Social Aspects of Memory

Stories of Victims and Perpetrators from Bosnia-Herzegovina

Alma Jeftic

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351838627
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Eastern European History
• Index: History

Social Aspects of Memory presents a compelling study of how ordinary people remember war. Whilst the book focuses on the cities of Sarajevo and East Sarajevo during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Jeftic also presents narratives from other war-torn cities and countries around the world. This book adopts a unique approach, by looking at how perpetrators and victims (as well as new generations who may not remember the war directly) manage in the aftermath of war. Jeftic explores how our memories of war and violence are formed, and how we can learn to reconcile those memories, individually and as a collective.

Drawing on the author's own empirical and extensive research, the book explores the connection between memories for significant war events, transgenerational transmission of memories, bias for in-group wrongdoings and readiness for reconciliation between two groups.

Giving a voice to underrepresented narratives and prioritising the importance of expression as a necessary catalyst for reconciliation, this book is essential reading for those interested in collective and transgenerational memory and memory studies, especially in relation to the aftermath of the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1
Introduction

Sarajevo for beginners: history, culture and politics from the Ottoman Empire to post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina

Foreigners struggle to understand the complicated history of Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, talking to the local people, reading local (and foreign) history textbooks and/or reading local newspapers can make it even more confusing because everyone seems to have a slightly different version of events, seasoned with different conspiracy theories. Therefore, the wisest thing to do is to look at different stories and try to understand those elements that distinguish them.

Sarajevo between the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians: history, culture and politics

Sarajevo’s history has been determined by its geography, the presence of different foreign powers (Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians), different ethnic groups and complicated relationships between them. Also, it has been the site of three important historical events: the beginning of World War I, the XXII Olympic Games and the longest siege in the history of Europe (the 1992–1995 war).

Over the past six centuries, six different regimes have governed the city, as many as five of them in the twentieth century (Donia, 2009). Contemporary Sarajevo was mostly built up during three major periods of expansion: the first 140 years of Ottoman rule (up to 1600), the Austro-Hungarian rule (from 1883 to 1914) and the formative period of the socialist government (from 1945 to the 1984 Olympic Games).

The most interesting fact about Sarajevo is the diversity of the population that was its trademark from its foundation in the fifteenth century. The city has always been described as a mixture of religions, peoples and influences. The relative numbers of the largest groups in the city have changed many times throughout history, as well as their names. In the first centuries, the differences between the groups were primarily religious, but in the twentieth century the differences were largely based on nationality (Donia, 2009).

Modern Sarajevo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are predominantly inhabited by members of the three largest ethnic groups: Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. The members of each particular group maintain a secular identity that has developed over time, but also refer to a specific religious tradition from earlier times. Today more than ever, Bosnian Croats feel their Catholic heritage; Bosnian Serbs are calling for their Orthodox origins; while Bosniaks consider Islam and Muslim culture as their most significant heritage. Today’s Serbs were formerly called Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox and even Greek Orthodox; Croats were called Catholics, or, very rarely, Latin. Until the end of the twentieth century the Bosniaks were known as Bosnian Muslims, or simply Muslims. In addition, the Jews had become a significant group after their arrival in the sixteenth century; however, very few groups inhabit contemporary Sarajevo. Also, there are groups that refuse to consider themselves as either Bosniaks, Serbs or Croats but only Bosnians, and those are usually children from mixed religious marriages or simply people who decided to embrace what is left of the Yugoslav “brotherhood and unity”.

The question of identity is always tough; however, it seems especially complicated in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Not all citizens of Sarajevo expressed primary loyalty towards any of the ethnic groups; therefore, some decided to declare themselves Yugoslavs, especially in the socialist period. About 5 percent of Bosniaks identified as Yugoslavs in the 1991 census, but in Sarajevo and several other cities, about ten percent selected this type of identity (Donia, 2009). This group included many children from mixed marriages and others for whom that identity represented a refuge from all national identities, as well as those who considered themselves primarily citizens of Yugoslavia (Donia, 2009). Bosnia-Herzegovina as a country represents a meeting place of different peoples, customs and religions. It is inhabited by three major ethnic and religious groups: the Roman Catholic Croats, the Muslim Bosniaks and the Eastern Orthodox Serbs. However, during its history Bosnia experienced several changes related to the visibility of these different religious practices, customs and symbols due to the different political regimes. For instance, religion was neither publicly expressed nor practised during communism, while the country underwent a period of increased religiosity after the fall of communism in the 1990s, which was also accompanied by the 1992–1995 war. During the war the engaged parties defined themselves mostly in terms of their religious identities.

