Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2006/June

Serbian/Bosnian/Yugoslavian in intro
I'm not particularly a yugo-nostalgic, but recent edits (Serbian->Yugoslavian) by User:209.195.160.242 struck me as the right thing to do. First, it's an obvious compromise solution, as it avoids classification into either modern state. Second, it avoids mentioning his ethnic affiliation, which is disputed and, I hope you'd agree, not a primary essential part of his life and works. Third, I'd think that Meša himself would approve it&mdash;after all, he was a proponent of Serbo-Croatian linguistic and cultural unity rather than an outright nationalist (cf. Emir Kusturica) Duja 08:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Emir, you're revert-warring again. I tried to write a neutral intro, and explained it above, which you just revert to whatever version suits you best. As for your edit comments that "I should read about his work", at least it was me who did anything on his literature (even if it was mere copy from bs:Wiki), while you just keep on quarelling about his ethnic affiliation. Which edit of yours prove your competence on the subject? Duja 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever
Why are you trying to claim his family was Bosniak, without any sources? The comparison with Kusturica is correct: both born to Muslim families in Bosnia, both consider(ed) themselves Serbs. As for the Sandžak Muslims, they show that Muslims by nationality on historically Bosnian territory didn't all become Bosniaks after 1991. So your central assertion, that a Muslim Bosnian=Bosniak is wrong. Please explain yourself, if you can. --estavisti 08:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with "Bosniak", if for anything, then for the sake of political correctness. The assertion that Muslim Bosnian=Bosniak is pretty much in order in my opinion; the case of remaining "Muslims by nationality" in Sandžak and Montenegro is fairly well analysed here. As the term "Bosniak" is in use only since 1990s, it's difficult to extrapolate the past and look into the crystal ball whether Selimović's parents would consider themselves Bosniaks if they lived long enough. I don't think that insisting on the term that Bosniak editors find offending is productive, though, and I'd rather avoid unnecessary "nije šija nego vrat" quarrels doomed to fail in reaching a consensus. Duja 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is utterly stupid. Some Bosniak editors find the verifiable facts offensive, and so we must all acquiesce in their guessing game?! According to them, his parents would have considered themselves members of the nation which was proclaimed 80 years after his birth! It's entirely possible that they would have, but they didn't. We must stick to the facts, and until a source is produced to the contrary, we must simply stick to what we know - his family was Bosnian and Muslim. Furthermore, consensus is not the god it's made out to be. We should reach a consensus within a context of respecting sources, verifiability etc - not simply because someone finds the verifiable facts "offensive". I hate to use the following analogy, but it's the first one off the top of my head - should we reach a consensus with Holocaust deniers? The article as it stands is a Bosniak nationalist fantasy. --estavisti 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nation which was renamed 80 years after his birth, actually. Without entering into exact statistics, I'd say that around 95% of SFRY's Muslims by nationality call themselves Bosniaks now.
 * There are similar fruitless quarrels among Greeks, Bulgarians and Macedonians; see e.g. Macedonism for the view of first two on Macedonians' (alleged) attempt to "monopolize history"; was Goce Delčev a Macedonian and Bulgarian etc. etc.
 * Back to the point: how far back can we go in "retrofitting" history? I stand on the viewpoint that e.g. 1991 census results should not present the term "Muslim"; doing so skews the reality that these same people didn't emigrate to Mars but changed their name to Bosniaks in the meantime. Further back, the point becomes more and more moot; I don't endorse [this kind of retrofitting] either. But then, you don't have the proof that his parents felt as Serbs either. I don't, however, feel that your points that there are Emir Kusturica and 30,000 Muslims in Sandžak outweigh the point that there's also 1,8 million Bosniaks in Bosnia? Duja 12:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here has nothing to do with "verifiable facts", because the "verifiable facts" (quotes, writings, etc.) pretty clearly show that Selimović came to consider himself a Serb - as opposed to being born and raised with such a view of his ethnic identity (although the quote of his own Serb wife raises questions as to the exact nature of his declared Serbdom). Rather, the problem here is that, theoretically, you shouldn't have any real preference between "Bosnian Muslim" and "Bosniak", since they both (in their own respective times) referr/ed to a unique ethnic group distinct from Serbs. Instead, you have a clear preference for "Bosnian Muslim" because, unlike Bosniak, it implies a religious identity and you take it as a term designeting something less than national. Thus, what we have here is simply another modern example of the old and tired doctrine of refusing to recognize and respect the Bosniak-Muslims' identity. Using your logic, nothing and nobody can be described as "Bosniak" in any context before 1991, when they magically dropped from the sky totally independent of any historical national development. Of course, this really shouldn't be a problem for us glupe Balije because you are "kind" enough to overlook it when it doesn't concern you. Whenever it does however (for instance, with Mr. Selimovic), it is simply your duty as the superior and more rightfully nationalized Serb people to put your foot down and put us into place. Give me a break. Selimović was born into a Bosniak family 80 years before his people succesfully fully completed their nationalization. His early views, expressed in various statements and writings, are perfectly in line with the views most Bosniaks held at the time (a sense of uniqueness from Serbs and Croats, a sense of identity based partly on Islam and partly on a strong emotional and psychological tie to the land and concept of Bosnia, etc.), and his eventual (apparent/questionable) decision to declare himself a Serb can only be viewed in context of his era, surroundings, and Bosniak heritage, which place him in the same boat as numerous other Bosniak intellectuals who opted for Croat or Serb ethnic identity during a time when such a choice was actually encouraged and no other true alternative was clearly formulated. Meša Selimović was born into a Bosniak family, is of Bosniak origins, and had a literary output that drew strongly from this heritage; these are facts that can't be brushed away no matter what he eventually came to consider himself and no matter how inconvenient recognition of a Bosniak people before 1991 is to Serbs - end of story. And I won't even get into you labeling me a Bosniak nationalist, much less comparing my viewpoint to that of holocaust deniers. Live Forever 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you two have written a lot, but failed to answer my point. The majority of the Muslims by nationality in Bosnia/Herzegovina/Sandzak may today consider themselves Bosniaks, but a not insignificant minority do not. Of course, we cannot know the precise situation in BiH, because of the political obstacles to a census being conducted, so we can only go on Sandzak, which you seem to consider part of the Bosniak space when it suits you, and not, when it doesn't. Duja, nowhere have I claimed that his parents considered themselves Serbs, you're refuting a point that you're falsely attributing to me. I disagree that the results of the 1991 census need to talk about Bosniaks, because those people didn't consdier themselves Bosniaks. Of course, it should be prominently noted that 95%+ (but not all) of those same people consider themselves Bosniaks today. Applying your logic to the census results in Montenegro would result in some truly bizarre contortions vis-a-vis Serb-Montengrins and Dioclean-Montenegrins (for want of a better term). Live Forever, you're likewise refuting claims I didn't make - that Selimović always considered himself a Serb. Clearly, having been born to a Muslim family in Bosnia, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that that is the case. Secondly, the terms "Musliman" and "Bošnjak" do not refer to the same group of people. It is true that there is a large overlap, but the terms are not synonyms. Bosniaks did not "drop from the sky", as you accuse me of thinking, but it is ludicrous to claim that every Musliman, even in 1910 (!) would have become a Bošnjak if only they had been around '92-'93. You simply cannot refer to people who died before the introduction of "Bošnjaštvo" as Bosniaks, because there is no indication that they themselves would have acquiesed to form part of this new nation. This is where the Sandžak Muslims and Emir Kusturica come in - they are examples of Muslims who rejected the Bosniak national project. Your case simply does not have a leg to stand on. As for the analogy, as I stated above, it was not to compare you to a Holocaust denier, but to draw a parallel of logic. However, I still consider you a Bosniak nationalist (although I wasn't referring specifically to you above) - you'd like to backdate everything and include people who died 30 years ago into a nation a little over a decade old, although that is neither here nor there - I shouldn't have any need to resort to personal attacks when my arguments are superior. :-) --estavisti 18:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your 'superior' arguments have been heard thousands of times before. Seeing that claiming Bosniaks as Islamicized Serbs has gotten a little out of fashion, the new argument-of-choice is to try and completely deny them their history and heritage by way a transparent technicality wherever it's deemed inconvenient to Serbs' own national interests. Brilliant. Unfortunately, problems are abound. Assigning nationality in historical retrospect (where it is appropriate in terms of time period, political situation, nature of individual etc.) is primarily a matter of culture and ethnicity, and the name used to describe the same people at various points of time is insignificant. Black intellectuals in 19th century America were fervently opposed to names that highlighted their connection to the African continent because they in turn associated this with movements that supported relocating them to their supposed homelands. If we were to follow the logic you employ in regards to Bosniaks/Muslims here, then it would be absolutely ridiculous to label men such as Frederick Douglass "African-American", but we do so because we recognize that he was part of this same people regardless of differences in modern and historical terminology. If we were to apply the strict Puritanism you propagate here throughout Wikipedia we'd have to rename every individual that belonged to an ethnic group that changed its national name over time according to the exact contemporary term that they found most appropriate. Surely even you, despite the inherent and transparent agenda that exists behind your adopted argument, would be able to recognize the absurdity of such an approach. The chief problem, upon which the above-mentioned argument rests, is the popular view among Serb would-be internet intellectuals that the statistical split among those who registered on recent censuses as "Muslims by nationality" and "Bosniak" reflects the existence of two different people. It does not, and to assume so would be, at the very least, a gross oversimplification. Those who identify themselves as "Muslims by nationality" and "Bosniak" share every single trait that would typically be used to distinguish an ethnic group precisely because they are, essentially, the same people (A fact acknowledged even by them, as attested to by the presence of shared ethnic debates, cultural institutions, and a wide array of other manifestations of nationality). The only matter of contention between the two is their national name - a significant matter of contention, but not one to warrant an imaginary split into separate ethnic communities which even they wouldn’t endorse. Rather, this phenomenon can only be viewed in context of the process of nationalization of one single people, hampered and restrained by various historical and political factors (which is exactly the way in which the matter is portrayed in serious studies of the situation). Now what exactly these people should be called is a different matter ("Bosniak-Muslim" is one often used adjective to reflect the census split), but an issue wholly separate from the likes of Selimović because it is unique to Montenegro and regions geopolitically separate from Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a direct product of the special circumstances surrounding Serbia and Montenegro, the existence of 30,000 "Muslims" is completely irrelevant when discussing Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the adoption of the Bosniak name and the entire process of nationalization has been accepted and completed (In Montenegro the issue is reflected culturally and politically. In Bosnia and Herzegovina it is entirely nonexistent). As for Emir Kusturica, the man himself has stated that he and his family always considered themselves Serbs, so what he has to do with Bosniaks or even "Muslims by nationality" is beyond me (furthermore, the weight of one eccentric celebrity filmmaker against the entire course of Bosnian history is a little questionable). Both examples you brought up therefore don't stand. Your observations on the Bosniak/Muslim split in Serbia and Montenegro might demonstrate that Wikipedia should be careful in labeling historical figures on those respective territories, but in regards to Meša Selimović and Bosnian Muslims your points are off-mark and amount to little more than a bad attempt to deny Bosniaks their historical identity by portraying the emergence and wide-spread acceptance of the Bosniak national name as a "project" and some kind of contemporary political phenomenon, rather than the natural (albeit, somewhat unusual) culmination of a nationalization process that it is (as can be seen by the terms universal acceptance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, an increasing majority of Bosniak/Muslim-s in Serbia and Montenegro, seemingly all non-Gorani Slavic Muslims in Kosovo, etc.). Of course in overviews of Bosnian history it is reasonable (and perhaps necessary) to use contemporary terms when discussing the various nationalities (it is silly to discuss Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks in the context of the 16th century, or even early 19th), but we are not discussing history here but a specific individual and his ethnic background through a modern lens. Just as it is perfectly reasonable to describe Husein Gradaščević as a Bosniak it is perfectly sensible, through a simple analysis of the cultural, historical, and political factors involved, to say that Meša Selimović was born into a Bosniak family. Live Forever 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) "Seeing that claiming Bosniaks as Islamicized Serbs has gotten a little out of fashion, the new argument-of-choice is to try and completely deny them their history and heritage by way a transparent technicality wherever it's deemed inconvenient to Serbs' own national interests." Again, you project onto me your own insecurities about what I brought up. You may like to reread what I wrote, nowhere did I claim that Bosniaks are Islamicised Serbs. No one's trying to deny Bosniaks a history, but you can't simply appropriate a Muslim Bosnian historical figure and use the modern term "Bosniak". Your argument is so illogical that it beggars belief. Most Bosnian Muslims started declaring themselves Bosniaks in 1992-3, so all Bosnian Muslims in history are really Bosniaks. Well, no.
 * Overanalyzing and misconstruing what I wrote.


