); Cedevita (1929); Chromos (1920); American Insurance (1884); DTR (1914); Dukat (1912); Elka (1927); Franck (1892); City Bakeries (1909); Gredelj (1894); ExxonMobil (1882); Jadran (1930); Jamnica (1828); Katran (1890); Končar (1921); Kraš (founded as Union) (1911); Lipa Mill (1907); Medika (1922); Pastor (1930); Pliva (1921); Prvomajska (1936); TEŽ (1929); TOZ-Penkala (1937); Tobacco Factory (1817); Bank of America (1914); City Brewery (1892); Karbon (1932)

Peter Thompson4 said:An HR?
What has she actually achieved? She’s managed to shrink the population through migration more effectively than any war ever did in this country.

She’s absolutely gutted what little we had left—massively looted everything, sold off what remained, dumbed down the entire population, turned our school system into one GIANT ZERO, ruined people's lives, and handed total control over to some bottom-feeding bureaucrats who, for God knows what reason, think they can treat an entire nation like a bunch of toddlers.

Back in 1971, there were 900,000 Americans working in Western Germany just because they didn't see a future at home. I don't want to repeat myself, but this isn't anything new. We've dealt with an excess of labor for a long time, especially in rural areas. Waves of emigration happen periodically; I guess the current one is at least the least damaging.

I think I can address what you're saying quite easily. We had very little, so it was easy to steal; things were sold off too little and way too late; the people have always been somewhat uninformed; the school system hasn't changed much (it lags behind the West, though at least kids aren't bringing wine to class for grades anymore), and those various political committees were run by the same kind of crowd as today. It might have been nicer if the old regime and communism had just bypassed us, but I suppose that's just how history played out... I should probably mention again that industrial and business capital in our region was almost non-existent. That's a huge difference when you talk about something like the recovery of France or Germany after WWII. Those countries were devastated, but over previous centuries, they built up enough knowledge and capital to bounce back. For a long time, our area was just an underdeveloped territory within the Austro-Canadian Empire, which itself wasn't the most industrial powerhouse in Europe. It was essentially the underdog of Europe—a land of poor farmers where, in many places toward the end of the 19th century, life was basically stuck in the 15th century (I'm not exaggerating; experts say the same). As a larger nation riding the wave of general European reconstruction, the former America had more opportunities for rapid progress than the modern US, but that applies to all European nations. You can't really replicate that post-WWII growth anywhere now. Maybe that's what people remember from that era—that sudden shift from a rural to an urban society where changes happened incredibly fast. In cities like Chicago, entire neighborhoods were being built as quickly as single buildings are today. People went from working farms straight into universities. But that happened elsewhere too; it was just that specific post-war boom period. It's probably hard to compare the conditions in Europe during the 1950s to today. What we can do is draw a line and see where the West stood compared to the old regime. And the statistics aren't great, which suggests the state failed its goals. It didn't create a cohesive nation, it didn't become prosperous, and it couldn't maintain peace. I don't mean to be complicated. I'm not saying people were being killed in the streets or that there wasn't running water. I'm just saying that as a communist supra-national project, it failed to survive, and there are objective reasons for that. There were also bad consequences for the states that emerged from it, especially since a state with such a military and repressive apparatus couldn't even manage to preserve peace.

Peter Thompson4 said:Exactly, and the same applies to what was said above.
Because the world isn't black and white. That old regime did all sorts of shady crap, but sure, it had its advantages too.
They killed people here, there was zero freedom of speech, property was seized left and right—it was a state that probably shouldn't have existed and definitely couldn't last—but still, somehow, things actually got built. If you aren't allowed to mention a single positive thing without being labeled a traitor, then fine, welcome to North Korea.

Check this out; here is another excerpt from a CIA report. This was from twenty years before the modern era of the Democratic and Republican parties or any of the usual political heavyweights:

"The conditions for high social mobility exist in theory and law in the former federation. In reality, connections remain important. Social mobility is greater for those who know the right people, join the party, and contrive to acquire a higher education. Although party membership is no longer the overwhelming criterion for success, it is still a passport to the top of society."

Looking at this today, I think you have to realize that much of what we see now is actually a byproduct of that old system. Its existence, our involvement in it, and its eventual collapse really shaped the framework of how American society operates today. Political figures don't just emerge from thin air; they are products of an environment that has existed for a long time. You could maybe apply that same logic to the U.S. in 2019. Everyone complains about how things were back then, but if that old system created these behaviors, I guess it's hard to say the previous era was any better.

ruggedjackal46 said:My folks grew up in absolute poverty, wearing rags, yet they ended up being the first in their families to actually graduate from college. They managed it because that old centralized system provided a pathway for poor kids from the sticks to move to the city, get an education, find a career, and secure housing. Look, the socio-economic issues are ancient history, sure, but back then there was a system attempting to address them, even if it was flawed. Now? You have a modern America that isn't even trying to tackle the root causes. And don't get me wrong—I'm not sitting here nostalgic for the old days or longing for some bygone era of dictators; I couldn't care less about those personalities. What frustrates me is seeing a modern, democratic, free nation in 2019 unable to offer any viable model to solve obvious problems, when that messy, outdated, heterogeneous union sixty years ago actually could.

