Search

The paper analyses the essayistic discourse of Jasmina Musabegović with a focus on her second and last book of such procédé, Naličje historije (The Reverse Side of History) (1999), without neglecting her early essayistic work compiled in her first book of essays, The Secret and the Meaning of a Literary Work (1977). Since the literary criticism and essayistic work of this author, on the one hand, and her literary and artistic work, on the other, are closely related and interwoven with seemingly contradictory but identical ideologemes, for a more complete insight, her micro-essays that make up fabric of her novels are occasionally taken into consideration in the analysis. The conclusion reached shows that the author’s later literary critique essays, i.e. those that the author wrote during and after the recent war, where the intimate intertwines with the universal and meets a multitude of opposing pairs as well as occasional paroxysms conditioned by a change in life experience, represent a specific, fluid essayistic discourse that can be characterized by the newly coined phrase “women’s essay”.

Copyright of Social Sciences & Humanities Studies / Društvene i Humanističke Studije (DHS) is the property of Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Tuzla and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Understanding the socio-historical processes after the April War of 1941 and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia presupposes a deeper knowledge of opposing national perspectives since 1918, when this country was created, of the events between the two world wars, as well as their multidimensional characters, since they largely determined wartime polarizations and alignments. The Second World War is one of the most problematic historical periods in the post-Yugoslav area, from a scientific and political point of view. With numerous relief and insufficiently explored components, it still belongs to the so-called “hot memory”. The disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1941 was greeted by its peoples and political subjects with different visions of whether (and if so: how) a new Yugoslavia should be established. The anti-fascist struggle was led by a partisan movement with the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ) playing a dominant role. Each Yugoslavia (“old” and “new”) also meant “a new constitutional concept of the relationship between its main peoples/political groups” (Dejan Jović). The history of the Slovenes, wrote Edvard Kardelj at the end of the thirties of the 20th century, “is nothing but a long chain of oppression and trampling of a small nation”. After the First World War (the “Great War”), the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the collapse of Austria-Hungary divided the Slovenes among four countries. The parcelization of the Slovenian ethnic space did not end there. The territory of Slovenia (Drava Banovina) after the fragmentation of Yugoslavia in 1941 was divided between Germany, Italy and Hungary, into six parts, with different administrative regimes. The Slovenian people were torn apart, humiliated, threatened with destruction and disappearance from the ethnic map of Europe. This people was one of “the most fragmented in Europe and all the occupiers planned to wipe it out through persecution, assimilation and denationalization. Research on refugees and exile is closely related to issues of human rights, nationalism, genocide and ethnocide. This issue has a humanitarian, political, legal and moral dimension. Part of the exiled Slovenes also came to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1941, which was part of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Slovenes have a specific place in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina since the end of the 19th century. They also contributed to the development of the National Liberation Movement ( NOP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by acting in an illegal revolutionary movement and partisan units, as well as participating in the constitution of the new government and defining the future internal structure of post-war Yugoslavia. The war in the territory of occupied Yugoslavia was, among other things, a civil war that destroyed the idea that this monarchist state can be restored in the form in which it was created in 1918. The ranks of the NOP included Slovenians who lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war, as well as those who came as exiles in 1941. Major events related to the construction of the “new” Yugoslavia took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which Slovenians participated, important for the history of Slovenia as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. By actively participating in the anti-fascist war, the engagement and visions of their prominent representatives at the top of the NOP (Edvard Kardelj and others) and in the activities of the AVNOJ in 1943, determining and making its landmark decisions, the Slovenians had a significant share in the victory and establishment of a new, federal the Yugoslav state and the construction of the statehood of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Complex Yugoslav federalism, with scattered forms and models, represented a specific historical phenomenon.

