The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria and the 'Revival Process': the Construction of a Political Minority

CEU eTD Collection

The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria and the and the in Bulgaria The Minority Turkish The Construction of a Political Minority ofThe a Political Construction In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the d the requirements for of the Inpartial fulfilment Department Nationalismof Studies ‘Revival Process’: ‘Revival Supervisor: Szabolcs Pogonyi Central European University Alexander Karadjov Budapest, Hungary Hungary Budapest, Submitted to 2011 By By

egree of Master ofMaster Artsof egree CEU eTD Collection Chapter4:The Turkish Minority under Communism ... Chapter1: LiteratureReview ...... Introduction...... Autonomyor Exclusion ...... Chapter3:The Turks in Bulgaria, 1878-1944...... Theoreticalgrounds ...... Chapter2: Minorities:from assimilation to constr

Continuitiesin the 1990s ...... The “Revival The Process” ...... upPolicies until 1984 ...... Education, Kemalism, PoliticalParticipation ...... ReligiousAutonomy ...... Violence,resistance and politicization of minority ‘Othering’through Inclusion ...... Act The of Renaming ...... Hegemonyand Ethnicization...... Persistent Ethnicity ...... ‘Priobshtavane’ ...... Minority, Kemalism,and Politicalparticipation ... Education of Muslimsand Turks ...... Treaty Neuilly of ...... ReligiousAutonomy ...... International Legal Provisions ...... Status The of Muslims ...... Demography ...... Contents ...... 2 uction...... 23 ...... 62 ...... 34 ...... 63 ...... 71 ...... 48 ...... 90 ...... 67 ...... 34 ...... 34 ...... 7 ...... 78 ...... 43 ...... 36 ...... 81 ...... 38 ...... 34 ...... 73 ...... 48 ...... 49 ...... 23 ...... 53 ...... 84 ...... 62 4 CEU eTD Collection

Bibliography...... Conclusion ...... 3

...... 9 94 6 CEU eTD Collection powerfully and reduces them to a single homogeneous block of stereoty of block homogeneous single a to them reduces and powerfully esetv g bc t a try eid f ogl 3-er - 30-years roughly of period stormy a to back go perspective

Turkish population with ethnic Bulgarian ones. ethnic with BulgarianTurkish population ones. camp a initiated state the 1984, In population. its of identities capacities hegemonic in its place of any in all fulfilled work was prophecy to Orwell’s put George If Party Communist The w do What is: ask to necessary deems one no that that questionit to obvious references An Most minority? Turkish the about talk we group.and unchanging a it view nation-state, Bulgarian modern the in minority Turkish the op drastically occupying often very while actors, discursive as manifestations otherwise and temporal geographical, various concep potential this question, least at or escape, to fails also different pol state religion, sociology, from and anthropology ethnology, – minority standpoints Turkish Bulgarian the studying scholarship le not but Last self-evident. as perceived assumption, same the impr the sustain news to and debate Political distinctiveness. and and ‘one-ness’ fundamental denominator common a under Turks the place to successful quite managed has discourse and activity Its rights. and mi the for fighting party pro-Turkish the of rhetoric the underlies “ the of side other the On isolation. in and statically existed stigma forums) electronic media, as (such Bulgaria in communication h dmnn ntoait icus i fra ad noml pee o p of spheres informal and formal in discourse nationalist dominant The Introduction 4 posite standpoints with respect to to respect with standpoints posite tual trap and regards the group’s the regards and trap tual aign to change the names of its of names the change to aign arcd” te ae premise same the barricade”, try to provide some historical some provide to try a single unit. Put simply, all all simply, Put unit. single a s, lre oto o the of portion large a ast, nority’s equality, tolerance tolerance equality, nority’s ly during the past 20 years 20 past the during ly trig ih h 6s and 60s the with starting 94 ta ws Bulgaria. was that 1984, o r ad oto the control and try to s an objective, timeless timeless objective, an s coverage work under under work coverage tizes Bulgarian Turks Turks Bulgarian tizes pical individuals that individuals pical itics and law etc. – – etc. law and itics social scientific scientific social e mean when mean e sin f a of ession ublic CEU eTD Collection protection for the Bulgarian Turks, and the issue translated its translated issue the and Turks, Bulgarian the for protection Communi the after, Soon so. do to compulsion or need the felt people name forceful language, and clothing traditional rituals, of banning ne n fr l te uks pplto o te onr. t novd history involved It country. the of population Turkish the all for and once scale unprecedented an of campaign a launched Party Communist durin - ‘84-’89 of Process Revival so-called the with culminating

n eiiu afis crosy mc mr ta wa te hv nowada have they what than more much (curiously, affairs religious in cons and schools, religious private press, Turkish-languageincluding b with Bulgaria in minority national Turkish recognized legally a early As Process. Revival the from ensuing those and realities distincti meaningful a draw to be would challenge main The Turks. today known group minority the of self-consciousness high and organization palpa the in resulted but concept, minority lasting and influential campaigns assimilation Communist the of effect potent the was inst and, presumption, continuity objective the granted for take cannot groups social of fluidity and dynamicity constant f and fundamental m Departing Process. and, Revival the period of existe above-mentioned events the link the the to specifically, exercise to this of organization purpose the and be will consciousness It minority democratic of the state. stage t leave voluntarily to encouraged were Turks Bulgarian the and opened border the 1989, In end. receiving the on resistance and protests mass ihs n Fedm ws omd nltrly y h Scait P Socialist the by unilaterally formed was Freedoms and Rights In 1991, Turkish people. the for rights restored some and changing policies gove new The returned. people the of half approximately and fell 5 elf onto the now multi-party now the onto elf rom a pre-conception of a a of pre-conception a rom ht rdcd o ol an only not produced that and publicity to assimilate assimilate to publicity and rnment reversed the name name the reversed rnment s the 1920s, there was a a was there 1920s, the s on between past minority past between on nce of a strong Turkish Turkish strong a of nce road cultural autonomy, autonomy, cultural road iderable self-governance iderable changing and, naturally, naturally, and, changing wih h Bulgarian the which g ble presence, cohesive cohesive presence, ble ead, hypothesize that it that hypothesize ead, arty to ensure rights rights ensure to arty n ietfctos I identifications, and st regime in Bulgaria Bulgaria in regime st he country. 300, 000 000 300, country. he the Movement forthe Movement ih uky was Turkey with as the Bulgarian the as ys). The early early The ys). propaganda, propaganda, ore CEU eTD Collection placing them completely under its control. Before the assimilat the Before control. its under completely them placing practical dimensions. practical dimensions. form new significantly a created period the that find will I 70s the until continues and followed that issue the of in politicization tremendous campaigns assimilation the of scale and nature unique the parti debates, activity, political any of signs few however, out-group majority the by perception as c well a as for consciousness conditions right the all thus, and, Bulgaria in population Turkish recognized of history long a been already had there therefore, arrang and institutions those encouraged and supported regime Communist

6

of minority in both conceptual and conceptual both in minority of cipation, representation, etc. Given Given etc. representation, cipation, ethno-cultural presence of the of presence ethno-cultural ion efforts began in the 60s, 60s, the in began efforts ion ee rsn. hr are, There present. were present day, I believe believe I day, present and 80s and the the and 80s and ran minority ertain mns while ements CEU eTD Collection point of the thesis paper. The scope of this review is also li also is review this of scope The paper. thesis the of point Bulga the of resistance and reactions the as well as policies, betweengroups are many. the two hs nlss ocpuly itnt rm h eitn bd o l of body existing the from distinct conceptually analysis this guidi t the on the information factual and historical of ofwealth the evaluating some be will These group? the on s have period and Communist persecution systematic did effects what Particularly, manifestations areits What identity? its derive it does Where 20of points different at group the about talk to mean minor Turkish the of notion taken-for-granted less or more the questioning approach deconstructionist more much a assuming by contribute to looking Muslimor Turkish the with above-described the to then, is, It analysis. thesis the of object woul latter The propaganda. nationalist and history, national studies, to opposed as nuanced, and independent, critical, as qualifies another, or Party Communist Bulgarian the by undertaken campaign changing the of events the consideration into takes that such 1990, after written conce is review This periods. or problems particular examining literature scholarly contemporary of kinds two distinguish can We historical highly a of studies or monographs Bulgaria: in minority from the other and considering it in isolation, as the parallels in in parallels the as isolation, in it considering and other the from aut all for unthinkable obviously, is, terms two the between sign nation- independent Bulgarian the in and history Bulgarian in communities 1

The bulk of scholarship includes the Turks of Bulgaria within the la the within Bulgaria of Turks the includes scholarship of bulk The ChapterLiterature 1: Review 1 , more generally, minorities in Bulgaria that the thesis paper thesis the that Bulgaria in minorities generally, more ,

7 th -century independent Bulgarian state? state? Bulgarian independent -century mited to literature that, in one way one in that, literature to mited rian Turks – as those are the focal arethe those as – Turks rian and were they always the same? same? the alwayswere theyand rned mainly with scholarship scholarship with mainly rned uppression during the late late the during uppression hors, but so is divorcing one one divorcing is so but hors, body of scholarship dealing scholarship of body trtr. aty te work the Lastly, iterature. opic. They will help make help will They opic. nature and journal articles articles journal and nature ramn ad experience and treatment d rather fall within the within fall rather d rger subject of Muslim Muslim of subject rger n ohr assimilation other and 90 – h name- the – 1980s state. An equality equality An state. ity. What does it does What ity. n h Turkish the on g usin in questions ng to the issue and issue the to state-sponsored is CEU eTD Collection between existing literaturebetweenexisting and analysis raises the problems this i be will support theoretical needed much Finally, perspective. premises. It will be useful to delineate some of the overlappi the of some delineate to useful be will It premises. hed i te xsig ieaue wih osiul o nt pertai not or consciously which literature, existing the in threads re The group. the of nature constitutive the of discussion for space cri perspective, certain a from group a of story the tells t abandon to seek They analysis. future the for guidelines as serve identified gap conceptual Bulga the from stem will in questions important minorities Muslim) other (and Turkish the on literature the in various ways. Contrary to this claim, much of the recent schola recent the of much claim, this to Contrary ways. various in lan the adopt and Islam to convert to forced were who Bulgarians and desc are lands Bulgarian the in Turkish-speakers all that meant Minor in the 14the in Minor communities settler first the and lands those in conquests Ottoman larg at lea at Peninsula trace, to necessity Balkan a find authors the of majority The or Bulgaria, in communities Muslim of as well as histori mainly frame, account, all-encompassing time an well-established for aspiration common, an a In within work contains rese pieces theoretical indispensable this to and of insights data pr highly is it as value, tremendous of still is far so conducted population. Turkish the against violence other and name-changing Bulga in Turks no are “there that 80s the in Party Communist Bulgarian th century. This is a need mainly driven by the extreme claims extreme the by driven mainly need a is This century. 8 tical as it might be, and open up a new new a up open and be, might it as tical ng themes and structure found in in found structure and themes ng st in some detail, the formation the detail, some in st . endants of pre-Ottoman Slavs Slavs pre-Ottoman of endants ncluded in the ‘conversation’ ‘conversation’ the in ncluded

ofessional and in-depth, and and in-depth, and ofessional

in the literature. They will They literature. the in n to such a constructivist constructivist a such to n This negation, essentially, negation, This rship (as well as research research as well (as rship he approach that merely merely that approach he under a set of similar similar of set a under from Anatolia and Asia and Anatolia from e, starting with the first first the with starting e, iw il lo on to point also will view guage of the oppressor oppressor the of guage arch. arch. ria”, used to justify justify to used ria”, al, ot studies most cally, ria. In doing that, that, doing In ria. made by the the by made CEU eTD Collection Balkanite IIstoricheski V Balgariia: Eskizi rdc o ms ceco o lcl, hs cmuiis ee largel were communities those locals, of coercion mass of product 2 Kemal Karpat goes even further to say that, as a response to to response a as that, say furtherto goes even Karpat Kemal 3 in problem], historiographic as Balkans the of [Islamicization Zhelyazkova A. by shown as Bulgaria, pre-Communist in conducted Relations, 1997).Relations, Minority for Center International (Sofia: al. et Zhelyazkova A. ed. apply to the much more rigid idea of the Turkish-speaking populat Turkish-speaking the of idea rigid more much the to apply t such identity, of malleability the about and places, and groups tra to possibility the about implications obvious the Despite localities of Islamicization of result a as minorities other chang identity and assimilation, shifts, demographic about arguments Bulgar in Islam of status the chapteron Inhis opponents. their as Ot the of renditions above the offer which however, studies, those Even fall often histories, national contradict significantly thus, the Balkans, and, byIslamicchosenfatecompelled the socio-e or voluntary stimulated convert of majority the but records, the in grandiose exist do as rulers individual well as conversions mass of cases confined locally poli systematic or priority a point any at not was scholars, “Turkification”, or society, c majority dominant a Forced into assimilation territories. conquered newly the in balance demographic orde in authorities Ottoman the by encouraged was movement whose nomads Balkans the in communities Turkish-speaking native importantly, more emerg the of discontinuities many with process prolonged complex, See Ali Eminov, See Eminov, Ali hist kato Balkanite na “Isliamizatsiata Zhelyazkova, Antonina See Muslim Minority 1997).Muslim Affairs, Turkish and Other Muslim Minorities of Bulgaria of andOther Muslim Minorities Turkish

aeo ulmcmuiis i te akn 1, Balkans the in communities of Muslim . Fate 9 cy of the Sublime Porte. Isolated, Porte. Sublime the of cy and regions under Ottoman rule. rule. Ottoman under regions and Bulgarian state claims duringthe claims Bulgarianstate nsform socially and culturally culturally and socially nsform Miusiulmanskite Obshnosti Na Obshnosti Miusiulmanskite ian history, Ali Eminov uses Eminov Ali history, ian nece d nt em to seem not do endencies Studies and Intercultural and Studies , (LondonInstitute of it is generally agreed by by agreed generally is it conomic considerations. considerations. conomic o i Eio’ work Eminov’s in ion mgat etes and settlers migrant y ae eivd o have to believed are s ne f ulm and, Muslims of ence netos ocd by voiced intentions es of Bulgarians and and Bulgarians of es rorfk problem” oriografski neso t Islam, to onversion . Far from being the the being from Far . 2 into the sameinto traps dmntae a demonstrates ) toman past in in past toman t create to r 3 . CEU eTD Collection primordial, ‘identitarian’ and ‘groupist’and ‘identitarian’ primordial, bounded groups. See Rogers Brubaker, “Ethnicity Without Groups,” in in Groups,” Without “Ethnicity Brubaker, Rogers See groups. bounded Fate of a FateMinority of cnmc odtos gorpi lcto, agae ad eiin ean ess remain ofte events, of religion picture’ ‘larger the with deal and They themselves. language, location, geographic conditions, economic shifts major despite who groups unchanging as people treat ‘ the expose to looking claims, disprove and prove to data and facts 5 This Brubaker. from borrowing again ‘groupism,’ of those – too grounds, chal be to needs studies, most in prevalent perception, latter The Groups Groups necessarily it that assume ethnicity to approaches “Groupist” literature see Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper, “Beyond Ident Frederick Cooper, “Beyond Brubakerand literature Rogers see 4 stock.”Turkish p of descendants the are Bulgaria of Turks “modern that prove to intends count the in Turks all of origins Bulgarian the about Process Revival 6

b etc., institutions of set world, the of interpretation experience, groups ethnic of nature processual and contingency political the sought be will support Theoretical entities. time in static or processes, powerful or lasting of products the as minorities i that belief the is analysis, particular this on embarking describedassumptions mat and those above address pressing try to conceptual stra will paper thesis The unanswered. remains often – context surroundi questions other of multiplicity a as well as – minority or

o a icsin f h tnece t ojciy h tr ‘identit term the objectify to tendencies the of discussion a For Brubaker, “Ethnicity Without Groups,”Brubaker, p.11. Without “Ethnicity Kemal Karpat, “Introduction,” in in “Introduction,” Karpat, Kemal , ed. Brubaker(Cambridge, R. Harvard Massachussets: University Press, 2004). , ed. Brubaker(Cambridge, R. Harvard Massachussets: University Press, 2004). h satn peie f hs ae, n wa, setal, s essentially, what, and paper, this of premise starting The 4 These, and many other, accounts are deeply historical in nature, l nature, in historical deeply are accounts other, many and These, , ed. K. Karpat (Istanbul: Isis Karpat Press, 1990),, ed. p.2. K. (Istanbul:

The Turks of Bulgaria: The History, Culture and Political and Culture History, The Bulgaria: of Turks The 5 temptations. What is understood by Muslims, Turks, Muslims, by understood is What temptations. 10

t is more meaningful to view ethnic view to meaningful more is t largely in Brubaker’s discussions of of discussions Brubaker’s in largely as such themselves, rather than rather themselves, such as n succumbing to teleological, teleological, to succumbing n ut not a real object or actor. or object real a not ut n oiia rgm, socio- regime, political in ; of ethnicity as a discourse, a as ethnicity of ; manifests itself in distinct distinct in itself manifests

aa fo te unspoken the from away y ity,” in in ity,” ’ n uh f scholarly of much in y’ egd n te related other on lenged g h trs n their and terms the ng truth’, and, ultimately, and, truth’, y h, n i book, his in he, ry, urd h ie of idea the purred tnct Without Ethnicity Ethnicity Without Ethnicity ol o genuine of eople ters. s h implicit the is

ooking for ooking entially entially

6

CEU eTD Collection bounded groups and act as such. as act and groups bounded 7 8 t in necessarilycomeminorities other or ethnic that understanding Communities crypto-Christian various the about studies the instance, hist Balkan the in Islam on work analytic thoughtful and balanced more acknowle Zhelyazkova them? behind sources the are what and identities t are ways meaningful, think more other, What Balkans. the in can communities we else how and them, about conceptions our and have experience might minorities religious and ethnic about writing on hegemony regimes. political of goals the serve ‘e of issues consider they which through approaches hegemonic holistic, attributing historiographies, national Balkan by advanced communities origi the the hypotheses in on many groups. finds inconsistencies of Muslim She di significantly in shaped which motion, in micro-processes various di to rise gave Empire Ottoman the in periods and regions different Balkans, the in communities Muslim of historians respected highly orient moral or ideological their of regardless particular, in sweeping to ourselves limit to suffice not does clearlyt in populations It Muslim and Turkish-speaking of history and origins const underlies research. of the this argument main politically and discursively, socially, as groups understand assumpt The stages. different at acquire they manifestations and parti what and them, changes them, produces what to attention much without imm and unitary, objective, given, as Bulgaria of Turks the or Muslims

Ibid., p.8. Zhelyazkova,“Isliamizatsiata,” p.34, p.40.

7 The literature reviewed above tends to consider Bulgarian consider to tends above reviewed literature The 8 hs bevto bg te usin hw hs state this how questions the begs observation This

11 to. s hw b oe f the of one by shown As ation. he organic form of discrete,of formorganic he ion that it is necessary to to necessary is it that ion fferent conditions, setting conditions, fferent the about generalizations stinct ways the formation the ways stinct he Balkans, or Bulgaria Bulgaria or Balkans, he Antonina Zhelyazkova, Antonina ructed and negotiated negotiated and ructed here to talk about their about talk to here utable in time groups time in utable dges the existence of existence the dges them largely to the the to largely them nlecd their influenced hoeei’ and thnogenesis’ ory such as, for for as, such ory cular meanings meanings cular of the Muslim Muslim the of n religious and ns of Muslim of ns CEU eTD Collection rbes a e ohn,bt rifl o te nesadn o a of understanding the for fruitful but nothing, be can problems become they Did ‘survival’? this accomplish to power political 9 t led Bulgaria and Turkey between treaties bilateral some and republ national Turkish the of establishment the with along conventions Post communities. Turkish-speaking the about specifically talk which definitions, State in Muslims of category legal larger the the respectto Bulgaria with in Turks of issue the ‘silence’on conside is There 1878-1945. words, other agrees predicta uponis, scholarship the that The majorperiod time second in or, period post-Independence Communist minority state. group any in national contribute processes What transformed? and (re-)invented they were cul pure a it Was ‘survived’? have to them for mean it does what and communities. Muslim of survival and perseverance the about Ba point a with and writing history Muslims Balkan on chapter Tur the her of concludes part Zhelyazkova or Bulgaria? Turk, a be processes, to powerful mean it certain does What undergone transformations? having Balkans the of region M a be to mean it does What 1970-80s. the of wi campaigns assimilation especially policy, Bulgaria state in minority Bulgarian Turkish vis-à-vis the experience of context the in questions such on expand T other? or national economic, political, religious, strictly they ex origi an behind forces Muslim specific the about the questions raise discussions about debates or times, Ottoman in syncretism

Ii. p5-4 Ibid., pp.53-54. 9 Again, questions immediately come to mind: How did those survive those did How mind: to come immediately questions Again,

12 pre-WWI years. They fell under under years.fell Theypre-WWI o the constitutional recognition constitutional the o h ead o h systematic the to regard th politicized? Dwelling on such Dwellingon politicized? he thesis paper will look to to look will paper thesis he is what makes it difficult to to difficult it makes what is Wrd a I international I War -World certain ethnic or religious religious or ethnic certain sig tnc ru – are – group ethnic isting traditions in the various the in traditions t ta? i i take it Did that? to d ns of Bosnia. Such Such Bosnia. of ns tural continuation, or or continuation, tural ic in the early 1920s 1920s early the in ic si i a specific a in uslim kish minority, in in minority, kish violence, and and violence, lkan national national lkan bly, the pre- the bly, and its its and rable rable CEU eTD Collection oiia dmnin o Trih ainls ad ainl osiuns a consciousness national and nationalism Turkish of dimensions political 10 1878-1940,” 11 favorable’ ‘quite was 1944 that idea until the around unite up to tends literature Bulgaria the of majority in The minority Turkish youngMohammedans were the state’s forefront in nationality of the policies. P the to heed greater give developments those preceding years t concerning Authors borders. Bulgarian the within minority Turkish a of state. Bulgarian the before demands and action collective presence political increased Turks, Bulgarian the among a identity of formulation the for allowed which Turkey, later and Empire idea of flow the and networks trans-border about argument compelling Yonc however, WWII, preceding period the to precisely regard In 1944. indications little are there but agend the on recurrent is nationalism 1960, Turkish corrosive of issue The after especially state, propa its WWIIfosterand belonging facilitate of a national sense 30s) and 20s the in Turkish in press abundant (e.g. networks cultural the assimilation to resistance the in self-awareness heightened group and mobilization political no or little about retrospect authorit the by minority the of targeting no or little was there wi perspective comparative a in research thesis the by here impor two are There affairs. educational and religious cultural, enjoyed they 1920s, the with Starting situation. its exacerbate of sentiments anti-Muslim the only and discrimination systematic Yonca Koksal, “Transnational networksBulgari Yonca and the states: “Transnational Turkish minority kin in Koksal, Eminov, Turkish andOtherTurkish Nationalities PapersNationalities

, p.50. 38, No. 2 (March 2010): 192. p. 38, No. 2(March 13 11 The degree of pervasion and the and pervasion of degree The in the 1980s? To what extent did extent what To 1980s? the in f sbtnie het p until up threat substantive a of consciousness in opposition to a to opposition in consciousness htevoec fte18s If 1980s. the of violence the th tant questions to be answered be to questions tant mk su, s h Bulgaria the as issue, omak gation? gation? e, ol w seuae in speculate we could ies, xesv atnm over autonomy extensive individual leaders would leaders individual , and the capacity for for capacity the and , 10 a tee a little was there as , shared ethno-national ethno-national shared in the years prior to to prior years the in s from the Ottoman Ottoman the from s the treatment of the of treatment the hemselves with the with hemselves a Koksal makes a a makes Koksal a a of the Bulgarian the of a e rca t the to crucial re a, CEU eTD Collection by creating proper condition for each nationality to thrive. The thrive. to nationality each for condition proper creating by carpet’ was of utmost priority for Bulgarian nationalists fr nationalists Bulgarian for priority utmost of was carpet’ f ‘figure’ Bulgarian the ‘extricating’ and idea, the of inception loc particular, in projects nation-bui Bulgarian of ideal the was nation ethnic Bulgarian homogenous national their to attend to for allowed Bloc Easternthe in Stalinism with break famous The begin to for research. this implications some ofTurks which and important have Muslims, Bulgaria in nationalism nationalizing rising newly the for reasons pr authors Most issue. unresolved burning a was population Muslim the ‘na the to return gradual a to point studies the of All 1950s. the of upholding towards chan to started however, Things, culture. national Turkish enriching working to committing announcement public a made Zhivkov, Bulgaria the of Head affairs. religious and education of supervision newsp over control full took but place, in networks cultural existing inclusi rightful and past the of oppression monarchical and fascist revolved model, Stalinist the by influenced greatly rhetoric, The ethnic recognized every of heritage cultural the institutionally ce of the part effort onthe and conscious optimism tolerance, marked by ma two into rule Communist of period the divides literature The The minorities. other and Turkish the vis-a-vis practice andideology to cohesive. for organized politically – emerged minority new substantially Comm under policies assimilation other and campaign name-changing incre significant a that hypothesizes It argument. thesis main

14 om the start and all throughout the the throughout all and start the om ase in those was induced by the the by induced was those in ase ioiy ihn h country. the within minority the first time, conscious, and conscious, time, first the Party kept much of the pre- the of much kept Party on into the socialist project socialist the into on rom the tangled ‘Ottoman ‘Ottoman tangled the rom , especially with respect to respect with especially , tional question,’ in which in question,’ tional ally informed ways. A A ways. informed ally ge drastically by the end end the by drastically ge aper publishing and the and publishing aper rud ieain from liberation around first 10-15 years 10-15were first opose a similar set of of set similar a opose ntral state to promote promote state to ntral Cmuit Party, Communist n many socialist states socialist many in periods according periods in ns, n, hs a thus, and, unism, lders from the very very the from lders

and CEU eTD Collection Neuburger to denote the critical relationship between Bulgarian between relationship critical the denote to Neuburger pre-WWII period.pre-WWII ecpin o nto ad rus Te as n hc wa te stat the what which in ways The groups. and nation of perceptions N.Y: University Cornell Press, 2004). 12 13 Neubur Mary in 1 Chapter see notion the of discussion For ‘otherness’. in minorities Muslim the positions This legacy. Ottoman-Turkish the and other forms of “Islamic fundamentalism”. “Islamic of forms other and tangib targeting largely was wome the state fez, the as such character’ ‘non-Bulgarian of expressions The 1960s. the in Communism under res the with resurfaced life public from elements Oriental Musli the of exclusion through nationhood negotiating of process same the Chapte nation. Bulgarian discovered newly the in taints ‘Oriental’ M the to reference special with done was this which in ways the Bulgar Modern in Nationhood of Negotiation the and Minorities Muslim Within: that of effect the is research specific this to matters discours state nationalist s of examination detailed Multiple the to chapters atrocities. the justify to order in symbols such s through aggressive, i of actively be period would rhetoric entire state policies, the assimilationist Throughout markers. cultural other and dr Turkish and Muslim persecuting and banning ones, Bulgarian ‘ethnic’ replacement the for scale unprecedented an of campaign a launch the 1984, In the Bulgarian ‘organism’.into the excuse of integration socialist m the into consciousness Turkish and Muslim c assimilate to schools trying Turkish down shut to it causing exponentially growing keep would d regime’sthe until notions these off shake to able be never would Ibid., p.61. “carp Ottoman the from “figure” Bulgarian the “Extricating” 12 In her book ‘The Orient Within,’ M. Neuburger demonstrates elabor demonstrates Neuburger M. Within,’ Orient ‘The book Inher

15 13 Centralized Bulgarian nationalist discourse nationalist Bulgarian Centralized urgence of Bulgarian nationalism Bulgarian of urgence hegemonic discourse on public public on discourse hegemonic vle i dfnn te ‘other’ the defining in nvolved uslim and, what was seen as, as, seen was what and, uslim nation-building a break with with break a nation-building e under Communism. What Communism. under e t i a eahr sd by used metaphor a is et” r 2 of the book shows how how shows book the of 2 r emise in 1989. Itsparanoia 1989. in emise n’s shalvar, circumcision, circumcision, shalvar, n’s ainstream majority under majority ainstream of Turkish names with with names Turkish of a position of permanent of position a hlr dvt entire devote cholars ess, rituals, language rituals, ess, udrto and understood e ger, , uks, or Turkish, m, at would Party le, material material le, h Orient The ompletely, ompletely, ia ( ia ystematic Ithaca, ately CEU eTD Collection processes of constructing a minority. National Bulgarian academ Bulgarian National minority. a constructing of processes r became Oriental or Turkish Muslim, as defined persistently Bulgarian nationalist language.Bulgarian nationalist very still is 1984-5, of historical Process Revival the justify to and employed political state of much that is noted be to needs cen are attempts, assimilation forced from resulting Bulgaria, politicizat powerful their of effects The groups. and wi individuals markers cultural other and names of relationship critical the 1984- of campaign name-changing the to state the by given (name differ of basis the on citizenship and resources, power, to access the “ethnicized” and “classed” “raced”, that state overarching was it historically that writes this, acknowledge to theorists J Courtney authority. hegemonic a by regulated resources symbolic of (mis-)re through above from ‘ethnicization’ of issues with dealing relat and liberalism critical from concepts and tools Here, in minority Turkish the about notions newlasting and potent imprinting assimil the justifying party Communist the of rhetoric the with aut the of many earlier, noted As 80s. durati the and 70s and the of assimilation intensity unprecedented an reached world, real the from t filling Muslims, and Turks the about categories and language to re element key a a is authorities central as the by categorization minority Turkish the of ‘invention’ discursive The research. p major another is practice political and discursive through life The overwhelming power of a hegemonic state and its capacities t capacities its and state hegemonic a of power overwhelming The

16 ed theory will prove useful in in useful prove will theory ed the analysis. The production of production The analysis. the tral to this analysis. What also What analysis. this to tral eality gives much insight into insight much gives eality much a part of contemporary of part a much o te srcue bt the but structure, other no ation policies, and inevitably and policies, ation hem with tangible meanings meanings tangible with hem remise informing the thesis thesis the informing remise ics of the ‘Revival Process’ Process’ ‘Revival the of ics population “by organizing organizing “by population ences that are otherwise at otherwise are that ences ion on Turkish identity in in identity Turkish on ion cognition and distribution distribution and cognition 5) themselves admitted to to admitted themselves 5) propaganda, crafted and and crafted propaganda, th self-consciousness of of self-consciousness th hors deal extensively deal hors the public imaginary. public the on in the coercive coercive the in on ut f systematic of sult n, mn many among ung, o structure social structure o CEU eTD Collection

14 rfrne o te rdtoait ad h wl-salse c well-established the and traditionalists the for preference otWI period. post-WWII Turks] 2 vols, (Sofia, A 2vols, Bulgaria:Turks] Archive "Arhivi" Darzhavna Agentsia [State turtsi bulgarskite i durjava archi state Kalinova, of Evgenia and rec collection Baeva Iskra Process,’ a Other ‘Revival include minorities. vein its similar a and in state historians Bulgarian the of history rep the Exemplary 2008). Ciela, Revi the of scholars Bulgarian oriented critically contemporary Bulgaria: (Sofia, Regime], Communist [ rezhim komunisticheskiyat increasing fear of nationalism among Turkish intelligentsia. Turkish among nationalism of fear increasing ex to necessary it found Partythe 1950-51, Alreadyin Kemalists. pe of spread the curb to trying while granted, been had communities 16 15 andthe Zapatistasliberalism arbitrary.” potentially least the and 60s the in education into integration minority large-scale of Turks conscious ethnically educated of numbers growing that fact the continui and 1920-30s the in elites educated Turkish by introduced Turks, minded a conservative between cleavage the about talk Neuburger and Koksal in policies assimilatory of furthering the including occasions, one made decisions the to key as threat it cite studies Many leadership. potential serious a was above, noted as minority, the national within the of integrity and homogeneity foster to presumed strove Party the the that Besides– otherwise or socialist ethnic, Aihwa Fraser.relatedNancy Ong, such and as Spivak, authors See Courtney Jung, “Introduction,” Mihail Gruev and Aleksei Kalyonski, Aleksei and Gruev Mihail networks,” Wit See Neuburger, Koksal, Orient “The and “Transnational p.206; 15 Understandably, the Bulgarian government always expressed its its expressed always government Bulgarian the Understandably, 14 (Cambridge; CambridgeUniversity Press, 2008). York: New hs eto o te hoeia bcgon das agl on largely draws background theoretical the of section This Te eia Poes te ugra sae n te Bulgarian the and state Bulgarian the Process: Revival [The

h Rvvl rcs: h Msi cmuiis n the and communities Muslim the Process: Revival The The Moral Force of indigenous politics: critical critical politics: Moral Force indigenous of The Vuzroditelniyat protses: miusiulmanskite obshtnosti miusiulmanskite protses: Vuzroditelniyat 17 Vuzroditelniyat protses: Bulgarskata Bulgarskata protses: Vuzroditelniyat

Gruev and Kalyonskiand Gruev by the Communist on more than more on Communist the by ultural autonomy the Turkish Turkish the autonomy ultural , growing Turkish nationalism Turkish growing , val Process and, more widely, more and, Process val ves telling the story of the the of story the telling ves pel 150,000 Turks due to an to due Turks 150,000 pel n suis y Bulgarian by studies ent 70s added to the fears of of fears the to added 70s rilous radicalism by the by radicalism rilous h 7s n 8s Both 80s. and 70s the who were the product product the were who n h mns f the of minds the in d eait reform- Kemalist nd eettvs f the of resentatives consciousness – – consciousness gency]). gency]). hin,” p.40. ng into the into ng 16 point to point clear

i

CEU eTD Collection points to the absence to underlying studies. important ideapoints most in of this group, both on the inside and in outside perceptions, or even produce the the produce even or perceptions, outside in and inside the on both group, construct persecution systematic can extent what To determination. def newly a of emergence the and assimilation finding exacts The abetween the analysis two ofp strong link success this into coercion top-down about state issues. anddebates minority studies and scholarly litt given or neglected, often are but self-evident, and commonplace 17 19 18 Community (Sofia, Bulgaria], 2002), in pp.7-10, 58. Bulgaria the of evolution the of context the in and conditions” Bulgarian minority ethnic distinct a as consolidated has Bulgaria of minority w his of premises basic the of one establishes introduction, his in literature The suppressed. Ibrahim relationship Yala while of rarelyexpanding this dimensions uponit. the of reaction the and action state extent what to consta whether, the of consider earlier to raised needs questions also the one Besides there, was nationalism minority of Turkish national consciousness. pursu towards government the pushed and Bulgaria in nationalism Turkish mass scale. mass nationalism Turkish extreme the that suggest Kalyonski vi continuous and Gruev through authorities very the by ignited probably was 1980s state. same very that of activity the by provoked was greatly frustrated which identity, threatened their of consolidation po Turkish-speaking the among solidarity growing the that argue Ibid., p.142. GruevKalyonski, and Ibrahim See Yalamov, 18 In discussing the resistance to the name-changing campaign campaign name-changing the to resistance the discussing In Vuzroditelniyat protsesVuzroditelniyat Istoria na Turskata Obshtnost naTurskata v BulgariaIstoria

18 , p.128. 19 uh ruet mgt seem might arguments Such ork, namely that the Turkish the that namelyork, [Historyof the Turkish the intentions of the State, the of intentions the uain n te ultimate the and pulation le attention in intellectual in attention le ru wti “concrete within group often hints at the real real the at hints often anew the identity of a a of identity the anew nt interplay between between interplay nt , and in what forms forms what in and , olent coercion on a on coercion olent nd es o self- of sense ined ing the eradication eradication the ing in Bulgaria in the in Bulgaria in very group itself? itself? group very nation-state. mov formov instance, of 1984-85, they 1984-85, of henomena – henomena – 17 He CEU eTD Collection present various processes through which minorities can emerge and t and emergecan minorities which through processes various present rvd nw ore o iett oiis o te mgnd community; imagined the for origins identity of sources new provide p focal the are intentions assimilatory with states powerful processes of inclusion and exclusion, of distribution of economic and symbolic resour of distribution ofand economic exclusion, symbolic processes and inclusion of dniy a aqie s rsl o preuin o cecv assi coercive or persecution, of result a as acquire can identity novel entirely the about conclusions important reach articles those 20 on which the thesis research seeks to rest its claims. on which its research the seeks thesis rest to is to well tie t solid works a form together and above mentioned ‘ethnicization’ hegemonic These power. and discourse, knowledge, of economy the Foucaul a adopting phenomenon (trans-)f same the constant deconstructs Krasteva the identity. to led have above from defining perpetual of ethnic with specifically dealing Articles territory. sovereign a Burguiere, A. by edited M of World, Construction “The the of name the Around by articles of and collection The Time Across Comparison scholarlyimportant works. that idea an is minorities of whe construction political The questions? account into take we do ‘identity’ of aspects particular What compelled to invent and re-invent itself and its institutions to survi to institutions its and itself re-invent and invent to compelled ed. A. Burguiere and R. Grew, (University of Michigan Press, 2004), p.141. Grew,ed. ofp.141. A. Michigan and Burguiere (University Press, 2004), R. 20 the throughout how discusses Todorova Pomaks. Bulgarian i constructions identity minority of write Krasteva Anna and Todorova simi other as well as these from derived be will inspiration Construction of Minorities: of Construction Across TimeandtheAround Comparison for Cases The Construction of Minorities: Cases for Comparison Across Ti Across Comparison for Cases Minorities: of Construction The Euro in Jewishness of Constructions in Discontinuities and “Continuities And p.95, 2004), Press, Michigan of (University Grew, R. and Burguiere e Dvd in “mgnn te uunt ioiy n l Regime Old in Minority Huguenot the “Imagining Bien, David See

