From: simic@pollux.ccsf.caltech.edu (Petar Simic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: ABUSE OF THE WORDS
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:52:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


	Concerning the question asked by ec@pilatus.zurich.ibm.com (Jean
 Cherbonnier), "What do they call concentration camps ?..."

	The phrase "concentration camps" seems to be abuse of the words and
 an attempt (in the series of other similar) to manipulate public opinion 
 in the West. There is no question that the inhumane violence and criminal
 actions are part of this war as in many other civil wars. Yet to introduce
 such emotionally strong words as "concentration camps" and similar, seems
 highly irresponsible because these words are code words, and what happened 
 to Jews in the WWII is beyond the speakable, bejond the comparable to 
 anything which could today happen in Bosnia and Hercegovina - small peace 
 of land full of UN monitors, Croatian and Muslim forces and Western 
 reporters. Particular target of this cruel manipulation are Jews, who were
 so far seen (especially by some Serbs) as a 'natural' friends of Serbs,
 because of the historical frendship between the two people, and because
 both - Jews and Serbs - suffered so much from the German and Croatian
 fasists in the death-camps all over Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina
 during the WWII.

 	Another thing. If you read reports in the Western press this days
 (for example, the articles from the Washinngton Post posted from time
 to time here by Mr. V. Wickerhauser) which are meant to support the idea
 of "camps", you would notice that 95% of the stories are hard to confirm
 and come from interviewed Croatian refugees who were prisoners of the Serbs
 before they got exchanged for Serbs prisoned by the other side. No visible
 attempt is being made to get the other side of the story, to go to the 
 refugee camps in Serbia and talk to these people to. Why?

	Since the stories fit in the prestablished template - Serbs are
 "agressors" (maybe not, but they are hard to control and rebelious anyway), 
 Muslim and Croats are "defenders and victims" (maybe not, but you got to 
 have god guys in the story) - they are presented as "hard to confirm but
 possible" and the access to the Western press is given to them without 
 any visible attempt to get the story of the other side. Yet, very often,
 the other side is obvious - it is the  Serb prisoner who was the other 
 side in the exchange, who is the victim of "ethnic cleansing" by the other
 side, and who is now a refugee somewhere in Serbia). So much for the 
 balanced reporting. [ Everyone can try a simple and instructive excersise
 and count in the press reports quotations of the information sorces for the
 story. Many will be surprised to discover that most of the direct quotes 
 and references making up the press-coverage of the events in Yugoslavia,
 come from the one side - "Bosnian official said", "Croat refugee said",
 "Government sorces said", "Policemen spokesman said", etc; even the 
 information of what the other side wants, do, or think, is often just 
 the interpretation given by the one side ("worthy side") of what the other
 side (Bosnian Serbs) want, do, or think ]. 
 
	Part (only part, and at a very coarse level) of the explanation seems
 to be that what is in work here is the so called "winner-take-all" mechanism. 
 One of the sides gets all the blaim, and the other side gets all the 
 attention and almost exclusive access to the press. Yet the difference is
 that one side, as military somewhat stronger in the moment, is creating
 twice as many refugees then the other side who does the same "ethnic 
 cleansing" etc, but on, say, somewhat smaller scale (roughly proportional
 to the area they keep - say, 40-45%).

 	In another words, there is a worthy victim and an unworthy victim.
 The worthy victim was prisoned in the "concentration camp" and he is being
 given all the press coverage after he is exchanged for the unworthy victim,
 who appear in the Western press only under the collective alias implied by
 the concept of "an exchange", with no story about him and how is he expeled
 from his home by the other side; and  who becomes nameless refugee somewhere
 in Serbia.

	Regards,
	Petar.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia