Ask Croatian mothers...
Yugo Spiritism and Reincarnation
Mario's Query on COPYEDITING-L
|
Currently, writing about events (the war, UNPROFOR, etc.) in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina though recognized as independent and sovereign states four years ago by UN as well as by USA itself, Western journalists are using terms as "former Yugoslavia", "ex-Yugoslavia", "ex-Yugo" etc. Although they write about *actual* countries, *actual* events etc. they still hesitate (or deliberately avoid) to call those countries by their own (real) internationally recognized names.
They are reporting about the war "in the areas of former Yugoslavia" as if in these "areas" wouldn't be anything, any state, any nation, anybody. Conspiracy? No, it's just pure spiritism, for Yugoslavia is dead and, of course, "former one", so nobody couldn't report anything going on there, because nothing could happen in the country which doesn't exist any more, back in the history. It happened - what happened; what was done is done. The funniest message I've ever read on Internet was one inviting people to visit traditional restaurants and cities of the former SFRJ. I guess they should eat there some former food too. Here we are: Subj: Directory of South Slavic Mailing Lists Date: Sun, Jan 1, 1995 2:08 PM EDT From: Mailing-Lists@KRPAN.ARNES.SI (South Slavic Mailing Lists Directory) To: croatian-news@stribor.srce.hr (Multiple recipients of list) Purpose of this List is to connect all the people that meet on YU-QWest. There are people from all over the former SFRJ, now around the world. Anybody interested is welcome to visit us or join the List. The List is a medium for exchange of information about YU-QWest, and is unmoderated. The language of the List and on YU-QWest is one of the languages spoken in the former SFRJ. On YU-QWest: - visit traditional restaurants and cities of the former SFRJ - play the (text-only) juke-box of favorite music - exchange literature, video and audio tapes - meet and socialize with people from countries of the former SFRJ - participate in topical Teleconferences, some of which may have guests from Croatia, Serbia or Slovenia Also, YU-QWest now has an allied FTP-by-email server (compliments of YUROPE BBS, California, USA) which serves as an archive, but also has files of general interest in the countries of the former SFRJ. 
In fact, avoiding even to mention the real name of the Republic of Croatia or the name of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the Republic of Slovenia and using these "former-this" or "former-that" names instead, it's at least unpolite. For the people "in these areas" it sounds as really calling names... It's also interesting (at least) that even United States of America four years ago didn't officially recognized these countries by their constitutional names. No, US "recognized former Yugoslav Republics Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina" eventhough there was no need to "recognise" that these countries were in fact one time republics of the SFRJ (Yugoslavia) while it did existed "in these areas". Four years after the Republic of Croatia was internationally recognized as a sovereign state North Atlantic Treaty Organisation computer system was still yet flying the old communist Croatia's flag in its official database on Croatia and I have to send several e-mail messages to the webmaster in charge and it took then four months more to wait until they changed that flag with the current flag of the Republic of Croatia. Was it just a pure negligence? Well, as far as I know NATO doesn't have that reputation. But the biggest surprise was waiting for me at Institute on East Central Europe Home Page home page of Columbia University, 420 W. 118th Street, New York, NY 10027, Phone: (212) 854-4008 Fax: (212) 854-8577 Bur, well, that's another story to read. |
|
Just to explain it to traditionally ignorant people of former Algonquian Land of Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ojibway, Sac and Fox, Pottawatomi, Illinois, Miami, Kickapoo and Shawnee, I mean Americans, "former Europeans" who even don't know where there are some of fifty USA states, let me put it this way: Imagine Mr. Clinton being married with Mr. Smith's widow, how he and his wife would react after receiving my "Seasons Greetings to Mr. Clinton and former Mrs.Smith"?
As time was passing by, little by little that sort of spiritism turned up to become a sort of reincarnation attempt. Now when the war is almost over, the World is still crying over "former Yugoslavia" becoming worried about "the future of the people in the areas of former Yugoslavia" as if there was just one nation living there "in the areas of former Yugoslavia". Michel Chossudovsky in his article Dismantling former Yugoslavia, recolonising Bosnia writes about the impoverishment and destruction of a nation of 24 million people as if Yugoslavia wasn't just a state of five nations but one nation instead. He also wrote it was a civil war, a syntagm invented to help Slobodan Milosevic and so called Yugoslav National Army in their bloody hands washing. Terms as "Croats" and "Serbs" are reserved only for headlines informing about the war criminals and war crimes committed "in the areas of former Yugoslavia". Even the title of the International Criminal Tribunal in Hague (Den Haag), Netherlands, reads "The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia", though it has nothing to do with crimes committed in "former Yugoslavia" (SFRJ) and, instead, that Tribunal is for both criminals and crimes committed during the Serbian aggression and the war in the sovereign country Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina when "these areas of former Yugoslavia" were not republics of (one time) Yugoslavia any more. As UN never had "experts for Croatia as well as for Bosnia and Herzegovina" and war crimes committed in these sovereign states during this dirty war, instead it published The Final Report of the UN Commission of Experts on the Former Yugoslavia as well (well?!) as UNHCR is talking and writing reports on "refugees from former Yugoslavia" as a result of so called "ethnic cleansing" (that "diplomatic" euphemism for genocide was invented at the begining of the war just to close world public opinion eyes in front of war crimes). BTW, let me explain to you certain syntagms as Slav - Slavic, Slavonia - Slavonic, Slovenia - Slovenian ,Yugoslavia - Yugoslav: Pre-WWII name of the state which was later known as Yugoslavia was The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians Later on it was our big brother Josif Visarionovic Stalin who was talking so much about Slavic fraternity. Josip Broz Tito did teach us fraternity-unity of all "Yugoslavs" too. It was in former Jugoslavija (engl. Yugoslavia). Word "Jugoslavija" is a compound-word: Jugo = (engl.) South or Southern; slavia = derivative of the word Slav, a way of naming the land (country, state) for Slav nations. One