This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosywounds (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 11 March 2008 (Misplaced Pages is not a forum/soapbox per WP:FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAP; it's also not a place for someone to provide a bloated original interpretation of the text.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:29, 11 March 2008 by Rosywounds (talk | contribs) (Misplaced Pages is not a forum/soapbox per WP:FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAP; it's also not a place for someone to provide a bloated original interpretation of the text.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Serbia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:Wikiproject Montenegro
"Ethnic cleansing"
The article text:
The poem, one of the defining features of Serb nationalism and required reading in all schools in prewar Yugoslavia, is also notable for its celebration of Bishop Danilo's ethnic cleansing of Montenegro (the so-called "Christmas Eve Massacre") in the early 18th Century.
In the poem, the Muslims repeatedly plead for coexistence. One example:
Small enough is this our land,
Yet two faiths there still may be
As in one bowl soups may agree
Let us still as brothers live.However, these pleas for coexistence are seen by the bishop as merely a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which he finally overcomes. So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion’. And, following his command:
No single seeing eye, no Muslim tongue,
escaped to tell his tale another day.
We put them all unto the sword
All those who would not be baptised.
But who paid homage to the Holy Child,
were all baptised with sign of Christian cross.
And as brother each was hail’d and greeted.
We put to fire the Muslim houses,
That there might be no stick nor trace
Of these true servants of the devil!Source: Michael Sells, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and genocide in Bosnia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 15.
is basically a rip off of this text, written by Sheikh Abdal-Hakim Murad aka Timothy Winter, a British Islamic scholar:
The Mountain Wreath is interesting in several ways. Not least is the way in which the bishop portrays the Muslims, who plead for coexistence. One of them, for instance, says:
Small enough is this our land,
Yet two faiths there still may be
As in one bowl soups may agree
Let us still as brothers live.
Repeatedly the Muslims are shown as advocates of coexistence; but in the poem, this is simply a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which the bishop finally overcomes.
So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion’. And, following his command:
No single seeing eye, no Muslim tongue,
escaped to tell his tale another day.
We put them all unto the sword
All those who would not be baptised.
But who paid homage to the Holy Child,
were all baptised with sign of Christian cross.
And as brother each was hail’d and greeted.
We put to fire the Muslim houses,
That there might be no stick nor trace
Of these true servants of the devil!
So, it is a barely reworded quote from a polemical text by an Islamic scholar, who is mentioning the poem in an attempt to prove his view that the Bosnian War was an religious war against Islam instigated by Christians. What qualfies this man for literary criticism? Can you see how this could be viewed as a non neutral source? And leaving that aside, it may be a copyright violation. So I basically have no choice but to remove this from the article until we resolve it here, which I am more than happy to do.--Methodius 10:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"What qualfies this man for literary criticism?"
The above passage doesn't involve literary criticism. It simply presents a fact (that the poem was required reading in pre-war Yugoslavia), and then presents part of the poem itself. There is no literary criticism occuring here.
By contrast, the five paragraphs above it are full of glowing praise of the poem... which is far worse and less neutral than literary criticism. "healthy dose of humour", "no people had to pay like the Serbs", "insurmountable difficulties", "many subscenes which tend to weaken the action", "basic theme is the struggle for freedom, justice, and dignity"-- all of this is literary criticism, which is actually very uncritical and is intended to show the poem in the best light possible. And no citations are given at all! It has clearly been written by unknown Serbian people who are clearly in favour of this polemical poem.
"So, it is a barely reworded quote from a polemical text by an Islamic scholar"
1. It isn't a polemical text; it's journalism by a professor at Cambridge University. Everything is footnoted and properly documented.
2. So what if he is an Islamic scholar? Does his religion make his work illegitimate? As you have discovered, he is reputable enough to be featured in Misplaced Pages itself. You are displaying the same attitude as the people he wrote about in the article.
3. Most of what you have deleted is from the POEM ITSELF. So are you saying the poem itself is polemical and not reputable as to its own contents and does not say what it says?
4. The passage in Tim Winter's paper is NOT BY HIM... he himself is quoting it from a book written by MICHAEL SELLS, an American professor who published a highly respected book on religious war and genocide in Bosnia on the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, a very reputable, non-polemical source. So, except for the one sentence stating that the poem was required reading in pre-war Yugoslavia, the information is derived from non-Muslim scholar MICHAEL SELLS translation of the poem itself and I included a full citation to the book where you will find the quoted translation.
"And leaving that aside, it may be a copyright violation."
I already stated it is NOT a copyright violation. First of all, the sentences are different-- I wrote entirely new sentences, which explain the same underlying facts. This is perfectly legal. Second of all, even if I did not write entirely new sentences and quoted those sentences word-for-word, it would easily and undoubtedly qualify as 'fair use' as the copied passage is extremely small relative to the whole text.
I am a copyright lawyer and I *know* what I am talking about.
The poem is clearly about the Christmas Eve Massacre, and there are Serbian sites and books out there which very clearly and openly state that Njegos approved of the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Montenegrins. Clearly you are ashamed that the poem celebrates it, but we all have ugly things in our ethnic histories and it's better to let the truth shine on them rather than pretend they don't exist. The poem says what it says.
The text as it stands is not neutral, but two non-neutral sections do not make a balanced article. Now, where to begin?
- The source is polemical - it is an essay promoting the "reality" that the Bosnian War was "one of militant Christian extremism". The whole introductory paragraph seeks to overthrow what the author sees as established wisdom, is full of conjecture ("Anti-Muslim prejudice was no doubt at work here"), and full of opinion statements posing as fact("the reality, which was frequently one of militant Christian extremism"):
One of the most disturbing features of the war which devastated Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 was the widespread refusal of Western politicians, churchmen and newsmen, to acknowledge the role which religion was playing in the conflict. It was only mentioned, indeed, during periodic denunciations of the risks of Islamic extremism - a phenomenon that, when pressed, journalists working in Bosnia conceded was rather elusive. The reality, which was frequently one of militant Christian extremism, was never, to my knowledge, frankly discussed. The war was, we were told, a contest between ‘ethnic factions’; and the fact that its protagonists were divided primarily by religion, and shared a race and a language, was deemed insignificant. Anti-Muslim prejudice was no doubt at work here: one may assume that if the Serbs and Catholics had been Muslims, and their victims Christians, then the Western mind would immediately have characterised the war as a case of violent Muslims murdering secular, integrated, democratic Christians. Since in Bosnia the favoured stereotypes were reversed, the memory has largely been dismissed, censored and forgotten as an annoying anomaly.
- It's not his religion or that fact that he's an Islamic scholar that makes his work here of little value. It's the fact that this is a polemical piece and that he's writing outside his field. You've assumed bad faith and insinuated I'm an Islamophobe - I'd apperciate it if you didn't do that. I haven't accused you of anything, I've been perfectly civil so you could try reciprocating.
- You mention that most of the deleted material is from the poem. Well, I could selectively quote other parts of the poem, you would respond, and eventually we'd have the whole poem on the page. If anyone wants to read it, it's linked to in both English and Serbian, on several sites.
- Unless you know something I don't, there is nothing to indicate in the source that that passage is from Sells book.
As for the rest of your comments, what do you actually suggest for the article? That we return the text? I've got no objection as long as it's neutral. "i.e. Michael Sells and Abdal Hakeem claim xyz based on passages abc . However, "
On a personal note, may I say that you're putting the poem in totally the wrong context - a modern context. Not to mention that the events in question and the poem in question are nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.--Methodius 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The tone of this discussion is inappropriate for this forum, please take it where appropriate.
There are several reasons for removing the section of this article titled: The Role Ethnic Cleansing:
1) The author of the cited source Sells is porf. of religion and an expert in Islam. Thus the topic of this article The Mountain Wreath is not in his domain of expertise. He doesn't seem to speak the language in which the work is written (or at least doesn't claim to, although some sources describe him as "Serbian American" e.g. here: http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0520216628) nor has competence in literature nor history of Montenegro. The author is not claiming otherwise. His own CV states: "FIELDS OF RESEARCH AND TEACHING COMPETENCE Islamic Thought (Qur’an, Sufism, Philosophy, Literature). Arabic Language and Literature (Classical Qasida, Sufi Literature, Qur'an, Modern Arabic Literature). Mystical Thought and Literature (Greek, Islamic, Christian, Jewish). Comparative Religions. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Religion and Violence." (source: http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/cv.htm as of Feb 18 2008)
2) The cited source is not work on The Mountain Wreath nor its author, Njegos, nor the country (Montenegro), nor the historic period, nor the subject of The Mountain Wreath, not even the literature in general nor it is in any way contributing to the understanding of the work itself. Thus it is at least a stretch to connect the citation to this particular article at all but in the way it is done it is completely inappropriate and out of context.
3) Peer reviews and analysis of the cited source do not claim that the work is in any way an analysis nor examination of The Mauntain Wreath, literary or otherwise. (e.g. see: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewy4.htm, or this: http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1996d/120696/120696j.htm or this: http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/kronoct98.htm)
4) The whole section starting with the title "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" is completely inaccurate.
4.1) The title is inappropriate for this article and for the citation which would be out of context if left as is. Here's from review of the cited book by PAUL HOCKENOS (source: http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1996d/120696/120696j.htm) "Technically, the term "ethnic cleansing" is a misnomer. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims all belong to the same ethnic group. They're Slavs, descendants of Slavic tribes that migrated to the region in the sixth and seventh centuries. All three speak a common Slavic language and are physically indistinguishable."
While the term is in use in popular press in relation to the conflict in Bosnia, this is encyclopedic content and the article and its topic are not discussing the modern conflict in Bosnia nor the ethnic cleansing thus we have to be careful. Here it is inappropriate to use it much like it would be to say that Arabs are antisemitic.
