Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies following an encounter between ancient Macedonians and Slavic people who settled on this territory. That empowered them to use the ancient Macedonian heritage, incorporating it in the collective consciousness. It started with a flag, whose main symbol was taken from the Vergina archaeological site in northern Greece, and is continued today through numerous monuments to Philip and Alexander the Great throughout Macedonia (to Philip II in Bitola in 2008, and also in Prilep, and to Alexander the Great in Skopje). Making these monuments of Alexander and Philip Macedonian is part of a policy of memory, but also a policy of provocation of the neighbouring country (Greece). It has chosen a far away past to challenge Greece in a diplomatic battle (Alagjozovski, 2010) creating cultural wars both inside and outside the country. Before that, two things in Skopje’s monument policy had been important. These were the creation of the huge cross on the top of the hill rising above Skopje (to celebrate 2,000 years of Christianity), and the monument to Skenderbeg on horseback in Stara Čaršija (2006, Toma Damo), the Albanian part of the city, with his back turned to the Albanians, but facing the Macedonian part of the city and the Christian cross. In a certain sense both monuments are “facing the other” – applying the provocation of “the other” strategy. The creation of monuments by the Macedonian community that were intended to irritate Greece and the Albanian community, and similar actions from the Albanian side, is an example of a monument policy as a model of anti-culture. The Ministry of Culture answered that they have no statement to make, as did the Agency for the Protection of Cultural Monuments: “Regarding Skenderbeg, I will not give any statement”, said Pasko Kuzman, 9 director, while city mayor Trifun Kostovski said that for him this object is just illegitimate construction (Australian Macedonian Weekly, 2006). This policy demands an exploration of a diachronical side to national identity, which all the countries of Southeastern Europe are developing in different ways. In monument policy, Macedonians turned to ancient Macedonia, Serbs and Croats looked to medieval history (though they also emphasized the first half of the 19th century as the birth of a modern state), Croats explored taboos and “heroes” of the Second World War, while Montenegrins have seen in the 19th century rule of King Nikola the real roots of their independence, autonomy and national specificity. Thus, cultural policies found new “heroes” and new memory sites, contributing to the renationalization of cultural policies through monumentalization of often invented memories. The territories and cultures in the post-conflict situation are continuing to fight with monuments and religious symbols which now cover the hills above multicultural cities. 9 Paško Kuzman the ideologist of antiquitization in Macedonia claims that if Macedonians fail to prove their direct links with ancient Macedonians, they will lose the diplomatic battle with Greece, and lose their right to Macedonian identity. 40
Cultural policies, identities and monument building in Southeastern Europe “Gratitude” strategy vs. strategy of oblivion A specific part of monument policy was to realize it through a strategy of gratitude, and this is a tradition in south-Slavic countries as part of their “civil society efforts”. 10 The first monument to Tolstoy outside Russia was erected in the village of Selce (Brač, Croatia) in 1907, as a sign of Slavic identity and resistance towards Italianization. It is specifically gratitude to the great Slavic writer for keeping Slavic nations respected, although often considered “non-historical” (depriving them of their rights for independence and autonomous development). The Monument of Gratitude to France in Belgrade, monuments to different French generals (e.g. Franchet d’Esperey), and the naming of streets after personalities who had helped Serbia in the First World War to be recognized as a winner (such as the Swiss A. Reiss and the Greek Prime Minister Venizelos) or had helped in war efforts (Scottish nurses such as Dr E. Inglis, B. McGregor, F. Sandes) and so forth, were part of a strategy to realize state memory (monument) policy. This tradition had continued in the new states. In the same village where the monument to Tolstoy was erected now lie monuments to Tuđman, Austrian Premier Mock and the German Minister of Foreign Affairs H. D. Genscher. This confirms the statement about Western biased foreign policies (which before negotiations and the war took a clear stand). The monument to Clinton in Priština reflects the perception of the population of Southeastern Europe of the importance of the foreign factor. The film Fuse/Gori vatra, by Pjer Žalica, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2004, described those feelings (with an ironic distance towards “gratitude”). The model of dissent – creative dialogue The only ones who had the courage to redefine relations towards the cultural heritage of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, apart from the efforts of the Yugonostalgic diaspora (those who emigrated refusing to participate in the division of the country), were artistic circles. With their concepts and visions, they confronted the anachronistic monument policies of Southeastern Europe, conservative and retrograde as they were, neglecting the heritage of modernism. In this spirit Mrđan Bajic created a series of virtual monuments for the YugoMuseum. Inspired by the artefacts, events and myths which created but also destroyed Yugoslavia, Mrđan Bajic explored the hidden memories of both Tito’s and Milošević’s time. Each Bajić virtual sculpture is a monument which memorializes crucial events leading towards the civil war and the dissolution of the country. The Memorandum monument 10 Philanthropy was focusing national identity: merchants and rich citizens of Slavic origin gave money for theatres, as well as for monuments, such as the Monument of the Four Faiths, constructed in Čačak in 1930 and devoted to soldiers of four faiths (Christian: Orthodox and Catholic, Jewish and Islamic) killed in the First World War. 41
Page 1 and 2: Cultural Transitions in Southeaster
Page 7 and 8: C o n t e n t s Foreword . . . . .
Page 9: FOREWORD
Page 12 and 13: Cultural Identity Politics in the (
Page 17: PART ONE Histories, memories and na
Page 69 and 70: Culture of trauma and identity poli
Page 75 and 76: References Culture of trauma and id
Page 77: PART TWO Communication, media and c
Page 98 and 99:
Cultural Identity Politics in the (
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 109 and 110:
How modern technology shape-shifts
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Cultural identities in Southeastern
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131:
Page 135 and 136:
Cultural identities from the bottom
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
From productivity to creativity - t
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 171 and 172:
Repetition of difference - the sear
Page 173 and 174:
Repetition of difference - the sear
Page 175 and 176:
Report on the conference “Questio
Page 177 and 178:
Report on the conference Peace Inst
Page 179:
Report on the conference of ‘inde
Page 183 and 184:
Notes on the authors PAŠKO BILIĆ
Page 185 and 186:
Notes on the authors ANDREA KOMLOSY
Page 187 and 188:
Culturelink Joint Publications Seri
show all

Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?