should make a dinstinction between words Slav and Slovenian. Slovenians are the people of the sovereign state the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenija), north from Croatia, but they are Slavs too. We have also Slavonia (Slavonija) which is eastern region of Croatia, So, Jugoslavia was a compound-word, name for the compound-country ( a federation) for all Yugo-Slavs, Slavs living in south Europe. But Russians are Slavs too. They live north but nobody call them North Slavs. (It's OK, because if you call them - they might come with tanks as Serbian so called Yugoslav People's Army did to Croatia 1991). What's more, Western media and even Universities or academic institutes made no distinction between Russians and other peoples who lived in Soviet Union. They "simply" called all of them Russians as well (well?!) as they used a name Russia for entire Soviet Union though Russia was just one member of that Union, no matter it was the biggest one. Just now, after the fall of Berlin Wall and communism, they finaly "realized" there were also other nations (e.g. Baltic nations/states). Just take a look at names of several universities' departments and their web pages on Internet:
World-wide Index of Russian and/or Slavic studies departments
Slavic Languages and Literatures
at the University of Pittsburgh
German and Slavic Department
at George Washington University
Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures
at Duke University
Department of Slavic and East European Languages
at Penn State University
American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies
(AAASS)
Slavic and East European Studies
at the University of Chicago Well, no doubt, the funniest name of an Institute is:
School of Slavonic and East European Studies
at the University of London (UK) Of course, with my broken English I would be the latest one to teach somebody English language, but it seams that even the University of London itself isn't imune of sintax errors. Though by School of Slavonic and East European Studies at the University of London they ment a school of Slav and East European Studies, their official name (Slavonic) in fact means that school is focusing studies about Slavonia (eastern region of the Republic of Croatia) and East European countries/peoples. |
|
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 20:56:02 -0800 To: mprofaca@public.srce.hr From: prider@powergrid.electriciti.com (Pam Rider) Subject: Your Spiritism Message Good for you! Mario. I was trained as a journalist and now work with books. The level of news editing is terrible. I suspect the lack of accuracy in reporting on BiH (is that correct?) is more lack of interest by decision-makers and laziness by reporters and editors. Most training schools in the U.S.A. fail to teach and do not value language accuracy. (This is a broad generalization and there are exceptions--not many.) At least folks my age (51) are really worried and are beginning to get on faculties to teach as we were taught. Good for you. Hope it makes a difference. Best to you, Mario Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 14:29:00 -0500 From: Bill Blinn To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Spiritism I have occasionally used "former Yugoslavia" in broadcast stories, but I'm not sure I've seen that use on the AP or heard ABC use it. This usage also sometimes occurs in reference to the "former Soviet Union", but not as often. Most Americans would have trouble finding any of the countries on a map. Indeed, sadly many have trouble locating their own states. Yugoslavia is the name many grew up hearing. That is more a feeble excuse than an explanation, though. I'll post your message in the newsroom. Change comes slowly, but it does occur. --- --- Bill Blinn -- N8POV@W8CQK.#CMH.OH.US.NOAM (Ham Radio) This first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Speaking on, but not for, NewsRadio 610 WTVN.
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:56:09 -0500 From: Ann Stewart To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" "The former Yugoslavia" has bothered me too. It's true that United Statesians don't know much 'bout geography -- and I'm included in the ignorant -- but couldn't newspapers call a country by its real name and provide a map? That would, I think, do a lot to improve geographic knowledge of newspaper readers, at least. Ann Stewart
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:03:06 -0500 From: Ralph Adam Fine To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" Yes -- and we do not call Czechosolvakia the "former `Bohemia,'" either. Ralph Adam Fine Milwaukee, WI
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:12:00 -0500 From: Bill Blinn To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" >Yes -- and we do not call Czechosolvakia the "former `Bohemia,'" either. >Ralph Adam Fine I thought Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when the Czechs and the Slovaks decided to go separate ways. Things are changing so fast in the former "soviet bloc" countries that it's difficult to keep up. --- --- Bill Blinn (bblinn@infinet.com) -- N8POV@W8CQK.#CMH.OH.US.NOAM (Ham Radio) This first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Speaking on, but not for, NewsRadio 610 WTVN.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 02:15:00 -0500 From: Jay Linden To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" I trust you don't call it 'Czechoslovakia' anymore either. The people in Slovakia and the Czech Republic might be alarmed to hear that they are back together again. At least those two sovereign nations have the advantages of coming from a country which split into only two relatively concise parts, and having both of them retain part of the previous name. Not to mention the advantage of a peaceful and friendly division. Jay Linden
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 08:50:00 -0500 From: Bill Blinn To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" Ann Stewart suggests: ...couldn't newspapers call a country by its real name and provide a map? That would, I think, do a lot to improve geographic knowledge of newspaper readers, at least. That would help if newspapers were in the business of educating readers, but they're not. They're in the business of selling readers to advertisers. (And before somebody accuses me of knocking newspapers and ignoring the foibles of radio and tv: These media don't do any better. They are also in the business of selling listeners (or viewers) to advertisers. Which accounts for the junk talk shows, the trash news shows, and the dumbing down of the media in general. Sorry. That's off topic. As editors we're not responsible for content. We have to give people what they want. Don't we? --- --- Bill Blinn (bblinn@infinet.com) -- N8POV@W8CQK.#CMH.OH.US.NOAM (Ham Radio) This first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Speaking on, but not for, NewsRadio 610 WTVN.