The article explores how the process of Europeanization affects the shaping of collective cultures of memory and oblivion, and shows in particular how the practice of European institutions in terms of Holocaust remembrance has been institutionalized. Methodologically article focuses on the research of the new institutionalism, and connects them with some elements of social constructivism in the theory of European integration. On the one hand, the culture of memory and the culture of oblivion is described by the action of Europeanization in the politics of the European Union, but also of its Member States in historical and institutional development, while the interpretation of European identity is left open and plural. The research relies on numerous works in the field of the construction of European identity and the process of Europeanization, especially works that have significantly contributed to this area of political theory of European integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complex socio-historical processes and turning epochs, as well as numerous segments that are an integral part of people's lives, are the subject of interdisciplinary studies. War is one of the most dramatic, most complex social phenomena. In addition to armed operations, there are a number of other dimensions related to war, starting from psychological, legal, sociological, social, economic, cultural to others. Critical and multiple perspectives contribute to the completion of images of politics, wars and their relations. The disintegrations of the ideological paradigm and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were accompanied by the (re)construction of new national identities, the outbreak and duration of „wars“ of different memories, the reshaping of consciousness and the re-examination of history, especially those related to World War II. The history of that war in Yugoslavia was undoubtedly the history of several wars which were stacked on top of each other. The main issue with Bosniaks in that war is a multiperspectival topic that requires a multidimensional and deideologized presentation of the position and the position of all involved actors. Numerous issues related to that war, the complex position of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak, the emergence of civic responsibility, Bosniak protection of the vulnerable Serb Orthodox population, humanity and assistance, beyond post-war ideological premises and „official truths“ remained more or less marginalized, although they seek more objective and complete answers from multiple angles, for the sake of a more complete view of the past. What is called „local“ or „regional history“, as evidenced by diverse experiences, indicates the multidimensionality of the past, its features and specifics in a certain area. The Second World War in Sandžak could not be understood more objectively outside the broader Yugoslav context. This is also special for the history of Novi Pazar, the largest city in Sandžak which was the subject of many different political plans and conceptions. The history of this city has several sections. After the withdrawal of German forces from Novi Pazar, the Chetniks tried to conquer this city for three times in the fall of 1941. However, thanks to the dedicated defense and the help of Albanian armed groups from Kosovo, Bosniaks managed to defend themselves and Novi Pazar. Even in such a dramatic situation, numerous examples of humanity, solidarity and assistance of Bosniaks to the intimidated Serb urban population have been recorded. In the most difficult days of the war, when Novi Pazar was exposed to Chetnik attacks, a significant part of Bosniaks took actions to prevent anarchy, to save Serbs from terror and revenge. The task of science is to constantly discover forgotten and unknown parts of the past, to re-examine previous knowledge. Everything that happened has a whole range of perspectives. It is necessary to have a multidimensional understanding of the causes and course of events, circuits and time limits, to explain narrowed alternatives. Any reduction of historical totality to only one dimension is problematic. Every nation, every state, in a way, write their „histories“, remember different personalities, events, dates, emphasize various roles, perpetuates monuments, emphatize with different causes and consequences. Contemporary abuses of the interpretation of the war past, one-sided approaches, fierce prejucides and quasi-historical analyzes in the service of the politics damage interethic relations and lead to further growth of tensions and distancing between nations and states in their region.

Knowledge of world / European history is important for a more complete understanding of complex processes, for comparisons and placing national and regional history in a broader context that provides more meaningful answers. What determines the course of history is sometimes “a series of smaller events in the midst of the context of big ideas”. The borders of the region are determined by geographical, cultural and geopolitical characteristics, as well as the political interests of those builders whose interpretation has dominance. In expanding or narrowing the territory of the Balkans, politics was usually more decisive than geography. Historical events in that area should be presented from the positions of all its peoples, including Muslim communities. Their narratives also form a legitimate part of the picture of that past. Muslims were not the “favorites” of multiple Balkan historiographies that minimized and marginalized their component, functioning as factors shaping their own national and political ideologies. Historiography does not only deal with the reconstruction of the past, but, with all the difficulties and pitfalls, it also interprets it. A fragmentary study of the destinies of Muslim communities hinders the identification of the broader processes and common denominators of their parcelized history. The processes of de-Ottomanization and Balkanization also led to their particular consciousness within the newly formed, post-Ottoman states. Their historical experience is largely not “condensed, preserved, and generationally transmitted”. The attitude that Muslims are “foreigners” in Europe is part of the mentality and process known as the “Eastern Question”. Minds are not too prone to change. Calling all Muslims “Turks” is not the result of ignorance, but of a concrete attitude. It was not until the Berlin Congress of 1878 that the question of their protection became somewhat relevant. The system of such protection was inadequate, without supervisory mechanisms to control the implementation of commitments. Major political changes most often brought about religious and ethnic changes and displacements in the Balkans. In the study of the decades-long process of formation of the Serbian state in the 19th century in the area of the Smederevo Sandzak and the emigration of Muslims from it, special attention is paid to the fate of two small settlements (Mali Zvornik and Sakar) on the right bank of the Drina. After the surrender of the towns to the Serbs in 1862, only Mali Zvornik and Sakar remained in the hands of the Muslims. The origin of the settlement of Mali Zvornik is connected to the existence of the Zvornik fortress and the town of Zvornik on the left bank of the Drina, which was first mentioned in 1412. Mali Zvornik grew on the right bank of the Drina as part of the town of Zvornik. In the first half of the 18th century, travel writers mention that Mala or Mahala of the Bosnian town of Zvornik, whose inhabitants were called Maholjani, was located there. South of Mali Zvornik lies village of Sakar. In the 19th century, in Mali Zvornik and Sakar, on the border with the Smederevo Sandzak, Muslims made up the majority of the population. As only the Drina separated them from the settlements of Divič and Tabaci on its other side, the inhabitants of these settlements were firmly connected by kinship, friendship and marriage, and they were economically oriented towards each other. The Principality of Serbia was persistent in its demands to get Mali Zvornik and Sakar, having in mind their geostrategic position. By the decision of the Berlin Congress in 1878, they became part of Serbia. Until 1912, these were the only settlements in it with a majority Muslim population. They lost that majority over time. What is conditionally called “local” history, in addition to great narratives, indicates, confirmed by various experiences, the multidimensionality of the past, its features and specifics in a particular area.

Cultures of remembrance that are officially affirmed by national elites in the Western Balkan countries, that is in the former Yugoslavia, are a source of ongoing conflict. Various collective memories and mutually antagonized interpretations of the past, show that Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Macedonians, Montenegrins and others who lived together for centuries and decades within a single state, after all interpret and remember their common history in completely different ways. Their social narratives about the past and dominant cultures of memory are predominantly selective, one-sided, intolerant, exclusive. After a long time, they lived together members of different ethnic, religious and national backgrounds and their historically unfinished and unsuccessful attempt to form a common Yugoslav culture and unique Yugoslav identity, a difficult civil war occurred, ethno-nationalism escalated, and people who were very close and very similar to one another, tried to create as much difference and distance between themselves through violence. All national communities that participated in the wars of the 1990s, emphasized defending national culture as one of their main tasks. The warring parties sought to destroy everything that reminded them that different people, their neighbors and friends of a different religion were living there. Today, three decades after these conflicts, they are still prisoners of their attitude to history. The culture nevertheless brings them together and inspires them to understand themselves more and to cooperate better.

Similarly to other European countries, the history of the Roma population in Croatian areas was marked mostly by most periods of persecution and suffering, when the authorities tried to use repression in order to assimilate the Roma into the majority population. One such period was during World War II, when genocide against the Roma was carried out in many European countries by the Nazi authorities and their allies. After the War, the culture of remembering Roma victims became marginalised in Croatia. This paper examines how Croatian lexicography approached the issue of the significance of Roma suffering during World War II in selected lexicographical works from 1945 till today, and compares it to lexicographical publications from certain other European countries. Research shows that Croatian lexicography neglected the importance of Roma genocidal suffering as a central point in the history of the Roma population. Such a similar marginal attitude towards Roma suffering in World War II was present in other European lexicographies, which is only one of the arguments in favour of the thesis that post-war society in Europe, including Croatian society, neglected the importance of researching Roma suffering in war and thus marginalised the culture of remembrance of Roma victims of genocide, especially in science and culture.

The article is a polemic with the text by Dragiša Vasić entitled “History and Ethnic Identity in Sarajevo Fog: Examples of Politicizing and Mythologizing the Bosniak Historical Narrative,” published in the previous issue of Tokovi istorije. It analyzes the methodology used by Vasić, the sources on which he based his thesis, his argumentation, and his references. Special attention is given to the final part of Vasić’s text, which was assessed as a political pamphlet unworthy of a scientific journal.

The dramatic currents of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries in the Balkans cannot be seen in a more comprehensive way, separate from the wider European / world context, geopolitical order, influence and consequences of the interesting logics of superpowers, models of de-Ottomanization and Balkanization. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was in a difficult position, pressured by numerous internal problems, exposed to external political pressures, conditions and wars. Crises and Ottoman military defeats in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and the "Great War" (1914-1918), along with the processes of de-Ottomanization and fragmentation of the territories in which they lived and the growth of divisions, disrupted the self-confidence of Muslims. Expulsions and mass exoduses of entire populations, especially Muslims, culminated in the Balkan wars. Bosniaks, as well as Muslims in the rest of "Ottoman Europe", found themselves in the ranks of several armies in the "Great War". Many Muslims from the Balkans, who arrived in the vast territory of the Empire in earlier times as refugees, also fought in the units of the Ottoman army. In that war it was defeated. On its remnants, a new state of Turkey (1923) was created after the Greco-Ottoman war (1919-1922).

Copyright of Journal of Contemporary History / Časopis za Suvremenu Povijest is the property of Croatia Institute for History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The past and the present are inseparable, one interprets the other. Many "long-lasting" processes go beyond local frameworks and regional borders. This also applies to the complex "Eastern question", as well as the problem of the deosmanization of the Balkans, whose political geography in the 19th and 20th centuries was exposed to radical overlaps. Wars and persecutions are important factors in the history of Balkan Muslims. In the seventies of the XIX century, they constituted half of the population in the Ottoman part of the Balkans. With war devastation, a considerable part was killed or expelled to Anadolia between 1870 and 1890. The emergent "Turkish islands" in the Balkans after 1878 were increasingly narrowed, or disappeared due to the displacement of Muslims. Multiethnic and religious color of the Balkans disturbed accounts with simple categorizations. The term "balkanization" signified, after the Balkan wars of 1912-1913, "not only the fragmentation of large and powerful political units, but became synonymous with returning tribal, backward, primitive, and barbaric." The Balkanization of "Ottoman Europe" and the violent changes in its ethnic-religious structure led to discontinuity, the erosion of history, as well as fragmentation of the minds of the remaining Muslims and their afflicted communities, the lack of knowledge of the interconnectedness of their fates. The emigration of Bosniaks and other Muslims of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds from the Balkans to various parts of the Ottoman Empire, and then to Turkey, during the XIX and XX centuries, had a number of consequences.

The Serbian-Bulgarian relations, which were often marked by political and diplomatic conϐlicts and wars, culminated in the World War I. After the war, the Bulgarians became deeply rooted in the collective memory of the Serbs as an “arch-enemy” and the most hated nation. This could also be seen in the way the common recent past was interpreted. The aim of this paper is to show the ways the publicly and ofϐicially treasured memory of the recent past of Serbian-Bulgarian relations can be used politically, and the way the war sufferings and calamities, historical dates and events, were used in the internal political and ideological discourse.

Although in recent years a new generation of scholars have analyzed the transformation of memory politics, the use of controversial symbols from the Second World War, and the rehabilitation of collaborationists in Croatia since 1990, these processes in the Republic of Srpska Krajina (RSK) have received little attention. The rebel Croatian Serb leaders of this parastate, carved out of Croatian territory during the breakup of Yugoslavia, justified their rejection of the democratically elected government in Zagreb by claiming that Franjo Tuđman's administration had abandoned the antifascist legacy of the Partisans, which they alleged was the beginning of a new genocide against Serbs. However, this article, based on captured RSK documents, fieldwork, materials collected by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and interviews with individuals who had lived in the RSK, shows that the rebel Croatian Serb leadership had also abandoned the Partisan narrative during its short-lived existence. The RSK's new politics of memory resulted in the destruction of monuments that reflected Serb-Croat cooperation, the transformation of public space, and the introduction of symbols that likewise rejected the antifascist legacy. The decision by the Krajina Serb leaders to base their political goals on a chauvinist and extremist interpretation of the past, which excluded the possibility of co-existing with other national groups, ended tragically for both Serbs and Croats living on the territory of the RSK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Croatia, as in many other countries, the history of the 20th century, rich in dramatic events, especially events that occurred during World War II, are particularly strongly present in public life. Croatian society does not represent a unique attitude towards these events, and today they represent the basic foundation of political preferences of Croatian citizens. They are also strongly reflected in the social and political tensions. Politicians of various political options often evoke past events in their public speeches. As expected, they become the main topic of the speech kept during celebrations of anniversaries. The article is devoted to the political use of history in Croatia through the analysis of speeches held during celebrate the holidays and the anniversary celebrations during the summer of 2014. The speeches were analyzed on the basis of publicly available records and text material from the Internet and material collected in the framework of one research project. In this way, it endeavors to present a situation that corresponds to a specific time (summer 2014). Speeches and celebrations are presented along with a brief overview of the history of the celebrations, through which examining the context and the changes that have been taking place so far. Analyzing these examples of political use of history in public appearances at celebrations the paper presents the ways in which politicians and public fi gures refer to the past. The resulting image shows the disunity of the Croatian society when it comes to remembering the events of the 20th century and the presence of the culture of memory marked by confrontation and conflicts, as well as a very limited possibility of open public debate on those elements from the national past that present controversial points of national memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]