 * 1) "Black intellectuals in 19th century America were fervently opposed to names that highlighted their connection to the African continent because they in turn associated this with movements that supported relocating them to their supposed homelands." This analogy is faulty, because as far as I know there isn't a significant minority of black people in the US who reject the term "African-American". Even given that this is the case, these historical figures should not be considered African-Americans, although it is obvious that they are closely connected. If they are (wrongly, in my opinion) considered African-Americans, it's probably by people who have just as much of an agenda as you do here. The term African-American is itself problematic, but let's not get into that.
 * There is no significant minority of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina who reject the term either, so the analogy stands. As for your belief that it is wrong to label any American blacks before the last quarter of the 20th century "African-American", have fun editing the several thousand articles that follow that widely-accepted reasonable convention.


 * 1) "If we were to apply the strict Puritanism you propagate here throughout Wikipedia we'd have to rename every individual that belonged to an ethnic group that changed its national name over time according to the exact contemporary term that they found most appropriate." I don't see what your point is. That's exactly what should be case, given that ethnicity is primarily a matter of self-identification. Of course, we can explain each case (born to parents of aaa ethnic group, today most xxxs consider themselves yyys, he had a strong influence on the development of ethnic group zzz etc), given the specifics.
 * The point is that such an approach is completely impractical and more detrimental than beneficial.


 * 1) "The only matter of contention between the two is their national name - a significant matter of contention, but not one to warrant an imaginary split into separate ethnic communities which even they wouldn’t endorse." Why should someone who considers himself a Muslim by nationality be considered a Bosniak. Because you know better? By your logic, because Šokci and Bunjevci associate very closely with Croats, and even share the same minority political parties, then the names "Šokac" and "Bunjevac" are worthless and shouldn't be used. Clearly, if someone declares themselves a Muslim by nationality (post-92), they do not want to be considered a Bosniak.
 * Putting words into my mouth yet again.


 * 1) "As a direct product of the special circumstances surrounding Serbia and Montenegro, the existence of 30,000 "Muslims" is completely irrelevant when discussing Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the adoption of the Bosniak name and the entire process of nationalization has been accepted and completed." How do you know that? The last census was conducted in 1991, and - if you will allow me to enlighten you - no Bosniaks were recorded on it. To say 100.00% of those who declared themselves Muslims by nationality in 1991 now consider themselves Bosniaks is pure speculation. Even if that were somehow the case, that has no bearing on the fact that neither Selimović's parents, nor the man himself, never considered themselves Bosniaks, not even according to the biased sources you're wont to dig up from third rate universities in provincial cities in the US.
 * Because, unlike in Montenegro, there is absolutely no issue. There is absolutely no sign of, as you said above, a "significant minority" which would signify a disagreement.


 * 1) "As for Emir Kusturica, the man himself has stated that he and his family always considered themselves Serbs, so what he has to do with Bosniaks or even "Muslims by nationality"." Well, that's not what he stated. He stated that he knew, and his family knew, of his family's Serb heritage. That doesn't change that they were Bosnian Muslims, and hence the example of Kusturica is pertinent, as a Bosnian Muslim who rejected the Bosniak project, which drove him to consider himself a Serb.
 * No, it still makes him fundementally different from Selimović who became enlightened of his Serbdom in the early 70s.


 * 1) "[Your attempts] amount to little more than a bad attempt to deny Bosniaks their historical identity by portraying the emergence and wide-spread acceptance of the Bosniak national name as a "project" and some kind of contemporary political phenomenon." Well isn't it? Since the name only came into widespread use about 15 years ago. Of course, the history of the "Bosniaks" is bound up tightly with Bosnian Muslim history / history of Muslims in Bosnia, but the overlap is not 100%.
 * No more of a "project" or "political phenomenon" than, say, the acceptance of the Serb ethnic name in Bosnia.


 * 1) "Just as it is perfectly reasonable to describe Husein Gradaščević as a Bosniak." Well, I reject that too, as I do your attempts to sidetrack the argument.
 * What sidetrack? Your arguements here would logically mean, as said above, that we'd have to rework every article about an individal from an ethnic group that changed its name, so Gradaščević is one of thousands of articles that you should be diligently working on. It is not my fault that the hundreds of articles from Gradaščević to Douglass don't concern you just because they're not related to Serbs.


 * 1) "It is perfectly sensible, through a simple analysis of the cultural, historical, and political factors involved, to say that Meša Selimović was born into a Bosniak family." Simply, no. Your problem, as you admit yourself, is that you're looking at this through a "modern lens". There is about as much evidence that his parents considered themselves Bosniaks, as there is that they considered themselves Serbs or Martians i.e. none whatsoever. Your attempts to claim a Bosniak identity existed in history, and backdate a 15 year old development to the 19th century, are simply doomed to failure. No matter how much it annoys you, your arguments don't have a leg to stand on. There is no evidence whatsoever that his parents considered themselves Bosniaks, and as I have shown, they should not be considered as such simply because they spoke Serbo-Croat, lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and were Muslims. --estavisti 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it is a far better approach that should be employed where reasonable (as is the case here) over the objections of a select group of individauls with special interests. Live Forever 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)