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 07:39:15 -0500 From: Ed Nelson To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "the former yugoslavia" Ann Stewart joins those expressing concern over references to "the former Yugoslavia" and the like. --- ... but couldn't newspapers call a country by its real name and provide a map? That would, I think, do a lot to improve geographic knowledge of newspaper readers, at least. It seems to me, however, that calling a particular location in "the former Yugoslavia" a part of one country or another would require quite a leap -- possibly more guts than are conveniently available. All the ethnic areas appear to be so totally dismembered -- with the dismembering a continuing operation -- that we're issuing a l-a-r-g-e challenge w/ this request. Let's take any one example -- maybe "Bosnia" for one -- Who would be willing to call Bosnia "a country"? If someone did, who could identify its boundaries? Or even its "location"? Seems we might exercise a little restraint in complaints about media. -ed
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 13:11:00 -0500 From: To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Spiritism Mario, I agree with you that US journalists should stop using these labels. (Similarly, we still see "the former Soviet republic of Armenia", etc.). However, I don't think those terms are used out of reluctance to accept the new political entities; rather, Americans are so notoriously ignorant of geography and world affairs that the journalists fear a reference to "Croatia" (without explaining that it was part of the old Yugoslavia) would not be understood by the audience. It is intended to give poorly informed readers or listeners some context. Unfortunately, these crutch-phrases have outlived their appropriateness. They were helpful when the new nations were first asserting their independence and being recognized by other powers. Once all that is achieved, it seems to trivialize a country's sovereign status to constantly relate it to an out-of-date name. As you point out, four years is a long time, especially when there is ongoing political conflict. I wouldn't be surprized if the name "Bosnia" has appeared more often in American news these last four years than did "Yugoslavia" in the previous twenty! I often think that Americans are among the most culturally isolated peoples in the world. It has been so long since the US was invaded (either militarily or socially) by a foreign country that we have all but lost our ability to picture _ourselves_ in the circumstances we read about from other parts of the world. I wonder how long Americans had to tolerate "former British colonies in America" from the English press two centuries back? Tom Tadfor Little Technical Writer/Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory "They called me 'the quiet one' because I just didn't have anything to say" -- George Harrison, 1987.
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:58:02 -0500 From: mari schindele To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Spiritism Tom Tadfor Little asked: I wonder how long Americans had to tolerate "former British colonies in America" from the English press two centuries back? That's easy. An English friend assures me that some people in England _still_ refer to us as "the colonies." Mari Schindele
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:06:20 -0500 Reply-To: COPYEDITING-L@CORNELL.EDU From: elliot mcintire To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" Wearing my hat as a professional geographer now. The problem with "The former Yugoslavia" is not that Americans have a very poor knowledge of geography (that's another issue, and another list) but the difficulty of finding a term to refer to a specific chunk of the earth's surface. "The Balkens" won't do, it includes too large an area. Most of the time using the name of one of the countries that has emerged from the area that used to be Yugoslavia won't do, either. That doesn't include enough area. So do we refer to Bosnia? But most of the time we also mean (at least parts of) Serbia, and much of Croatia that is currently occupied by Serbian troops, and maybe some other areas as well. So, we fall back on the (admittedly) inadequate "the former Yugoslavia." We have a similar problem with "the former Soviet Union." Over time it will sort itself out, but for now we often need to refer to Russia and at least most of the countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, so what do we use? Russia and neighbors? Northern Asia and a chunk of Europe? It's awkward, not very accurate, but probably unavoidable, at least in many situations. Elliot McIntire
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:57:43 -0500 From: Amy Wang To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: former yugoslavia Hmmmm. As far as I can tell, we here use the names of the republics themselves -- Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina -- on the assumption that the war has been going on so long our readers know we're referring to what used to be Yugoslavia. So that's one approach. Ann and Richard bring up interesting points, though. In regard to the former Soviet Union, the official name is the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), but most newspapers I know have decided no one will know what that means and therefore don't use it. I guess we'll deal with it the same way we dealt with Yugoslavia. Already we're referring to Chechnya as simply that, since the situation there has dragged on... As for using a country's "right" name, that's admirable, but I am always leery about what is "right." Case in point: Taiwan. According to the government now in power on that island, the right name is Republic of China. So whether one uses "Taiwan" or "ROC" is to many people an instant indicator of political sympathies. Amy Inquirer employee, not Inquirer mouthpiece
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:43:16 -0500 From: elliot mcintire To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Bill Blinn wrote: I thought Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when the Czechs and the Slovaks decided to go separate ways. Things are changing so fast in the former "soviet bloc" countries that it's difficult to keep up. It did. They are now the Czech Republic and Slovakia (in English). Also, the problem of using CIS to refer to "the former USSR is that it doesn't include all of the former Soviet Republics. The three Baltic republics did not join CIS. Besides, the fifteen "members" of CIS are cheerfully going their own way on so many things that there is considerable question that the CIS actually exists any more. Any one with a manuscript that mentions country or city names for volatile parts of the world (like much of Africa, "the former Yugoslavia," "the former Soviet Union," and a number of other places, needs to be very careful. For example, several hundred cities and other feature in Russia and other such areas have been renamed recently. Which name to pick is often dependent on the purpose of the manuscript. I am reminded of the interview with the old Russian man who was asked: Where were you born? St. Petersberg Where did you grow up? Petrograd Where do you live? Leningrad Where do you expect to die? St. Petersberg. Of course he had never moved, and now will get his wish. Elliot McIntire emcintire@huey.csun.edu
