Some thoughts on the nationalism problems in the Balkans

[BalkanTourist]

Reading through the Constantinople thread, I wish to comment on some of the oppinions and wish to express my own.
Constantinople was/is a great city, no question about that. It was meant to surpass Rome in greatness, and for a long time I believe it did. That is according to the Western point of view (or Christian for that matter). But Istanbul or Tsarigrad as the Slavs called it was not lost. In fact it turned out to be the crown jewell of a mighty empire that eventually became the forebearer of the muslim civilization which was far more advanced than the Western one in Medieval times. Two remarks here:
1. When they conquered the Balkans the Ottomans were lagging hundreds of years behind the Byzantines, the Bulgarians and the Serbs, in culture, economics, and societal structure. The problem was that eventhough the Europeans were in so much more advanced stage in their development as peoples and societies, they were suffering from the decay of the feudalism stage, that passed a bit latter through all of the West. That decay was defined by lack of centralization, seperatism, social upheaval, religious decay, and economic failure. In other words, those societies were ready to replace the backwardness of the feudalism and take on the path of the Renaissance and the time of the guilds and the trade enterprises (the time when people realised they could achieve much more with money rather than pure military strength. In my oppinion Byzantium, Bulgaria and Serbia were even ahead of Genoa and Venice in their cultural development (when I use the term "cultural" I really don't just mean the arts, but I use it in a much broader meaning). The West was lucky, they never had to deal with such a determined and fanatical foe. Most barbarians that entered Europe were either "culturalized" like the Magiars or the Norse easily (for several reasons, mainly because they had no strong religion and that made them more acceptable to foreign influence). The exception was the Moores in Spain, but hey were far more advanced than the Spaniards or any other Europeans for that matter.
Had the Balkan nations had any luck after the Turks had been defeated by the Mongols at Ankara in 1402, I believe Serbia for sure and maybe Bulgaria would have been able to recover and sustain the Ottoman push west. Unfortunatelly it was too late for Byzantium I am afraid. Like others said, Byzantium started to fade with the 4th Crusade and the formation of the Latin Empire in 1204. From that point on the Empire was slowly dying. I do not underestimate the strength of the Greek ethnos and people and their ability to survive, but I don't believe they could have done it under a "Byzantium" form. Chances were to have several greek states as Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizund, which would have had some chances versus the Ottomans only if the Ottomans had not recovered so quicky from that defeat. But I am drifting in the "what if" sphere....
2. The Ottoman Empire reached its zenith at a time when the west had also taken off in their development. Ironically, the Ottomans caused the Great Geographical Explorations that eventually brought their Empire to a backwater society once again, eventhough they were the forebears of the Islamic word and as such possessed great wealth and knowledge. I guess what I am trying to say is that they "peaked" too late and the subjugated peoples such as greeks, bulgarians, and serbs, did not get to benefit much from the Ottoman greatness.
Regardless, Istanbul remained to be one of the most significant cities in the Eastern world. A city that was envied, admired, awed and desired. The Bulgarians for instance wanted it after the first Balkan war.....
To be continued, I REALLY HAVE TO GO!!!!

[amazon77]

I agree with the vast majority of your thoughts, but i don't see why this is rellevent to the nationalism problem of the balkans.

IMHO the problem was caused by the introduction of large numbers of ppl into areas previously inhabited by "single-ethnic" communities. That, along with the "divide and conquer" policy, kept these areas (and the ensuing countries centuries later) in constant termoil. As a result of these we had the war crimes in the Yugoslavian war (performed by all parties).

[The Wizard]

Musings and idle thoughts! You simply cannot attribute such things to so indirect a cause. What happened in the Balkan Wars was the choice of the people acting in that theater.

You see, I don't think "Well, the Ottomans invaded what is now Yugoslavia six hundred years ago and then half of us turned Muslim and that's why I did what I did" is something the Yugoslavia Tribunal will except.



~Wiz

[amazon77]

Indeed wizard, i don't believe that what has happened at the past either justifies one's actions nor he can't be held responsible for them. Of course the war crimes in the Yugoslavian war were made by those participating in the war and not from 600+ year old politics.