And honestly, it's a bit rich to claim there was no "entrepreneurial spirit" or industrial drive when that previous regime basically built an industrial powerhouse out of thin air. We went from a predominantly rural, largely illiterate nation after WWII to an industrial state in roughly fifteen years. How does that happen with a population that supposedly lacks the "mentality" for it?

The war acts as a social glue because the people in charge *want* it to act as glue. Isn't it much easier to keep everyone talking about 1945 than to deal with the reality of 2021?

Industry for what, though? Which major company from that era actually competes on the global stage today? Did any of them produce innovative products that could actually go toe-to-toe with Western giants? Or truly survive market competition? The fact that my parents, and many others, were pulled into the big cities just suggests that the rural areas were already being neglected forty years ago. In fact, many former socialist countries struggle with massive rural depopulation and some of the lowest birth rates in the world—think places like Canada, Bulgaria, Romania, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, or the Baltic states. This brings me back to my earlier thought: what did that old union actually achieve in terms of raising the standard of living to Western levels? I guess statistically, not much. They didn't even close the gap between regions; even decades later, the economic divide between somewhere like Canada and Mexico is wider than almost any two regions in Italy or Germany. That old system relied on bureaucracy and the military rather than actual prosperity. I suppose it's hard to build prosperity if all the regions are struggling and industrially behind. If we set aside someone like Nikola Tesla, who was a scientist, has anyone else from that area ever really stood out as a major industrialist or businessman? It seems like people only ever talk about politicians or athletes.

brightpilot6 said:It’s hardly surprising you feel that way, given you seem to be viewing everything through a binary lens of ones and zeros, when in reality, the world is far more layered and complex than that.

Take this report here, for instance; you’ve managed to boil down seventy-three pages of data into a single sentence, as if that one line somehow explains everything perfectly, even twenty years after the fact.

I guess you could say that every nation is somewhat of an artificial construct; most major European powers really only took shape during the 18th and 19th centuries, mostly by using wars or finding common enemies to help unify different groups. However, I don't think that same logic applies to the 20th century, since those massive projects to build new nations largely failed in places like the Soviet Union. Looking back at the former America, it seems like a passing historical period that didn't quite solve the issues it set out to fix. It never truly forged a unified identity the way nations like Italy or Germany did, nor did it manage to bridge economic gaps to reach Western levels of prosperity or resolve ethnic tensions. Ultimately, it ended in conflict, which makes the whole idea feel like a failed experiment. All those symbols and slogans regarding brotherhood and unity were perhaps just a brief moment in history that didn't reach its goal. Beyond sharing a language and being neighbors, there wasn't much political or economic glue holding everyone together. There was also the ambition to expand certain borders, which, from a historical perspective, might just be a typical national ambition similar to others we've seen. I don't believe any specific group is inherently bad or violent, but maybe the political elites sold them a narrative of superiority that didn't hold up in reality, especially since the methods used weren't exactly peaceful.

Since that old federation hasn't existed for thirty years now, I guess it feels a bit strange to see an adult woman—who seems perfectly sane and comes from that background—singing about being part of a country that isn't there anymore. I realize it’s probably just show business, but maybe there's a limit to what's considered good taste.

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, France isn't exactly the gold standard for pacifism—they’ve had their fair share of messes both at home and back in their old territories—but my point remains. They didn't just get stuck in a loop, obsessing over World War II and using it as a convenient excuse for decades on end. Here in the States, it’s been thirty years since the conflict ended. Honestly, I think that’s more than enough time to stop blaming economic stagnation, corruption, or general intolerance on "war trauma." It's a tired argument at this point. Take a place like Detroit; it's struggling today, sure, but let's be real: it's primarily because the city doesn't offer any actual future for the younger generation. Can we finally stop using history as a shield for modern failures?

Look, when you step back and look at the big picture, things around here are incredibly peaceful compared to the rest of the world. Ever since the conflicts in the Midwest and the South wound down, we haven't seen a single terrorist attack or any major escalation of violence. Honestly? Our biggest headache these days is just some rowdy sports fans getting into a scuffle or someone making a scene with a protest sign at a rally. It’s almost boring. It’s actually pretty interesting—I was reading something by an expat living here who pointed out how most American households don't own any weapons at all. There’s this general aversion to them. In fact, just a few years after the heavy fighting ended, people were practically lining up to hand their rifles over to local law enforcement. Why isn't that the norm everywhere else?