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:48:00 -0500 From: Tom Tadfor Little To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: former Yugoslavia Ed Nelson writes Let's take any one example -- maybe "Bosnia" for one -- Who would be willing to call Bosnia "a country"? If someone did, who could identify its boundaries? Or even its "location"? Seems we might exercise a little restraint in complaints about media. --ed Whoa, Ed! I'm sure Mario will have something to say about this. In the meantime, I'll toss out my 32 cents worth. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, the former Soviet republics, the Baltic states, the Czech republic, etc., are certainly real countries with established boundaries. They have been recognized by the UN and the nations of the world. Any good atlas published in the last year or two will show them all unambiguously. In fact, the "new" nations of eastern Europe almost all have a much longer history of national identity than did the administrative fictions created by the communist governments of this century. Croatia has been there for centuries. There is a war going on, so there are disputed territories and occupied territories. I might be reluctant to identify a particular town in a disputed region as belonging to one country or another, but I have no problem with a general phrase, such as "the war in Bosnia." Part of France was occupied by Germany in World War II, and was identified as "occupied France." Certainly it can become a judgment call when things are in upheaval, but I think the countries involved have a stronger identity than you suggest. I lived in England for two years. Growing up in the US, I thought of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as primarily administrative divisions within a single country. After all, those places hadn't been "independent" for centuries, right? Living there, I soon learned that there are four _countries_ in the UK, no ambiguity at all. I get the sense that it's pretty clear-cut in the Balkans too. Sorry if it sounds like I'm flaming you! I don't mean to. You make a point worth thinking about, but it seems to me the news writers who speak of "Croatia in the former Yugoslavia" often do so because it's a cliche they haven't examined lately--not because it is needed for any good reason. End of babble. Tom Tadfor Little Technical Writer/Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 02:14:00 -0500 From: Jay Linden To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Spiritism At 01:11 PM 1/23/95 -0500, LITTLE_TOM_H@ofvax.lanl.gov wrote: >Mario Profaca writes: >> I shall appreciate your comments on this issue: Actualy, writing about >> events (the war, UNPROFOR, etc.) in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina although >> recognized as idenpendent and sovoreign states four years ago by UN as well as >> by USA itself, American journalists are using terms as "former Jugoslavia", >> "ex-Jugoslavia", "ex-Yugo" etc. Although they write about *actual* countries, >> *current* events etc. they still hesitate (or deliberately avoid) to call >> those countries by their own (real) names. >Mario, I agree with you that US journalists should stop using these labels. >(Similarly, we still see "the former Soviet republic of Armenia", etc.). >However, I don't think those terms are used out of reluctance to accept the new >political entities; rather, Americans are so notoriously ignorant of geography >and world affairs that the journalists fear a reference to "Croatia" (without >explaining that it was part of the old Yugoslavia) would not be understood by >the audience. It is intended to give poorly informed readers or listeners some >context. It's just the way things are done in the "southern bits of the former British North America." See what having your own TV networks will do for your image? Jay Linden
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:15:00 -0500 From: Bill Blinn To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: former Yugoslavia I have to go along with Ed (Nelson). The countries that made up Yugoslavia were crushed together by the soviets. Three languages and two alphabets certainly didn't help when it came to making a cohesive nation. Once the vice grip was removed, the nations split. I checked a 1987 atlas and found distict boundaries for Bosnia (region), Bosnia-Hercegovina (republic), Croatia (republic), Slovenia (republic), and Slovakia (region). Bosnia (region) is also in a 1963 atlas. The others are likely there, too, but I didn't look. And, as Ed notes, recent atlases will show them as countries. >Ed Nelson writes: >I'll toss out my 32 cents worth. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, >Macedonia, the former Soviet republics, the Baltic states, the Czech republic, >etc., are certainly real countries with established boundaries. They have been >recognized by the UN and the nations of the world. Any good atlas published in >the last year or two will show them all unambiguously. In fact, the "new" >nations of eastern Europe almost all have a much longer history of national >identity than did the administrative fictions created by the communist >governments of this century. Croatia has been there for centuries. --- --- Bill Blinn -- N8POV@W8CQK.#CMH.OH.US.NOAM (Ham Radio) This first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Speaking on, but not for, NewsRadio 610 WTVN.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:48:17 -0500 From: Mary McBride To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: HELP: world geography--another query I've found the discussions on world geography most interesting. As of this morning, they became pertinent. I have an article on my desk (on deadline, of course) that says one of our researchers has done work around the world, including in "Czechoslovakia." I'm fairly certain he traveled there before the country split, so in my mind the use of the old country name is accurate (let me know if I'm off base here), but I don't know whether to say "the former Czechoslovakia" (to let folks know we know the country no longer exists) or leave the copy as is. Your thoughts? Thanks. Mary McBride Univ of Texas Medical Branch
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:49:26 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: HELP: world geography--another query No, I would say he wrote "Czechoslovakia" because he didn't finish his research yet, so he didn't find out that there is no Czechoslovakia any more. Mario Profaca Freelance Journalist Zagreb, Croatia
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:42:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: HELP: world geography--another query To: COPYEDITING-L@cornell.edu I was over in "the former Czechoslovakia" this past summer and I know that if you asked someone from either one of the countries they would promptly tell you that it sholud be "former". They really don't feel highly of each other or that's what I perceived from talking to them. Besides, some people over here don't even know that the countries split on what was titled "The Velvet Agreement." I hope I was of some help. Thomas Morris jr. Buffalo State College