Not only the Ottomans practised this politic, but also the Byzantines. When the empire was strong, slavic ppl would ask permission from the emperor to settle in the region, and of course he had some saying on where they would settle. When the empire was weak, they would cross the Danube river and settle wherever they liked. Perhaps the Ottomans influenced more the ethnik integrity of the balkan ppl, since they also brought a new religion, and in these times religion was at least as strong as "blood ties".

In my previous post i just wanted to point what in my opinion was the source of national problems (as this is the title of the post), which nat.probs. lead to a certain degree of dislike or even hatred among the balkan ppl, which in turn lead to the civil war with all the gruessome details in the case of the former Yugoslavia.

Btw, i believe there's not much steam nowadays in the balkans and that things are cooling down. I hope i am not mistaken.

[amazon77]

What's the Yugoslavian Tribunal? ~:confused:

[Rosacrux redux]

One should not underestimate, under any circumstances, the rather dubious role the "great powers" have played in the Balkans. The Russians (then Soviets) have been trying to get a foothold in the Balkans from god knows when (somehow the Rus sieging Constantinople comes in mind...) and after 1204 the "Westeners" have never left the Balkans alone. Of course that's - almost - ancient history, but the role UK, France, Austria and Russia played in the wake of the Balkan nationalism (19th century) the way they manipulated the locals to serve their aims and geostrategical goals, should say something. Also, the role Germany, Italy and of course USA played in the Yugoslavian issue, is quite revealing.

Truth is, the fact that Balkans are a relatively small area, with lots of different (or "different") ethnic groups, is not helping the issue. But it's more than just "nationalism". The separatist movements are being used by the great powers of today for their own purposes, since the Balkans are such a geopolitical "grand prix" that they cannot be left to their own people.

I am not blaming all the misery around here to outside intervention, I am just saying that things could be alot different if the Balkan people wouldn't have to serve outside goals and aims all the time.

[Gregoshi]

What is it about the Balkans that generates so much interest from countries outside the region?

[The Wizard]

Indeed I've been wondering what makes Balkan history so interesting to me. I mean, Bulgaria and Transylvania are beautiful and all, but that can't be all. ~;)



~Wiz

[BalkanTourist]

I agree with the vast majority of your thoughts, but i don't see why this is rellevent to the nationalism problem of the balkans.

IMHO the problem was caused by the introduction of large numbers of ppl into areas previously inhabited by "single-ethnic" communities. That, along with the "divide and conquer" policy, kept these areas (and the ensuing countries centuries later) in constant termoil. As a result of these we had the war crimes in the Yugoslavian war (performed by all parties).

I agree that it is not clearly related, but if you know me, I tend to write very long posts, and this time I didn't get to finish. I am at work now, but I'll try and finish it later on.

[edyzmedieval]

Indeed I've been wondering what makes Balkan history so interesting to me. I mean, Bulgaria and Transylvania are beautiful and all, but that can't be all. ~;)



~Wiz

Wanna come and visit me Wiz??? I live in Wallachia.... Maybe we'll talk some history.... You're gonna be my history teacher ~D

[L'Impresario]

After having adandoned a less-than-half-complete ethnosociology paper examining interbalkan peceptions of the “Other” to its fate, never to reach the hands of a professor , I guess I can contribute some thoughts , some of them provoked and influenced by the book I just finished reading, “Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory (ed. Maria Todorova, Hurst & Co 2004). I must admit that I’m shamelessly using some specific passages of the aforementioned book, mainly because they strongly complement my original view on the issue, namely the lack of a stereotypical mentality that governs historical progress in the Balkans, and I have yet to process the material therein.

When talking about a common Balkan mentality, a distinct image comes to mind: backward people with considerable nationalistic tendencies, clinging to old rivalries, eager to blame the “Great Powers” but even more ready to make a villain out of their neighbour. At least, this should describe the negative aspects of a common Balkan mindset, should we accept that the Balkans are “the cauldron of Europe”, and thus , by adding a healthy dose of foreign power politics and subtle intervention, we acquire the means to start interpreting past and future conflicts, in this region “burdened by a heavy history” as some have put it in newspapers and elsewhere the last tumultuous decades.

