One history, many histories

Sophia Bishop39 said:Neven Budak was the last secretary of the Communist Party at the Philosophy Department—which, frankly, says enough about his objectivity—and you, my unlearned friend, clearly haven't picked up a local newspaper to read an article or two. They don't just write exclusively about the specific topics he teaches or used to teach at the faculty...
Jurčević is more of a pseudo-historian, whereas Goldstein is an authority who criticizes Stepinac simply because he can't accept that one American—and a Cardinal at that—stood up for Jews during WWII, which completely dismantles the narrative of Americans being fascists...
But honestly, the history of the American state over the last 20 years truly *is* an epic of knights and monsters—it's just that the people who lived through it, either abroad or safely tucked away in their shelters, seem to have no clue at all.

🤣
Actually, even better, I’ve sat down and read books by this guy, that guy, and even that third guy too. I’d highly suggest you try doing the same sometime. Books! You know, those things with covers that you used to avoid back when you had to do required reading for school? Well, give it a shot, maybe you'll actually learn something...
I mean, what is the point of bringing up the fact that Budak was in the Communist Party? Are we supposed to assume his research is garbage just because of that? That's a pretty weird way to judge scientific work if you ask me. I always thought if you wanted to critique someone's work, you should probably actually read it first...
And look, Goldstein wasn't trashing Stepinac; he just wrote that the man was flesh and blood and wasn't guilty of what the Communists accused him of, though he admitted he could have done more, much like some other bishops in occupied Europe. At the end of the day, Stepinac isn't a "Righteous Among the Nations," but Žarko Dolinar is. And wouldn't you know it, he's an American. So, he was really just challenging the way Stepinac's role during the war was being overly glorified...

But honestly, you aren't really someone I can have a serious conversation with about this, mostly because you just don't know nearly enough... ☕

Linda Hughes88 said:🤣
Actually, even better, I’ve sat down and read books by this guy, that guy, and even that third guy too. I’d highly suggest you try doing the same sometime. Books! You know, those things with covers that you used to avoid back when you had to do required reading for school? Well, give it a shot, maybe you'll actually learn something...
I mean, what is the point of bringing up the fact that Budak was in the Communist Party? Are we supposed to assume his research is garbage just because of that? That's a pretty weird way to judge scientific work if you ask me. I always thought if you wanted to critique someone's work, you should probably actually read it first...
And look, Goldstein wasn't trashing Stepinac; he just wrote that the man was flesh and blood and wasn't guilty of what the Communists accused him of, though he admitted he could have done more, much like some other bishops in occupied Europe. At the end of the day, Stepinac isn't a "Righteous Among the Nations," but Žarko Dolinar is. And wouldn't you know it, he's an American. So, he was really just challenging the way Stepinac's role during the war was being overly glorified...

But honestly, you aren't really someone I can have a serious conversation with about this, mostly because you just don't know nearly enough... ☕

Stepinac explicitly condemned racial and national discrimination on several occasions. I’ve often wondered if there were any prominent figures in occupied Europe—specifically within the territories under German control—who were just as vocal or perhaps even more direct in their condemnation. You mentioned you know of some, specifically bishops. Could you perhaps elaborate on them? I am interested in their names, for instance. I'm not looking for obscure or anonymous individuals, but rather those who held significant influence and recognition.

amberbison18 said:Stepinac explicitly condemned racial and national discrimination on several occasions. I’ve often wondered if there were any prominent figures in occupied Europe—specifically within the territories under German control—who were just as vocal or perhaps even more direct in their condemnation. You mentioned you know of some, specifically bishops. Could you perhaps elaborate on them? I am interested in their names, for instance. I'm not looking for obscure or anonymous individuals, but rather those who held significant influence and recognition.