However, there have been no strong indicators that could explain why people have become more openly religious since the signing of the Dayton agreement, or whether this increase in religiosity is mostly a result of the conflict or the fall of communism (Hacic-Vlahovic, 2008). It is difficult to conclude with certainty how and why the religious revival occurred at the beginning of the 1990s in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to what extent the complicated jigsaw puzzle has started to shape both the political and everyday life of ordinary Bosnians. It is also unclear whether people have become more openly religious due to nationalist sentiments, opportunism, their economic standard or intrinsic belief. The data collected during the communist period leave some degree of reasonable doubt as to whether society had actually truly secularized in the first place, or whether people simply pretended to be less religious in order to protect themselves (Hacic-Vlahovic, 2008).

In the fifteenth century, the Ottoman army defeated the mediaeval Bosnian Kingdom in a series of battles and gained control over much of Bosnian territory. At the time of the Ottoman conquest around 1430, the area of Sara-jevo was inhabited by Catholics loyal to the Roman Pope (Donia, 2009). In this area, before the conquest, there was a considerable rivalry between the various Christian churches, and conversion from one religion to another was not unusual.

The city of Sarajevo was founded by the Ottoman Empire upon conquering the region. According to the literature, 1461 is most often referred to as the founding year. However, even today there are a number of landmarks built by the first Ottoman governor of Bosnia that have endured over the centuries, such as Konak, the Emperor’s Mosque, the Emperor’s Bridge, Baščaršija, Sahat-Kula, Gazi-Husref Begova Mosque etc. However, even at that time many Slavs were combining their Christian faith with the remains of so-called pagan customs. Due to the absence of structured church monitoring, Slavic Christians lacked support and therefore became more susceptible to Islam after the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century. During the Ottoman era Sarajevo’s urban landscape changed; however, religious, cultural and legal changes were even more evident. Nevertheless, circumstances, time and unexpected cases led to the fall of the empire and brought the Austro-Hungarian spirit to Bosnia and Sarajevo. The army of Eugen Savoy entered Sarajevo during the night from the 23rd to the 24th of October 1697 while occupying and at the same time burning a large part of the city. After that, Sarajevo lost its political power, as the headquarters of the country were moved to Travnik. This period was characterized by various political and cultural changes; however, it was also characterized by resistance by the local population, which led to the formation of secret organizations and communities. Nevertheless, the most well-known event from that time is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, which happened at the Latin Bridge in Sarajevo and still remains a mystery that continues to divide history teaching in contemporary Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It is believed that Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb and the son of a postman, killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. Princip was born in 1894 in Obljaj in Bosnia-Herzegovina. After he moved to Belgrade, he joined a militant group called Young Bosnia whose major belief was that it could use violence to help free the region from Austro-Hungarian rule and unite the Southern Slavs. At his trial he described himself as a Yugoslav nationalist, who wanted all Yugoslavs to be united, in any political form, and free from the Austrians.

On 28 June 2014 Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria came to inspect the Austro-Hungarian armed forces located in Sarajevo. One of Princip’s group threw a bomb at their car, but missed. However, later that day, Princip shot both of them dead. Austria declared war on Serbia a month later. Princip was charged with treason and murder, but under Austro-Hungarian law could not be executed because he was not yet 20 when the crime was committed. Instead, he was jailed for 20 years, but died of tuberculosis in prison in Austria in April 1918.

For many Westerners, the Sarajevo assassination merely confirms their stereotypes of Balkan backwardness and barbarism, and thus has provided a convenient means to divert blame for World War I from their own leaders (Miller, 2007). For many South Slavs, however, 28 June 1914 will always be the beginning of their liberation from centuries of foreign control. However, the Sarajevo assassination has always been looked upon more ambivalently by those who must accept it as their own. Even though Franz Ferdinand had been opposed to war during his lifetime, his assassination provided the reason for a declaration of war on Serbia. The chief of the Austrian General Staff, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, welcomed an excuse for a war with Serbia. Most historians would today agree that Berlin’s decision-makers put substantial pressure on Vienna to demand retribution from Serbia, and that they were happy to take the risk that an Austro-Serbian conflict might escalate into a European war. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July, it was the end for the Belgrade government.

In describing the journey of Princip and his colleagues to Bosnia, and the assassination of the Archduke, Vladimir Dedijer brings out very well the great element of luck involved and also points out that the trial of the assassins was fair even if their subsequent fate was barbarous (Dedijer, 1966). Dedijer (1966) emphasizes that while Princip was suffering through his dying hours in Theresienstadt in April 1918, the Bosnian horizons were lit every night by the burning of feudal landlords’ konaks (large houses or official residences that were very common in the former Ottoman Empire).

However, Balkan countries have continued to teach their children a different interpretation of the killing of the Archduke and his wife that set the conflict in motion. Princip is portrayed in the history textbooks of the various former Yugoslav countries either as a terrorist or as a rebel with a cause. These perceptions reflect contemporary divisions in a region that is still recovering from the 1992–1995 war. While they were part of Yugoslavia, children in all these countries were taught the same history. Now they all have their own versions of the truth.

Nenad Sebek, former executive director of the Centre for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, analyzed school textbooks in the region and concluded that the unified discourse disappeared with ex-Yugoslavia, and now the past is being adjusted to fit whatever discourse the ruling elites in these countries want at the present moment. In the ethnically divided Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is no commonly held view either about Princip or about the origins of World War I, since three different teaching curricula have been applied: two curricula in the two entities (the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska), as well as areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina that currently apply the Croatian teaching curriculum.

For the Bosniaks and Croats, Princip was a Belgrade-backed political assassin, while for Bosnian Serbs, the murder served only as a pretext for Austria-Hungary and German to commit military aggression against Serbia. These divisions are also reflected in different ways of commemorating the same event. A series of events were held in Sarajevo, including exhibitions, concerts and a meeting of young peace activists from around the world. However, Bosnian Serbs held their own events in the eastern town of Visegrad, programmed by the film director Emir Kusturica, while a statue of Princip was due to be installed in East Sarajevo (Džidić et al., 2014).

In mainly Bosniak areas (like Sarajevo, the Bihac region in the northwest and the central Zenica-Doboj area), school textbooks highlight Princip’s links to Serbia: the textbook used in Sarajevo says that Princip’s group, Young Bosnia, was “supported by secret organizations from Serbia”, while the Bihac textbook states more directly that the plotters were “supported by Serbia”. The Zenica textbook describes Young Bosnia as a “terrorist organization”. The history book used by Bosnian Croat pupils also describes Young Bosnia as a “terrorist” group. But in the Serb-dominated Republic of Srpska, Young Bosnia is simply described as an “organization”, and textbooks stress that Austria-Hungary “used” Franz Ferdinand’s assassination “to blame Serbia” and declare war on the country. This description of the outbreak of the conflict is similar to the one contained in textbooks used in Serbia itself.

History teachers from different regions of Bosnia-Herzegovina have divided views on the whole event. For instance, Zeljko Vujadinovic, a history professor from Banja Luka in the Republic of Srpska, believes that what we are looking at is the current political mind-set transferred to the past (Džidić et al., 2014). Comparisons of Young Bosnia with the pre-World War I Al-Qaida were just a result of the 1990s conflict. Therefore, the characterization of Young Bosnia and Princip as terrorists is an attempt to place the blame for huge worldwide events on Serbian territorial expansion policies (Džidić et al., 2014). Sarajevo history professor Zijad Sehic agreed that the past had been redrawn in the aftermath of the 1992–1995 conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it was only after the collapse of Yugoslavia that Princip was described as a Serbian nationalist rather than a fighter for Yugoslav brotherhood and unity (Džidić et al., 2014). Therefore, now, in the absence of Yugoslavia, Princip is glorified as a Serbian hero, and his actions are defended as something that was supposed to contribute to the stabilization of the country and better group relations.