Ofcourse this “common mindset” is slightly differentiated according to religion and ethnic diversity throughout the region, but it remains essentially the same, intent on destroying the distinct “other”, exacting revenge for past crimes suffered by their forebearers and reclaiming the rightful property, their land (note: the value Balkan societies place on land property in the Balkans and its effects on individuals in contemporary nations, esp. in Greece, is also rather interesting, sheds some light on many common, traditional practices and attitudes of some “Balkanvölker”).


Well, this should be the image one creates through the western media reports and analysis during events like the Yugoslavian Civil War, the Kosovo conflict or even the Balkan Wars. Strangely enough for some, the Balkans and their inhabitants are the same as your average “subcontinental region with distinct physical borders” throughout the world, with the average unique characteristics they exhibit. This indeed may come to you as a paradox, given that attempts to “normalise” the historical process of any area through authoritarian teleological means are bound to be characterised as “good ol’ fashioned history lessons” – at least by me heh.

This is not to deny the significance of individual factors that have played a role in the formation of the current state of affairs, but not to dismiss the Balkans as a place in constant turmoil and then attribute it to stereotypical causes; I ‘d rather go with detailing a non-all encompassing “collage” of elements for each people, drawn mainly from the fields of simple political history,sociology and anthropology.

So the question shouldn’t be “ why are the Balkans beset by nationalism” or even “what are the causes of this phenomen”, but “how each modern state came to be”, “how did the Albanians,the Bulgarians, the Croats etc develop their identities in such a way”, “how the national myths influence so intensely some of the Balkan people during periods of crisis” and many, many others, maybe a bit boring for the more action-, “Volkscharacterologie”-oriented.


A good point to end one’s analysis would be the prospects of Europeanisation of the historic Balkans.According to M. Todorova, this means the substitution of the “historic Balkans” model with that of the “geographic Balkans of institutionalised ethnically homogeneous bodies”, specifically the abolition of the last remains of the Ottoman period and its legacy, which constitute our current perception of Balkanness.

Likewise, the Ottoman Empire spells the start of each standard approach towards the subject.Additionally ,in a standardised way, the period of the Ottoman rule presents us with the first common myth, one particularly accentuanted by the creation of the initial nation states in the Balkans during the 19th century, that of the “Turkish yoke” (additional myths ,such as the “golden” pre-Ottoman period, the pure and organic nation, the Kosovo-myth etc, and their similarity to the basic national myths worlwide, namely the “golden” myth of antiquity, the myth of the Dark Ages etc, are discussed by Holm Sundhaussen in ‘Europa balcanica. Der Balkan als historische Raum Europas’ ,Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 25, 1999, a very interesting article, though it took me quite some time to find it after learning about it in “Balkan Identities”).

In contrast to the Habsburg dynasty, the evaluation of the Ottoman rule is particularly negative, but the cause aren’t to be found within the characteristics of the empires, but within the post-WW2 nations of Austria and Turkey, with the first being somewhat of a model for the nations it ruled over almost a century ago.

I’d like to expand a bit on this and discuss the Yugoslav case, among other significant things (like social engineering, particularly active during the last decades in Turkey, or the making of heroes and villains in each nation, which reveals more than a lot about our subject) that helped constitute today’s Balkans, but, alas, I ‘ve chosen the long approach without being patient enough –atm I hope, although I rarely finish stuff ~;) - to gather all of my sources and then make a decent text out of it heh.

EDIT: Plus, the communist period is another factor, necesary for a balanced view of the matter- ofcourse in the above text I'm more concerned about showing how the people construct images of their realities and their influence in political decisions and history in general....ofcourse in order for sense to be made, I 'd have to elaborate ~:handball:

PS. The Yugoslavia Tribunal (http://www.un.org/icty/)

[Byzantine Prince]

What is it about the Balkans that generates so much interest from countries outside the region?
There reason is that there's so much hatred in the Balkans. From what I gathered from my first 13 years I lived there is that every country has at least one mortal enemy.
Croatia vs. Serbia
Croatia vs. Bosnia(the Serbian part)
Albania vs. Serbia
Albania vs. FYROM
Albania vs. Greece(to a lesser extent)
Greece vs. FYROM
Greece vs. Turkey
Greece vs. Bulgaria
Romania vs. Hungary
Romania vs. Moldova
Serbia vs. Kosova
Serbia vs Bosnia(the Croatian side)

All these countries have reason to start wars with each other to this very day. That's what makes it interesting.

