"The Bridge Betrayed" by Michael Sells [15]

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE BRIDGE

This short chapter eloquently makes a case not only for the legitimacy of Bosnian culture, but of its worth. Bosnia was a bridge, Sells argues; the Croat nationalists of "Herceg-Bosna" knew what they were doing when they destroyed the elegant Stari Most bridge in Moster. Ian Paisley, the thuggish Ulter Unionist leader, once contemptuously said (I am paraphrasing here) that "Bridges make traitors." If one is devoted to a diminished and sterile notion of culture and cultural identity--one in which the individual is defined primarily by membership to a group, and furthermore in which the group is defined by hard and fast distinctions versus the "other"--then this is true. Bridges lead to communication and exchanges, which then lead to intermingling and a loss of "purity." The desirability of "purity", then, must never be questioned.

The Wounding Sky

Bosnia has been defined for centuries by the mixture of different peoples and faiths; Orthodox, Catholic, and Bosnian before the Ottoman period, and then Orthodox, Catholic, Islam and then Judaism (both Sephardic and Ashkenazi) after. Sells describes the Bosnian tradition of the sevdalinka love lyrics, which were written in Cyrillac, Latin, and Adzamijski script. The complex mix of gender roles in the sevdalinka, in which a woman poses as a man singing to her male lover (and which were often actually performed by male singers) parallels the complex, multilayered development of this lyric tradition.

Sevdalinkas were composed in all the languages of the Empire--Persian, Turkish, Arabic, South Slavic--and were often translated from one to another. The precious manuscripts recording this unique aspect of Bosnia's heritage were destroyed when Serb gunners deliberately targeted the Oriental Institute.

Sells writes:

"Bosnia has a culture rich in transitions and translations. Those looking for the essence of culture and language in ethnic, racial, or religious purity will find Bosnia incomprehensible. On the other hand, those who see culture as a creative process that by its very nature involves intermingling and creative tension among different elements will treasure Bosnia-Herzegovina."

Unfortunately, many in the West failed to grasp this.

The Execution of Culture

"In the fall of 1995, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger proclaimed that "there is no Bosnian culture." The context for Kissinger's claim was his proposal that Bosnia should be partitioned between Serbia and Croatia and the Muslims (and presumably anyone else who did not want to be part of ethnically pure Greater Croatia and Greater Serbia) should be placed in a "Muslim state." Partitioning Bosnia and putting the Muslims in a religious ghetto was the original goal of the Serb and Croat nationalists."

Other than again supporting the axiom that one can never go wrong disagreeing with America's most distinguished indicted war criminal, what can one say in response to such dismissive rubbish?

Sells dryly notes that the strongest refutation of Kissinger's statement came from Karadzic, Mladic, and the Serbian nationalists themselves, who put a great deal of energy and resources into destroying all traces of this allegedly non-existent culture. Also, there is this story:

"A Serb army officer entered the home of a Sarajevan artist, who happened to be Serb. Among the works of art, he saw a piece that depicted a page from the Qur'an. Infuriated, he had all the artwork taken out into the street, lined up, and shot to pieces with automatic weapons fire."

In order to justify the destruction of a people, you must first destroy their legitimacy. Sells recounts other episodes of genocide throughout modern history to illustrate the general truth of this observation. And then he concludes this section with a paragraph which manages to articulate something I have been grappling with for almost two years in this blog--the reason why Bosnia's fight should have been America's fight. One very big reason I believe American values were under attack in a small republic in southeast Europe in the first half of the last decade of the 20th Century. Allow me to quote the paragraph in its entirety:

"Like culture in the United States, Bosnian culture cannot be defined by the linguistic and religious criteria of nineteenth-century nationalism. Just as Americans share a language with the British and Australians, so Bosnians share a language with Serbs and Croats. Just as the United States has no single, official church, so Bosnia is made up of people of different religious confessions, and within those confessions, vastly different perspectives. If Bosnia has no culture, then the United States has no culture. If Bosnia should be partitioned into religiously pure apartheid states, then the same logic lead to the idea, proposed by the Christian Identity movement, that the United States should be divided into apartheid states of different races and religions."

Creation in the Fire

Sells recounts the art exhibition "Expo/Sarajevo 92" which was organized during the siege. He explains the great risks the artists had to take just to travel back and forth to the studio, and that the artists chose to make engravings because they are reproducible; a 'lucky' shell from Sarajevo's tormentors could destroy the display but not the works themselves. Those artists continued to create, to draw from Bosnia's rich, textured history and culture, and to celebrate life even while the world expected to nothing more than meekly survive and cower before those who wanted to carve the living body of Bosnia into neatly segmented, sterile, dead entities. The enemies of Bosnia, and the indifferent enablers of the West, wanted to believe that Bosnia would be defined by walls; those artists demonstrated yet again that it is rather defined by bridges.