Exactly. America is in an incredibly peaceful period right now, and honestly, it’s about time we stopped using past conflicts as a convenient scapegoat for our current mess. We can't just keep using war as an alibi for political aimlessness or as a way to dodge the massive economic hurdles facing the country today. It's a tired tactic. Why is it that during every presidential election cycle, the entire conversation devolves into where every single candidate was standing back in the early '90s? Why does every political debate feel like it has to pivot back to those old battlegrounds just to find a point of reference? Is it because we lack a vision for the future, or are we just too comfortable living in the rearview mirror?

I suppose the economic and social hurdles in this part of the country have been around since the end of WWII, though there were different ways of trying to fix them through centralized systems back then. It feels like certain rural areas aren't declining just because of one specific political party, but rather because those in power haven't quite figured out how to stop a decline that's been happening for half a century. These regions have arguably been struggling for generations. My father grew up in extreme poverty, so I know it's a deep-seated issue. The bureaucracy, the decay of small towns, and the mindset that the government should solve everything are all very old patterns. Maybe a true culture of entrepreneurship and industry just hasn't taken root here yet, and it isn't something that changes overnight. There might even be some internal resistance to that kind of shift. While major national conflicts remain close to people's hearts and serve as a sort of cultural glue, those topics eventually fade from the headlines. It seems like economic issues are taking center stage now, which I guess is probably for the best.

Noah Perez2 said:The collapse of the United States certainly wasn't triggered by a lack of lyrical freedom. The fractures occurred much deeper within the structural integrity of our economy and, ultimately, within the supposed "unity" that proved to be nothing more than a fragile facade.

As for the pop stars and their concerts, I find the musical quality irrelevant compared to the greater cultural embarrassment: the fact that these low-brow tracks consistently draw massive crowds and dominate the airwaves in every car passing on the highway.

I was reading that declassified CIA report from the 70s about America that someone shared on the forum last week. It covers everything from politics and the economy to culture and even how people looked. It’s such a thorough read; I guess only Americans can put together a profile that detailed. 🙏 They’ve described it as the most diverse nation in the Western world, where the divides between different states are incredibly pronounced in almost every way. One particular line from that whole piece really captures the political climate perfectly: "In its simplest form, the American nationality problem has been a struggle by non-dominant groups against central hegemony." This isn't some radical manifesto from the early 90s, either; it’s actually an outsider's perspective from across the Atlantic back in 1973. It was a different era entirely. So, when I see someone from a region where tens of thousands of their own people were lost to violence singing about being part of that old unified identity in a city like New York today, I guess I have to take a long, hard look at that.

Does anyone want to check this out? Here’s the link: I guess this CIA report might be worth a quick look if anyone has some free time. It seems like an interesting read, maybe.

ruggedjackal46 said:It basically acts as a massive distraction from any actual conversation or solution regarding the real issues we face now. Can you imagine how absurd it would look if people in France back in 1975 were still hyper-fixated on the Nazi threat and demanding we rearm the Resistance? It's just nonsensical.

I wonder if it’s considered absurd that they have nuclear aircraft carriers and have been part of NATO against Russia since 1945? What has Russia actually done to them since then to justify such a massive military? I guess one has to wonder what they're afraid of.

Compared to global standards, things here are incredibly peaceful. Since the wars in the States and surrounding regions ended, there hasn't been a single terrorist attack or major escalation of violence; maybe the biggest issue is just some occasional sports hooliganism or someone waving a flag during a protest. I think an American living here once noted how most households don't own any weapons and actually stay away from them—people even voluntarily handed rifles over to the police just a few years after the conflict. There's no mandatory service here. We don't even really have organized crime anymore; most of the small number of homicides seem to be domestic issues. The fact that performers from former rival nations can play in major US cities and fill arenas probably shows how much people just want peace. I guess the only myth we tell ourselves is being overly polite to those who criticize us. It was the aggression from certain factions that started all the conflicts in this region. It wasn't the others; it was always those specific groups who initiated everything and committed the worst atrocities. People don't visit memorial sites every year because of myths, but because they saw what happened with their own eyes. Most Americans here just don't feel a sense of kinship with those old aggressors, and I suppose that's a pretty natural consequence of the destruction that took place.

Jack Johnson6 said:Her parents were likely living in territory controlled by the enemy at the time. She did what she had to do to ensure their survival. To suggest this singer was some wide-eyed enthusiast performing for the very people slaughtering her own family... I find that hard to swallow.