19 lar works. Scholars such as Maria as such Scholars works. lar oint of this paper. The authors of of authors The paper. this of oint or other groups targeted by by targeted groups other or iain ta sc periods such that milation; finds its backing in several in backing its finds me and Around the Worldthe Around and me th ve the threat. the ve century state-sponsored state-sponsored century ake shape within a given a within shape ake om ta a minority a that forms cnepaig such contemplating n heoretical foundation, heoretical rain f Pomak of ormation n the context of the of context the n that the group is is group the that inorities: Cases for Cases inorities: e 18-95 in 1789-1945, pe, France,” in in France,” dian approach of of approach dian Todd Endelman, Endelman, Todd 20 World d . Grew, R. nd Theoretical ces, andces, us of sues , ed. A. , ed. A. The , , CEU eTD Collection borrowing from thinkers such as Bordieu, she asserts that renaming that asserts she Bordieu, as such thinkers from borrowing minority the of history mere a giving than nature philosophical proble – identity and land between relation the and naming of power 21 22 reordering. and renovation by accompanied identity existing an of fixa Bulgarian as deep as ran names to attachment ‘Muslim chapte two last the dedicates Neuburger above. noted already as prese are issue the to dimension conceptual new a of traces and identi of issues between links these upon touch do generally Authors Scattered cases. thou most in side note asonly a if assimilation, of forced form eitherpreceding to regimes. of the two in are MRF, the party-protector, the of efforts consistent the rec gradually were which minority, Turkish the for 1970-80s. arrangements the of events the by dictated novelty another yet creating instituti new of constructions the to leads inevitably which education, C by obliterated completely the of reviving the is discussion consciousness. ethnic of consolidation a to latter t transformations social some to attention devotes also 1970s Eminov the Ali after followed that repressions severe the and experience policy. nationality of result a as Bulgaria of Turks the among groups,socio-economic and shape identity. ethnicity, processes of distribution controlled the how about questions to rise gives which M the on processes land of impact the things, other among explores, 128-143. See Ali Eminov, “The See of Eminov, Bulgaria,” Ali Turkish in Speakers Education Neuburger, The Orient WithinThe Orient

, p.143. , p.143. 20 22 n motn pit mrig rm this from emerging point important An no way comparable in scope or or scope in comparable way no tion with changing them,’ and, and, them,’ changing with tion He focuses on the educational educational the on focuses He experience. She observes that that observes She experience. muim Turkish-language ommunism nt and visible in the analyses, the in visible and nt rs of her monograph to the to monograph her of rs laimed after 1991 through 1991 after laimed 21 is a symbolic demolition symbolic a is In her last Chapter she Chapter last her In cnetn rel the briefly connecting , ons under a new regime new a under ons Turkish andOtherTurkish uslim notion of ‘self’, ‘self’, of notion uslim s f mc more much a of ms ghts in that direction that in ghts resources and other other and resources The cultural rights rights cultural The ty and the legacy legacy the and ty a occur hat , pp. , pp. CEU eTD Collection pressures and policies. The paper will step out of the conventional the of out step will paper The policies. and pressures

different time. in points T the for life minority of kinds certain of existence the about the determine will institutions political even or socio-cultural pr The pressure. outside of result a as fluctuates or consolidates, c minority which under conditions the discuss will paper the others, C acc Tajfel, Henry by to work theoretical fundamental on way Relying too. a find to need take we that perception and organization of forms new group, and reconfigurations the on have can forces outside p havingabout is, the of the coin. That address speculated side the sociological minori a in changes the possible as fully as reflect to able influence constantly they and spheres two the between exists link obvious are, transformations group of dimensions social internal The outs the on ideasshape that constructions political and discursive as stat of result a as negotiated and a (re-)constructed – sense continually possible broadest the in – identity minority of issue pertai questions Those contribution. original an at attempt an making purp the be will argument coherent a in them of some Answering insufficiently questions, interconnected new of plethora a raise shown, availa content conceptual and thematic the of synthesis exhaustive samples, These scholarship. recent the into integrated well is m Turkish the on literatureolder some as well generally,as more cult experience, Muslim the to regard with especially the, on found s various the in present content of wealth the to justice little The work reviewed here is far not all that has been written on the on written been has that all not far is here reviewed work The

21 ty group or community, we need to to need we community, or group ty tudies. There is much more to be to more much is There tudies. urkish population in Bulgaria at Bulgaria in population urkish however, do come close to an to close come do however, ways in which we can talk talk can we which in ways inority, the essence of which which essenceinority,of the ose of the thesis paper, thus thus paper, thesis the of ose each other. In order to be to order In other. each e-hegemonic assimilatory assimilatory e-hegemonic ble on the subject, and, as and, subject, the on ble ornell and Hartmann, and and Hartmann, and ornell frame, which emphasizes emphasizes which frame, sne r ak f various of lack or esence nd how it evolves or is is or evolves it how nd ide. What is more, a closea more, is ide. What r, n communities and ure, t te overarching the to n ncoses forms, onsciousness place on the inside, inside, the on place drse s far. so addressed se topics and does and topics se ly, as important as ly, owerful effectsowerful ut o the for ount CEU eTD Collection aminority dialogical the of space concept with Bulgaria. the Turkish of m information of abundance that what of domains explored carefully ‘large’ a narrates and policies or numbers, facts, historical

22

tr, n dv it te less the into dive and story, eans when released into into released when eans

CEU eTD Collection powerful subjectivities - often originating outside and above rat above and outside originating often - subjectivities powerful t find, to hope I Instead, itself. fundamentally remaining periods outlives eventually, and, relations power certain in engaged becomes political potent from emerge could minorities that is premise conscious and stronger much a construct helped fact in – productivity gis te uks mnrt i Blai fo te 90 o - ih its with assimilat - the on that 1960s hypothesis the the from on Bulgaria based in is minority exercise This Turkish the against

ioiis uig omns i Blai, h Hgeo mnrt i p in minority Huguenot the Bulgaria, in Communism during including minorities – perspective cases constructivist through pursued be similar will above a hypothesis the of from validation The issue the lasting. me them make and categories particular those through s life – organize see will we as always not though - increasingly could groups order social and regime the legitimizes turn, in which, ‘others’, minority the by both categories existing the of internalization rel these Ultimately, majority. the and institutions state the a categorization repeated through terms cultural exclusively in as viewed be to come can which groups,disadvantaged to life and shape di state-sanctioned of kind this then, is, It resources. of inc distribution of processes and arrangements power vastly affect that invariabl timeless a entity, cultural pre-existing a given, i minority A state. the authority, sovereign higher a by dictated Chapter Minorities: 2: from assimilation to constr Theoretical grounds 23 e constant that precedes politics, politics, precedes that constant e and socio-economic processes socio-economic and nd identification on the part of part the on identification nd tosis ih la t the to lead might ationships uin n ecuin n the in exclusion and lusion ru ad h surrounding the and group s never simply an objective an simply never s her than within the group - group the within than her n lc. niiul and Individuals place. in h Gpy n Muslim and Gypsy the hey are the creation of of creation the are hey o cmag launched campaign ion ciiain ht gives that scrimination at o xeine and experience to tart vns n historical and events distinct and separate and distinct aningful, ‘real’, and and ‘real’, aningful, minority. The basic basic The minority. biu counter- obvious re-Revolutionary that approach that uction. CEU eTD Collection parameters as to the notion of minority employed here. As me As here. employed minority of notion the to as parameters persistence of ethnic views of the world. persistence of the ethnic world. views of be identified and feel as a separate unit, but are far from b from far are but unit, separate a as feel and identified be It is necessary to briefly discuss what constitutes a minori a constitutes what discuss briefly to necessary is It disadvantages. shared by bound and majority the by esteem low in held society, self-c as them defines Tajfel Harris, and Wagley as well f Borrowing society. given a in minority a as qualify to inferior n group a Instead, work. analytic useful much do not does conception this Ac group. majority dominant quantitatively a than numbers smaller featur sharedsome exhibit to people of collectivity a for enough or majority the to relative group the of position social the is f ebrhp n blniges a wl a bles attitude beliefs, as mi well as of belongingness” indicator and self-evident, membership of extent large a to and crucial, t is Another – matter that for groups social most of or – existence features becoming politically contingent. inequa group establishing processes long the of outcome main the or as mobilization and saliency Their marker. objective of sort psychology social the as such problems on theory general more 23 Categories 18the in Europe in emancipation France,Jewish r a obviously are characteristics common of kinds other or cultural minority-majoritof speak to able be to one for conditions, amongother Henry Psychology in Social “The Tajfel, of Minorities” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp.309-310. 23 Clearly, a context of group domination and subordination must be pr be must subordination and domination group of context a Clearly,

24 th and 19and th he self-awareness factor. A “feeling A factor. self-awareness he Human Groups and Social Social Human Groups and eing the sufficient condition or any or condition sufficient the eing centuries, as well as throughsome as well ascenturies, onscious subordinate segments of of segments subordinate onscious resource is rather a side-product side-product a rather is resource other groups. That is, it is not is it is, That groups. other ntioned earlier, a key criterion criterion key a earlier, ntioned es and comprise significantly significantly comprise and es rom Simpson and Yinger as Yinger and Simpson rom traits, disabilities and social and disabilities traits, ad esblte hl in held sensibilities and s cording to many theorists, theorists, many to cording ty and give some general some give and ty equirement for a group to to group a for equirement f ioiis n the and minorities of y power relations. The relations. y power iis tu te very the thus lities, eeds to be socially socially be to eeds oiy group nority esent, CEU eTD Collection processes because, as noted earlier, it is predominantly along predominantly is it earlier, noted as because, processes giv may authorities dominant by maintained and instituted properly proc political and social long takes often it say, to Needless onais rls isiuin ad ifra sca bhvo” f membe of behavior” social “informal and institutions rules, boundaries, 24 themselves as the “outside consensus” of their experienced ‘groupn experienced their of consensus” “outside the as themselves 25 of consequences social shared of consciousness a to leads assignment wh shape take to begins awareness group group”: social “genuine me a between distinction main the are collectivity a by common perceivi of form basic a as ethnicity construing groups: ethnic establishing with content be not should work analytic cognition”, as Brubaker of words the In states. modern most within imagined the via life to come and constructed are groups ethnic how understand It belonging. of categories of imposition and articulation the through instrume resour state-symbolic and and socio-economic, political, of distribution authority coercive legitimate use they which in ways s of capacities the with exclusively lies – identities their res others to from access Given certain groups that privileging and isolating inevitably way this in and – life public in participation equal and of consolidation the latter. the how and – consciousness minority distinct a and disadvantage social relationship the precisely explore to inquiry theoretical this icniute - o ti sne f sprtns” o become to “separateness” of sense this for - discontinuities Ibid., 314.pp.311, Ibid., pp.311-312.

25 tates, we have to look at the specific the at look to have we tates, esses – with their continuities and continuities their with – esses fostering those same groups and groups same those fostering between these two key factors – – factors key two these between ng the world, it is then possible possible then is it world, the ng ethnic lines that boundaries are boundaries that lines ethnic and his category of “ethnicity “ethnicity of category his and re category of people and a a and people of category re fully fledged and for the the for and fledged fully ces among the population population the among ces ess’. the constructed nature of nature constructed the n ru mmesi or membership group en e rise to the emergence the to rise e is important to try to to try to important is 25 t t ognz the organize to nts It is the purpose of purpose the is It se state-sanctioned state-sanctioned se discrimination. s o establish to rs former, when when former, ources and 24

CEU eTD Collection ouain – siiain Vros eeoi rgms n modernity in regimes hegemonic Various assimilation. – populations inf discourse, public life, material on have can knowledge produced in all the cases – that we want to extract from the exampl the from extract to want we that – cases the all in pres nationalizing and assimilatory strong the of context the in – a goals, identical c envision this is It similar. partially only are that arrangements not do patterns, same the fit neatly not do the with begin to have sta we various assimilation, about by talking practice when Even in put policies and campaigns the that for of issues implications identity are interesting. quite the in transpires counter-productivity where periods historical turn now will We often. from far pleasing been have appears, it sub the been assimilat uncompromising to groups hasproblematic and obstinate denominator common one all for and community, national homogeneous, utopian the pursued have – communism and fascism, republics, ‘ and powerful the account into takes one when especially tendencies, the regulate to state the by betw implemented relationship laws last this and into Policies fall populations within divisions 26 d insurmountable fundamentally and multifaceted ever-present, the states through which methods universal the most of of one the discussion to transition self-understandings, perceptions, etc.everyday private interactions, micro-levellinked.‘ethnicization’ of life processes are of other at “latent” remaining while scene social the of surface ‘groupne circumstances what under constructed, is it how understand to

Brubaker, “Ethnicity Without Groups,” Brubaker, pp.17-18. Without “Ethnicity

26 omparability in the last stage, however however stage, last the in omparability 26 es. Finally, those findings will help will findings those Finally, es.

times, and how macro-level and macro-level how and times, tes at different times in history in times different at tes resulting arrangements and the the and arrangements resulting ionist policies. The outcomes, outcomes, The policies. ionist to some cases from different different from cases some to een macro- and micro-level micro-level and macro- een sures suffered by minorities by suffered sures Having said this, we may we Having said this, tnc opsto and composition ethnic ormal associations and associations ormal real’ influence state- influence real’ realistic assumption assumption realistic s apas n the on appears ss’ iversity of their their of iversity nd produce new new produce nd – monarchies, monarchies, – enlightened eto of jection address address CEU eTD Collection pervaded the justifications for the assimilation and name changi name and assimilation the for justifications the pervaded Borders: Remaking Cultural Identities in the New East and Central Europ andCentral theEast Identities in New Borders: Cultural Remaking hy sre pwr Cmuit fud “agnlzd pre-industrial, “marginalized, a found Communists power, usurped they (afte minority M largest the second of the that for from Communism different under entirely situation not The was Gypsies, the one), minority. 27 28 Minorities,” in of foundation 19the of end the the in state Bulgarian since attempts assimilation and reduction redefinition, tha s is comparison been for has evoked often ambiguity parallels disgruntling many with whose case population A Muslim speaking granted ownthe uniqueness, Bulgarian its too. Turkish minority Communism, under in outcomes and relations power points, common predict and illuminate et al. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997), Westview et 72. p. al. (Boulder, Colorado: him.” to features specific “precedes group the or community the that dictating identity “histor predetermined, a of ideal the elevating while mobility, sig to failed image, ethnic Bulgarian the from deviating as seen 1960s, the in nationalism nationalizing sweeping towards shift notorious communiti those for difficulties economic huge and segregation of degree which processes, modernization socio-economic from time same the while freedom religious ensuring and names Muslim theirregain to nati the of constitution cultural diverse the preserve to tried that And Maria Todorova, “Identity (Trans)Formation Among Pomaks in Bulgaria,” In Among Bulgaria,” in And Pomaks (Trans)Formation Maria “Identity Todorova, Krasteva, Power,”“Identity and 116, 119,120. pp. andDiscours Postcommunist and See Power:“Identity Anna Communist Krasteva, Communities and IdentitiesCommunities 28 Unsurprisingly, similar top-down oriented rhetoric and practice and rhetoric oriented top-down similar Unsurprisingly,

th century. It was the early Communist regime after 1945 after regime Communist early the was It century. , ed. A. Krasteva(Sofia:, ed. 1998), Petekston, 108. p. A. 27 the individual and ascribes its its ascribes and individual the ically grounded”, “agentless” grounded”, ically onal space by allowing many allowing by space onal ng of the Turkish-speaking Turkish-speaking the of ng si cmuiis When communities. uslim largely excluding them at them excluding largely nificantly improve social social improve nificantly is at the core of the high high the of core the at is the reference case of of case reference the o te Bulgarian- the of t e ies, n non- and diverse, bet o constant to ubject , ed. Laszlo Kurti, ed. agtn groups targeting s today. es h modern the te Turkish the r Beyond e on 27 The

CEU eTD Collection oiis agtd hi cmuiis dsryd ay f h exi the of many destroyed communities, their targeted policies pre-Revolutionary France, and that of Jewish emancipation across E across emancipation Jewish of that and France, pre-Revolutionary 32 factors. other among residence and emp ethic, social and work practices, economic their integrate soug and institutions, state formal with them replacing associations, 29 acceptancecenturyultimate for meant inevitably Russia, the instance, of rest the with culturally identify and obligations, citizenship practi identity, particularistic their “compartmentalize” reconsider, they that demanding also but inclusion envisioning one – Jews of “out a movement forced republican ideals of the expansion century. The 31 30 University, pp.27-34. 2004), Period”DuringCommunity Central Communist Europ Bulgaria (MA in Thesis, the level. local the on largely place took life economic and social and l extremelyorganized plagued politically low ethnos”, by poverty abrupt ended Nantes, of edict the with 1598 in instituted tolerance, Fr Old-Regime perva in socially Huguenots more the much with reality ‘problem’ in the was Similarly, but terms, religious c true and civility “universal to them expose and rabbis of control remove to sought system education the into integration and improvements bac further and hegemonies Protest Communist-specific Calvinist from away a Moving Huguenots, the of that cases: more two introduce their ofconsequence. ways identificationand as forms a of life Ibid., p.131. and 128-129.pp. Discontinuities,” See Endelman, “Continuities Ibid., 53,61, 62. pp. Gyps andIdentities: Ethnic ChangesModern in Deyan Social “Shaping Kolev,

30 edes o a, hs plce afce dramatically affected policies these say, to Needless 28 ces and beliefs, comply with with comply beliefs, and ces sive. The regime of religious religious of regime The sive. the nation.the loyment and education rates, rates, education and loyment 29 Communist modernization Communist

ly in 1685 when the edict the when 1685 in ly urope in the 18the in urope ant religious minority in in minority religious ant of Christianity. of iteracy rates, and whose iteracy whose and rates, lue, hc i 19 in which ulture”, tn lcl is and ties local sting ht to transform and and transform to ht ance was framed in in framed was ance the ghetto” for the the ghetto”for the 31 k in time, we can can we time, in k Socioeconomic them from the the from them “shrink” and and “shrink” y ean ean th and 19and 32

th th

CEU eTD Collection 33 acros constant never is it fluctuates: performance their However, University Press, 2006), p.209. p.209. University 2006), Press, 35 36 34 domain. civil andreligious the in deni and rejected entirely order’ to ‘return a and reversed was often had of and histories tolerance, intermarriages: mixing Catholi communities, peasant between alienation a and differentiation masses, peasant coercively repress to had but elites, urban gr the produce and evoke they because character” “performative w the of “cognition” particular on based formation disaggregated” proc “relational, is ethnicity variable”; conceptual fluctuating Brub writes Romanians, or Hungarians simply never are Clujeni groups.” bounded distinct, “constitute and populat for specifically,ethnic identification, communities all more t to inherent are transitiveness and fluidity opacity, Diversity, easi succumb never ground’ the ‘on realities however, quote, above the the within construct to wanted they ‘whiteness’ universal ostensible sensibi majority by supported and supporting states, Hegemonic targetin ideologies, and campaigns assimilation forced with do to See Brubaker, “Ethnicity Without Groups,” pp. 10, 11, 12,17. 10, Seepp. Groups,” Brubaker, “Ethnicity Without RogersBrubaker, Ibid., p.68. See 65,90. pp. “Imagining,” Bien, fears of hidden conspiraciessociety. of fears alargely in opaque peasant o idea the that broadly more elite the within and state the in was It ee nnw epe n neuae adpocie crs dsat evokin distant, corps, proscribed and unregulated in people unknown were perceive the of center the At spread. and sharpened menace Calvinist

and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town aTransylvanian in Ethnicity Everyday and

33 The initiative could afford to assimilate legislatively smal legislatively assimilate afford to could initiative The 35 Groupness is rather an “event” and a “contextually a and “event” an rather is Groupness 29 essual, dynamic, eventuful, and eventuful, dynamic, essual, ed the existence of Protestants Protestants of existence the ed e utrl opsto and composition cultural he nd, thus, achieved a sharp sharp a achieved thus, nd, g groups that did not fit the fit not did that groups g s long periods of time. At time. of periods long s u truh noig it. invoking through oup ir borders. As implied by by implied As borders. ir c and Protestant, that had that Protestant, and c rd atcpns ae a have participants orld; (NewJersey: Princeton ions. ions. 34 lities, had everything had lities,

ly to such projects. projects. such to ly aker, and do not not do and aker, d threat threat d the f g 36 l

CEU eTD Collection oiis hl a aohr ie hy di ta ehiiy was ethnicity that admit they time another at while policies 37 38 life. everyday in confrontation or competition urbaniza nationalizing during side country the from at migration under Romanian being of sense a about tell Cluj in Hungarians time, one aeig y urudn mjrt populations. majority surrounding by labeling e similar largelythrough communities, Gypsy other with level, identificati regional broader, of kind new a them for fostered This wo the through society larger into them integrate to attempted traditiona the from them uprooted Communities Gypsy the targeting Communis seen, As identity. of forms affects turn, in which, habits, homogeni and modernization assimilation, for way in campaigns transformations irreversible Large-scale to lead foremost, and first experiences, intimate most andcan the consequences be and dramatic lasting of part integral an become can It legitimate. therefore, and, 39 narratives.and myths powerful” “culturally wel as routines” administrative in “entrenched and institutionalized Those accordingly. resources distribute and “others” the distinguish ‘conquer’ to order in and tha processes categories these introduce control apparatuses and facilitate state To society, of diversity and negotiated, meaningsand nuances. shaped, people, to reminded reproduced, continuously is it Kolev, “Shaping Modern Identities,” Kolev, “Shaping Modern 36. pp.24, Groups,” Brubaker, 13.p. Without “Ethnicity See Brubaker, Nationalist Politics,Nationalist

110,115-117.pp. 38 Ethnicity becomes politicized, institutionalized, politicized, becomes Ethnicity 30 37 39 Ethnicity in Cluj is constantly in the making, the in constantly is Cluj in Ethnicity

omns plce, huh inconsistent, though policies, Communist epes oilzto, r even or socialization, people’s rk force and education system. system. education and force rk conomic status and continuousand status conomic s of life, economic and social and economic life, of s ognz gop, n help and groups, organize t not a cause for economic economic for cause a not l as in discourse through discourse in as l on, on a “meta-group” “meta-group” a on on, l local community and and community local l tack by the waves of of waves the by tack plce i Bulgaria in policies t categories become become categories h omnipresent the . . in Communist tion ain could, zation rse in dressed CEU eTD Collection y mvmn fr h peevto o clua hrtg ad more and, heritage cultural of preservation the for movement a by ulc icrie sca, rvt ec – ih tt-rmtd ca state-promoted with – etc. private social, discursive, public 40 43 41 forma modern identity Roma self-consciousness, the of beginning and supported significant a history) Bulgarian in time first the (for “provoked ecin o h ntoaiig oiis f h scait Romanian socialist the of policies nationalizing the to reaction 42 capture to intellectuals by coined “neologisms” conceptual new of minority religious traditional a as state the by defined condition” ha Jews choices”, own their of masters longer “no and emancipated from “rediscovered were Hungarians Transylvanian 1980s and 1970s the In of the group. re-conce or re-discover they which through terms new invent and spaces autonom inevitable”. the identity of its “acceptance articulate to in-group the for absenc the alternatives” and – majority and state – agents hegemonic by discourse of here visible is What members. its to ascribed and group the of debat whole the of internalization the is It clash. inescapable the by that identities competing two reconcile to inability Bulgarian!” were fathers our yet Pomaks, us call They either. know youn a is, he who writer Bulgarian famous a by asked allegedly internaliz and submission partial least at to but resistance, domains all of saturation the and identities of imposition continuous The See Brubaker, Tajfel, “Social Psychology,” 319. pp.318, Krasteva,Power,”“Identity and p.112. Ibid., p.37. Nationalist Politics,Nationalist

42 hs fe cmes ioiy ebr t oe u new up open to members minority compels often This p.87.

31 ation of the assigned status. When When status. assigned the of ation e - the opposition crafted outside outside crafted opposition the - e mselves are not in any kind of of kind any in not are mselves is the absolute monopolization absolute the is awakening and rise of Gypsy of rise and awakening g Muslim answered: “I don’t “I answered: Muslim g tegories leads inevitably to to inevitably leads tegories , which spurred a whole set set whole a spurred which , their suppressed collective suppressed their d to “submit to their new their to “submit to d state. 41 ously, which leads to to leads which ously, pcfcly fllr: a folklore: specifically, This is not simply an simply not is This ptualize the essence the ptualize 43 Similarly, once once Similarly, e of “cognitive “cognitive of e tion”. – political, – 40 below”

CEU eTD Collection ra trs ht ed o e ild ih atclr enns t meanings, particular with filled be to need that terms broad ulsig oss ad utrl raiain, ept big weakened, being despite organizations, cultural and houses, publishing Finally, issues of identity and identity itself can come to the to come can itself identity and identity of issues Finally, de actors and begin to Onlytargetedand relevant threatened. becomes then it ensure the group. for connectedness ille of number a formed they oppression state to resistance and a 80s, the in away taken entirely were privileges such whom from Cluj. in Hungarians the of case the in evident more m the between designa links communicative to lasting through Brubaker achieved ‘groupness’ by introduced term a – connectedness formal 44 46 47 45 solidarit nation, family, community, Jewish ancient race, identity: elso” hr “o hita ws loe t st foot.” set to allowed was Christian “no where seclusion” dw nation “whole a like friends Jewish and relatives family, within Jew integration, institutional significant despite that remember exclusive and cohesion pe the to Contemporaries emancipation. of result a as consolidate social their that fact the with frustrated Je the In group. the within informal, le also canassimilatory resistance to pressures Similar and formal institutions, and ties ne group.relations of the the by dictated ‘rediscovery’ of process the in ‘discovered’

consciousness survive.consciousness Hunga helped and reproduction” “cultural facilitated Communism, during Brubaker, BrubakerIdentity,” Cooper, p.46. “Beyond and Ibid., 133-135. and Endelman, 141, 149. pp.139, Discontinuities,” “Continuities Nationalist Politics,Nationalist

47 An important parallel could be made here with the Turks in Bulgar in Turks the with here made be could parallel important An

88,117,118. pp. 32 46 ugra shos newspapers, schools, Hungarian 45 ad to strengthening of the socialthe strengthening of to ad eine n cnigny on contingency and Reliance s still spent most private time private most spent still s gal political organizations to to organizations political gal riods of reforms would later later would reforms of riods nd in the course of struggle struggle of course the in nd here is always something something always is here y etc.y sca cniin and conditions social w elling apart in inviolable inviolable in apart elling forefront only after it is is it after only forefront ness only seemed to to seemed only ness wish case, many were many case, wish 44 e hg lvl of level high a te When using such using When i nt disappear not did mes i even is - embers rian identity and and identity rian fine it, rethink it, fine rethink it, it, ia CEU eTD Collection atrs ta te uks mnrt i Blai hs o e locate be to has Bulgaria in minority Turkish the that patterns, 48 spec unique their cases, these all between in somewhere is It of itself.” Protestant the that then indeed was the “it and identity”, of back resource fighting in further, but identity”, collective its defend persecute a of “capacity the demonstrated persecution creates Huguenot way, a in and, existence into it brings which it, evoke and

always present in ‘real’ life. always ‘real’ in life.present multiplic the and events and processes historical of impact the and homo appealing and cultural rigid the reconcile can communicative, we so Only connectedness. by strengthened and commonalities shared on and categories internalized struggles, and of debates by reproduced product and subject a elites, the and state by enemy imagined ‘identitarian’ and ‘groupist’ disadvantage, social and discrimination Bien, pp.94-95. “Imagining,” 48

33

ity of social and cultural forms cultural and social of ity minority became conscious became minority labels, and groupness based based groupness and labels, d group to endure and to to and endure to group d y “found some specific specific some “found y visions from outside, an outside, from visions siiain a event an assimilation, t Te eid f the of period The it. d: among continuous continuous among d: genizing categories, categories, genizing ificities and shared shared and ificities political political CEU eTD Collection province Eastern Rumelia Eastern province of the region. Despite the widely recognized in Ottoman studies studies Ottoman in recognized widely the Despite region. the of ot and indelible an left village the of Christians sub-levels the to down denominations Muslim, of coexistence peaceful of model ‘komshuluk’ Turkish-speaki of Islam, settlement to conversion ofhistory a with ove domination Ottoman of years hundred Five community. Muslim the was Demography Bulga the to claimants historically, building population. block the of native the local rightful the movement Liberation Bulgarian ma Christian Orthodox Bulgarian-speaking a with population diverse 49 comprised the bulk of the futurecomprised of the 20bulk the Princip The proclaimed. was state Bulgarian the of independence the Unific the the as history national Bulgarian in of today known is what in 1885 province in autonomous an remained voluntarilyann be to that was latter Thegovernment. Bulgarian-dominated territory smaller a was Rumelia Eastern Porte. the of suzerainty the under D state governed or Tuna of vilayet Ottoman the of borders the with coincided less of treaty Princip Bulgarian The Stefano 1877-8. of War Russo-Turkish San the following envisioned the that state Bulgarian independent larger a Principality Bulgarian tributary the of territories The ReligiousAutonomy

In July 1878 the Berlin Treaty created the two units as par as units two the created Treaty Berlin the 1878 July In The second largest religious community after the Christians in the in Christians the after community religious largest second The Chapter Turks 3: The Bulgaria, in 1878-1944. 49 inherited from the Ottoman Empire an ethnically and religiously and ethnically an Empire Ottoman the from inherited Autonomy or Exclusion

th -centuryBulgarian state. 34 t of the dismantling of the much the of dismantling the of t d h atnmu Ottoman autonomous the nd ‘millet’ model of religious religious of model ‘millet’ ng Muslim groups, and the and groups, Muslim ng , immediately South of it, it, of South immediately , trace on the demographythe on trace ality and Easter Rumelia Rumelia Easter and ality ac te ae year same the March jority considered by the by considered jority exed to the Principality to exed anube and was a self- a was and anube newly-formed state state newly-formed ation and in 1908 in and ation mie ih a with Empire in ad and, lands rian toe lands those r e religious her ality more or more ality

CEU eTD Collection Bulgaria: The History, Culture, and Political a FateMinority of and Political Culture, The History, Bulgaria: and War Russo-Turkish the before population total the of percent 53 50 war. dur migration large-scale continued the despite population the of 28.8% 54 Isis Press, 1990), p.162. 52 51 state. minority numerical a were Muslims lands Bulgarian-to-be the contained studies some to according Macedonia I War pre-World even the Bosnia, Albania, present-day as such places Many Muslims. of (Eur Rumeli ho become had Balkans the in conquests Ottoman Christian the to prior Provinces) exclusively almost an autonomy, and tolerance codn t Ai mnv Msis osiue oe oe hr o te pop the of third one over constituted Muslims Eminov, Ali to According 1878 in war the after immediately by presented statistics juxtapose to interesting is It 67). R Eastern in Turks 34.5% another and people, million 2 of total rough a of war. the of result displace million 1.5 of total a claim and war, the during Muslims of pi extreme more much a paint authors Other Yalamov. by consulted flee. to possible as Muslims many ethnicallygroupsBulgarian to armycleansewho volunteer sought the r and Musl civilian targeting violence deliberate by created question” i talks Yalamov Ibrahim ensued. that emigration mass the and war

See Bilal Simsir, “The Turkish Minority “The See i Bulgaria: Bilal Historyand in Culture,” Simsir, Turkish Eminov, Yalamov,

Neuburger, Yalamov, 54 50 Other sources point to the 1881 census as reporting 27% Turks in the P the in Turks 27% reporting as census 1881 the to point sources Other Most of were them Most Turkish-speaking. Turkish andOtherTurkish Istoria Istoria The Orient WithinOrient The 53 , 68-70.pp. In 1881, writes Neuburger, the 578,000 Muslims in Bulgaria comprised Bulgaria in Muslims 578,000 the Neuburger, writes 1881, In , 47-48.pp. , p.81.

, p.36. 51 52 despite the atrocities committed against them during the during them against committed atrocities the despite Their number reached 200,000 based on some sources some on based 200,000 reached number Their

35 ebre ad aao fr the for Yalamov and Neuburger ims on the part of the Russian Russian the of part the on ims , ed. Kemal Karpat, ed. Kemal (Istanbul: , but comprised close to 40 40 to close comprised but , n detail about the “refugee the about detail n Sanjak of Novi Pazar or Pazar Novi of Sanjak the rise of the Bulgarian the of rise the cture of the mass exodus mass the of cture d Balkan Muslims as a as Muslims Balkan d Muslim majorities. In majorities. Muslim me to huge numbers huge to me egion and force as as egionand force umelia (Yalamov: umelia ing and after the the after and ing opean Ottoman Ottoman opean n rincipality out rincipality The Turks of of The Turks ulation CEU eTD Collection presence of Muslims and Turks in early Bulgaria – a more than vi than more a – Bulgaria early in Turks and Muslims of presence probablyreferred religiousonly to affiliation. Muslims of Status The seriouslynot by disturbed even constant large-scale outflow. their „ъжвтое” lmn t mriaie („маргинализи marginalized being to element from („държавотворен”) went Muslims Kalyonski, and Gruev of words the In state. boundaries the inside once Turks and Muslims of position symbolic the cont in valid especially becomes it but problematized, be could p simply even or leaders, religious soldiers, officials, state enj territories Bulgarian future the in Muslims Empire Ottoman a were they that fact the Notwithstanding Bulgaria. Liberation as such community perceived a of standing relative the determining 55 consiste rather a offer source, to source from greatly vary they consolidati towards steps first and formation its of years the structure demographic the of realities numerical the were Such Since then a “steady stream” of Muslims leaving or being for being or leaving Muslims of stream” “steady a then Since of the population. less then 15% to and 1900they by was amounted sustained, says Eminov, ce the more, is What Bulgaria. in population Muslim total the of constituted historically always have Muslim Bulgarian-speaking indicate Muslims the all almost Turks as count to seems Yalamov p Principality total a to refer to seem Both Principality.

Eminov, Eminov, ubr, s t il e icse i mr dti ltr ae not are later, detail more in discussed be will it as Numbers, Turkish andOtherTurkish , pp. 78-79., pp.