4.2) The main thesis of the cited source is that the modern conflict in Bosnia, the war, was territorial in nature, not only religious, but definitely not ethnic. Thus the cited source appears to be contradictory to the conclusions made. Here's another quote from http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1996d/120696/120696j.htm
"... nor does Michael Sells argue that religion was the primary cause of slaughter in the Balkans. The war, rather, was one of territorial aggression, orchestrated and actively supported by expansionist regimes in Serbia and Croatia."
Even the author of the cited source himself describes his work as:
"The Bridge Betrayed portrays from a human perspective assault on Bosnia and the resistance by Bosnians. It shows how the genocide was motivated and justified through the manipulation of the mythology of Kosovo which culminated at the 600th anniversary passion play of Kosovo, the remembrance of the death of Prince Lazar--portrayed as a Christ-figure, fighting the Turks at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the "Serbian Golgotha." Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian religious nationalists, including the leaders of the Serbian Orthodox Church, worked to militarize the Kosovo story." (cited from http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports.html#BBSummary as of Feb 18 2008, also available here: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewy4.htm)
5) The Mountain Wreath has been a topic of numerous studies, articles, books, movies, etc. In the article none other author is mentioned. It is highly inappropriate, to say the least, to dedicate a whole section of this article to an obscure college professor's, especially in this present form, written in a non-academic way. It would never stand to scrutiny in any academic publication.
In conclusion I propose that we should definitely mention that some authors made claims that The Mountain Wreath could have plaid a role in inspiring late twenty century Serbian nationalist movement and politics, and cite the source, but not more than this in this article.
The contribution itself, however, is important enough, but should be (much) improved and moved to one of the pages that talks about the modern Bosnian conflict or Serbian nationalism or ethnic cleansing. It is highly inappropriate for this article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AmiFair (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality
An editor (not myself) has expressed concerns with the neutrality of the "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" section, in part because the criticism comes from a sole source. The thread above notes some concerns as well. I have no opinion on the matter, but it warrants discussion. Tagged and noted, please discuss. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" mainly quotes from the poem itself, in unambiguous terms. Its interpretation is plain and uncontroversial. This is reported on in a highly credible publication (University of Chicago professor, University of California press.) If there is an equally credible source challenging this straightforward interpretation, include it too-- but it would be foolish to withhold this citation until some mythical "alternative perspective" from a credible source surfaces.
- It is the "Themes" passage above which is both (a) appallingly non-neutral and (b) entirely unsourced -- it talks about "the presence of the Muslim converts" as a problem that must be solved through "extermination". This passage was written by someone who is highly favourable to the poem-- yet it easily confirms that the "Role of Ethnic Cleansing" interpretation is entirely correct.
- I say leave it as is -- the top section is pro-poem, while the "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" is a secular interpretation by a highly reputable source. Yet they both point to the same meaning. -sky7i 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are many points to make here, more than I have time.
- 1. Michael Sells is a Quaker of Christian background, not a Muslim. He is the main source for that passage, and a highly reputable scholar. He has no reason to be pro-Muslim or anti-Serbian. As for me, you know nothing about my background. To be honest, neither do I... I simply search for truth wherever I find it.
- 2. Many of your statements are quite chilling. You're not aware of it, but you are accepting the demonization of the Muslims in the poem -- and Danilo's radical "solution" -- as something quite normal and natural. No wonder you defend the poem with such fury.
- 3. Your perspective is reflected in the "Themes" section of the page. Another perspective, one which is (by Misplaced Pages's citation standards) much more credible, is reflected in the Micheal Sells excerpt. I'm not trying to censor your perspective, nor do we necessarily have to come to a consensus about what the poem really means. All that Misplaced Pages requires is that we report on all credible interpretations in a neutral manner. We cannot simply leave out a major published work by a very reputable American scholar on the poem just because you disagree with what he wrote. -sky7i, 23 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.34.208 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
However, many (or most) who ever read "Gorski vijenac" would strongly disagree with the above opinion (about this book used as an inspiration for ethnic cleansing). This book is much more than a book about local ethnic and national issues back in 18th century. It focuses around clashes between Orthodox Montenigrins and Montenigrins that converted to Islam, but this was used primarly as a paradigm, quire understandable in the times when Njegos and his tiny state Montenegro were under permanent pressure by the mighty Otoman empire. Since the Otoman empire spread and reached Europe (in 14th century) and as long as to the 19th century, the fear in many European countries produced many political and literature works calling for saving European freedom and Christian faith, often in a much more radical way than it was in Gorski vijenac. And still no one claims that those works are the inspiration for ongoing disputes between European countries and Islamic countries. Such relationship would be a pseudo-historical simplification, neglecting centuries in between. 77.46.172.129 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC) ppnjegos
Categories: