Hristov, P. “'Use' of the Holidey for Propaganda Purposes. (The

Hristov, P. “’Use’ of the Holidey for Propaganda Purposes. (The ‘Serbian’ Slava and/or the ‘Bulgarian’ Sãbor)” – Ethnologia Balcanica, Journal for Southeast European Anthropology. Vol. 6, 2002, 69-80. “USE” OF THE HOLIDAY FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES (The ‘Serbian’ Slava and/or the ‘Bulgarian’ Sãbor)* A concrete occasion, prompting the writing of this article was the “provocation” of my colleague G.Vãlčinova, who placed the ethnographic facts in “the field of tension” in relations between Serbs and Bulgarians, by studying the construction of a boundary-like phenomenon (Vãlčinova G., 1999). Since the basic study of Frederic Barth (Barth F., 1969), the concept of “boundary” in socio-anthropological terms can be interpreted on different levels: cultural, ethnic, and political. In this context the boundary is a state and a process, whose ethnic (or, to be more precise, ethno-cultural) dimensions intertwine with the social and economic factors and processes. The very concepts of nation and of cultural tradition that are identified with it can be regarded through the prism of the propaganda structure, whereby one of the research perspectives is the possibility of destruction of the “imagined” communities and the “invention” of traditions in the spirit of the works of Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm (Anderson B., 1991; Hobsbawm E., 1983). It is the objective of this article to show how in boundary conditions, when the ethnic or national belonging prove to be, by and large, open to “settlement”, agreement and manipulation, some individual ethnographic facts, detached from the cultural context, become ethno-identification markers, whereby the ideal construction referred to as a political boundary can be substantiated. The choice of the specific regions of Trãn, Pirot and Caribrod is purely emotional, owing to the author’s personal commitment, but it moreover opens up great opportunities and prospects for a researcher’s analysis, insofar as, in the words of Vladimir Stojančević, “the so-called Trãn question has been a heavy burden in Bulgarian-Serbian relations, because of the attempts of both countries to include the territory and population of Znepole within the territory of their states” (Stojančević V., 1995; 293, reference 32). I have to state well in advance the purely scholarly interest in such an investigation. The historical realities in the Balkans from the 19th and the first half of the 20th century turned the regions of Pirot and Trãn into a periphery of the social and cultural processes in the two states. The 1 artificial division of the region which, by that time, had been united in its socio-cultural prospects, resulted in the gradual marginalisation and slow-down of development on either side of the border; the age-old historical and cultural unity was broken and Trãn and Pirot were transformed into insignificant provincial towns of Bulgaria and Serbia (Vãlčinova G., 1999; 107-113), - a convenient instrument of manipulation on the part of the great-state ambitions on either side of the frontier. It is my aim to show how a wonderful region in the heart of the Balkans can be transformed, by way of the propaganda discourse both in Belgrade and in Sofia putting to use ethnographic “arguments” and facts, into marginalised territories, rapidly becoming depopulated after the mid-20th century. In a very indicative work of his on the political usage of tradition, Slobodan Naumović points out that in the interim between the two world wars, that set of ethno-identification markers had already been reaffirmed, which made up “the Serbian national tradition”. He classifies them into three groups: historical tradition, Eastern-Orthodox-St Sava tradition, involving the activity of the Patriarchate of Peč, and folk (rural) tradition, bringing together a number of material elements, traditional institutions, customs and beliefs of the traditional culture of Serbs. Special emphasis among the last group has been given to the custom of slava (Naumović S., 1996; 131). The inclusion in this list of this family and kinship holiday as part of the set of ethno-markers of Serbian national identity is not accidental. It is celebrated under different names in different parts of the Balkan Peninsula (not only West of the Iskãr River) equally by the Slavic population (Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Macedonians) and by the non-Slavic Wallachians, Aromanians and Catholic Albanians. As early as in the 1860s and 1870s, after the publication of Miloš Miloeviæ’s composition (“Putopis dela Prave-Stare-Srbije. Beograd 1871-1877 g.” [Travelogue of Part of the Rightful Old Serbia]), he and of a number of his followers raised the principle “Gde je slava, tu je Srbin!” [“Wherever There Is Slava, There Is a Serb!”]