Everything in connection with the infamous substitution of the word "crime" with the word "mistake" has already been explained and very precisely analyzed in those media that deem the truth more important than "patriotic manipulations". The suggested substitution was not in a history textbook, and not in a context that necessarily has anything to do with the war and the crimes committed in it. The substitution was in a sentence concerned with grammar, without connections with time and space, the sentence that was supposed to serve as an illustration of ablative genitive. Finally, the suggestion was based on an expert opinion and didn't come from a woman who was Spanish, American, French nor Chinese, but a Bosniak from Sarajevo. The way in which she justified her professional suggestion that has since then made her life miserable and even "destroyed" it (by putting her family in danger of a physical attack) would appear acceptable to any normal person. Children really do not have to learn grammar using "crimes", "corpses" and "genocide". Or do they? Was actually that the goal of the "educators" who were not satisfied with the amount of hatred already existing in the children? As if the children had not already been punished enough by the actions of adults?
The hysteria provoked by the fake accusation which spread like a forest fire has already been shaped into public conclusions such as these: "It is time for an open rebellion"; "They have hurt us to the bone marrow" [i.e. terribly]; "This is a peace time genocide"; "Chetniks [derogatory term for Serbs] make educational programs here"... All said by smart people, intellectuals, many of them university professors. Truly scary! In all that, it is unimportant what needs to be in textbooks and what doesn't. Of course, "genocide", "crimes", "aggression" and legendary Zajka and those like him should be in the textbooks, but that is not the point here. In this case an event was distorted in public and then abused as much as possible. Of course, not because of textbooks and their content but because of the campaign that was so grotesquely concluded by Vladimir Srebrov at the spot where "rubber burns". He burnt two state flags incorrectly claiming that that was a "civic protest" against Europe and a Spaniard [High Representative for Bosnia-Hercegovina Carlos Westendorp] who, according to Srebrov, want to replace a crime with a mistake. Why, then, didn't he burn a European or a Spanish flag? Why the flag of Bosnia-Hercegovina? Is it enough to say that he supposedly doesn't like it and that he would prefer a different one? A strange "message" indeed. Putting aside that in civilized countries people go to jail for such acts, the key question is: under what flag are we today, after everything, trying to establish what was truly a crime and what a mistake? With what goal? Apparently not with the goal of developing a normal, civilized country in which children will be taught peace and tolerance. Those children must know what happened to them, but they must not be made into frustrated warriors ready for revenge. And exactly that is done with public lies, distortions and burning of state flags. If you do not believe me, ask the children.
Translated on 12/10/98