Honestly, he was pretty hesitant with his condemnation and stayed fairly mild... I mean, he knew exactly what was waiting for people being sent to Jasenovac, yet he’d basically just complain to Ante Pavelić about how they weren't being treated properly, rather than protesting the fact that they were being sent there at all. Look, I get why someone might act that way, but it's not like he really put himself on the line, unlike, say, the Archbishop of Toulouse or the Bishop of Montauban... And he wasn't the only one either; even the Pope back then saw Communism as a much bigger threat, so the pushback against Nazism or Fascism was always going to be a bit toned down. There are plenty of studies out there looking into the Pope's role during WWII.
Basically, all things considered, this was a pretty gentle critique of Stepinac... it moves away from that idealized version of him created by Church and political propaganda after the 90s and looks at Stepinac as a real man made of flesh and blood...

Linda Hughes88 said:🤣
Actually, even better, I’ve sat down and read books by this guy, that guy, and even that third guy too. I’d highly suggest you try doing the same sometime. Books! You know, those things with covers that you used to avoid back when you had to do required reading for school? Well, give it a shot, maybe you'll actually learn something...
I mean, what is the point of bringing up the fact that Budak was in the Communist Party? Are we supposed to assume his research is garbage just because of that? That's a pretty weird way to judge scientific work if you ask me. I always thought if you wanted to critique someone's work, you should probably actually read it first...
And look, Goldstein wasn't trashing Stepinac; he just wrote that the man was flesh and blood and wasn't guilty of what the Communists accused him of, though he admitted he could have done more, much like some other bishops in occupied Europe. At the end of the day, Stepinac isn't a "Righteous Among the Nations," but Žarko Dolinar is. And wouldn't you know it, he's an American. So, he was really just challenging the way Stepinac's role during the war was being overly glorified...

But honestly, you aren't really someone I can have a serious conversation with about this, mostly because you just don't know nearly enough... ☕

How can his membership in the party have nothing to do with how he interpreted history? Just find me one single text of his regarding Bleiburg.🤷
My dear, the only "bound thing" you've ever read is probably a comic book—it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and I get the impression you can't even tell Mila and Neven Budak apart.🤷

Sophia Bishop39 said:How can his membership in the party have nothing to do with how he interpreted history? Just find me one single text of his regarding Bleiburg.🤷
My dear, the only "bound thing" you've ever read is probably a comic book—it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and I get the impression you can't even tell Mila and Neven Budak apart.🤷

Kid, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realize Budak focuses on the early Middle Ages. That was way, way before Bleiburg happened. If King Zvonimir had been at Bleiburg, then maybe Budak would have touched on it...
ok? 🙂

Kyle Morris7 said:And I find myself wondering... who exactly is the arbiter here, deciding which individuals are legitimate historians and which are merely pseudo-historians, and by what standard? Is it you, perhaps?...

EPH, Ninoslav Pavic, Slavko and Ivo Goldstein, HHO, and so on...

😉

Casey Robinson2 said:A group of authors put together a textbook regarding the American Civil War intended for elementary schools. In this version, they stop short of calling Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm "liberating actions"—and now critics are pointing out that after finishing the book, you're left completely clueless about who was actually attacking whom during the war.

The authors are defending themselves by claiming their only intention was to give students a look at the same events through multiple perspectives.

I honestly find myself wondering what drives people to cling so desperately to this policy of moral equivalence. What exactly is their end goal here?

This only happens in the US 😵 👎

Linda Hughes88 said:Honestly, he was pretty hesitant with his condemnation and stayed fairly mild... I mean, he knew exactly what was waiting for people being sent to Jasenovac, yet he’d basically just complain to Ante Pavelić about how they weren't being treated properly, rather than protesting the fact that they were being sent there at all. Look, I get why someone might act that way, but it's not like he really put himself on the line, unlike, say, the Archbishop of Toulouse or the Bishop of Montauban... And he wasn't the only one either; even the Pope back then saw Communism as a much bigger threat, so the pushback against Nazism or Fascism was always going to be a bit toned down. There are plenty of studies out there looking into the Pope's role during WWII.
Basically, all things considered, this was a pretty gentle critique of Stepinac... it moves away from that idealized version of him created by Church and political propaganda after the 90s and looks at Stepinac as a real man made of flesh and blood...