A Dance

The book ends with this brief, almost poetic section. A Bosnian family--they are Serbs--living in North America throw a party for another Bosnian family who are moving to another city. The invite all the Bosnians they know--Serb, Croat, Bosniak. Everybody eats, drinks, talks, laughs. And then a sevdalinka is played. Dancing begins.

They are able to forget that they are Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim. In this bittersweet reunion mixed with farewells far from home, they reconnect with their culture. Away from the burden of being of one ethnoreligious group, they are free to be Bosnians.

--------------------

That is how the book ends. I highly recommend it; at only slightly over 150 pages it is a quick and easy read. It raises important questions about the role faith will, can, or should play in a secular, cosmopolitan democracy in the 21st Century. I suspect we will be revisiting these and related questions in my blog and in many other forums in the near future.

"Fools' Crusade" Chapter Three [23]

n

CHAPTER THREE: COMPARATIVE NATIONALISMS

3. CROATIAN NATIONALISM: THE END OF YUGOSLAVISM

In the last post, I briefly analyzed Johnstone's selective understanding of nationalism, an intellectual tool she uses to create artificial contrasts between Serbs and Croats. Let's break it down now:

As already noted, the first paragraph of this section contrasts the rise of Serb nationalism during the revolt against Ottoman rule versus the rise of Croat nationalism within the safety of the prosperous Hapsburg Empire. Or so she says. The oversimplifications in this contrasting portrait are many, but I will set them aside for now.

Let's break it down from there:

The second paragraph begins with this sentence:

"If in the 1990s Croatian secessionists dismissed Yugoslavia as "an artificial creation," [no citation of the quoted phrase, as per her usual tactic] "the irony is that it was primarily a Croatian artifice."

She expands on this provocative point for all of about three sentences, and leaves it at that. It goes without saying--if you don't know much about Balkan history, this is not the book to look for balanced information. Her point is not to honestly examine the genesis of the Yugoslav ideal, but to smear the Croats, who were only interested in improving their position within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As if this is any sort of indictment. But anyway...

"After seven centuries of submission to Budapest, the awareness of a "Croatian" identity was uncertain."

But five centuries of submission to Ottoman rule did not have the same effect on Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, and others? The Hapsburg Empire was a multiethnic empire the same as the Ottoman Empire, and the subject peoples all shared the Roman Catholic faith. Johnstone is remarkably uninterested in this comparison.

"Only the area around Zagreb was known as Hrvatska, or Croatia."

A remarkably uninteresting and ignorant 'insight,' considering that, for example, "France" was not the name of most of "France" when French nationalism was being developed. We could say the same for Russia, Spain, Germany, and so forth. This is really a useless and stupid point, but I don't bring it up merely to demonstrate how desperate and unfounded Johnstone's critique is. It should be noted that she does not apply this same criteria to Serbian nationalism--Serbia proper never incorporated all the areas where ethnic Serbs lived. For the purposes of this blog, it's most relevant to note that the border between Serbia and Bosnia--the Drina River--has been recognized as such for centuries, dating back to the High Middle Ages. The medieval kingdom of Serbia, like the medieval kingdoms of Bosnia and Hrvatska, was smaller than its modern-day incarnation.

"Like the Serbs, the Croats spoke a language derived from Slavonic, but whereas the Serbs had a Church that used and enhanced their language, the Catholic clergy suppressed the vernacular in favor of Latin."

Of course, this was true for every Catholic nation, but never mind that. The key here isn't just that she has found what she fancies to be yet another contrast between Serb and Croat which is unfavorable to the latter; it also allows her to get in a dig at the Catholic Church.

She continues with this selective examination of the importance of dialect and language codification:

"As a result, Croatian drifted into divergent regional dialects."

Very oversimplified. There were several dialects throughout the area encompassed by modern-day Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Croatia. These dialects are geographical and often cross ethnic lines. Serbs outside of Serbia no more speak a standardized dialect of Serbo-Croat than any of the other Slavs in the area.

"Unification of the Croatian literary language was accomplished by choosing to favor the dialect that coincided with literary Serbian as it had been standardized by the poet and scholar Vuk Karadzic (1787-1864) in the first half of the nineteenth century. Just as modern Italian was based on the Tuscan dialect to facilitate Italian unification, modern Serbo-Croatian provided the southwestern Slavs with a single common language. This helped to unify Croats themselves, before turning into a source of resentment on the part of the Croats who wished to distinguish themselves from the Serbs."

We will consider the implications of that final passage in the next post.