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 02:15:00 -0500 From: Jay Linden To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "the former yugoslavia" At 07:39 AM 1/24/95 -0500, ed.nelson@SYSLINK.MCS.COM wrote: >It seems to me, however, that calling a particular location in "the former >Yugoslavia" a part of one country or another would require quite a leap -- >possibly more guts than are conveniently available. All the ethnic areas >appear to be so totally dismembered -- with the dismembering a continuing >operation -- that we're issuing a l-a-r-g-e challenge w/ this request. I think not. We're talking about sovereign powers which are recognized as such by most of the other nations of the world -- including the United States and Canada. >Let's take any one example -- maybe "Bosnia" for one -- Who would be willing to >call Bosnia "a country"? If someone did, who could identify its boundaries? >Or even its "location"? Seems we might exercise a little restraint in >complaints about media. --ed Let's take Bosnia as an example, or rather, the sovereign nation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That it has only recently earned its independence, and that its borders are changing as a result of a brutal war do not make it any less a nation. Would you have said the same thing about France, Germany, Poland, Austria and other older, traditional sovereign nations during those parts of World War II when their borders, too, were changing monthly? Would this idea have applied in the United States between 1776 and 1783, when it had declared its independence but not yet won it? Jay Linden Toronto, Canada PR/Media Relations/Writing/Netsurfing
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:07:00 -0500 From: Tom Tadfor Little To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: HELP: world geography Mary McBride writes: > I've found the discussions on world geography most interesting. As of > this morning, they became pertinent. I have an article on my desk > (on deadline, of course) that says one of our researchers has done work > around the world, including in "Czechoslovakia." I'm fairly certain he > traveled there before the country split, so in my mind the use of the old > country name is accurate (let me know if I'm off base here), but > I don't know whether to say "the former Czechoslovakia" (to let folks > know we know the country no longer exists) or leave the copy as is. > Your thoughts? Thanks. 1. First confirm (if you have time) that it really was still Czechoslovakia when the author was there. 2. If it was, use "Czechoslovakia" without qualification or apology; to do otherwise is to be guilty of anachronism, and to call attention to a political change which is (I'm guessing) irrelevant to the subject of the article. [To justify that approach, consider writing an article about World War II. You might say The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, in the Hawaiian islands. but The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, in the state of Hawaii is just wrong (Hawaii wasn't a state then), and The Japanese attacked Pear Harbor, in the future state of Hawaii is trite and distracting. IMO] Tom Tadfor Little Technical Writer/Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:17:27 -0500 From: Ed Nelson To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Nation/history Jay Linden, an astute observer, notes w/ regard to difficulties in properly identifying locations in what was once called Yugoslavia: > Would you have said the same thing about France, Germany, Poland, > Austria and other older, traditional sovereign nations during those > parts of World War II when their borders, too, were changing monthly? You make a point hard for me to dispute -- at least w/ reasonable brevity -- here, Jay. > Would this idea have applied in the United States between 1776 and > 1783, when it had declared its independence but not yet won it? I suspect it *would* have applied during at least some of that period. Seems fairly clear to me that, once the shots were fired at Lexington there hadn't come into being anything called the United States of America. For one thing, they sure weren't united. And "union" took quite a while to establish. Media critics in London might have complained the Times wasn't giving "the colonists" a fair shake, due respect, and all that -- but I doubt staffers gave 'em a helluva lot of attention. --ed
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:48:50 -0500 From: elliot mcintire To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Historic Note Re: former Yugoslavia On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Bill Blinn wrote: > I have to go along with Ed (Nelson). The countries that made up Yugoslavia > were crushed together by the soviets. Three languages and two alphabets > certainly didn't help when it came to making a cohesive nation. Once the > vice grip was removed, the nations split. A minor correction. Yugoslavia was not a Soviet invention. The Kingdom of the South Slavs was cobbled together after WWI and the breakup of the old Austro-Hungarian empire, together with Serbia and a few odd bits. Of course it didn't stay a kingdom too long, and after WWII was in and then out of the Soviet sphere. (No slight intended to any Montenegrans out there on the list). Elliot McIntire emcintire@huey.csun.edu
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:08:44 -0500 From: Ralph Adam Fine To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "The former Yugoslavia" Jay: Touche. raf@solaria.mil.wi.us>Ralph Adam Fine Milwaukee, WI
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:06:22 -0500 From: Bill Walsh To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Former isn't former until it's former On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Bill Blinn wrote: > It might be worth a small editorial note stating that the author was in > Czechoslovakia prior to its dissolution. Barring that, this would be one > case in which "the former Czechoslovakia" would be acceptable -- the writer > was there when it was Czechoslovakia. Then the writer *was* in Czechoslovakia, was he not? He wasn't in the "former" anything! I run into this all the time -- for example, a reporter saying a bill was signed into law by "former President Reagan." How in the world a former president would have the power to do such a thing is beyond me. * * * Then there's the case of the double former, as in "James Brady, former press secretary to former President Reagan." I usually rewrite these along the lines of "James Brady, who served as press secretary to President Reagan." When the "former" facts are less well known, it gets a little trickier. You end up with things like "Stan Smith, who played Davis Cup when Donald Dell was the captain." -- Bill Walsh Copy Desk Chief The Washington Times