. They promoted it to the status of a guiding principle in the formation of the national strategy, and the slava was therefore transformed into an ethnic identification marker (alongside the specific features of the traditional attire, folklore and dialects) and into an argument in the diplomatic relations and political discourse concerning the major changes in the Balkans in the wake of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the San Stefano Peace Treaty and the subsequent Berlin Congress (1878). These political developments of enormous aftereffects for the Balkans placed the region of Trãn-Caribrod-Pirot within “the field of tension”1 between Bulgaria and Serbia. The local population and its folk culture and traditions, which were up till then characterised by local identification, cultural unity and, mostly, the Eastern Orthodox Christian 2 religion (Vãlčinova G., 1999; 103-107) suddenly found itself in a situation of a “time of parting”, when in the conditions of exceptional political tension and powerful pressure, it had to manifest its national identity and, respectively, its political and state affiliation. In these conditions the problem of the boundary, in the cultural meaning of the word, of the population between the rivers of Timok and South Morava, in the West, and the Iskãr River in the East, acquired new dimensions. The specific features of the local folk culture, which include holidays of the community on various levels – the family-household svetec [saint], the family and kinship obrok [votive site] with the mandatory kurban [offering of a sacrificial common meal], called “molitva” [prayer], referred to in the region of Trãn also as “svetãc”, the village fair (sobor), along with the specific features of the dialect, discussed in both Serbian and Bulgarian science as “transitory” between the two languages, were placed in the situation of a powerful political confrontation and ethnic alternativeness. Without getting into details, which are well familiar to historians (Manolova-Nikolova N., 1997; Stojančeviæ V., 1995), I shall point out that when on 28 November 1877, a few days after the fall of Pleven and after it became clear that Turkey was losing the war, the Serbian Government took a decision to take part in that war. What is today Central Western Bulgaria was de facto “liberated” by the Serbian Army. Throughout the entire period of the Provisional Russian Administration in Bulgaria, the administration in these regions was Serbian (from 19 December 1877 until 5 June 1879). The developments, concerning the signing of the San Stefano Peace Treaty, which brought freedom to Bulgaria and independence to Serbia, as well as concerning the Berlin Congress and the specification of the state boundaries in the Balkans, placed the population of the regions of Trãn and Pirot in the situation of “a time of parting” (using the wonderful metaphor of A.Dončev), in which that boundary character was subjected to powerful politicisation2. In Trãn and in Pirot, as well as in the villages around (later the Lužnica, Dragoman, Caribrod, Godeč and Breznik regions), pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian parties were formed, whose leaders wrote addresses of gratitude, requests and petitions on behalf of the local population, to Knyaz Milan, to the Russian Emperor and to the General Staff in San Stefano, and to the representatives of the Provisional Russian Administration in Sofia, aimed at proving one or another ethnic and national affiliation. Ethnographic “argumentation” was included in the propaganda discourse, containing “Srpski jezik, srpsko ime, običaje i nošnju” [Serbian language, Serbian name, customs and attire] (from Trãn) and “običaje, slave, zavetine” [customs, celebrations slava, behests], (from Gniljane) as ethno- 3 identification markers of Serbian affiliation (Srbija 1878; 189, 323). It is pointed out in the Petition of the population of Stara Serbia (unnamed inhabitants of Pirot, Trãn and Vranje) to Emperor Alexander II that “the Bulgarian čoprbadžii” (landlords), besides the other cruelties inflicted upon the local population “branded our sacred Serbian slava openly in the churches” (Srbija 1878; 208). In this way, in the discourse of the political contradictions, the local custom of svetec (svetãc in the region of Trãn), considered as similar (identical) with the Serbian slava, was presented as ideological to the maximum. Indicative was the article by Sreten Popoviæ, carried by the “Srpske novine” newspaper (No. 81/11 April 1878) and entitled “Gde je Srbin, tu je slava!” [“Wherever there is a Serb, there is a slava celebration”]. It described the celebration of svetec in the region of Breznik, which was less than 50 km away from Sofia (Stojančević V., 1995; 291, note 27). To the credit and good reputation of the prestigious Serbian ethnographic science,

Load more