36 plto o 20 tosn, but thousand, 2007 of opulation aat. uh generalization a Such easants. ращи се”) religious minorities minorities religious се”) ращи on. The estimates, even when when even estimates, The on. rast with the drastic decline of of decline drastic the with rast numerical minority, under the the under minority, numerical of the new Bulgarian state in in state Bulgarian new the of t mg o te undeniable the of image nt between 10 and 20 percent 20 and 10 between yd n lvtd tts as status elevated an oyed sible presence, which was was which presence, sible d by Neuburger while the while Neuburger by d nsus categories at the the at categories nsus ced out of the country country the of out ced h Msis n post- in Muslims the of the new Bulgarian Bulgarian new the of h ol factor only the a state-building state-building a 55

CEU eTD Collection belonging. persisted, the bias against them overwhelmed integration efforts integration overwhelmed them against bias the persisted, the Bulgarian nation would continue to imagine its ethnic frontiers d frontiers ethnic its imagine to continue would nation Bulgarian the 58 56 From 19 them. early with by in conceived Pomaks) nationalism Bulgarian were the Muslims, or the they, Mohamedans how Bulgarian and authorities the as known (also Muslims 57 pur in complicated more perhaps and different markedly always of position The communities. Muslim Turkish-speaking the the were and speakers reality, in ones only the not far but work, this population to t Muslim relevant the – comprising differentiation groups the linguistic of to think according to way is One state established conditions cultural and political “new the in authors] by used [plural at dualistic the see also will We identity etc. of name-changing markers conversion, and differences problematic eliminate nationa envisioned of the into them incorporate to sought current always state ideological the on depending coerced, been having of or treason proper ‘Bulgarian and untainted Orthodoxy of path the from strayed who had general linguist were heritage of linguistic Slavic degree of some groups Muslims of because Bulgarians Mac ethnic three considered the of Slavs and West peripheries speakers Eastern Slav Serbian All including nation. Bulgarian future the in included and popul the selected movement ‘Revival’ the of architects the which P elaborates. exemplifies instance for Neuburger Mary as consoli gradual minority. their to lead which arrangements, sociopolitical ne the with faced were state, new the in ‘trapped’ themselves found w Bulgaria in Muslims other and people Turkish that contends Yalamov of the economic society or even largely excluded andor isolated from even it. of excluded the economic largely society The difference referred to here has to do with the relationship the with do to has here to referred difference The Seeand Gruev Kalyonski,

Yalamov, 57 58

The Turks, on the other hand, were never ceased to be the ‘other’ agains ‘other’ the be to ceased never were hand, other the on Turks, The Istoria , 66-67.pp. Vuzroditelniyat protsesVuzroditelniyat

th etr, agae a a eiig etr acrig to according feature defining a was language century, 37 , p.90.

y osdrd aie Bulgarians native considered ly revd s h frinr, the foreigners, the as erceived through education, religious religious education, through and they ended up at bottom at up ended they and he two major components components major two he of the Bulgarian-speaking the of ed to adapt to a set of newof set a to adapt to ed l population by striving to to striving by population l eep into the 20the into eep dna ‘ilyt’ were ‘villayets’ edonian ations to be ‘awakened’ ‘awakened’ be to ations c nt. ht s why is That unity. ic ain no n ethnic an into dation l asrc trs of terms abstract ely titudes towards them them towards titudes .” Slavic or Bulgarian Bulgarian or Slavic of Serbia basically, basically, Serbia of 56 ho, one could say, could one ho, n smlr vein, similar a In h fre was former the h icpin of inception the -ness’ by way of of way by -ness’ h tms The times. the f h newly the of h central the th century, t which t CEU eTD Collection private schools, and administered local affairs. local administered and schools, private atclr xrie t tae h eouin f h rgt langua rights the of evolution the trace to exercise, particular 59 ‘Sher own their ran they which within autonomy far-reaching” “fairly ‘Sheyhulislam the under still formally and Sofia in Muftiship the Com religious Muslim The state. Bulgarian young the of borders the considerab a remained War Liberation Bulgarian the after and of migrat large-scale despite who Muslims, the group, numerous most in pronounced strongly most was This communities. religious for autonomy ‘mille Ottoman the preserved Empire Ottoman largely the from emerging that idea the Bulgaria on agree Authors state, young institutions. oflargely religion and umbrella religious under the educ as such affairs internal own its govern and organize to state popu this start, very the from element ‘guest’ the minority, in entrenched groups and persons minority presumed other and Turkish a and interesting, genuinely is It Bulgaria. of citizens all for lan confession, of basis the on discrimination from freedom as well liberti religious of framework the within largely upheld were othe and Turks of rights number The come. a to years the as in acts well international as 1879, we Bulgaria of in groups Constitution religious Tarnovo and ethnic the of rights 1878, equal of The treaty Berlin Provisions Legal International s the under and religious institutions. autonomy religious of context the in place took Bulgaria Neuburger, The Orient WithinThe Orient

, p. 36. , 36. p. 38

59 The governance of social life of Muslims in Muslims of life social of governance The lation was left by the Bulgarian Bulgarian the by left was lation es and equality for Muslims, as Muslims, for equality and es t’ legacy of relative cultural cultural relative of legacy t’ lso of high necessity to this this to necessity high of lso ge with respect to Muslim, Muslim, to respect with ge ation, which was carried out out carried was which ation, ly sizeable minority within within minority sizeable ly ’ in Istanbul, was granted granted was Istanbul, in ’ ion and flight in the years the in flight and ion guage, nationality or race race or nationality guage, munity, now headed by by headed now munity, r Muslims in Bulgaria in Muslims r re guaranteed in the the in guaranteed re the most prominent prominent most the iat’ courts, funded funded courts, iat’ as an independent independent an as the case of the the of case the priin of upervision f other of CEU eTD Collection p.243. p.243. bureaucratic level and to whom state resources were allocated. allocated. were resources state whom to and level bureaucratic we groups those which in terms the established They perceived. by “numerous subsequent international treaties.”international subsequent “numerous by 60 61 Minority a of Fate Political in and Bulgaria,” Culture, of Republic People's the in Minority w Bulgaria in groups do ‘non-native’ Such the which scholars. in ways by the cited influenced time the of agreements and treaties the minority rights and freedoms of the Turkish people in their count their in people Turkish the of freedoms and rights minority the form authorities Bulgarian entity, independent an as establishment b very the status legal “from the with specifically that dealing article occasionsan In multiple on asserts Tuncoku Mete A. those legal documents. categoriesagainst forth the put in backdrop of the mi Turkish the with dealing works and authors of language the evaluate a is It times. various at imagined t was study demography to Bulgarian crucial is it why is That world. the experiencing real-wor into them transforms easily and treaties peace and ca theoretical the reinforces inevitably groups among state distri The nation-building. of processes in excluded or empowered b as served seen were Bulgaria in groups population various which agai provisions contains which Treaty, Berlin the of V article sta a – 1878 of Treaty Berlin the by groups” minority Bulgaria’s grou ethnic distinct a as recognized been have Bulgaria in living t shows “clearly documents legal the of examination” “an that say Ibid., 244-248. pp. Law:InternationalTh in Minorities of Rights “The Tuncoku, Mete A.

e. ea Kra (sabl Ii Pes 1990), Press, Isis (Istanbul: Karpat Kemal ed. , 39 61 The author then provides an appendix with appendix an provides then author The h Trs f ugra Te History, The Bulgaria: of Turks The eois rfe i constitutions in crafted tegories of Turks in Bulgaria since 1878, since Bulgaria in Turks of nst discrimination strictly on the on strictly discrimination nst ld relationships and ways of of ways and relationships ld he language through which which through language he tus reproduced and amended amended and reproduced tus re conceptualized on a state a on conceptualized re lso genuinely intriguing to to intriguing genuinely lso ally guaranteed respect for for respect guaranteed ally asis on which groups were were groups which on asis The legal frames through through frames legal The ry”. bution of power by the the by power of bution ” r vn s oe of “one as even or p” hat the Turkish people people Turkish the hat eginning of Bulgaria’s Bulgaria’s of eginning cuments undoubtedly undoubtedly cuments e Case of the Turkish the of Case e 60 r cntutd and constructed ere He goes further to further goes He oiy f Bulgaria of nority CEU eTD Collection populations, the rights and interests of those peoples will be be will peoples those of interests and rights the populations, basis of “religious creeds and confessions” and guarantees “the freedom and out guaranteesfreedom of and and basis “religious “the and confessions” creeds persons belonging to Bulgaria, as well as beforeigners, as andnohindrance of well as shall Bulgaria, persons to belonging spiritual chiefs.spiritual oas (дбие нрави”). („добрите morals” against go not does right this of exercise the when citizens all divisi no that and declar constitution, law Bulgarian affi time same the in while съсловия”), на („разделение before first the subjects 1879, Bulgarian of Constitution all Turnovo The of equality regard workingelections of out the and Constitution.” the to Roma Greek, Turkish, with mixed are “Bulgarians where localities art Yalamov, to According state. Bulgarian the in living ethnicities Tr Berlin the of articles other up brings Yalamov, researcher, mi and ethnic of or differentiations national and linguistic of mention other in Bulgaria, of citizens non-Christian the for non-discrimination in deals claims his substantiate to Tuncoku by It quoted equality. section religious and The distinctions religious with solely way 64 62 Constitution], available atConstitution], 63 of forms all of worship.” i industries professions further: And various the of exercise the or public honours, to admission rights, political and civil of enjoyment the incapacit or eclusion of ground a as person any against alleged be not Or non-Christian to right the extends it as religion, to according dif only the Expectedly, minorities. or groups linguistic or ethnic to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their to or communions, different the of organization hierarchical the to

Full text of the article in Tuncoku: in article the of text Full

Yalamov, rils 7 n 8 o te osiuin se Trosa osiusa [Turno konstitutsia” “Turnovska see Constitution, the of 83 and 57 Articles Istoria “The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship are ass are worship of forms all of exercise outward and freedom “The Ibid., pp.248-249. , 74-75.pp. 62

http://www.kingsimeon.bg/downloads/Turnovska_Konstitucia.pdf.

64

t os o, oee, n n fr sek oceey about concretely speak form any in however, not, does It

The difference of religious creeds and confessions shall confessions and creeds religious of difference The 40 rming the freedom to association for association to freedom the rming 63 eaty, which do identify different different identify do which eaty,

state order, religion and “good “good and religion order, state thodox individuals to practice to individuals thodox seeks to ensure equality and and equality ensure to seeks taken into consideration in in consideration into taken employment, functions, and functions, employment, ay oaiy whatsoever. locality any n eetain t ae is makes it ferentiation nority groups. Another Another groups. nority ce ie oe ta in that poses five icle y in matters relating to to relating matters in y words, but makes no makes but words, ons are acceptable acceptable are ons relations with their with relations n unambiguous an nian and other other and nian ward exercise ward exercise fered either ured to all to ured es the the es vo

CEU eTD Collection epe h rbby pk te ae agae sae cran cul certain shared language, same the spoke probably who people not a of presence the to evidence is Yalamov, by cited one previous h Otmn oil n pltcl re i te akn dd faci did governanc Balkans imperial in entrenched deeply identification religious the in D order culture. political ethnic Turkish and standardized social less or Ottoman more The a of emergence reconsidered. time minorities andat might the the have Muslims been as implication possible its and interpreted cautiously be should legal above the in available information The etc. minority’ group ‘Turkish ‘ethnic as such terms indulgingly use others and Yalamov Tuncoku, t about talking When society. Ottoman former the in positions dominant Isla the to belonging their doubt a without was which of salient 68 65 67 66 Ort non-Christian to autonomyreligious grants and freelyfaith their ifrn rlgos a nt dpe i te osiuin wih procl which Constitution, the in the country.Christianity in dominant adopted not was religions different andrights liberties, the notices,Ibrahim despite rightly these Yalamov 19 some. co and belonging ethnic of notions with “loaded” were divisions religious persons. other to them leasing by Bulgaria leaving after entit are стопани”) („турските owners estate real Turkish ownershi land of context the in Bulgaria newly-founded w Treaty, Berlin the in article more one to in refers Yalamov Turks of rights Ibid., p.56. Yalamov, See Yalamov, Ibid., 40and articles 42. th century Ottoman society also show that these “ethnic” identific “ethnic” these that show also society Ottoman century 68 Valid as this assertion may be from certain points of view, a view, of points certain from be may assertion this as Valid Istoria, Istoria, Istoria, p.76, as well as “Turnovska konstitutsia,” article “Turnovska as well as 37. konstitutsia,” p.76, Istoria, p. 77.p.

66

41 led to retain their possessions even possessions their retain to led 67 hs rvso, ln wt the with along provision, This to who the so-called Turkish so-called the who to e, already in the 19the in already e, hich mentions explicitly the the explicitly mentions hich i fih ad occupied and – faith mic tural markers – the most most the – markers tural hodox communities. hodox ion of ‘Turks’ as distinct distinct as ‘Turks’ of ion nthropological studies of studies nthropological ations could be equally be could ations principle of equality of equalityof of principle ouet, however, documents, espite the strength of of strength the espite hem, authors such as such authors hem, ntent, according to to according ntent, iae h gradual the litate is Orthodox aims

p. It holds that that holds It p. , ‘minority,’ ’, th century 65 As CEU eTD Collection precisely this ‘Turkishness’, too, that early Turkish nationalism nationalism Turkish early that too, ‘Turkishness’, this precisely Homelands the in New Europe,” in (Spring 1995), 112. p. 69 stance.” political “dynamic a instead e “static a or demography” of facts the by “given simply B as minority, way, Either many. for irrelevant or feeble of withi degree some reached lived had and years had of hundreds who for state sovereign origins Turkic of peasants common the of culture the with than rather culture elite ‘Ottoman’ high a with identify to Ottom the in power of positions in individuals that however, known, well socioeconomic higher and religion them), surrounding Greek the and Slavic diffe completely to opposed as dialects similar (or language mai consciousness group some possessed even probably they that f in inhabi forms were, cultural other of ‘Turks’ sea vast the those among distinctiveness that say to either, speculation, a of much we as faith’, ‘Turkish the Islam, even and ‘Turkey’, they state, Ottoman So Empire. the of subjects peasant example, for Bulgarian, positions Ottoma the of classes variouslower the to unknown not was ‘Turk’ in term The people the designating of way common the was however, the of concept to ever tantamount minority. hardly is carr of presence mere The space. and time through greatly grou as well as not) (or existence its Thus, representation. and its and group, that of behalf on made power and rights to claims into educated and not) (or mobilized is identity ethno-cultural given Rogers Brubaker, “National Minorities, Nationalizing and Rogers States, Minorities, Ext Brubaker,“National

Daedalus 69 In other words, it is modeled by the ways in which a which in ways the by modeled is it words, other In , Vol. 124(2), What Future for the State? the, Vol.124(2), State? Futurefor What 42 thnodemographic reality”, but it is is it but reality”, thnodemographic iers of common cultural markers, cultural common of iers rent linguistic groups such as the as such groups linguistic rent rubaker, argues, however, is not not is however, argues, rubaker, the lowly ‘Turk’. Turkish was was Turkish ‘Turk’. lowly the socio-political organization socio-political ting the Ottoman state and state Ottoman the ting p manifestations can vary vary can manifestations p nly due to their common common their to due nly n h Otmn Empire Ottoman the in of power by the Slavic- the by power of were referring to the the to referring were l I wud o b too be not would It ll. ernal National homogeneity. It was was It homogeneity. act, aware of their their of aware act, an Empire preferred Empire an efaaees the self-awareness, n Empire. ‘Turk’ ‘Turk’ Empire. n status. It is also also is It status. te same the n CEU eTD Collection eonzd rus no hc scey iie isl wr religi were itself divided society which into groups recognized rig political means This and confessions. religious all of members Civic for guaranteed communities. Christian non-Orthodox ri for the autonomy concerning frameworks legal earliest the regardles discussed, law before equality As ensuring to confined are Bulgarians Autonomy Religious change. significa is This time. the at governance of language institutional expre no found communities those but units, cultural other and linguistic into religious subdivided and exist did distinctions social obvious Other cour of life political organizing in religion of role The Empire. stat a for surprise no as comes which cleavage, legal formal s was Religion issue. that on silent unequivocally remain tr Constitution Berlin The etc. nation minority, group, ethnic culture, heritage, cul were Turkish of They kind any Muslims. preserving for or celebrating, religion recognizing, of freedom the as and nation civic i of rights political as upheld were state Bulgarian nascent The above. considered treaties the did neither and identity national ki any emphasized way no in They ‘millet’. Muslim the and Islam for life communal governed Bulgaria which the institutions of social establishment different the The after intact left largely culturalnon-exclusive identity other forms intersected various by of identifi found it because that do to needed It mobilize. and ‘awaken’ to sought

43 state, were under the umbrella of of umbrella the under were state, dvda ctzn mmeso a of members citizens ndividual e emerging from the Ottoman Ottoman the from emerging e se should not be overstated. be not should se u cmuiis nild to entitled communities ous ua o ntoa language, national or tural nt because it was about to about was it because nt that the legitimate, legally legitimate, the that s of religion and religious and religion of s nd of overarching Turkish overarching of nd rights of Turks in the the in Turks of rights eaty and the Tarnovo Tarnovo the and eaty till the most important important most the till it in a loose state of state loose a in it ghts of non-ethnic non-ethnic of ghts were informally informally were cations. ssion in legal and legal in ssion o oine at oriented not uk ad were and Turks hts were were hts CEU eTD Collection 70 hindrance”. without heads spiritual their of respected; and recognized be shall endowments their and organization, the in constituted be shall which that or constituted dictates already Bulgaria] VIII article latter’s The War. Balkan Second Ottom the and Bulgaria between concluded Constantinople of Treaty Musl the to reference special with 1913 in reaffirmed and Treaty believer and leaders spiritual between relations and “sup organizations the under minister Bulgarian but respective the of надзор”] [„върховний власти”], [„духовни authorities” “spiritual cont the under remain Orthodox Christian the than other communities of aff “church the that states explicitly Constitution Turnovo The Law, Vol. 8, No. 1, Supplement: Official Documents (Jan., 1914): 33.pp. (Jan., Official Law, Documents 8, Vol. No. 1,Supplement: 73 72 vakf 400 and schools, Islamic 300 over mosques, 356 2 inherited Bulgaria Yalamov, t According 1878. in Principality the relig of establishment Muslim the the after of institutions and hierarchies, structures, The in left and preserved largely were times Ottoman during formed minority. than sizeable Muslim secur things, other among to, sure make state Christian-dominated s that documents first the why is That time. the at caliber hig the of values were discrimination and prejudice of free faith comm religious one’s of member a be to right The self-governance. muftis etc.muftis covercosts and of communal needs life the religious salarie such the as paying 71

“Treaty of Peace Between Bulgaria and Turkey,” The Americ The Turkey,” and Bulgaria Between Peace of “Treaty “Turnovska article konstitutsia,” 42. Yalamov, ofdonated estates the wealthy Endowmentsby forms in and Muslims property

Istoria, Istoria, p.81. p.81.

73 It should also be noted that the document treats document the that noted be also should It 44 eek to legitimize the new Bulgarian new the legitimize to eek . 72 The intactness of hierarchical of intactness The airs” [„църковните работи”] [„църковните airs” “Moslem communities [in [in communities “Moslem place by the Bulgarian state Bulgarian the by place nJunlo International of Journal an suis osle b I. by consulted studies o e the equality of its more its of equality the e future, their hierarchical hierarchical their future, s is *** by/in the Berlin Berlin the by/in *** is s et oa ad political and moral hest unity and practice one’s practice and unity ims of Bulgaria by the the by Bulgaria of ims n mie fe the after Empire an they shall be holden be shall they reme supervision” supervision” reme os community ious rol of their own own their of rol s ofs hodjas, used to s 70 . 71

CEU eTD Collection itr, utr, n Pltcl ae f Minority a of Fate Political and Culture, History, IX). VIII,prayerspronounced Moslems” (articles the in public of spiritual leader, at least nominally, until Bulgarian Independence leader,spiritual Bulgarian nominally, until at least 1908 in Istanbul in Sheik-ul-Islam the and Community Muslim mediator as unctioned who Bashi Banya Sofia in mosque central the Gra a appointed it things, other Among Bulgaria. in “Temporary autonomy religious called Prince Bulgarian the by decree a on, 1895 From frames institutional the set Muslims” of governance spiritual 74 [The Religious policies of Bulgaria and the Muslims], Religious[The ofpolicies Bulgaria and the Muslims], 78 77 76 Islamic etc. education law, 75 as Sultan, the Majesty Imperial His of name “the and Bulgaria a acts Empire Ottoman the while rights same the to entitled Chri “other the to equated become immediately territory Ottoman nationa religious primarily as states two the of subjects the 1990), 65.p. stat Bulgarian of limits the within law official of status the far-r enjoyed which – court spiritual supreme one and appellate court religious the of part as needed where created or restored, courts Sheriyat local the and conflicts internal solved communities ‘vakfs’. the and schools, religious mostly – Muftis own their had capitals provincial Bulgarian All c in were who government, Bulgarian the by paid and nominated – Pomaks See Dimitar Gyudurov, “Religioznata politika na Bulgaria ( “Religioznata See na Dimitar Gyudurov, miusiulmanite politika i in 1878-1944,” Bulgaria, in Turks “The Crampton, J. R. See Yalamov, rela matters overseeing official state Ottoman highest Te Ibid., 8and articles 9.

Istoria, Istoria, p.82-83. p.82-83.

77 h Seia cniud o e h lw hog which through law the be to continued Sheriyat The 45 , ed. Kemal Karpat (Istanbul: Isis Press, Press, Isis (Istanbul: Karpat Kemal ed. , Godishnik nadepartment Istoria e legality. e 75 h rmie ter supreme their remained who and formal structure of Muslim of structure formal and e t rlgos administration, religious to ted l identities. The Bulgarians on on Bulgarians The identities. l s patron of all the Muslims in in Muslims the all of patron s system – along with the three three the with along – system eaching autonomy as well as as well as autonomy eaching Caliph, shall continue to be to continue shall Caliph, 74 The Turks of Bulgaria: The Bulgaria: of Turks The

ta cmuiis and communities” stian 78 between the Bulgarian the between After 1880 they were they 1880 After were kept in place, place, in kept were 76 nd Mufti residing in in residing Mufti nd . uk rte than rather Turks harge of mosques, mosques, hargeof 1919-1925)” ue fr the for rules CEU eTD Collection onis ee loe t ue oh h Blain n te uks language Turkish the and Bulgarian the both use to allowed onl were Bulgarian councils in records their all keep to Ministr had the Muftis the of Confessions, control the under fell still Muslims of affairs 82 81 80 79 http://ebox.nbu.bg/pro/12%20Dimitar%20Giudurov%20+.pdf. Vol. 2(2007):[History 360-363,pp. 383.Available Annual], at department well. oversaw now were who Muftis the of authority the under transferred over wills and testaments. and wills over pate divorces, children, and parents between disagreements disputes, family of issues solving and property, religious other and schools counci establish could they affairs”: internal their in autonomy Muslim the granted It agreements. past in Muslims the to made concessions important most the reiterated and nature inclusive an had finali and crafted not was - Bulgaria of Kingdom the in Community Moh the of Administration and Establishment sta and rights the detail the in describing law specific The Concerning Law the effor as well as reasons political for muftis of dismissals authorities overgladly pur restrictive on which their with they exercised la and by authorities Bulgarianinterfer the that rarely agree authors and most Although Muslims of autonomy religious long-established of wouldonly the selected candidateon the for Sheik-ul-Islam who be appr informed t as so Prince, Bulgarian the by appointed be would Sofia in Mufti Ibid. Gyudurov, pp.358-360. politika,” “Religioznata “Turks Crampton, Bulgaria,” in p.65. Yalamov, 79

Istoria, Istoria, p.83. p.83. 80 Based on the 1919 Law, the self-administration of the religious the of self-administration the Law, 1919 the on Based 46 ts by specific governments to close to governments specific by ts tus of the Bulgarian Muslims – – Muslims Bulgarian the of tus communities “considerable communities y of Foreign Affairs and and Affairs Foreign of y ls administering mosques, mosques, administering ls life such as “matrimonial as such life o remove his dependence dependence his remove o zed until 1919. The Law The 1919. until zed ed, there were occasions occasions were there ed, rnity cases, and disputes disputes and cases, rnity of religious autonomy autonomy religious of matters of justice as as justice of matters poses. The 1880s saw The saw 1880s poses. mdn Religious amedan wie h local the while y rge respected the respected rge . 81 h Grand The oval. 82

CEU eTD Collection 83 C Sofia. Muslim high the in justice as appointed be to candidates qualified educational institutions.educational important other neglecting while clergy the and mosques for care firs the only properly managed state Bulgarian the with along M the Gyudurov, to According and etc. associations, social professional some even of spheres all virtually covered autonomy Religious s and education justice, and courts worship, and religion as such Muslims 85 84 we mosques destroyed it.by and schools land, of parcels many and state the by fully properties, ‘vakf’ of restoration incomplete the was Muslims t on infringement greatest the but Sofia, in muftiship main the down andintellectualeducation lifepress. such as in Muslims and Turks among pressure palpable exerted movements lat and Empire Ottoman the of circles Kemalist and reformist foll by disturbed somewhat be would quo status This later. discussed inter group their of representation political meaningful any political Bulgarian as such units larger into wereincorporated governa local in participate did Turks and Muslims where that, than entirel almost occupied were power structures and positions High Bulgaria of domination bypolitical the excluded and suppressed whileautonomy in Muslims that say can One apolitical. fundamentally Crampton, “Turks Crampton, Bulgaria,” in p.66. Gyudurov, p.384. politika,” “Religioznata Yalamov, 85 One constant observable in all the branches of Muslim autonomy Muslim of branches the all in observable constant One Istoria, Istoria, 83

p.84. p.84. 84 It is no wonder, then, that in the 1930s there were no sufficiently no were there 1930s the in that then, wonder, no is It

47 t of the above tasks, namely the namely tasks, above the of t er the Turkish Republic. These Republic. Turkish the er parties. Muslims neverattained Muslims parties. which was never carried out out carried never was which ests or identity, as will be be will as identity, or ests functions such as religious as such functions y by the latter, but more more but latter, the by y he religious autonomy of autonomy religious he enjoyed large cultural cultural large enjoyed Bulgaria in domains of of domains in Bulgaria c fr xml they example for nce BulgarianChristians. owers of nationalist, nationalist, of owers ourt of Appeals in in Appeals of ourt chools, cultural and cultural chools, re appropriated or or appropriated re si Community uslim is that it remained it that is cultural life for for life cultural CEU eTD Collection birth, nationality,birth, race language, or religion.” becomes a value of utmost importance and a civic right to which which to right civic a and importance utmost of value a becomes “ further, and, meetings” public at or kinds, any of publications 86 87 a for rights political and civil equal as well as inhabitants protecti complete and “full stipulates Treaty the confessions, law before equality the on clauses familiar already Besides pr American the of Points 14 famous the and Treaty Versailles international of agenda as the of top the well to climbed had minorities as nations oppressed formerly small, of determination Bulgari for conditions the negotiating 1919 in Neuilly of res Treaty with discourse The in change tangible a introduced I War World Neuilly of Treaty Education,Kemalism, Political Participation only not now is population Bulgarian the of diversity The nationals. “a provide to obliged is state the purposes which for access, Courts.”. the before writing, in or orally t of use the for speech non-Bulgarian of nationals Bulgarian to given i commerce, in intercourse, private in language any fr of national the on imposed be shall restriction “no that reads 53 Article arti following the in protection status same the elevatedto arenow distinctions additional These and recognition fully-fledged find and Ibid. Articles Treaty. 50and 53of “Rights,” p.251. the See Tuncoku,

87 h ue f n’ ntv lnug o “speech” or language native one’s of use The 86 48

ll citizens “without distinction of distinction “without citizens ll and free practice of all religious all of practice free and on of life and liberty” for all all for liberty” and life of on n religion, in the press or in in or press the in religion, n pect to minority rights. Self- rights. minority to pect eut fclte” o l its all to facilities” dequate adequate facilities shall be be shall facilities adequate relations influenced by the the by influenced relations esident Woodrow Wilson. Wilson. Woodrow esident everyone must have equal have must everyone e s b ay Bulgarian any by use ee recognized and protected protected and recognized rtcin f national of protection cles of the document. the of cles as religious divisionsreligiousas heir language, either either language, heir a defeated in in defeated a CEU eTD Collection by a binding international legal document, but its practice and s and practice its but document, legal international binding a by 88 19the of half second The religion. to t to back dated Bulgaria in Muslims for education in traditions The or continuity this consideration into taking without discussed be cannot and and Turks Muslims of Education areorganizations where often are manifest. the most ones rights minority press, education, of domains The Bulgaria. in minorities of needs the measures comprehensive countrytakes the of standing the an enhance in to attempt S A. under government Agrarian its on pressure much this put 1919 in Bulgaria in obligations The agreements. and acts international future in a and evolve to continues which Treaties, Versailles and Neuilly the w population the of unit discrete a as ‘minority’ of concept The th of one is support state through developed and upheld be to deserves and embedded in the treaty. Article 54 says, and embedded Article the treaty. in 54says, Bulga present-day the in year same the in located were schools 2500 a ‘rushdiyes’; 40 and ‘medresses’, 150 schools, primary 2,700 were there 1875 Midhad under Bulgaria) Northern (present-day ‘vilayet’ (Danube) Ibid.

shall enjoy […] equal right to establish, manage and control at their their at control and manage establish, to right equal […] enjoy shall minor linguistic or religious racial, to belong who nationals Bulgarian exercise freely religion their therein; o a and language own their use schools to right the institutions, with establishments, educational social and religious charitable, expense

th century brought observable enhancements in the Tuna the in enhancements observable brought century 88 49

ustenance is also encouraged also is ustenance Pasha and his reforms. In reforms. his and Pasha cquire more prominence prominence more cquire rian parts of the Edirne the of parts rian e major innovations in innovations major e that culture own its ith ead moe on imposed regard and various cultural cultural various and he Ottoman period Ottoman he their intimate ties ties intimate their tamboliiski who tamboliiski pproximately d to nd own own ities ther to cater to cater to to CEU eTD Collection 89 92 91 90 Bulgaria). (Southern-Eastern ‘vilayet’ 93 t of teachers. for salaries form the in assistance some provide also would government Ottoman W until Up ‘vakfs’. the by exclusively funded were schools community, autonom religious of umbrella the under was education Muslim and Turkish Bulgarian. were “overwhel attending the students children, all to education primary public Bulgarian to pr Muslim the and public Bulgarian the of status different The Law latter. the 1885 Although the harmed that system many disparities to lead Ministry of control of the Bulgarian and education. ultimate supervision b independence, curricular of degree considerable a with such, as funding M the they of so private, as frames treated were schools juridical Muslim The institutions. the al outlined 1885 of years Law later Education in The amendments system. the of quality the in growth nece not did which 1920s, the until steadily grew schools t Turkish and of number schools many of destruction the to and restored lead were many war later, Russo-Turkish and 1885 The By clergy. and teachers Bulgarian and the Empirewhole. Ottoman in as lands a cadres. clerical schools religious secondary the were ‘medresses’ the skills; sc onlyandsome Koran, the on based learningstronglywas student Simsir, “Turkish Minority,” Simsir, p.164. Eminov, “Turkish and See Minority,” Yalamov, Simsir, p.164, Yalamov, “Turkish Minority,” Simsir, p.163. Turkish andOtherTurkish Istoria, Istoria, 90 The number of the modern, more secular ‘rushdiyes’ was very low in in low very was ‘rushdiyes’ secular more modern, the of number The p.84-85. p.84-85. 93 A “lack of adequately trained Turkish teachers” in general, howev general, in teachers” Turkish trained adequately of “lack A , p.124.

92

hr wr gos ipootos n udn, o. As too. funding, in disproportions gross were There 89 n h piay col, lo nw a ‘mekteps’, as known also schools, primary the In 50 Istoria, Istoria, and they prepared specialized specialized prepared they and p.87. p.87. had to rely on their own own their on rely to had new ones were built. The The built. were ones new hools taught basic writing writing taughtbasic hools 91 ivate religious school religious ivate

ig aoiy of majority” ming si educational uslim ut still under the under still ut y for the Muslim the for y n wt some with ong rd a I the I, War orld allowed access access allowed ssarily reflect reflect ssarily xbos and extbooks he flight of of flight he the er, CEU eTD Collection political involvement and involvement consciousnessgroup.political of the hn fe Wrd a I . tmoisis re t cml wit papersand schools new many comply minorities, of to tried Stamboliiski’s A. I War World after educati When the for facilities ensure and treaties Versailles education. a stateto their large autonomous by poor extent the the to relation in population Turkish the of levels” educational “low “cult general the and War, World First the until much change not E Ottoman the in revolution YoungTurk the and intellectuals reformist 94 eaie oiin f h Trih ouain ne ti religion-base this under population Turkish the meanin of the position of relative discussion general the in reflected is identity 97 1865-1985 Simsir,Bilal see: Bulgaria period and journals newspapers, of history good over a For 30s. was the in and schools 20s the in flourished It times. Ottoman to back impor dating Bulgari most in press the Muslim of activity. one political and were autonomy, they cultural though even paper this of scope 96 95 1905. in population rateamong the Turkish of 4% dis the for accounts which Eminov, writes schools,” these in education “ materials and salaries for resources insufficient with along ni te n o te 19 the of end the Until a Turkish the betwee improvements significant no however,see Others, communities. of autonomy the for favorable and benevolent as government 20 the of decade first the in modernization for drive some c official no were there and room, common one in rugs on sat students differ know not did schools which under Empire, Ottoman the from inherited A detailed account of press publications for Muslims and Turks and Muslims for publications press of account detailed A Ibid., 90.p. Yalamov, Eminov, , (Ankara, 1986). (Ankara, , Turkish andOtherTurkish Istoria, Istoria,

p.87. p.87.

The Turkish minority press in Bulgaria: its history and tragedy, and history its Bulgaria: in press minority Turkish The

Their contributions to the consolidation of the Turkish minority minority Turkish the of consolidation the to contributions Their , p.124.

th etr euain a cnutd y h “l system” “old the by conducted was education century 97 51 appeared, and many evaluate the activity of his of activity the evaluate many and appeared, 94

on and enjoyment of their own culture own their of enjoyment and on contributed to a poor quality of of quality poor a to contributed 96 th gs of cultural autonomy, the the autonomy, cultural of gs

etr ifune b pro- by influenced century in Bulgaria is beyond the beyond is Bulgaria in as hs rc history rich a has also a ural backwardness”, the the backwardness”, ural majority was explained explained was majority taken by same fate as as fate same by taken mpire, the realities did did realities mpire,the at esrmns of measurements tant d autonomy, and the the and autonomy, d astrously low literacy literacy low astrously n the two wars, as the the as wars, two the n ical publications in publications ical h the Neuilly and and Neuilly the h urricula. ent classes, all classes, ent nd Muslim Muslim nd 95 Despite CEU eTD Collection participate as equals in the state economy were still felt still were economy state the in equals as participate Nationalities PapersNationalities oiia dmnin o te uks mnrt ise as sros que serious raise issue minority Turkish the of dimensions political broa enjoyed 1920s the in Bulgaria of Muslims and Turks the Nominally, hlakv e a. Sfa Itrainl etr o Mnrt St Minority for Bulgaria Center in International 1994),Relations, p.270. (Sofia: Muslims al. and et Zhelyazkova Christians between incompatibility 98 100 99 children.” their of labor valuable reluctance the and illiteracy, mass funds, of shortage teachers, incapac The resources. sufficient provide to unable was government group ofwaskind minority at the that the time. part and representation meaningful society, larger from excluded illiterate pr predominantly however, and also, were cultural They associations. some and newspapers, schools, including autonomy cultural formal based strictly judges or involvement of manifestations real conside one whether important also is It account. into taken involvement t on depends and that relative very case is claim a the such of certainlytruthfulness the was “it that contend yet, Others inter-wa the in involvement civic of level high rather a demonstrated a 1923to mere10 in 1933. in four Turkish membersand of shrinking, parliament increased was autonomy facto as de stat reversed, or revised were policies pro-Muslim many rise, pro-f even or nationalism Bulgarian 1923. in Stamboliiski against coup e Vlr Stoyanov, Valeri See Eminov,

ae Wroa n Oln Btv, Te uks Mnrt i Contemp in Minority Turkish “The Boteva, Orlina and Warhola James Turkish andOtherTurkish , vol.31, 3(Sept. 2003): , vol.31, p.259.

“The Turks of Bulgaria,” in in Bulgaria,” of Turks “The , p.126.

99 98

hi cniin a udutdy xcrae atr the after exacerbated undoubtedly was condition Their 52 due to “lack of adequately trained trained adequately of “lack to due eain o cmaiiiy and compatibility of Relations of parents to dispense with the with dispense to parents of itreec wt education with interference e icipation in governance. The governance. in icipation , poor, and rurally settled, settled, rurally and poor, , he factors and spheres of of spheres and factors he , project directors A. A. directors project , r period.” period.” r de ad Intercultural and udies tos s o h precise the to as stions h Trs n Bulgaria in Turks the legal arrangements. arrangements. legal rs some more or less less or more some rs sim a o the on was ascism ities of Turks to to Turks of ities rr Bulgaria,” orary rlgos and religious d 100 Obviously, went from ofessional CEU eTD Collection periodicals in Turkish.” in periodicals 101 and others”, “the by so designated was it – c etc. with customs, language, people a – Turkish as self-determine to began Bulgaria spreading and publishing the and schools Turkish of self-determination functioning the affairs, religious their in interfere not did state cultur had practically which minority traditional formed already (2000): p.4. 1984-1985,” Minority, Turkish 102 minor Turkish be wouldnot remain ableand challengeBulgarian to very they dominance.” low the of level educational the that “ensured education sponsored popul Turkish the of Exclusion it. on dependent therefore, and, resources private on largely relying was Turks Muslim for Education state. mea also population Turkish-speaking self-governan the for matters The educational exclusion. of politics and policies state through books history and myths popular in told be would and being was nation of ‘othering’ the through element the be to were state Bulgarian absence and marginalization their through crafted and defined be to affair other and educational religious, in autonomy things, other Among projec national the of out left be to were communities Turkish the 20the 20 the of beginning “the that writes Stoyanov V. participation and Political Kemalism, Minority, Stoyanov, “Turks of Bulgaria,” Stoyanov, of “Turks 269. p. Dimitrov,Vesselin th century, along with the overarching Muslim identity, the Turkish Turkish the identity, Muslim overarching the with along century,

“ 102 In Search of Homogeneous Nation: the Assimilation of Bulgaria’s of Assimilation the Nation: Homogeneous of Search In In a similar vein, Yalamov maintains that in the first decades first the in that maintains Yalamov vein, similar a In

ora o Ehooiis n Mnrt Ise i Europe in Issues Minority and Ethnopolitics on Journal 53 th century found the Turks as an an as Turks the found century of the Sheriat legal system, the system, legal Sheriat the of t. The Bulgarian nation was nation Bulgarian The t. l uooy noa a the as insofar autonomy al whom the narrative of the of narrative the whom and religious funding and and funding religious and nt lack of support by the the by support of lack nt from it. The Turks of the of Turks The it. from ommon history, culture, culture, history, ommon , as well as in real life life real in as well as , strove to preserve its its preserve to strove e f eiiu and religious of ce to fo state- from ation f ok and books of ouain of population s implied that that implied s 101

t would ity of CEU eTD Collection ewe ntoaiig tt, ainl ioiy n ntv hmln, su homeland, native and minority national state, nationalizing between y uky n Blai, hl uhlig h lnusi ad te rig other and linguistic the upholding while Bulgaria, and Turkey by 1925.” 103 discussed further on. and now, time some for rise the on been had Kemalism and Turkism f still was nation or people Turkish a of idea the that say to i Muslims of protector the considered classification, religious E Ottoman the was this Turks Bulgarian the for time, long a For 106 105 In and since Communism,” State, Bulgaria under before, 104 character. T The community. religious a of affairs public and education the medi as served only have might etc. schools language, Turkish The terms. institutionalized and defined was lived Turks ethnic which under autonomy n also needs One self-determination. ethno-national widespread equal Stoya by described minority” “traditional or autonomy The identity. st dimensions e power mutually necessarily not and are situation legal the of institutional, readings These the ‘measure’ however, was15 percent centers” largely urban in whose religion- identity living ma group, religious and ethnic “closed a as lived population Turkish n Bulgaria. in t formally still Treaty, Neuillythe in forth put minorities Brubaker, “National Minorities,” p.118. Brubaker, Minorities,” “National Turkey. betweenBulgaria SeeFriendship at and “Treaty Angor Signed of Identity The Religious Mobilization: Wolfgang “From Ethnic Hopken, to Yalamov, ed. H. Poulton et al. ( London, et al. ed. ( H. Poulton p.56. 1997), League of Nations, Treaty SeriesLeague Nations, of 103 105 At the same time, there is W. Hopken’s rendition that Until Until that rendition Hopken’s W. is there time, same the At Istoria, Istoria, h rl o te i sae s n o te he nds f h “tri the of nodes three the of one is state kin the of role The p.57. p.57.

, vol. 54 (1926): pp.127-133. 54(1926): , vol. 54 alks about the category of ‘Muslims’ ‘Muslims’ of category the about alks Muslim Identity and the Balkan Muslim Identity andthe oreign to Bulgarian Muslims. Pan- Muslims. Bulgarian to oreign n Bulgaria. This is of course not courseof is Bulgaria.This n mpire, a state founded upon upon founded state a mpire, reaty of Friendship in 1925 in Friendship of reaty nov does not necessarily necessarily not does nov xclusive. One needs to, to, needs One xclusive. inly agrarian with only with agrarian inly ructuring the minority minority the ructuring based. their impact will be will impact their gss Brubaker. ggests t ogt ht the that forget ot World War II the II War World t o Bulgarian of hts Turks of a, October 18, a for conducting for a 104

dc nexus” adic in religious religious in 106

CEU eTD Collection building are of critical importance here, however. Explanations Explanations however. here, importance critical of are building political stance on behalf of the group, which induces meaningful i meaningful induces which group, the of behalf on stance political sim characteristics perceived on based population the of portion 107 interests.” self-defined its of promotion of defense ( 108 i collective of support in action political taken have “they when politica and cultural, economic, of “politicall or “politicized” as forces minorities defines Gurr Ted through such become which misleading. times frames are intellectual often elites or legal onsheer mobiliza mass propa a to closer the is Yalamov by described for is What opportunities political The consciousness. ethno-national motn, eurs that requires important, se The them. among solidarity of feelings strengthens and groups falls short of ethnica politicization. group, distinct also whi population, illiterate rural, passive, largely in a to granted culture and education to rights Minority concept. minority of kind also would state a within existing autonomy religious around organized A then. sufficient not is within similar culturally and majority ethni population a of presence The minority. a of existence the to words other in or, life economic and political social, of spheres nat the as such power of institutions representative its or group, the of function the stresses one first The important. equally are Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of United Peacep.6. States Press, D.C.: c1993), Washington, Ibid., p.8. See Ted Gurr, R. Minorities at Risk : a global view of ethnopolitical conflict, viewRisk ethnopolitical : at of a global Minorities

“the group was the focus of political mobilization and action action and mobilization political of focus the was group “the

55 108 hs odto mas ht n active an that means condition This le already constructing an idea of idea an constructing already le based on currents confined to to confined currents on based omnt rcgie and recognized community y salient” communal groups, communal ysalient” nterests.” ultaneously constructs those constructs ultaneously interaction with a majority a with interaction ion-state. Discrimination in Discrimination ion-state. , nationalist exclusion of a of exclusion nationalist , tion and based on a shared shared a on based and tion n size mobilization, is key is mobilization, size n od odto, equally condition, cond

al dsic fo the from distinct cally

respond to a different a to respond gation of such nation nation such of gation dsrmnto, and discrimination, l 107 its own language language own its Both conditions Both in CEU eTD Collection oiis oad te ulm ioiis rgrls o te reg the of regardless minorities, Muslim the towards policies eid ilne n iscrt, ad as n ipvrsmn te driving the impoverishment and laws land insecurity, and violence period compet in chance no stood Turks and Muslims representation, political ‘choice’. emi to them compelled and morale Muslim “depressed” regularly 109 continuity unbroken only the is Kalyonski, and Gruev write syndrome,” 1,000,000. exceed to were numbers those 1990s, the By Turkey. and Empire permane Bulgaria left Muslims and Turks 500,000 over or to close II, 110 “Turks44-62. Bulgaria,” in pp. of laws land arbitrary the from suffering frequently schooling, quality poor the to due education low and illiteracy by disadvantaged m the to Left nation. the and politics, society, from exclusion facto ‘enj they autonomy The Bulgaria. post-Independence in Muslims and Turks profound, meantime the in and subtle more much usually are however, nat and Discrimination rights. guaranteed and autonomy of arrangements strictly be to seems that opinion an m – be minorities of could treatment arguments parallel two discrimination, of question legendary the its for 1944 to On prior regime Bulgarian the extol authors h ntoaiain f h sae fe 17 aog ih nme o ot of number a with along 1878 after state the of nationalization the indirec ant always nationalism, Bulgarian in sees Crampton werestate. the by encouraged those doubt, No immigration. of as some by seen is life, bare on bordering often condition, Their waves continual the statein economy. to were authorities Communist the 1930s, the in imposed restrictions GruevKalyonski, and emigration seeof the reasons Muslim it, For C and elaborate behind history an 109 According to varying statistics, between the Russo-Turkish War Russo-Turkish the between statistics, varying to According Vuzroditelniat protsesVuzroditelniat

56 , pp.116, 118. based on formal institutional institutional formal on based gration in large numbers by by numbers large in gration h sae ad ervd of deprived and state, the tolerance and progressive progressive and tolerance ercy of religious leaders, religious of ercy m i power. in ime i-Turkish attitudes, and attitudes, i-Turkish a main reason for the the for reason main a ing with the majority the with ing her factors including including factors her ntly for the Ottoman the for ntly of private religious religious private of as is the case with with case the is as gi pc u the up pick again ionalist exclusion, ionalist in Bulgarian state state Bulgarian in and World War World and The “emigration The tly, or less so, so, less or tly, oyed’ was a de a was oyed’ forces that that forces rampton, d. Many ade. 110 After CEU eTD Collection proportions. backing of the state against any other expressions of nationali of expressions other any against state the of backing intellectuals. In the beginning of the 20the of beginning the In intellectuals. tea Muslim Bulgarian to through way their find to began movements Turk 111 uuly optn sacs ad lis ae y ifrn gr useful. different by made claims and stances” competing mutually a minority a of definition Brubaker’s Here, nation-state. foreign nationalis secular a suppressing forces the of oneprotecti whose under Certainly, autonomy religious very the was Bulgaria of Turks 112 tw on it utilize and periodically, it contemplate line, expulsion 113 “ to together came teachers state wretched the to Due movement. this with connected organization system. moderniz a towards push a initiated Yalamov, writes community, Turkish appe Community Muslim-Turkish the within division political of Signs 19end ofas the the 30s. Ke struggleagainst the in extentfullest its to employed was Muslims. the among mobilization and consciousness Turkish national i mutual a had sides two the where “compromise” of one as leaders state Bulgarian the between relationship the describes Hopken other over authority symbolic possessed and funds, to access controlled See Yalamov, Identity,” Hopken, “From Religious p.58. p.112. Brubaker, Minorities,” “National 111 113 h ceg ad prta laesi o te ulm omnt e Community Muslim the of leadership spiritual and clergy The h Ascain f sai Tahr i Blai, one i 10, is 1906, in founded Bulgaria, in Teachers Islamic of Association The Istoria th century, when reformist influences from the Young Ottoman and Young andOttoman Young Young from influences the reformist when century, , pp. 87-91 , pp. improve the living conditions of teachers and to preserve Turkish preserve to and teachers of conditions living the improve

th century, the more “public-spirited” members of the the of members “public-spirited” more the century,

57 malist influences in the 1920s and1920sthe in influences malist sm. It had institutional power, institutional had It sm. and the Muslim religious religious Muslim the and a fml o rltd yet related of “family a s us rm ihn proves within from oups ocsos n colossal in occasions o t movement among the the among movement t trs i suppressing in nterest of Turkish education, education, Turkish of 112 on they lived in the the in lived they on ation of the school the of ation hs relationship This oeta claims. potential chers and other other and chers jyd h full the njoyed ared as early early as ared an CEU eTD Collection ulcss n aiaos rae cevgs ewe conservat between cleavages created agitators and publicists irto, f uh mle i sz, s qal sgiiat n c in significant equally is size, in smaller much if migration, intelli and elite political potential its of much lost minority phe Teachers Islamic the explains Turks from Bulgarian of ideas consciousness of politic flow the trans-border on the impact of their model and proposed Bulgaria, Koksal’s into Y. Turkey and Empire appointments.” 114 117 116 115 identity Muslim and congresses, only 25 at its first and 128 at its sixth in first and sixth congresses, 1911. 128at its 25at its only increa the by demonstrated as 1908, in revolution Turk Young the after influen and popularity The process. the obstructed establishment peopl Turkic-speaking the of awareness “common the – nationalism “ with “Muslim” term the replaced Kemalism 1923. in republic involvi largely opposition intensive, more even more but afte Kemalism similar, of A advent the by incited was time this state of and reforms, thesupporters Caliphate,abolition more a of secular pol the II. Abdulhamid by exiled intellectuals dissident under established were Teachers) (Islamic Union Teachers’ the organiz political Muslim first The slumber. its of out community imm former the snap and sentiments political the stir to and returning educated, exiles, political activists, elites, of movement of networks are ideas of exchange cross-border the for channels Ibid., 199. networks,” Koksal, “Transnational 198-199. pp. Yalamov, networks,” Koksal, “Transnational p.202. Istoria 114

rges a so, n te ak f ud o spot rm the from support or funds of lack the and slow, was Progress , 91 p.

by limiting Bulgarian intervention in the curriculum and teaching teaching and curriculum the in intervention Bulgarian limiting by

58 117 The work of these intellectuals as teachers,as intellectuals these of work The 115 r the establishment of the Turkish the of establishment the r

eti t eirto. Reverse emigration. to gentsia net age Koksal. argues ontent, national consciousness of the of consciousness national uk, ruh pan-Turkic brought Turk”, intellectuals created by the the by created intellectuals ce of the association grew grew association the of ce v rlgos ice and circles religious ive ations in Bulgaria such as such Bulgaria in ations h asie o Ottoman of auspices the e as an entity” – but also but – entity” an as e al dynamics and ethnic ethnic and dynamics al gat rtrig now returning, igrants nomenon. The Turkish The nomenon. se of members at its at members of se itical freedoms. itical g h Bulgaria the ng the Ottoman Ottoman the religious 116 The CEU eTD Collection The intensified confrontation between state and nationalist minority nationalist and consci state national between of confrontation intensified mobilization The in upheaval some to led inevitably 118 minorityescalate. to acts arbitrary allowed and 20s), the in 60 over of out 1944 in left was paper Turkish (one in publications and 1944) in 367 1923to 1300 in schools (from number of them The among organizations, further. and parties deteriorated political many situation banned government the 1934, in coup another After government.of levels highest for po campaign and Muslim politically unite the to Turks among Bulgarian encouraging influence Ankara’s strengthened and nation Turkish was fee but a “imposed It nationalism. Turkish for Turks, hotbed a into transformed Bulgarian of association sports a as started It Kemali preaching and professing Bulgaria in organization major The 121 120 119 St Minority for Center International 1994),Relations, p.27. (Sofia: Bulgaria al. in Muslims et and Zhelyazkova Christians between incompatibility and minorit Turkish fundamentallythe divided and conservatism, of lot a induced eve and least, the say to population, Turkish the on pressure exerted pro-fascist of help the to resorted and camps conservative the th and groups some among nationalism Turkish growing by s Bulgarian Disturbed the self-determination, for claims of radicalization their perceived national community. stand not did parliament of members were who those while governance Ibid. Ibid., p.271. Bulgaria,” Stoyanov, of “Turks 270. p. in in Gypsy,” the and Jew, the Turk, “The Mutafchieva, Vera

121

119 Up until then Turks participated almost exclusively in local in exclusively almost participated Turks then until Up 59 ‘patriotic’ organizations, which organizations, ‘patriotic’ tate took measures to support support to measures took tate Relations of compatibility of Relations ousness. The assessments The ousness. n outright terrorized it. terrorized outright n st ideology was ‘Turan’. was ideology st ucl pltczd and politicized quickly de ad Intercultural and udies ling of belonging to the the to belonging of ling poet ietr A. directors project , of violence against the against violence of ersnain t the at representation for the interests of interests the for elites must have must elites e reactionary new y in Bulgaria.y in ua, u the cut Turan, dne of danger e pulation” 118 120

CEU eTD Collection Bulgaria preponderated greatly over the small secular elite, and as a r a as and elite, secular small the over greatly preponderated reli strong the between illi collaboration the high persisted, limited, population rather was Turan as such agents political Kemalism in Bulgaria, for example: Ibrahim example: Yalamov, Bulgaria,Kemalism in for Bulgaria, of on in book his consolidate consciousness Turkish sections ethno-national see the form of ethnic political parties. political ethnic of form the politiciza of instance final a see to fails but groups, some Kemalis the to linked 1930s the in movement school secular a about talks 122 Turkey,”in in 124 123 co Bulgaria. in minority andTurkish identity ethno-national the consolidating in influence crucial Yalam and Koksal as such authors some to According vary. extent its of n Msis eiiu iett peald vn fe Kemalism after even prevailed identity religious Muslims and eaim n ugra a salr hn rsne b many by presented than smaller was Bulgaria in Kemalism “ in different was which society,” of part indifferent socially narr “politically a into its turned illiteracy, of levels the Turkis of the the “aloofness” with combined the 30s in state violence extensive electi or parties movements, political enduring through leadership re really never was Bulgaria in minority Turkish the authors: of 1998), p.14. InternationalZhelyazkova (Sofia: Center Minority and for Studies Interc See Antonina Zhelyazkova, “The Social and Cultural Adaptation of Bulgarian ImBulgarianZhelyazkova,and Adaptation “The See Cultural of Antonina Social Identity,” Hopken, “From Religious pp.61-62. helpe as how of to Kemalism argument the Yalamov’s For exposition a detailed [Kemalism and its Impact and [Kemalism 2005),Bulgaria],its 205-221. p. (Sofia: in Between Adaptation and Nolstagia: The Bulgarian Turks in in Turks and Nolstagia: The Bulgarian Turkey, Adaptation Between

122 Others are not convinced. Hopkin argues that the effect of effect the that argues Hopkin convinced. not are Others 124 The latter is a concern shared and voiced by a number a by voiced and shared concern a is latter The 60 Kemalizma I Negovoto Otrazhenie v Kemalizma I Negovoto ow-minded, economically feeble, and and feeble, economically ow-minded, tion on a mass scale, especially in in especially scale, mass a on tion uhr sne h ifune of influence the since authors esult, for the majority of Turks of majority the for esult, presented as such by a secular secular a by such as presented eay mn te Turkish the among teracy . 123 iu eie n te state the and elite gious ons. Stoyanov writes that that writes Stoyanov ons. eoiain fo the from denomination” iial, Zhelyazkova Similarly, ultural Relations, ultural Relations, ov, Kemalism had a had Kemalism ov, siuns o the of nsciousness aprtos of aspirations t h minority and h minority d ed. A. migrants migrants CEU eTD Collection oiia dpiain hwvr peetd h eegne f oe c more of emergence the prevented however, deprivation, political epistemic shift was around the corner. wasepistemic the shift corner. around integ include, to sought never policies minority state one-sidedly, exclusion, violent to toleration from swinging while Lastly, condition. im mirror a of something with 1990s the in emerge to was and iniquity unseen to subjected be to was minority Turkish The century. the of end are Turkish-ness their tur even maybe and however, change, to was experiencing this of Much speculation. were Turks common which through the and self-awareness of levels The mobilization. nationalist 125 least. at 1919 since there been had curtailed, though etc., education, Minor though. terms, institutional and organizational in same the claim identif religion-based replacing even perhaps were and start, tow rise the on more much were self-consciousness and nationalism rema will Bulgaria II War pre-World in minority interpretat variegated the and controversies the Ultimately, Turkish the of religious an with “extremely passive community role.” th close to “pushed” thus, was, and Turkey, from isolated but majority,

Stoyanov, “Turks of Bulgaria,” Stoyanov, of “Turks 271-272. pp.