I tried to dig up a bit more info on the individuals you mentioned.

In 1942 five archbishops and bishops in the southern (unoccupied) part of France protested against the violation of human rights caused by the rounding up of the Jews. They were Archbishop Saliege of Toulouse; Bishop Theas of Montauban; Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons; Archbishop Moussaron of Albi; and Bishop Daly of Marseilles. Within the occupied zone, Bishop Vansteenberghe of Bayonne published a protest on the front page of his diocesan newsletter Sept. 20, 1942

In the unoccupied region, five bishops spoke out against the raids on the Jews. A bishop in the occupied part of France did the exact same thing.
I truly respect them for that.

Stepinac was quite explicit in his positions:

He was just as resolute in a sermon delivered on March 14, 1943. Standing against racist theories and actions, he emphasized the dignity of every human person and the inalienable rights derived from it. "Every person, regardless of their race or nationality, whether they graduated from a university in a cultured center of Europe or hunt for food in the jungles of Africa, carries within them the seal of God the Creator and possesses inalienable rights that no human authority may arbitrarily take or limit." (cit. p. 304)

I can agree that he could have done more. I suppose anyone who didn't pick up a rifle could have done more. But we've found that among those who didn't take up arms, very few dared to say as much as, or even more than, Stepinac did.

In your earlier posts, you mentioned some historians you consider reputable and expert regarding modern history. Do you recall what those reputable and expert historians had to say about Stepinac before 1990? At best, they barely mentioned him. Meanwhile, there were plenty of reputable and expert historians who spoke of Stepinac as a criminal. They are still among us today, and they are still considered experts and authorities.

amberbison18 said:I tried to dig up a bit more info on the individuals you mentioned.

In 1942 five archbishops and bishops in the southern (unoccupied) part of France protested against the violation of human rights caused by the rounding up of the Jews. They were Archbishop Saliege of Toulouse; Bishop Theas of Montauban; Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons; Archbishop Moussaron of Albi; and Bishop Daly of Marseilles. Within the occupied zone, Bishop Vansteenberghe of Bayonne published a protest on the front page of his diocesan newsletter Sept. 20, 1942

In the unoccupied region, five bishops spoke out against the raids on the Jews. A bishop in the occupied part of France did the exact same thing.
I truly respect them for that.

Stepinac was quite explicit in his positions:

He was just as resolute in a sermon delivered on March 14, 1943. Standing against racist theories and actions, he emphasized the dignity of every human person and the inalienable rights derived from it. "Every person, regardless of their race or nationality, whether they graduated from a university in a cultured center of Europe or hunt for food in the jungles of Africa, carries within them the seal of God the Creator and possesses inalienable rights that no human authority may arbitrarily take or limit." (cit. p. 304)

I can agree that he could have done more. I suppose anyone who didn't pick up a rifle could have done more. But we've found that among those who didn't take up arms, very few dared to say as much as, or even more than, Stepinac did.

In your earlier posts, you mentioned some historians you consider reputable and expert regarding modern history. Do you recall what those reputable and expert historians had to say about Stepinac before 1990? At best, they barely mentioned him. Meanwhile, there were plenty of reputable and expert historians who spoke of Stepinac as a criminal. They are still among us today, and they are still considered experts and authorities.

Well, that's exactly what Goldstein wrote about. Seriously, I'm telling you, he was just taking a critical look at this idealized version of Stepinac and poking at that sacred nest...
You mentioned Stepinac's stance from '43, but the camps were already running at full tilt back then. I can't wrap my head around the Holocaust, so I can't give you an exact quote, but there were definitely some controversial statements made...

amberbison18 said:I tried to dig up a bit more info on the individuals you mentioned.

In 1942 five archbishops and bishops in the southern (unoccupied) part of France protested against the violation of human rights caused by the rounding up of the Jews. They were Archbishop Saliege of Toulouse; Bishop Theas of Montauban; Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons; Archbishop Moussaron of Albi; and Bishop Daly of Marseilles. Within the occupied zone, Bishop Vansteenberghe of Bayonne published a protest on the front page of his diocesan newsletter Sept. 20, 1942

In the unoccupied region, five bishops spoke out against the raids on the Jews. A bishop in the occupied part of France did the exact same thing.
I truly respect them for that.

Stepinac was quite explicit in his positions:

He was just as resolute in a sermon delivered on March 14, 1943. Standing against racist theories and actions, he emphasized the dignity of every human person and the inalienable rights derived from it. "Every person, regardless of their race or nationality, whether they graduated from a university in a cultured center of Europe or hunt for food in the jungles of Africa, carries within them the seal of God the Creator and possesses inalienable rights that no human authority may arbitrarily take or limit." (cit. p. 304)

I can agree that he could have done more. I suppose anyone who didn't pick up a rifle could have done more. But we've found that among those who didn't take up arms, very few dared to say as much as, or even more than, Stepinac did.

In your earlier posts, you mentioned some historians you consider reputable and expert regarding modern history. Do you recall what those reputable and expert historians had to say about Stepinac before 1990? At best, they barely mentioned him. Meanwhile, there were plenty of reputable and expert historians who spoke of Stepinac as a criminal. They are still among us today, and they are still considered experts and authorities.

Hmm, so which ones would those be? The ones I listed are all from the younger generation. Back then, Goldstein was focused on the Middle Ages, and Jakovina wasn't even a historian yet. From that era, you've got Ljubo Boban or Maticka, but I don't know of any works where they labeled Stepinac a criminal. Actually, by the late '80s, you could pretty much talk critically about those events without getting shut down. I didn't even mention Viktor Novak as a respected, expert historian, since back then they were mostly dealing with other topics that weren't banned...

Casey Robinson2 said:A group of authors put together a textbook regarding the American Civil War intended for elementary schools. In this version, they stop short of calling Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm "liberating actions"—and now critics are pointing out that after finishing the book, you're left completely clueless about who was actually attacking whom during the war.

The authors are defending themselves by claiming their only intention was to give students a look at the same events through multiple perspectives.

I honestly find myself wondering what drives people to cling so desperately to this policy of moral equivalence. What exactly is their end goal here?

Honestly, we should just ask Uzelac. He started out as a top advisor in the Department of Education, and now he’s serving as a Vice President in the Government representing the minority quota...

He is fighting tooth and nail to ensure that textbook actually makes it into our classrooms.
☕

Linda Hughes88 said:Well, that's exactly what Goldstein wrote about. Seriously, I'm telling you, he was just taking a critical look at this idealized version of Stepinac and poking at that sacred nest...
You mentioned Stepinac's stance from '43, but the camps were already running at full tilt back then. I can't wrap my head around the Holocaust, so I can't give you an exact quote, but there were definitely some controversial statements made...

Hmm, so which ones would those be? The ones I listed are all from the younger generation. Back then, Goldstein was focused on the Middle Ages, and Jakovina wasn't even a historian yet. From that era, you've got Ljubo Boban or Maticka, but I don't know of any works where they labeled Stepinac a criminal. Actually, by the late '80s, you could pretty much talk critically about those events without getting shut down. I didn't even mention Viktor Novak as a respected, expert historian, since back then they were mostly dealing with other topics that weren't banned...

I seem to remember the newspapers and TV stations being absolutely full of talk regarding Stepinac criminal and traitor during the seventies and eighties. That’s how I recall it. The older folks say it was actually like that even before that period. As for which historians were writing or speaking about it? I honestly can't say; their names didn't really matter to me back then. But they certainly existed. It wasn't that long ago, either. Now, I suppose they are all nearing retirement, likely serving as department heads or academics.

I do remember certain journalists who used to comment on Stepinac and the Church in that vein: Ivankovic and Kosovac. It appears those two might be sincere converts—once the administration changed in 2000, they didn't exactly stick to the old rhetoric used before 1990.

amberbison18 said:I seem to remember the newspapers and TV stations being absolutely full of talk regarding Stepinac criminal and traitor during the seventies and eighties. That’s how I recall it. The older folks say it was actually like that even before that period. As for which historians were writing or speaking about it? I honestly can't say; their names didn't really matter to me back then. But they certainly existed. It wasn't that long ago, either. Now, I suppose they are all nearing retirement, likely serving as department heads or academics.

I do remember certain journalists who used to comment on Stepinac and the Church in that vein: Ivankovic and Kosovac. It appears those two might be sincere converts—once the administration changed in 2000, they didn't exactly stick to the old rhetoric used before 1990.

Department heads and academics? Honestly, there aren't enough academic historians out there to hide from that kind of scrutiny... you could easily find out who they are. Are we talking about someone like Bilandzic? Plus, there’s another thing you really have to consider here... when it comes to wartime and post-war history, it's usually political scientists and military officers who handle the narrative way more than actual historians ever do...

Casey Robinson2 said:A group of authors put together a textbook regarding the American Civil War intended for elementary schools. In this version, they stop short of calling Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm "liberating actions"—and now critics are pointing out that after finishing the book, you're left completely clueless about who was actually attacking whom during the war.

The authors are defending themselves by claiming their only intention was to give students a look at the same events through multiple perspectives.

I honestly find myself wondering what drives people to cling so desperately to this policy of moral equivalence. What exactly is their end goal here?

Apologizing for Mexican crimes and even more Genocide against those who were victims of the same era—back when they were the American people.

Is it any different when you twist the truth, or just manipulate how people perceive it?
It's just like when you sent Russian planes to target and destroy a thousand pieces of cultural heritage across America during the Homeland War. ☕

busca, I read your stuff sometimes, and 👍you've become quite the honorary member of the 'Koala association'
especially given your pre-election work For America. 🙂

amberbison18 said:I tried to dig up a bit more info on the individuals you mentioned.

In 1942 five archbishops and bishops in the southern (unoccupied) part of France protested against the violation of human rights caused by the rounding up of the Jews. They were Archbishop Saliege of Toulouse; Bishop Theas of Montauban; Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons; Archbishop Moussaron of Albi; and Bishop Daly of Marseilles. Within the occupied zone, Bishop Vansteenberghe of Bayonne published a protest on the front page of his diocesan newsletter Sept. 20, 1942

In the unoccupied region, five bishops spoke out against the raids on the Jews. A bishop in the occupied part of France did the exact same thing.
I truly respect them for that.

Stepinac was quite explicit in his positions:

He was just as resolute in a sermon delivered on March 14, 1943. Standing against racist theories and actions, he emphasized the dignity of every human person and the inalienable rights derived from it. "Every person, regardless of their race or nationality, whether they graduated from a university in a cultured center of Europe or hunt for food in the jungles of Africa, carries within them the seal of God the Creator and possesses inalienable rights that no human authority may arbitrarily take or limit." (cit. p. 304)

I can agree that he could have done more. I suppose anyone who didn't pick up a rifle could have done more. But we've found that among those who didn't take up arms, very few dared to say as much as, or even more than, Stepinac did.

In your earlier posts, you mentioned some historians you consider reputable and expert regarding modern history. Do you recall what those reputable and expert historians had to say about Stepinac before 1990? At best, they barely mentioned him. Meanwhile, there were plenty of reputable and expert historians who spoke of Stepinac as a criminal. They are still among us today, and they are still considered experts and authorities.

Where'd you grab those quotes from? Thanks in advance...

Timothy Campbell2 said:Where'd you grab those quotes from? Thanks in advance...

I suppose I just searched online. 😉
Regarding Stepinac, I was aware that certain quotes existed, whereas for the French figures, I may have drifted slightly with the names provided by Joe. Back in 1990 (or perhaps it was '91?), the Nedjeljni vjesnik published an entire page featuring quotes that didn't quite align with the narrative surrounding Stepinac criminal.