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 12:24:00 -0500 From: Tom Tadfor Little To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: USAGE: former I thought Bill's posting on this subject was right on the mark. These are interesting questions, however. I think that in your examples, the focus is on the present time, rather than the actual events of childbirth, which took place in the past. I would write instead: She HAS two children by her [former/late] husband. Or, if I want to actually put the reader back into the past, She had two children with her FIRST husband. (Provided she remarried later.) There's also the adjective "then": her then husband. I don't like it at all, but it's not anachronistic like "former" is. I guess I'd say something like I did regarding bring/take: it's a question of where (in this case when) the focus of the writing is. If the frame of reference is clearly and decisively the present time, "former" may be appropriate. If you're taking your readers' attention back in time to the events themselves, then "former" is not right. The same approach applies to your example of the Queen of England. (Other examples would be popes, people who are knighted, or who change their names.) I usually see this handled as follows: [Current name] was born [former name] in xx. (If the readers might not know who the piece is about) or simply [Former name] was born in xx. (If it's obvious). I would tend to regard Queen Elizabeth II was born in London in xxx as immature writing (junior high book report stuff). I feel this question is something like shifting tenses in writing. Sometimes it seems easy enough and does no harm, but it is wise to eliminate it completely, as it has the potential of making the writer look like a very foggy thinker. Tom Tadfor Little Technical Writer/Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory little_tom_h@ofvax.lanl.gov
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:26:55 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: "the former yugoslavia" On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Jay Linden wrote: > Would this idea have applied in the United States between 1776 and 1783, > when it had declared its independence but not yet won it? Actually, it's very nice reading your messages from former Algonquian Land of Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ojibway, Sac and Fox, Pottawatomi, Illinois, Miami, Kickapoo and Shawnee! Mario Profaca Freelance Journalist Zagreb, Croatia
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:17:00 -0500 From: Bill Blinn To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Former isn't former until it's former Bill Walsh writes: >I run into this all the time -- for example, a reporter saying a bill was >signed into law by "former President Reagan." How in the world a former >president would have the power to do such a thing is beyond me. How about: "The writer who was in what is currently the Former Czechoslovakia"? "Former" would be capitalized in the same way that the Nazis capitalized the "Greater Reich". I have to agree with you. --- --- Bill Blinn (bblinn@infinet.com) -- N8POV@W8CQK.#CMH.OH.US.NOAM (Ham Radio) This first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Speaking on, but not for, NewsRadio 610 WTVN.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:41:37 -0500 From: Jan Boomsliter To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: HELP: world geography--another query "... in what was then Czechoslovakia." Extend the logic: Did Mrs. Anna Lowenowens live and work in Thailand? or Siam? There is at least one generation of Americans who don't know about Siam. This is interesting. Thanks. jb
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:40:24 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: HELP: world geography--another query On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Jan Boomsliter wrote: > "... in what was then Czechoslovakia." > > Extend the logic: Did Mrs. Anna Lowenowens live and work in Thailand? > or Siam? There is at least one generation of Americans who don't know > about Siam. Don't miss the point: Spiritism is when American reporters are reporting ( CNN even *live*) from *former Yugoslavia*. That's what my initial message about spiritism and copyediting was all about. Mario Profaca Freelance Journalist Zagreb, Croatia
============================ I've found the discussions on world geography most interesting. As of this morning, they became pertinent. I have an article on my desk (on deadline, of course) that says one of our researchers has done work around the world, including in "Czechoslovakia." I'm fairly certain he traveled there before the country split, so in my mind the use of the old country name is accurate (let me know if I'm off base here), but I don't know whether to say "the former Czechoslovakia" (to let folks know we know the country no longer exists) or leave the copy as is. Your thoughts? Thanks. Mary McBride Univ of Texas Medical Branch
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:39:47 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Historic Note Re: former Yugoslavia On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, elliot mcintire wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Bill Blinn wrote: > A minor correction. Yugoslavia was not a Soviet invention. The Kingdom of > the South Slavs was cobbled together after WWI and the breakup of the old > Austro-Hungarian empire, together with Serbia and a few odd bits. *** And now a major correction, as "Magister dixit"... 8-)) It was not "The Kingdom of the South Slavs"; Exact name was *The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians* Later on it was our *big brother* Josif Visarionovic Stalin who was talking so much about Slavic *fraternity*. Josip Broz Tito did teach us *fraternity-unity* of all "Yugoslavs" too. It *was* in former Jugoslavija (engl. Yugoslavia). Word "Jugoslavija" is a compound-word: Jugo = (engl.) South; slavia = derivative of the word *Slav*, a way of naming the land (country, state) for Slav nations. One should make a dinstinction between words *Slav* and *Slovenian*. Slovenians are the people of the sovereign state *Slovenia* (Slovenija), north from Croatia, but they are Slavs too. We have also *Slavonia* (Slavonija) which is eastern region of Croatia, now partly under Serbian occupation, as it is *Dalmacia* (Dalmacija), southern region of Croatia. Those are UNPA zones in Croatia, with UN *peace keeping forces*. They are keeping victims of Serbian agression - RIP. So, *Jugoslavia* was a compound-word, name for the *compound-country* for all *Yugo-Slavs*, Slavs living in south Europe. Russians are Slavs too. They live north but nobody call them North Slavs. It's OK, because if you call them - they might come with tanks as Serbian so called *Yugoslav Army* did to Croatia four years ago. That's why I *freeze* myself reading about Slav fraternity, particularly regarding *fraternity* with those Slavs who, in fact, are of Byzantium origin and you should pay tribute to them for well known expression *byzantine* (engl. underhanded person). For better understanding what's going on in Croatia as well as in Bosnia-Herzegovina one should go further back to history: the first *fraternity* in the history of our civilisation was the fraternity of Khain and Abel (Holly