Digging in the Dirt

Well, time to get my hands dirty. I just received the confirmation from Columbia Univ. that my proposed paper has been accepted. I'll be presenting a paper at ASN Convention 2009 on my Birthday. That means I am committed to being in NYC in the spring; I've always liked the City in the spring. The topic of my paper you ask? 

"Roma's 'Gazella' Settlement in Belgrade: Between Nationalism and Globalism"

This will be my first  conference presentation (unless you include Thinking Matters), and will be fun. But how to address this issue? It will be a combination of interviews with the Gazella inhabitants and Serbian (non-Roma) citizens, theoretical discourse, and a small project with the kids of Gazella. I'll be reaching back to some of the theories from my thesis and HON 299 class (Critical Multiculturalism, Performance Ethnography, Carl Schmitt, Balibar, Foucault, etc...).

~~

From a while back:

Americans have no clear idea what a powerful force Nationalism can be, and how it can be a true barrier for equal access in so many parts of the World. National identity in the US is virtually non-existent, and is synonymous with citizenship. People in the US, by and large, are loyal to their state first, then to any ethnic affiliation they have. For the African-Americans and the South American-Americans this relationship is the most difficult, and these two communities are often the most distinct from the hegemonic "American-ness", yet if push came to a shove, if, to use Huntington's language for a moment, there were a clash of civilizations, then I believe their American identity would trump the day. As a result of this configuration, this loyalty to citizenship and state, it is possible to have multicultural communities live side-by-side.

This is a very different story in the rest of the world. Looking at this corner of the world, Serbia (and this can be applied to the wider Balkan peninsula), ethnicity is first, then citizenship. Even if you share a citizenship, you will likely split if there were tensions/conflict between your ethnicities. In Serbia, you have people claiming to be Serbs (in this case the ethnicity is determined by affiliation to the Orthodox Church, thus you can only be a Serb if you are Orthodox. A Jew or catholic could only be a Serbian Citizen), Croatians, Albanians, Bosnians, Bosniaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Vlachs, Roma, etc.

In all these cases, the ethnic affiliation is more primary over the citizenship. It is also the cause of significant discrimination for those not belonging to the Hegemon, which in the case of Serbia, is Serb ethnicity. I would argue, if there were conflict between Albania and Serbia, or Serbia and Croatia (both of which have occurred in the past), then the Serbian citizens who identified as Croatians or the Serbian citizens who identified as Albanians would side with their ethnic affiliation, not their passport.

I wrote this piece (it has been edited since) on the way home from visiting Councils for Inter-ethnic Relations in Vojvodina. I'm thinking now, however, that the exception to the rule is likely the Roma population. They are exceptional in many ways however, as there is no homeland they can claim, no geographical expression (historical or current) which they claim. Furthermore, they are persecuted in every corner of the world; they tend to be impoverished and; most of them are not registered in any formal manner. Thus, they are often 'invisible' persons.