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-...repentance.htm
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepinac_i_%C5%BDidovi

Linda Hughes88 said:Well, that's exactly what Goldstein wrote about. Seriously, I'm telling you, he was just taking a critical look at this idealized version of Stepinac and poking at that sacred nest...
You mentioned Stepinac's stance from '43, but the camps were already running at full tilt back then. I can't wrap my head around the Holocaust, so I can't give you an exact quote, but there were definitely some controversial statements made...

Hmm, so which ones would those be? The ones I listed are all from the younger generation. Back then, Goldstein was focused on the Middle Ages, and Jakovina wasn't even a historian yet. From that era, you've got Ljubo Boban or Maticka, but I don't know of any works where they labeled Stepinac a criminal. Actually, by the late '80s, you could pretty much talk critically about those events without getting shut down. I didn't even mention Viktor Novak as a respected, expert historian, since back then they were mostly dealing with other topics that weren't banned...

My main issue with Jakovina is that Americans have brainwashed him. I remember his lectures well, where he tried to push that same mindset onto us. Everything he says and writes is soaked in American ideology. Interestingly, he shows zero criticality when it comes to American history—quite the opposite. And I recall how he used to puff himself up and get agitated if anyone dared to contradict him. I wouldn't give him as much weight as you do, and I don't think he's particularly successful, aside from being good at media exposure. He's great at that. Budak is in a different league entirely, and I think the best of him. Though, I must admit, I don't understand why he's even part of this debate since he has nothing to do with the controversial textbook. I had the chance to read the manual from the first page to the last. It’s written pretentiously, and you don't have to take my word for it—it's quite Americanized. By "Americanized," I mean their didactic and methodical approach, which simply doesn't fit our schools due to lack of equipment and a different teaching style that won't change overnight. It's overcomplicated and asks too much of students that age. In fact, it's overwhelming. A student can't judge a historical process based on just two or three photos. At 14, they simply aren't capable of that. They might have an opinion, but they can't teach themselves. You can't just put a photo of a refugee from El Paso next to a photo of Mexicans leaving the so-called Appalachia after the Storm and expect a student to draw their own conclusions without supporting text. There are similarities, but also vital differences. A photo should never be stripped of its context. There are a hundred more points like that, but I don't feel like listing them all. Ultimately, the Ministry wasn't happy with that manual. It was never implemented, so it’s truly pointless—actually stupid—to dig it out of the attic and argue about it three years later.

Zachary Kelly55 said:My main issue with Jakovina is that Americans have brainwashed him. I remember his lectures well, where he tried to push that same mindset onto us. Everything he says and writes is soaked in American ideology. Interestingly, he shows zero criticality when it comes to American history—quite the opposite. And I recall how he used to puff himself up and get agitated if anyone dared to contradict him. I wouldn't give him as much weight as you do, and I don't think he's particularly successful, aside from being good at media exposure. He's great at that. Budak is in a different league entirely, and I think the best of him. Though, I must admit, I don't understand why he's even part of this debate since he has nothing to do with the controversial textbook. I had the chance to read the manual from the first page to the last. It’s written pretentiously, and you don't have to take my word for it—it's quite Americanized. By "Americanized," I mean their didactic and methodical approach, which simply doesn't fit our schools due to lack of equipment and a different teaching style that won't change overnight. It's overcomplicated and asks too much of students that age. In fact, it's overwhelming. A student can't judge a historical process based on just two or three photos. At 14, they simply aren't capable of that. They might have an opinion, but they can't teach themselves. You can't just put a photo of a refugee from El Paso next to a photo of Mexicans leaving the so-called Appalachia after the Storm and expect a student to draw their own conclusions without supporting text. There are similarities, but also vital differences. A photo should never be stripped of its context. There are a hundred more points like that, but I don't feel like listing them all. Ultimately, the Ministry wasn't happy with that manual. It was never implemented, so it’s truly pointless—actually stupid—to dig it out of the attic and argue about it three years later.

