Saturday, August 26, 2006
Americans For Bosnia: "Fools' Crusade," Diana Johnstone, and ethnic nationalism, Part 2
Americans For Bosnia: "Fools' Crusade," Diana Johnstone, and ethnic nationalism, Part 2
Part of it is a vocabulary problem! In English there IS a clearer definition of ethnicity v.s. nationality, or nation. This is less the case in Slavic languages generally, including with B/H/S.
Narod is the word in most Slavic languages for 'nationality', 'ethnicity' or 'people' in fact distinction between ethnicity, and nationality is of fairly recent origin even in Western Europe.
Then too, the whole 'group rights' thing vs 'individual rights' plays into it.
In Western Europe and North America, there is less tendancy to have 'group rights' than in the Balkans or the Indian Sub-Continent where ethnicity and caste still are very important. Your ethnic group or caste group protects what few individual rights you have in both areas of the world.
In the Balkans th
is was in part a result of the Turkish Millet system. In some ways the Millet system was positive, because each group was far more self governing than in more 'modern' arrangements. It meant that most of the time people were not subjected to laws they objected to, or customs they objected to for so long as they paid their taxes.
This got interfered with a lot for all the ethnic groups in the Balkans with modernization. People in some ways liked having more freedom, but they did not like being made all alike. They did not get enough freedom to make being all alike O.K. for them. In a way being all alike isn't freedom anyway.
Yugoslavia was a Nation and partook of greatness because it was a bolder experiment than even the U.S. experiment with making different sorts of people into a Nation. To do it without the 'Melting Pot' concept took real guts. I'm not even willing to say it was an invalid approach. Why SHOULD Serbs orCroats or Muslims have to be all alike?
They SHOULD for sure be alike in rights, in ability to have input into government and alike in responsiblity. Maybe the solution to ethnic division is a question of individual rights being increased, I think it could be done without upsetting the ethnic balance too much. The mistake of collectivism is to over-emphisize group rights as against individual rights. To some extent, especially if there is discrimination or conflict, group rights will come into play. Maybe in a way individual rights are divisive within an ethnic group and maybe in the Balkans and India, the tendancy for group cohesion to outweigh individual considerations is good for peace WITHIN an ethnic group or a caste. I have a theory that there is a tendancy to sacrifice individual rights for group rights, especially in troubled times so that the group can be more unified for mutual self defense. I have noticed that in both the Balkans and in India, the tendancy isn't to glorify one's own group so much as to attack other groups.
The caste system in India was the earliest form of Apartheid, a color bar, the word for 'caste' in Sanskrit is 'varna'. that word means 'color' the English word 'varnish' comes from the same root as 'varna'
Caste was a way that the Aryan conquerors of India divided to rule.
They were white people coming into a land where everyone was darker, and they were outnumbered, seriously outnumbered by the more numerous tribal peoples and Dravidians. They were afraid of them not afraid militarilym, so much as of the sheer NUMBERS of very dark skinned people they'd conquered.
The Millet system was how the Turks governed in all their territories, it preserved each non-Muslim people's ethnic identity, and religious identity, and kept the Muslim conquerors from taking on too much of the new culture in new conquered territories.
Of course in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, there was a lot of local conversion to Islam. These people were originally Catholic or Orthodox or members of the Bosnian Church, a dissident church which existed in one form or another in BiH, and parts of Croatia, as well as Bulgaria.
Frankly the domatism, disunity, and persecution of dissidents within the Catholic and Orthodox churches alike was a contributing factor to the Turkish success in conquering BiH. The over-taxing of the Christian peasants by their 'betters' did not help in BiH, or Serbia or any other part of the Balkans. From the time of the 'Great Schism' the region was bound to come under some other rule.
Not only that, a lot of the persecutions in BiH of dissident Christian groups was REAlly not even over religion, but over land, priveleges, and resources. Some of this had to do with Hungary a lot more than with anything in BiH.
Part of it is a vocabulary problem! In English there IS a clearer definition of ethnicity v.s. nationality, or nation. This is less the case in Slavic languages generally, including with B/H/S.
Narod is the word in most Slavic languages for 'nationality', 'ethnicity' or 'people' in fact distinction between ethnicity, and nationality is of fairly recent origin even in Western Europe.
Then too, the whole 'group rights' thing vs 'individual rights' plays into it.
In Western Europe and North America, there is less tendancy to have 'group rights' than in the Balkans or the Indian Sub-Continent where ethnicity and caste still are very important. Your ethnic group or caste group protects what few individual rights you have in both areas of the world.
In the Balkans th
is was in part a result of the Turkish Millet system. In some ways the Millet system was positive, because each group was far more self governing than in more 'modern' arrangements. It meant that most of the time people were not subjected to laws they objected to, or customs they objected to for so long as they paid their taxes.
This got interfered with a lot for all the ethnic groups in the Balkans with modernization. People in some ways liked having more freedom, but they did not like being made all alike. They did not get enough freedom to make being all alike O.K. for them. In a way being all alike isn't freedom anyway.
Yugoslavia was a Nation and partook of greatness because it was a bolder experiment than even the U.S. experiment with making different sorts of people into a Nation. To do it without the 'Melting Pot' concept took real guts. I'm not even willing to say it was an invalid approach. Why SHOULD Serbs orCroats or Muslims have to be all alike?