[Magister Pediyum]

There reason is that there's so much hatred in the Balkans. From what I gathered from my first 13 years I lived there is that every country has at least one mortal enemy.
Croatia vs. Serbia = Religion
Croatia vs. Bosnia(the Serbian part) = Religion
Albania vs. Serbia = culture + Religion
Albania vs. FYROM = culture + Religion
Albania vs. Greece(to a lesser extent) = culture
Greece vs. FYROM = Land
Greece vs. Turkey = rings a bell
Greece vs. Bulgaria = culture
Romania vs. Hungary = culture + Religion
Romania vs. Moldova = Land
Serbia vs. Kosova ? what is this
Serbia vs Bosnia(the Croatian side) = Religion


All these countries have reason to start wars with each other to this very day. That's what makes it interesting.
Serbia vs. Kosova ? what is this
Kosova

[Byzantine Prince]

Well actually you got some of those wrong. Here's how they are IMO:
Croatia vs. Serbia = WW2 attrocities, land,
Croatia vs. Bosnia(the Serbian part) = Land, Religion
Albania vs. Serbia = Land(Kosova), culture, not really religion
Albania vs. FYROM = Land, people
Albania vs. Greece(to a lesser extent) = Land
Greece vs. FYROM = Name, culture, Not land
Greece vs. Turkey = Two Aegean Islands, Cyprus
Greece vs. Bulgaria = WW2
Romania vs. Hungary = people, land
Romania vs. Moldova = Land
Serbia vs. Kosova = independence
Serbia vs Bosnia(the Croatian side) = Religion

Kosova is the UN protectorate in Serbia that wants independence.

Most of these conflicts are over land and revenge. The differences inreligions and ethnic backgrounds are just excuses they use to commit crimes agaisnt each other.

[Magister Pediyum]

I live on bloody lands of the Balkan belive me Religion and culture are the root of wars.
And as for Косово и Метохија it is the part of Serbia as Normandy is the part of France
I am but a step away from ending my studies and i am one of the Serbs who are ashamed for crimes that some who called them selfs Serbs did in Kosovo and Metochia but it is the heart of mine nation and if we lose it we will die as a culture. All of those who committed crimes no mater to which side they belonge to should bee convicted .
To Byzantine Prince :
Where did you lived in Balkans?

[Byzantine Prince]

I live on bloody lands of the Balkan belive me Religion and culture are the root of wars.
And as for Косово и Метохија it is the part of Serbia as Normandy is the part of France
Yes but we're talking about the Balkans, not France. The Balkans are no place for friendly co-existence. I'm pretty sure those words are never used. :embarassed:

[The Wizard]

I thought the ethnic Albanian local majority in Kosovo wanted independence from Serbia? For both cultural (Albanian vs. Serbian) and religious (Islam vs. Christianity) reasons.



~Wiz

[Brenus]

Byzantine Prince, Kosova is the Albanian appellation of Kosovo and Methodia, the legal appellation and still is part of Serbia and Montenegro. That is why our friend Magister Pediyum reacted like that.

Comments about nationalism in Balkans: if you want to discuss the subject, forget all what the media said during the conflict and keep the discussion in the past. And before somebody ask, I am telling you that I worked around 6 years in total in the Former Yugoslavia in humanitarian help, to be precise Serbia, in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Bosnia, Doboj, Derventa, Gorazde, Croatia, Vukovar, during and after the war. I was proud to be there during the Serbian Revolution. I also worked in FYROM, Skopje and Ohrid. I think I covered all the territories, included Montenegro and Slovenia.

I like all this people and I will go back for my old days… Near the Danube…
The Balkans are place for friendship, they even have a word for good neighbourhood you can’t translate, the komsiluk. And even during the war, I experimented how welcoming these people are, they will gave all what they have, in the ruins of Derventa, in the hills of Gorazde, in the plains of Vukovar…
The tragedy of these wars wasn’t inevitable… But economical regression, fall of communism, fear from the past, political manipulation, stupidity and others factors pushed people to extremism and neighbours fought against neighbours…

Religion wasn’t as such a root for nationalism. But the only real way to identified a Croat from a Serb from a Bosniac is one is Catholic, the other Orthodox and the third a Muslim (and because it is Balkans, of course you have Catholic Serbs). They speak the same language, eat the same food, drink the some coffee and smoke the same cigarettes. Plus most of them were atheist. My Serbian translator converted he was 18, and my Bosnian translator was the only one going in the mosque before the war. And the only one not going after the war…
So, if you want to rebuild a national identity the only choice is to go back to what makes you different…

On the top you had the minorities, Italians, Albanians, Gypsies, Hungarians, Ukrainians Turks etc… And some you never heard about. The name Yugoslavia was very handy because you could claim to be what ever you wanted you were still a Yugoslav… It is difficult to be nationalist in theses countries because you can discover that in fact you best friend is one of those you want to kill…

However, after years of intensive propaganda from their leaders (Milosevic, Tudjman Izetbegovic), the Balkans went in flame and the nice villages burned very well…
But the Balkans is not doom to go to war every 50 years… That is just a myth.

The Wizard, some Albanian are Catholic. Here is it a war for nationalism, when two countries want the same territory... Nothing to do with religion...

[Byzantine Prince]

I thought the ethnic Albanian local majority in Kosovo wanted independence from Serbia? For both cultural (Albanian vs. Serbian) and religious (Islam vs. Christianity) reasons.
They have their own government but they are still dependent on Serbia Montenegro(sort of like Bavaria to Germany). But they do want independence and not to join with Albania, to become their own country.

Albanians have many religions, Orthodox Christians in the south, Muslims in the middle and north east, and Catholic in the north. I don't really know how many are atheists because before 85' they were atheists by law.

[Macedon]

[QUOTE=Byzantine Prince]But they do want independence and not to join with Albania, to become their own country.QUOTE]
Hmmm, On every albanian rally I've seen in my life there are maps of "Great Albania" consisting of today Albania, Kosovo and Metohia, Western Macedonia, and North-Eastern Greece. Believe me, they do want to join Albania. And if that happens - enter the ultimate Balkan: Total War...
Neighbouring Balkan peoples saw the Kosovo "liberation" from the Serbs as the first step, and because it was heavily supported from the western world, they don't trust the westerners too much...

And no, Greece vs. Macedonia is not about culture but land/name. The Greeks believe we want to invade them to reclaim the southern part of Macedonia... that is very far from the truth.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

[QUOTE=Byzantine Prince]
And no, Greece vs. Macedonia is not about culture but land/name. The Greeks believe we want to invade them to reclaim the southern part of Macedonia... that is very far from the truth.

Considering that most heavy military equipment of FYROM was donated to it by Greece I would say that no one in Greece thinks you are going to invade.

It is all about history for Greeks.

[LeftEyeNine]

The Balkans are place for friendship, they even have a word for good neighbourhood you can’t translate, the komsiluk.

It is really interesting that neighborhood is written "komsuluk" (pronounced com-shu-lukh ) in Turkish as well. As far as there are so many minorities living in Turkey, many from the Balkans as well. They are always friendly and honest people. I even have middle-related kindreds - from Serbs, we call them "muhacir" - emmigrant.

I am personally in favor of their presence in Turkey, they avoid corruption.

Edit : Macdeonians and Greeks do also have an argument of the Great Alexander's origin, don't they ?

[Byzantine Prince]

Hmmm, On every albanian rally I've seen in my life there are maps of "Great Albania" consisting of today Albania, Kosovo and Metohia, Western Macedonia, and North-Eastern Greece. Believe me, they do want to join Albania.
What a bunch of peasants think Kosovo should do is so irrelevent. It's their parties policy that matters. The party is very nationalistic and they think they are distinct from Albanians. They always refer themselves as Kosovars first. Albanians don't even like Kosovars. What Albania DOES want is Western Macedon.


And no, Greece vs. Macedonia is not about culture but land/name. The Greeks believe we want to invade them to reclaim the southern part of Macedonia... that is very far from the truth.
It is about culture. You guys are claiming to be descedents of Macedon and Alexander which sooooo false. We don't want to invade you, we just want you to accept the truth about who you are.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

[QUOTE=Macedon]
Hmmm, On every albanian rally I've seen in my life there are maps of "Great Albania" consisting of today Albania, Kosovo and Metohia, Western Macedonia, and North-Eastern Greece. Believe me, they do want to join Albania[QUOTE]


Don't forget Corfu as well. And I think I understand them. They too, need a place for vacations, don't they? :laugh3:

[Magister Pediyum]

Macedonians are Slavic borne nation which lives in historical region known as Macedonia phonetic games are irrelevant to history.
Some ''historiyans'' in Serbia are saying that because Iliric tribe called Timchyani lived in the same region as we live today we are there direct desendets,plea ~:cheers: se.

[Byzantine Prince]

It's not even a historical region. I mean except for like two mountains that might have been in the ORIGINAL macedonians kingdom, the rest was inhabitited by Peones who were a mix of Illirian and Thracian.


Some ''historians'' in Serbia are saying that because Iliric tribe called Timchyani lived in the same region as we live today we are there direct desendets,plea se.
Hehe, more like ahistorians. I was born is Albania and even there they don't say that.

[Brenus]

No surprise that the Serb have Turkish influence in their language, they were in the Ottoman Empire… They still drink the Turkish coffee. I even joked with one of my translator/friend when we went to the commemoration of Kosovo Polje, one of the female group was wearing very Ottoman Style Clothes. His answer was, well they won the Battle. If we had, they (the Turks) would drink Rakija in Istanbul…

The problem I met in working with all the different ethnicities in the Balkans is that they all have a dream of great something. The Bulgarians have a view on a part of FYROM, the Albanians on part of FYROM, Montenegro, Serbia, Greece, the Serbs on FYROM, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Croatia on Slovenia, Serbia and Bosnia, Hungary on Croatia and Serbia, Italy still remember that Rijeka was Fiume, etc… All the countries took and lost territory during various wars and regained them and ALL have good memory about what they suffered and amnesia about what they did.
All populations are so intermixed that no borders based on nationality are possible to fix. And, yes, I saw all the maps from all parties, and all the “historical” claims which support their point of view.

Plus other problems like internal minority make the game even deeper. Right, Albania doesn’t want the reunification with Kosovo and Methodia/Kosova because it will upset the balance between Geg and Tosks, the two main components of Albanian population…

The main weapons during the war in FYROM were provided by Bulgaria, and the pilots of the two or three MI 24 Hind were Croats… Greece belongs to NATO and the US would have blocked any transfer of armament who could have harmed their own soldiers. They had enough problems with the one they provided to the KLA, when this one started to smuggle these weapons into FYROM…

[BalkanTourist]

Despite, trying to stay away from taking sides, I have to say that I am Bulgarian, and as such, I cannot stay idle when it comes to Macedonia. Historically, it was a part of Bulgaria. Many Macedonians consider themselves to be Bulgarians, many fled after the Balkan wars to Bulgaria after we lost Macedonia. Bulgaria entered the First Balkan war against Turkey for Macedonia, which was unjustly left under Ottoman rule after Bulgaria was liberated. Bulgaria bore the brunt of the Ottoman Army. Serbia and Greece fought with small pockets of Turkish irregulars. At the end though, Serbia and Greece took most of Macedonia. For us that war was not about territorial gains, it was about liberating our brothers. Had it been about land, we would have been much better with Eastern and Aegean Thrace, which are much more profitable lands than the rocky hills of Macedonia. Bulgarian armies took Edirne (Odrin) and Luleburgaz in present day Turkey. Although there was Bulgarian population there, it wasn't the majority. At the begining of last century the population inhibiting present day Macedonia considered themselves to be Bulgarians, and the Bulgarian people felt that having such a large proportion of the populationleft out is a national problem. That's why we fought the second war, because the national problem was not solved.
After 50 years of brainwashing there are Macedonians that believe they have nothing to do with us, that Samuil was their king (despite not having ANY records from Medieval times that mention a Macedonian kingdom). They steal our history, because they don't have theirs, because we are one. If they don't want to consider themselves Bulgarian anymore, that's fine. A country without history and without a real name will have no future. I predict it will not exist before I die. Sadly the Albanians will take most of it. It is a fine example of what politics could to....

[Byzantine Prince]

Why is it sad that Albanians will take it? The West has an Albanian majority, that is treated inhumainly by the Slavs.

[Ash]

What is it about the Balkans that generates so much interest from countries outside the region?
People in Europe found the Balkans interesting enough to start a war about it in 1914...:)