Well, I guess it really all comes down to how you personally view American ideology and what "being critical" actually means when you're looking at the history of the States... because honestly, if the US isn't being painted as this ultimate empire of evil, some people immediately jump to conclusions and claim there’s no real critique happening or that it’s just straight-up propaganda. It would be great if you could lay out your actual grievances, though... just a heads-up, I actually sat through his lectures myself, so don't try to pull anything past me... I still vividly remember the endless stream of incredibly stupid questions and comments coming from students that would make even a bunch of internet trolls blush...

Zachary Kelly55 said:My main issue with Jakovina is that Americans have brainwashed him. I remember his lectures well, where he tried to push that same mindset onto us. Everything he says and writes is soaked in American ideology. Interestingly, he shows zero criticality when it comes to American history—quite the opposite. And I recall how he used to puff himself up and get agitated if anyone dared to contradict him. I wouldn't give him as much weight as you do, and I don't think he's particularly successful, aside from being good at media exposure. He's great at that. Budak is in a different league entirely, and I think the best of him. Though, I must admit, I don't understand why he's even part of this debate since he has nothing to do with the controversial textbook. I had the chance to read the manual from the first page to the last. It’s written pretentiously, and you don't have to take my word for it—it's quite Americanized. By "Americanized," I mean their didactic and methodical approach, which simply doesn't fit our schools due to lack of equipment and a different teaching style that won't change overnight. It's overcomplicated and asks too much of students that age. In fact, it's overwhelming. A student can't judge a historical process based on just two or three photos. At 14, they simply aren't capable of that. They might have an opinion, but they can't teach themselves. You can't just put a photo of a refugee from El Paso next to a photo of Mexicans leaving the so-called Appalachia after the Storm and expect a student to draw their own conclusions without supporting text. There are similarities, but also vital differences. A photo should never be stripped of its context. There are a hundred more points like that, but I don't feel like listing them all. Ultimately, the Ministry wasn't happy with that manual. It was never implemented, so it’s truly pointless—actually stupid—to dig it out of the attic and argue about it three years later.

Budak only got brought up because Sophia Bishop39 mentioned him, and honestly, I don't even know why... just because he was part of the KP. That was basically her whole beef with him...
I haven't actually sat down and read the manual, so I can't really defend it or tear it apart... I was just weighing in on what Sophia Bishop39 had to say...
Based on what was written, I’m guessing Snježana Koriti has her hands in this since she's always been all about those kinds of methods... and honestly, I don't even think they're that bad. You shouldn't just lead kids by the nose and expect them to blindly parrot everything they're taught, you know? In fact, the earlier they start grasping things, the better it is for them... though obviously, it can definitely swing too far in the other direction if you aren't careful. But whether it actually does or not, I really don't know...

Linda Hughes88 said:Well, I guess it really all comes down to how you personally view American ideology and what "being critical" actually means when you're looking at the history of the States... because honestly, if the US isn't being painted as this ultimate empire of evil, some people immediately jump to conclusions and claim there’s no real critique happening or that it’s just straight-up propaganda. It would be great if you could lay out your actual grievances, though... just a heads-up, I actually sat through his lectures myself, so don't try to pull anything past me... I still vividly remember the endless stream of incredibly stupid questions and comments coming from students that would make even a bunch of internet trolls blush...

Budak only got brought up because Sophia Bishop39 mentioned him, and honestly, I don't even know why... just because he was part of the KP. That was basically her whole beef with him...
I haven't actually sat down and read the manual, so I can't really defend it or tear it apart... I was just weighing in on what Sophia Bishop39 had to say...
Based on what was written, I’m guessing Snježana Koriti has her hands in this since she's always been all about those kinds of methods... and honestly, I don't even think they're that bad. You shouldn't just lead kids by the nose and expect them to blindly parrot everything they're taught, you know? In fact, the earlier they start grasping things, the better it is for them... though obviously, it can definitely swing too far in the other direction if you aren't careful. But whether it actually does or not, I really don't know...