At the entrance of what would later be known as Princip Bridge in Sara-jevo, one of the first examples of a monument to a contradictory past was erected. A monument named “Spomenik umorstvu”, or “Monument to murder”, was taken down almost as soon as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes took over in late 1918. Then it was broken up, with one of its 10-meter columns going to a stonecutter in Trebinje, the other to a quarry in Sarajevo. In contrast, the massive central medallion engraved with the images of Ferdinand and Sophie has spent the last 60 years collecting dust and a thick layer of patina in the basement of Sarajevo’s Art Gallery. Also, a plaque in Sarajevo commemorating the 1914 assassination contains the following words: “From this place on June 28 1914 Gavrilo Princip assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofia”. The memorialization process seems more focussed on using history in the name of truth and tourism rather than misusing it politically.

The communist Partisans who liberated Sarajevo claimed that 1945 was the fulfilment of everything that 1914 had stood for: the struggle and courageous self-sacrifice of Bosnia’s youth for justice and freedom; the liberation from the Germanic oppressor; the awakening of a revolutionary consciousness; and the spirit of brotherhood and unity embodied in the mixed ethno-religious backgrounds of the Young Bosnians and Partisans alike. Therefore, Gavrilo Princip was someone who had made the dream come true. According to an article published in Oslobodenje for Vidovdan 1945, just as the 19-year-old Princip, gun in hand, had lunged towards the Archduke’s car, the youthful Partisans had thrown themselves before Nazi tanks (Miller, 2007). On 7 May 1945, in a mass meeting in Car Dušan park that was attended by the president of the parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina and other local, national and foreign dignitaries, Princip was glorified as a national hero and martyr (Miller, 2007). Following several speeches, the procession crossed “Princip Bridge” to dedicate a new plaque on the assassination site. To cheers of “Glory to the unforgotten national hero and his comrades”, Borko Vukobrat, who hailed from Princip’s hometown of Bosansko Graho, unveiled a tablet that certainly went further than that of 1930 in terms of glorifying the Sarajevo assassination: “The youth of Bosnia and Herzegovina dedicate this plaque as a symbol of eternal gratitude to Gavrilo Princip and his comrades, to fighters against the Germanic conquerors” (Miller, 2007). The first opportunity for the newly independent Yugoslavia to commemorate the Sarajevo assassination found the site transformed into a World War I memorial.

While in 1930 political leaders were banished from the ceremony to dedicate a small plaque to Princip, in 1953 the president of the National Committee of Sarajevo, Dane Olbina, gave the keynote address at the opening of the Museum (Miller, 2007). Nevertheless, the footprints, the museum, street names and other emblems of the assassination, not to mention the heroic rhetoric surrounding it, would persist through the 1984 Winter Olympic Games and, indeed, right up to the end of communist Yugoslavia (Miller, 2007). Then they swiftly, and quite publicly, became elements of fierce contestation between Yugoslavs. During a televised parliamentary debate over Bosnian independence in February 1991, a delegate from the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS), which opposed an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina, threatened his Muslim and Croat colleagues with the words: “The sovereign of your sovereign state would never make it past the Gavrilo Princip Bridge” (Miller, 2007), to which a Muslim representative responded that in an independent Bosnia, the Princip Bridge would not bear the name of a terrorist. Soon thereafter, someone scrawled the bridge’s original name, Latin Bridge, on the wall of the Young Bosnia Museum.

During the war itself, the museum was closed and barely saved from bombs and vandals; the street names were removed; and the footprints were ripped from the sidewalk. As the ideology that held Yugoslavia together and determined how it would remember the Vidovdan conspirators disinte-grated in a massive explosion of nationalist energy, the carefully constructed memory of the assassination evaporated with it (Miller, 2007). Western commentators with little or no experience in the region explained it all as more proof of the Balkan peoples’ inborn inclination for violence. Nevertheless, something had to be done after the conflict, and in 2004 city officials decided upon a simple granite plaque that states, truthfully enough: “From This Place on June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip Assassinated the Heir to the Austro-Hungarian Throne Franz Ferdinand and His Wife Sofia”.

The position of Sarajevo in Yugoslavia: the glow of the Olympic ci...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: Sarajevo for beginners: history, culture and politics from the Ottoman Empire to post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina
• 2 The siege of Sarajevo between “Mnene” and “anamnesis”
• 3 Sins of memory: terror of remembrance and terror of forgetting
• 4 Memory and remembrance in divided Bosnia-Herzegovina between a “labour in vain” and perspective taking
• Index