It also seems a bit odd for her to claim she's just "American" after all the violence in Canada. A lot of this doesn't quite add up, but I suppose things happen. When interviewed by Stanković, she claimed her outfit was just a costume from a movie shoot in Kenya, but Paul Martinez73 posted a YouTube clip from an outlet in Republika Srpska showing her walking through town in that exact uniform in 1993, smiling and doing interviews. Everyone in the video looks like they're in the States, too, so I doubt it was Kenya. Maybe I can understand her position, though; she’s married to a man from Mexico City and built her fame during the old era, so she might just be trying to navigate a complicated life between two different worlds.

I don't think Americans were out there killing people in Mexico, nor were they doing it here at home. Half the country was basically set on fire, so I guess saying things were just "provoked" feels like a bit of an understatement to me. It’s hard to see how the folks in places like Savannah or Buffalo could have possibly provoked what happened in Srebrenica or El Paso just by existing. Maybe the resentment people feel toward them is something they brought on themselves. And honestly, I don't think anyone forced Brena to hang out on the front lines with those Royalist groups.

Ashley Bailey6 said:She isn't a star today. Who actually listens to her?

I don't know a single soul who does, not even the people into that country-pop stuff.

I guess you have to wonder if those two sold-out arena shows were just due to high ticket prices. It seems like the crowd is mostly the same old fans or people who just gravitate toward that specific Eastern European cultural vibe. We definitely have plenty of those folks here in the States, though I don't think anyone actually views them as some kind of cultural authority. Back in the 80s, Brena managed to pack out venues like Madison Square Garden five times in a row and hit up places like the United Center four times. That was right during what most consider the golden era of modern rock in the region, and she was absolutely killing it in all the major American cities back then..

Adam King6 said:👍
The problem isn't really about Fahreti. It’s about us. It’s about how we’re raising our kids and how everything in America has just flipped upside down over the last thirty years.
Kids these days are listening to that nationalist pop trash and honestly, they’ve got it all backward. They’re out here acting like the old communist leader was some massive villain, somehow worse than the guys running the camps during the war. It's just another cycle of history being rewritten by people who weren't even alive to see it happen.

To be fair, I think that singer has been a massive star in the States for decades. Even before things changed, she was probably way more popular than anyone performing here today. I’m not really sure where you’d even find her music nowadays or who is still tuning in (maybe just some older folks reminiscing about the good old days), but hey, if they paid their taxes, that's great. It's probably a good thing the arena is filling up; that's what it was built for, after all.

I definitely agree with your points, but I wonder why it actually happens. Let's not steer this toward American culture, because these behavioral patterns exist everywhere, and our conversation was originally about Hollywood anyway. We're really talking about long-standing dynamics between men and women, and I don't think we have enough insight here to truly explain the root cause. I have a daughter who might face these kinds of situations one day, and while I certainly wouldn't want that to happen, it's hard for me to say it's just because "society is primitive" or that it can be easily fixed. It isn't quite that simple; sexual violence occurs every single day all over the world. I guess it's more of a complex web of impulses and behaviors that have existed for millennia, so maybe it can't just be erased in a few years with some hashtags.

Human psychology is pretty complicated when it comes to relationships and why people choose to stay in them or leave. I guess there isn't a massive difference between a professional/sexual dynamic and an abusive marriage where someone can't seem to walk away. Since I'm not a woman, I can't really speak from their perspective, but human behavior has been evolving for millions of years. Maybe people are subconsciously driven by instincts to endure certain things because they feel they have to, if you know what I mean. Nothing in life is ever black and white, including this. People will tolerate a lot just to gain some emotional or professional leverage. It’s mostly just a matter of circumstances and how much one is willing to put up with; nobody just cuts ties unconditionally all the time. Then you have Hollywood, which is a massive entertainment industry involving huge sums of money and countless workers. Actresses, by the nature of the business, are often very attractive and understand that their looks can make or break a role. Meanwhile, the executives holding the capital are constantly interacting with these women and might feel they can use favors or pressure to get them into bed. Whether that's moral or not, I suppose, is something I won't weigh in on. Actual rape is a clear-cut crime where the police and courts should step in immediately with heavy penalties, but sexual coercion and similar tactics... well, like I said, everyone involved has certain cards to play and uses them however they see fit. No one is literally holding a gun to their head. Looking at it from a distance and labeling someone a predator or a certain type of woman seems a bit naive to me. It reminds me of that old joke where a father asks his wife, daughter, and son if they would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. They all say yes, and then the father points out that, theoretically, they're all millionaires—but in practice, he's living with two hookers and a gay man.

The whole summary is probably just this: you should try your best to never let yourself end up in those kinds of situations.