Setting the Stage

As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. But what happens when the other side is still alive to tell another side? In all of the readings over the past weeks, the most striking aspect of the Balkans conflict has been the grayness. Initially it reads like a textbook setup for conflict - side A has a different religion/ethnic identity than side B - but it wasn't always that way. Josip Tito, who ruled from 1953 to 1980, emphasized Yugoslav pride rather than individual - Serbian, Croat, etc. - nationalistic tendencies. Admittedly, this was a pretty tall order.

The country was - and is - divided by ethnic groups. Slovenes and Croats are predominantly Catholic, the Bosnians Muslim, and Serbs Orthodox Christian. Each religion has its own traditions, beliefs, and history that shaped distinctive ethnic identities for each group. It was these different cultural identities that sparked the 1990s conflict. Unlike apartheid or the Civil Rights struggles, groups were demonized by intangible differences and not by visual cues such as skin color. As an American, this concept seems foreign, yet European history is littered with religious wars - the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War - where the sides could not be distinguished by outward differences.  

So without the background, how can outsiders tell the difference between sides? Especially when a 'minority' group actually comprises a majority (as seen in Kosovo). My particular interest in this trip will be examining the interplay of culture in politics and how different perspectives shaped international response to the conflict. I also look forward to comparing the Balkans conflict to other culturally infused conflicts such as Syria and even the current Ukraine-Crimea situation and how the US has responded - or will respond - in light of the Balkans legacy. It promises to be a fascinating adventure!