They SHOULD for sure be alike in rights, in ability to have input into government and alike in responsiblity. Maybe the solution to ethnic division is a question of individual rights being increased, I think it could be done without upsetting the ethnic balance too much. The mistake of collectivism is to over-emphisize group rights as against individual rights. To some extent, especially if there is discrimination or conflict, group rights will come into play. Maybe in a way individual rights are divisive within an ethnic group and maybe in the Balkans and India, the tendancy for group cohesion to outweigh individual considerations is good for peace WITHIN an ethnic group or a caste. I have a theory that there is a tendancy to sacrifice individual rights for group rights, especially in troubled times so that the group can be more unified for mutual self defense. I have noticed that in both the Balkans and in India, the tendancy isn't to glorify one's own group so much as to attack other groups.
The caste system in India was the earliest form of Apartheid, a color bar, the word for 'caste' in Sanskrit is 'varna'. that word means 'color' the English word 'varnish' comes from the same root as 'varna'
Caste was a way that the Aryan conquerors of India divided to rule.
They were white people coming into a land where everyone was darker, and they were outnumbered, seriously outnumbered by the more numerous tribal peoples and Dravidians. They were afraid of them not afraid militarilym, so much as of the sheer NUMBERS of very dark skinned people they'd conquered.
The Millet system was how the Turks governed in all their territories, it preserved each non-Muslim people's ethnic identity, and religious identity, and kept the Muslim conquerors from taking on too much of the new culture in new conquered territories.
Of course in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, there was a lot of local conversion to Islam. These people were originally Catholic or Orthodox or members of the Bosnian Church, a dissident church which existed in one form or another in BiH, and parts of Croatia, as well as Bulgaria.
Frankly the domatism, disunity, and persecution of dissidents within the Catholic and Orthodox churches alike was a contributing factor to the Turkish success in conquering BiH. The over-taxing of the Christian peasants by their 'betters' did not help in BiH, or Serbia or any other part of the Balkans. From the time of the 'Great Schism' the region was bound to come under some other rule.
Not only that, a lot of the persecutions in BiH of dissident Christian groups was REAlly not even over religion, but over land, priveleges, and resources. Some of this had to do with Hungary a lot more than with anything in BiH.
# posted by Katja R. @ 3:27 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Great stuff...I can't really add anything.
You would have been welcome to post a longer comment in my blog--your input is ALWAYS welcome.
You would have been welcome to post a longer comment in my blog--your input is ALWAYS welcome.
Owen, I owe you an apology, I accidentally rejected your last comment, and since beta it's not in any other place than 'Moderate Comments'
I think that Tito tried to make it an experiment in unity, I think before Tito the Illirjanist movement tried to m
ake it that sort of an experiment too.
It's not even that Serbs and Croats are SO damn disharmonious. For God's sake, there's less WAY less difference between Serbs and Croats than between for example English and Scots, or English and Irish, or English and Welsh.
Linguistically the difference is minimal, in terms of matierial culture, again hardly any difference. The main difference is really religion.
The end of WWWI was when the arrangements which resulted in Yugoslavia were made. The U.S. and Britain bear a lot of blame for those arrangements.
First of all having a monarchy, that was silly, then not having any recognition whatsoever for the Muslims, after they'd been fairly powerful before. etc etc.
I don't think it was meant as a temporary arrangement.
ake it that sort of an experiment too.
It's not even that Serbs and Croats are SO damn disharmonious. For God's sake, there's less WAY less difference between Serbs and Croats than between for example English and Scots, or English and Irish, or English and Welsh.
Linguistically the difference is minimal, in terms of matierial culture, again hardly any difference. The main difference is really religion.
The end of WWWI was when the arrangements which resulted in Yugoslavia were made. The U.S. and Britain bear a lot of blame for those arrangements.
First of all having a monarchy, that was silly, then not having any recognition whatsoever for the Muslims, after they'd been fairly powerful before. etc etc.
I don't think it was meant as a temporary arrangement.
Owen I think it depends on your definition of 'nation' and 'different sorts of people'.
Its pretty clear that the former Yug people are pretty closely related but does this constitute a nation? Apparantly yes when the majority of Serbs and Croats (etc) think so or apparantly no when the majority think not.
I dont think that Serbian / Croatian rivalry meant that war was inevitable. I do this that one must take into account (without excusing war crimes etc) the dispersation of the Serbian population throughout the former Yugoslavia when trying to look at factors that increased the chances of conflict (if Yugoslavia broke up).
I like the theory about individual rights being completely sacrificed versus group rights.
Post a Comment
Its pretty clear that the former Yug people are pretty closely related but does this constitute a nation? Apparantly yes when the majority of Serbs and Croats (etc) think so or apparantly no when the majority think not.
I dont think that Serbian / Croatian rivalry meant that war was inevitable. I do this that one must take into account (without excusing war crimes etc) the dispersation of the Serbian population throughout the former Yugoslavia when trying to look at factors that increased the chances of conflict (if Yugoslavia broke up).
I like the theory about individual rights being completely sacrificed versus group rights.
<< Home
