The most cogent arguments I have seen is that he supported Milosovic and the Serbs, it’s not a great look but as more level headed people have pointed out it’s not like Parenti was in Yugoslavia helping materially or whatever, his bad take doesn’t make him literally responsible for genocide or whatever they insist. Edit: especially when they say things like “Serb Imperialism” is a thing
I’ve seen him get called a genocide denier over this a couple of times but like… you’re allowed to be wrong in an actively unfolding academic debate about historical events in recent memory, especially when the evidence was still being uncovered. Was every single person in the 90s and early 2000s supposed to be on the same page so suddenly after the civil war and intervention, as if the academic consensus came from Heaven and all the Good People agreed with it instantly, and anyone who disagreed is a Bad Person?
And to kill a nation wasn’t explicitly genocide denial, it was mostly explaining how the ethnic warfare was a result of Western meddling and bombing, for the express purpose of breaking up and controlling Yugoslavia.
Poeple calling him like this didn’t even read that book, he never denied the genocide, he pointed out it’s not just all Serbs like western propaganda claimed and that the west and their darling paragons of democracy like Izetbegović or Tudman have been responsible for war in the first place.
The most cogent arguments I have seen is that he supported Milosovic and the Serbs, it’s not a great look but as more level headed people have pointed out it’s not like Parenti was in Yugoslavia helping materially or whatever, his bad take doesn’t make him literally responsible for genocide or whatever they insist. Edit: especially when they say things like “Serb Imperialism” is a thing
I’ve seen him get called a genocide denier over this a couple of times but like… you’re allowed to be wrong in an actively unfolding academic debate about historical events in recent memory, especially when the evidence was still being uncovered. Was every single person in the 90s and early 2000s supposed to be on the same page so suddenly after the civil war and intervention, as if the academic consensus came from Heaven and all the Good People agreed with it instantly, and anyone who disagreed is a Bad Person?
Given that most westerners take the word of the us media orgs as if the were their churches, “consensus came from heaven” isn’t too far off.
And to kill a nation wasn’t explicitly genocide denial, it was mostly explaining how the ethnic warfare was a result of Western meddling and bombing, for the express purpose of breaking up and controlling Yugoslavia.
Poeple calling him like this didn’t even read that book, he never denied the genocide, he pointed out it’s not just all Serbs like western propaganda claimed and that the west and their darling paragons of democracy like Izetbegović or Tudman have been responsible for war in the first place.