Bible). That was how everything started: The original sin. Trying to compound up *former Jugoslavia* once again it would be a kind of Dr.Jackyl's Franchensteiny minded business. So, please, don't blame me for saying: Yugoslavia is dead; Long live Croatia! Unfortunately, there are still such attempts (fortunately)_recogniseable in constant use of syntagm like "former Yugoslavia", "South Slavs", "South Slavic countries", "the area of former Yugoslavia", "former Yugoslav republic" etc. Those syntagms are of same origin as euphemisms like "ethnic cleansing" (for genocide) in Bosnia-Hercegovina. For us, here, who witnessed what it realy means it's same as if one would say, when Serbs ripe so many women in Bosnia, that they just use to "make love using certain unconventional way of doing it". In fact, instead of not making war but making love, they are doing both at the same time. Acording to Mazowietszky's Report to UN, mass riping was also one of Serb's methods in "ethnic cleansing" during this war. P.S. My apology to all Serbs, eventualy subscribers of this list, who didn't participate in events mentioned. Generalising was never my way. Mario Profaca Freelance Journalist Zagreb, Croatia
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 08:34:56 -0800 To: mprofaca@public.srce.hr From: Pam Rider Subject: Wondering About Balkans Mario: Your background on Croatia is VERY helpful. A number of groups refer to the war-torn area where you are as the Balkans. Is this correct? Is it a way to generalize about the area without ignoring nationhood of BiH? Best to you The REAL enemy is war Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com alias = prider@tsktsk.com
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 06:17:05 -0500 From: Beth Roberts To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Czechoslovakia Have to disagree with what seems the general consensus about the researcher who visited Czechoslovakia before it broke up. If the political situation is irrelevant to the context, seems to me the edited version should say he visited Slovakia and the Czech Republic; only if the political situation was relevant would one need to say the former Czechoslovakia. If you were writing about Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity, you would say he was an American, even if those experiments took place in the colonies (and I have no idea about that). On the other hand, if you were writing about his early political writings you would have to call him a colonist. No? Beth Roberts Director of Publications Public Info, Alumni House University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 |
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 14:45:57 -0500 To: mprofaca@public.srce.hr From: Bill Blinn Subject: Re: Historic Note Re: former Yugoslavia Hello again, Mario, >My apology to all Serbs, eventualy subscribers of this list, who didn't >participate in events mentioned. Generalising was never my way. This is probably one of the key points. It is not all members of any one group who are wrong, I suspect -- but individuals. My wife, whose grandparents were Polish, watched the fighting in and around Sarajevo and was very upset at the destruction of what she had seen as an Olympic city. I hope that the fighting will end and that the leaders of all sides will begin to talk with each other. As always, I wish you well. --- --- Bill Blinn (bblinn@infinet.com) -- N8POV@W8CQK.#CMH.OH.US.NOAM (Ham Radio) This first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Speaking on, but not for, NewsRadio 610 WTVN.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:09:16 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: SPIRITISM: query No, dear Sara, I had no idea of that book although I was born the same year so that I should have seen it somewhere ;-) I shall see if I could find it somewhere, but I doubt. I am Croat, as I always was. In Yugoslavia bein *Yugoslav* was encouragin by unitarists; I mean "Yugoslav" not only from the point of view of citizenship but as national belonging. It was funny particulary for Muslims in Yugoslavia who insisted that *Muslim* was not only religion belonging but nation too. Both Croatian and Serbian nationalists didn't want to hear about it, regarding *Bosnians*, so that Bosnian Muslims had to choose whether they are Croatian Muslims or Serbian Muslims. I myself know by names some real brothers having same mother and father but who in the time of last census declared themselves diferent: First one is "Croat", second one is "Serb" and third one declared himself being "Yugoslav". Yes, I do feel sorry for you people trying to understand what's going on here. But, anyway it's not "civil war" as we read sometimes in Western media. It's pure Serbian agression against sovereign states of Croatia as well as Bosnia-Herzegovina, but that would be another issue. Mario Profaca Freelance Journalist Zagreb, Croatia > Mario, > I enjoyed your posting on names and background of Yugoslavia. > Query: have you read Rebecca West's account, Black Lamb and > Grey Falcon? (maybe there is no "and" in the title--I read > it a long time ago). I am wondering what a modern --- my > goodness, what do YOU call yourself now? -- thinks of it. > If you don't know the book -- she and her husband travelled > in Yugoslavia during the 1930's, and she wrote about the > history and about current events of the area. It was published > in the 1940's, I think. > Sara Burroughs burroughs@alpha.nsula.edu
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:41:12 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: CHAT: "The Former Yugoslavia" BTW, I remember a coctail party in VOA , Washington D.C., where I was in 1972 as a member of European Journalist Group (20 journalists from 20 European Countries; I was one from Yugoslavia). We all had badges with our names and countries on it. A fellow journalist aproached me and, looking at my badge he smiled friendly: "O, Yugoslavia?! I - Romania." "No, dear friend" told him using the same Me_Tarzan-You_Jane English " You_go_Slavia and I'll remain_here" Mario Profaca Freelance Journalist Zagreb, Croatia
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 21:35:09 -0500 From: Lynn Colvin To: Copy Editors and Editing Bill Walsh said: "I run into this all the time -- for example, a reporter saying a bill was signed into law by 'former President Reagan.' How in the world a former president would have the power to do such a thing is beyond me." I'm inclined to agree with Bill but wonder about this use: "She had two children with her former husband." It seems OK there, and yet it's comparable to Bill's example. And what about "late"? If you said, "She had two children with her late husband," you wouldn't be implying that she'd done something weird with a dead man. And on a slightly different subject, what about when you're giving a biographical sketch of someone who now goes by a different name or title? For example, "Queen Elizabeth was born in London [or wherever]." She wasn't the queen when she was born. Lynn Colvin
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 00:45 WET To: mprofaca@public.srce.hr From: Jay Linden Subject: Re: "the former yugoslavia" Cc: Copy Editors and Editing At 01:26 AM 1/26/95 +0100, Mario Profaca wrote: >Actually, it's very nice reading your messages from former Algonquian Land >of Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ojibway, Sac and Fox, Pottawatomi, Illinois, Miami, >Kickapoo and Shawnee! Who, me? Actually, around here we're talking about land that once belonged to the Mohawk/Ojibway nations. But I'll tell all the others you said hello Jay Jay Linden Toronto, Canada PR/Media Relations/Writing/Netsurfing
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 06:12:21 -0500 From: mprofaca@public.srce.hr To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: (from J. Linden) Re: "the former yugoslavia" Thank you, Jay, but no need to do that; They know that, living actualy in the Land of Algonquian (or Algonkins), possibly the largest group of linguistically related tribes of North America I mentioned, scattered over the whole continent from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. Later on, *former Europeans* (now Americans) made them *former*... --mario
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 10:03:18 -0500 From: Beth Goelzer Lyons To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: (from E. McIntire) Re: HELP: world geography Generally speaking, areas (countries, regions, etc.) should be referred to by the names they used at the time the events described occurred, without modification, unless it is needed for clarity. For example, one might say "Most of the fighting occurred in Livonia (now Estonia) ...." but if one says "He studied violin in Prague, Czechoslovakia when he was twelve." there is really no need to insert (now the Czech Republic). No one should be confused. Now, just where Anna worked as a tutor may be a marginal case, except that the popularity of the musical probably makes it unnecessary to say (now Thailand). There is some question of what to do with Myanmar, since this name for the country formerly known as Burma is not recognized by most nations or international bodies. Elliot McIntire emcintire@huey.csun.edu
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 10:03:29 -0500 From: Beth Goelzer Lyons To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: (from J. Linden) Re: Nation/history At 08:17 AM 1/25/95 -0500, ed.nelson@SYSLINK.MCS.COM wrote: [...] > > > Would this idea have applied in the United States between 1776 and > > 1783, when it had declared its independence but not yet won it? > I suspect it *would* have applied during at least some of that period. > Seems fairly clear to me that, once the shots were fired at Lexington there >hadn't come into being anything called the United States of America. For one >thing, they sure weren't united. And "union" took quite a while to establish. >Media critics in London might have complained the Times wasn't giving "the >colonists" a fair shake, due respect, and all that -- but I doubt staffers gave >'em a helluva lot of attention. --ed That's fair enough. It wasn't until 1787 that states began ratifying the Constitution of a sovereign power called the United States. I guess a safer way to express my point would be to suggest that at some juncture, possibly not a fixed moment in time, it became inappropriate to refer to the U.S. as the "former North American colonies" (which would distinguish them from the then--still-present colonies where I live). Whether that juncture occurred at the moment the Americans actually declared their independence in 1776, at the moment of Cornwallis' surrender, at the moment of the ratification of the Constitution, or more probably, in more gradual stages in between those moments, is almost immaterial. By 1787, the world should have had enough time to become aware of the new sovereign power, and been willing to recognize it by its name. Given that information travels so much faster now than in the 18th century, one should assume that the nations in question are entitled to simply be called by their names, and that the world's people can be reasonably expected to know what they are. If not, we could at least qualify them as "Slovenia, a Balkan republic in what was formerly Yugoslavia, rather than simply continuing to lump the Slovenians in with the people of the other nations as "the former Yugoslavia." We offer the same courtesy to Lesotho (formerly Basutoland) and Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta). When have you most recently heard the word "Rhodesia?" Jay Linden Toronto, Canada PR/Media Relations/Writing/Netsurfing
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 16:10:14 -0500 From: Bill Walsh To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: Former isn't former until... On Fri, 27 Jan 1995 Newman155@aol.com wrote: > If I were editing the passage about Reagan I would make it "the bill was > signed by then-President Reagan." Nothing at all wrong with that, but I consider the "then-" unnecessary when talking about an office that every single reader knows is no longer occupied by the person in question. -- Bill
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 15:22:00 -0500 From: re_allen@ccmail.pnl.gov To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: (from E. McIntire) Re: HELP: world geography Elliot McIntire said: ...There is some question of what to do with Myanmar, since this name for the country formerly known as Burma is not recognized by most nations or international bodies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about the singer formerly known as Prince? If I ran the newspaper, I'd just delete all stories about him. Bob (who listens to public radio because my classic rock station went to all-news and modern rock sucks)
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 18:45:00 -0500 From: Bill Blinn To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: USAGE: "Former ..." On Saturday, the AP Radio Wire noted the signing of an agreement between the U.S. and Viet Nam. Part of the agreement, the story said, would restore to the United States the embassy building "in Saigon". When South Viet Nam collapsed, the Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, and that is how it is shown in atlases. I changed the reference to "Ho Chi Minh City" for on-air references, but felt compelled to note that the city was called Saigon when the U.S. abandoned the embassy. Justification: It's been nearly 20 years since the war ended and some of our listeners might not make the connection. In retrospect, perhaps I should have just made it Ho Chi Minh City. Unfortunately deadlines don't always allow the luxury of in-depth thought. The AP's use of Saigon bothers me as much as would a reference to "Leningrad". --- --- Bill Blinn (bblinn@infinet.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 21:56:10 -0500 From: Leslie Bialler To: Copy Editors and Editing Subject: Re: USAGE: "Former ..." > The AP's use of Saigon bothers me as much as would a reference to "Leningrad". Bill, Logically and intellectually I can't disagree with you, but emotionally I would like to see Saigon as much as an old Communist Party apparatchik would probably like to see Leningrad. But of course logic and intellect must win out here. Ho Chi Minh City it should be. --Leslie-- |