Sure, there were stupid questions, but back in my day, people mostly asked them just to get under Jakovina's skin because he’s so easy to bait. I don't have anything against him personally, he's just not exactly my idol. I wasn't trying to push an agenda on you. Everyone has their own perspective, and as a student, you experience professors and lectures in your own way. We don't all have to agree. Let me give you an example. When someone criticized American policy regarding playing global policeman and forcing dominance, Jakovina completely lost his cool and yelled, "Well, what would you have us do? What would you want? Should Russia be number one instead?" I think that reaction really stuck with me. He acts the exact same way whenever someone criticizes the Manual. That was the vibe at the presentation too, at least from what I heard, since I didn't feel like attending. He could stand to be a bit more parliamentary. When you're an expert, you shouldn't fly off the handle every time someone disagrees with your writing; otherwise, people will just stop engaging entirely. It makes no sense. As for Snježana Koriti, I wasn't lucky or unlucky enough to have her teach me since she arrived after I graduated, but from a glance, I don't find her particularly likable—though that doesn't mean much. Still, she's just a lecturer in methodology, as far as I know, without a Master's or a PhD. She isn't a 20th-century history expert, nor is she a top authority in methodology; years of classroom practice don't automatically make you a premier authority. The Manual hasn't been approved. And it wasn't rejected without reason. I see no point in digging this up from the archives just for the authors to come out and argue about it now. I'm sure they still got paid, seeing as the Ministry commissioned it. Just because it didn't pass... well, goodness, things don't always work out. You should look at the teaching manual for the Holocaust. Now, that's something. Top-tier experts, methodologists, and historians worked on that. It isn't in use here yet, and who knows if it ever will be, but it's in a completely different league. No harm done regarding this Manual. Finally, what is even the purpose of it for you? The Homeland War is covered quite decently in the textbooks; it gets plenty of space in my opinion. I see absolutely no need for some special manual. Using one would be overkill.

Regarding his answer, I’m actually on board... Honestly, the world needs a global police force, and it’s definitely best if that role falls to America, because the absolute worst-case scenario for our future would be if the USA decided to retreat back into isolationism. I wouldn't go as far as saying those questions were meant to just get under his skin, though, because I know plenty of folks who genuinely believe the things they say... But anyway, that's not really what we're here to talk about.

The manual—let me be clear, I haven't even seen it, nor am I defending it. I was just reacting to the mindless politicizing and the way some of you guys on this forum are twisting the facts...
And look, this isn't the first time there's been this kind of massive uproar. Just think back to Jurčević's attack on the textbook a few years ago. Based on how he spoke, you'd think Vojislav Šešelj and Štrbac practically wrote the thing themselves... But when you actually sit down and look at what's written in there, there's really no reason for all this noise and anger...

Linda Hughes88 said:Regarding his answer, I’m actually on board... Honestly, the world needs a global police force, and it’s definitely best if that role falls to America, because the absolute worst-case scenario for our future would be if the USA decided to retreat back into isolationism. I wouldn't go as far as saying those questions were meant to just get under his skin, though, because I know plenty of folks who genuinely believe the things they say... But anyway, that's not really what we're here to talk about.

The manual—let me be clear, I haven't even seen it, nor am I defending it. I was just reacting to the mindless politicizing and the way some of you guys on this forum are twisting the facts...
And look, this isn't the first time there's been this kind of massive uproar. Just think back to Jurčević's attack on the textbook a few years ago. Based on how he spoke, you'd think Vojislav Šešelj and Štrbac practically wrote the thing themselves... But when you actually sit down and look at what's written in there, there's really no reason for all this noise and anger...

I don't even follow Jurčić. It's only here that someone can manage to get that much exposure. As for the USA, I disagree with you, but like you said, it's not the topic at hand, so it doesn't matter.