61 125

ctos t ag. t s ad to hard is It large. at ications ions around the dimensions the around ions pcfc ujcie ways subjective specific Nationalist exclusion and exclusion Nationalist n Idbtby Turkish Indubitably, in. ae o asmlt. The assimilate. or rate, ards the end than at the at than end the ards ity rights to language, to rights ity and difficult to define to difficult and n upside down by the by down upside n age of its late 1930s late its of age mlx om of forms omplex mevs f i a in off emselves om o ethnic of forms anybody’s anybody’s CEU eTD Collection ru ad qa ntoaiy mme o te ugra Scait nat Socialist Bulgarian the of member nationality, equal and proud 126 facili provide to best its do would State the that them assuring right these upholding speeches public of number a makes Zhivkov Todor rig full Aft language. own their in literature the and publications education, and policies cultural of benefits the all deserved the recognized repeatedly state Bulgarian the years, those In and power,” andreligious wascultural tightly centralized run ensured, but matters and educationa in autonomy broad model, “internationalist” Soviet the on B Based the stand living years the raise to 10-15 strives ambitiously Party approximately Communist For governments. post-independence the suppre disregard, also but autonomy, cultural broad of years 70 nearly segre de-facto a found government Communist the 1945 in power minority, to Turkish-speaking Coming uneducated largely and rural, entirely Policiesuntilup 1984

Milena Mahon, “The Turkish minority under Communist Bulgaria of et minority Milena Mahon,Turkish “The Communist – politics under s el s nme o Trih agae ulctos n te Turkis the and publications language Turkish an as taught language was extra-curricular activity of number a as well as Univers the at department language Turkish a national was There their culture'. develop to and vernacular, thei their in develop educated to be and vernacular, to right a have minorities 'National that stated o 1947 Bulgaria of Republic People's the of Constitution first The Chapter Turkish 4: The Minorityunder Communism Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Europe and the Southern Journal of

62 , Vol.1, 2 (1999), 155. p. , Vol.1,2(1999), . 126

ties for their implementation. their for ties ard of the Bulgarian Turks. Turks. Bulgarian the of ard er coming to power in 1954, 1954, in power to coming er t t dvlp n enjoy and develop to hts which was the product of of product the was which ssion, and exclusion by exclusion and ssion, ion, whose population population whose ion, uks mnrt a a as minority Turkish 4 December 4 f by the Party. s for the Turks and Turks the for s ity of Sofia of ity , linguistic, l, hnicity h r ulgarian ulgarian

gated, CEU eTD Collection oet, aia sca cag udr omns, olciiain ad Bul and collectivization, Communism, under change social radical poverty, visible are attitudes its in vacillations and regimes previous 127 129 128 the military in high-rankingdiscrimination to and restricted access posi Bulgarian to admission in action affirmative instance for as such ‘other’ as Turks the treating by boundaries group and cultural population Turkish the of integration and inclusion of forms the Further, nati Turkish the promote to effort genuine a than rather compromise t a of mark the bear to seem recognitions these however, then, Even along the Southern border is an “ulcer” and a problem that needs t needs that problem a and “ulcer” an is border Southern the along compac the that and nationalism Turkish of spread the of danger C the Bulgaria the of General Secretary first the 1948, in gr Already has regime the that freedoms the that concern a voices Dimitrov ‘Priobshtavane’ com informers by to pointed factors are nationalism institutional Party The Period. Communist the to new something means no by is o state by reported numbers large of Turkey to emigration for them, among Ankara from propaganda population, Turkish of concentration about of preoccupation a line consistent revealgovernmental and archives h nmes f h dsotn aog h Trs hwvr ae growing are however, Turks, the among discontent the of numbers The problematic and ofattitudes for allowing theby release tensions some Ibid. archives for See 1938-1950s protses,” Baeva p.48. “Vuzroditelniat and Kalinova, protses,” Gruev 111. pp.108, Kalyonski, “Vuzroditelniat and

63 . It seeks to both suppress such such suppress both to seeks It . fficials. in a number of social realms realms social of number a in schools and universities or universities and schools anted to the Turks creates creates Turks the to anted o be eradicated. be o 129 ‘elements’ to leave. leave.‘elements’ to emporary measure and measure emporary tions. The emigration motifemigration The Trih population Turkish t pelling the Turkish Turkish the pelling onality in Bulgaria. Bulgaria. in onality inherits it from the the from it inherits ommunist Party G. G. Party ommunist regions with a with high regions solidify symbolic symbolic solidify 127 and aspirations and

. Extreme Extreme . 128 garian garian State CEU eTD Collection borders was negotiated with Turkey and the latter agreed to accep to agreed latter the and Turkey with negotiated was borders ouain o otmlt rfg i ter ntv’ country. ‘native’ their in refuge contemplate to population but Bulgarians Turkified in the past, which is why the Party should follow a li thea Party the in past, which Bulgarians why follow but is should Turkified 155,000 people were ‘encouraged’ to leave the country permanently on permanently country the leave to ‘encouraged’ were people 155,000 130 Bulgarian-by-or historically the of ideas the minority; Bulgarian Tur the of workings secret the and nationalism Turkish of fears the continuities and motifs familiar Several fanaticism.” national Turk of “revival” the and schools, Turkish independent of restoration the in status national official an to language Turkish the of ascension s a republic, and territories Turkish autonomous of creation the see continues Bulgarians the among rates birth dropping of tendencies the into Turks and“chillingly Bulgarian Muslims was nation straightforward.” goal its and rights cultural and religious of curtailment further by termed as nation’ the to ‘return or (Inclusion) ‘Priobshtavane’ of pronouncement the through introduced was discourse in change official tra established disturbed which force, labor the into women Muslim a restrictions, were religious reductions rights appropriation, and shifts land policy 1950s with the do as early to As having mainly Bulgaria. immigrants there. The stop from not Party did 132 131 communist nation around the latter, rather than the former. the than rather latter, the around nation communist the with population that of сливане”] [“постепенно merger” In 1968, T. Zhivkov declared in a speech given before the Central the before given the speech a in size, declared Zhivkov T. their 1968, In to due Bulgaria in population problematic most

Baeva and Kalinova, “Vuzroditelniat protses,” Baeva p.66-67. “Vuzroditelniat and Kalinova, Warhola and Minority,” Boteva, “Turkish p.262. Ibid.

64

132 He expressed worries that if the if that worries expressed He Bulgarian and the fostering of a of fostering the Bulgarianand transpire in Zhivkov’s speech: speech: Zhivkov’s in transpire 130 Turks, are not actually Turks, Turks, actually not are Turks, of “full assimilation” of the of assimilation” “full of ewe 14 ad 1951, and 1949 Between igin Turks. Along with the with Along Turks. igin the densely inhabited areas, areas, inhabited densely the t the largest by far wave of wave far by largest the t , the future will inevitably inevitably will future the , . iirv I la to lead It Dimitrov. V. tate within the state, the state, the within tate kish state through the the through state kish ce the opening of the the of opening the ce n tyn t attract to trying and ditions. In 1958, an an 1958, In ditions. Committee that the that Committee lready taking place place taking lready ish “religious and and “religious ish the program of of program the ne of a “gradual 131

CEU eTD Collection behind a façade of internationalism were now coming to the forefront the to coming now were internationalism of façade a behind been ripening in the course of decades. ofbeen decades. ripening the course in 133 mor and more were but groups, targeted the by assimilationist as minor actions towards whoseits definition, Brubaker’sby state”, full a becoming to way its on was State Communist Bulgarian The theaters and folklore associations were blended with local Bulgari local with blended were associations folklore and theaters ce virtually Turkish in education and publications emphasized, was pu s the were that freedoms religious secularism and rights cultural and on attack The atheism spreading of Policies ever. than nation. Socialist belongi of sense a acquire would population Turkish the that t expected In encouraged. life socio-economic into integration and restricted, re system, school public Bulgarian the into incorporated children b to was Turkish in Education agenda. Party the on spaces larger and hosti of attitudes and paranoia Nationalist 1878. since w seen anything policies and discourse official by overshadowed minoritypolicies Communist ofnature schizophrenic even and dual The recently until 134 notions state in grounded campaign was a but events, Process’ of turn irrational ‘Revival the that sees one history, Bulgarian modern virtua scarred which issue, expulsion and migration the of recurrence non-Bulgar of “citizens only mentioned 1971 in adopted one the minorities, privileg and rights cultural extensive guaranteed which Constitution, Main: Peter Land, PeterMain: p.108. 1996), Andrei Ivanov, Andrei protses,” Gruev p.115-116.Kalyonski, “Vuzroditelniat and The Balkans Divided: nationalism, minorities, and security Divided: minorities, nationalism, Balkans The

65 ities were not only perceived were not ities rsued, “patriotic education” “patriotic rsued, an ones.an e overtly stated as such by by such as stated overtly e ased to exist by 1974, and and 1974, by exist to ased and practices, which had which practices, and y-fledged “nationalizing “nationalizing y-fledged eventies see was greater greater was see eventies lity previously subdued previously lity ligious activity further further activity ligious e gradually phased out, out, phased gradually e beyond expanding ere lly all governments in governments all lly and occupying larger larger occupying and o a spontaneous a not he long run it was was it run long he es for all national national all for es 133 g o Bulgarian a to ng Unlike the 1947 the Unlike (Frankfurt am a origin.” ian that had beenhadthat 134

CEU eTD Collection integration, and urbanization. and integration, attem presumed despite rural predominantly and compact remained the and Bulgarians, ethnic of that considerably surpass to begin soon populati Turkish the of rate birth the 1944, to relative 1980 by achieved T of percentage the in decrease substantial no Demographically, unsatisfact rather of ‘priobshtavane’ end the the by acculturation and of integration of levels results high Despite deemed still Turks. sel their on effect profound a have would which members, minority the a of mobilization the for conditions ‘favorable’ created naturally cultur of pursuit formal open – Brubaker by proposed condition second nevertheless, was, past the with break fundamental a minorities, ost the despite inception very its from state nationalizing a 135 137 136 See pp.114-116. on the Brubaker, minorities. Minorities,” “National be to qualified as asethnic long as state’ assimilation a ‘nationalizing itself. leadership state the ulm eiiu etbihet a yedd e tnil result tangible few yielded had establishment religious Muslim restricti and pressure the and population, Christian the among those customs and tradition, religion, towards affinities Languageusage, differences and persisted divisions Ethnic ideal. socialist the to Party loyal than rather intellectuals Turkish the among elites was system education public centralized the into integration Ibid. protses,” Gruev pp.119-121.Kalyonski, “Vuzroditelniat and Brubaker nation-state does necessarily a that suggests not pursu to have

135 And while there is much validity to the argument that it had bee had it that argument the validity to much is therewhile And 136

Levels of religiosity were much higher among Muslims than Muslims among higher much were religiosity of Levels 66 members and comrades devout comrades and members actually producing nationalist nationalist producing actually ensible tolerance towards its its towards tolerance ensible r i al pee o life. of spheres all in ory taking place in regard to the to regard in place taking political movement among movement political urkish population had been had population urkish s. , as well as the relationshipthe as well as , seemed hard to obliterate. obliterate. to hard seemed 137 pts to promote mobility, promote to pts there is ais “real effect” there hr wr fas that fears were There f-conception as ethnic as f-conception al homogeneity. This This homogeneity. al n ipsd n the on imposed ons uks settlements Turkish on was predicted to to predicted was on e open ofpolicies e open the 70s, the state state the 70s, the n

CEU eTD Collection been shown in the theoretical study, is the unceasing interplay be interplay unceasing the is study, theoretical the in shown been not themselves are assimilation to recalcitrant so be to proved ‘Revival Process’. ‘Revival “extr by facilitated is which of manifestation and realization dif perceived to “relation in only Georgieva, I. writes matter, b group a of characteristics distinct The forces. out-group and of kind any to Key identity. Turkish the of element inseparable ethni or cultural enduring these that however, mind, in born be should It Ethnicity Persistent 140 138 in History),” Oral an at Attempt 139 efforts them. undermine to spi in Hopken, argues decline, radical a undergo not did past the to World Changing social meaning. structures that process interactive the in too, factor, outside the E. Marushiakova(Sofia: “Club’90 Publishers”, 1993), p.94. Stephen Great the and Process Revival So-Called “The Georgieva, Ivanichka Identity,” Hopken, “From Religious pp.69-70. group. rud s a ‘el u w ae aily itnt …r ta w c we that […or] distinct racially are we us ‘tell’ may us around The itself. about ‘makes’ group the which by process active the and “made” in group the about make others being that claims the […] forces, external of experience passive the both involves Construction

Cornell andCornell Douglas Hartmann, 140

(London: Pine Forge Pine p.81 (London: Press, 1998), 139 Groups imagine, practice and construct themselves, but there but themselves, construct and practice imagine, Groups 138

The Ethnic Situation in Bulgaria (Researches in 1992), in (Researches Bulgaria in Situation Ethnic The Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a in and Race: Making Identities Ethnicity 67

ferences from other groups” the the groups” other from ferences m stains” uh s the as such situation[s]” eme ecome evident and begin to to begin and evident ecome a group and invests it with with it invests and group a identity construction, as has has as construction, identity oe nrni, objectively intrinsic, some tween in-group behaviors behaviors in-group tween te of channeled state state channeled of te ors Gi (An Grip Tourist nttt a onstitute question, world c traits that traits c by is always is ed. CEU eTD Collection 141 143 in national identity, citizenship], 142 according Cornell identity ethno-religious minority’s the construct and define markers of kinds different the rejecting By organized. it groups legitimacy th authority and had much more relationalconstruction identity was us” around “world the Bulgaria in Communism under minorities categorizing. and For labeling over power exclusive almost held which International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural p InternationalMinority and 1995), for Studies Relations, Center man in were members Its legitimacy. epistemic supreme language construction state theby discursive to victim groupfalls stimulation.” to violence from – impact of methods of “spectrum Bulgarian of case the in which means, political efficient through “artificially be can “specificity” own one’s of consciousness ‘Tu of self-classification voluntary or pre-given seemingly encount the in molded is significance subjective their but visibly, as such Krasteva, A. i not says real, course of carry,are themselves practices and people traits The that givens objective group historydistinct ascribed. and the traits, with meanings creat language of politics The everyone. by easily inferred dist and groups Muslim and Turkish the to belong attributes cultural prohibiti the which on premise the speak, to so unsaid, left is What Ibid. grazhdanstvo”[Ethnicit natsionalna identichnost, See “Etnichnost, Anna Krasteva, Ibid. 141

– the state was, in fact, inadvertently defining it, recognizing i recognizing it, defining inadvertently fact, in was, state the –

Identichnosti 68 [Identities], ed. A. Krasteva [Identities], (Sofia: rk’ can be largely imposed. largely be can rk’ es and confirms the existence of a of existence the confirms and es y ways passive receivers of their their of receivers passive ways y mobilized”, continues Krasteva, continues mobilized”, language and religion most most religion and language and policies, which possess which policies, and ers with the ‘other,’ and the the and ‘other,’ the with ers – or the boundaries that that boundaries the or – nvented. There are certain are There nvented. 143 inguish them as such – is is – such as them inguish The outside factor in the in factor outside The uk cvr te entire the covers Turks h Trih minority Turkish The n rs – ht certain that – rest ons an the voices of the an of the voices t, and asserting it. asserting and t, to Hartman and and Hartman to .124. the state, the y, 142 The CEU eTD Collection epes as f ie n cntttd h fnaetl ‘hybridit fundamental the constituted and life of ways people’s orig legacy long-standing a have language, and religion blatantly, point of embracing the practices of the ‘other’ as one’s own w own one’s as ‘other’ the of practices the embracing of point 144 Bulgari in population Muslim-Turkish the of components the Granted, being powerconnected apolitical articul history of to deprived the of to identit and condition current Their it. to conform to had and position social ainl edrhp bt a i raiy nrctl ad indiscri and intricately reality in was but leadership, national discr foreign, considered heritage a was It Bulgarians. Christian Islamic Ottoman, the with breaking of practice and ideology an on L afterbuilding nation Bulgarian briefly,Neuburger to Returning processes nation-building modern of result a is group religious distinct a of attributes ‘organic’ as entir function Their the rule. Ottoman throughout consolidating and Balkans the in conquest Ottoman of languages, customs, religious shared others and Greeks Bulgars, Turks, Mus culture. Ottoman regional broader and Bulgarian, of – again terms ergto o te ainl iig pc ad uooy o Msis w Muslims for autonomy and space f living elements national the Oriental of segregation foreign the excluding and craftin articulating and imagining of process Thus, very the was identity national relatively societies. more homogenous form have might that boundaries many blurred had Empire Ottoman Traditi units. cultural pure exclusive, mutuallyof composed as world le ‘ethnonational’ modern the through retrospect in only such as of thought different of mix a as perceived necessarily even not was life See Neuburger, “Orient Within,” p.28.Within,” See Neuburger, “Orient

69 national or ethnic cultures. It is is It cultures. ethnic or national ays. The common culture and and culture common The ays. g the nation. Ethno-religious nation. the g in Bulgaria (and elsewhere). (and Bulgaria in iberation was reliant heavily reliant was iberation y’ t ad ipnal b the by dispensable and ete times earliest the in inating minately interwoven with with interwoven minately or Oriental heritage of the the of heritage Oriental or n cery on ethno- bound clearly and 144 ons of coexistence in the in ofcoexistence ons erly existed in smaller, in existed erly t ue Neuburger’s use to – ate themselves. ate and traditions to the to traditions and lims and Christians, and lims s ntuetl in instrumental as ns of viewing the the viewing of ns o Bulgarian rom a such as, most most as, such a y is intimately intimately is y e period of of period e CEU eTD Collection permeating of all society. assimilati coercive upon embark – violence legitimate and power pre-existing ethnic plane, but are the very forces structur forces very arethe but plane, ethnic pre-existing vicious cycle if intensifying ethnic polarization. Such processes Such polarization. ethnic intensifying if cycle vicious i their suppress to holders power the of part the on determination tur in ethnicity, of politicization and mobilization This traits. di and solidarity group their of r emphasis exaggerated naturally and opposition minorities targeted the homogeneity, national unsettling dominant majority and its representative state - often possess often - state identi representative its and their majority dominant reassuring attributes those to cling would and threat fe would groups minority marginalized the nation-states, European f typical nationalism nationalizing subtle, often if aggressive, clima a In belonging. of sense their express and sustain understand, which through artifacts cultural the distributed stabili It difference. and fixation the for extent large a to responsible was Turkish the and Bulgarian the – groups two constructed simultaneously Muslim or Turkish to inherent their markers of ideas those reinforced it confining communities, by but ‘other’, the of exclusion well-known B the of boundaries the defined only not dress female and male lan Turkish the Islam, as such ‘otherness’ of markers visible uncontamina ethnically new, the from past Ottoman the separating ugra mre fo ti som pro wt a e o nw ethno new of set a with period stormy this from emerged politics Bulgaria these of climax The assimilation. or history exclusion Bulgarian sanctioned modern in building nation of processes to unrelated chara ethnic recognizable easily and separate The space.

70 ing the ethnic ‘geography’ of a given a of ‘geography’ ethnic the ing cter of Bulgarian Turks is not not is Turks Bulgarian of cter rus n idvdas would individuals and groups ing near-hegemonic access to to access near-hegemonic ing guage, or traditional Muslim Muslim traditional or guage, ty of ethnic stereotypes of of stereotypes ethnic of ty dentity and sets in motion a motion in sets and dentity r oen Central-Eastern modern or ulgarian nation through the the through nation ulgarian n, provokes even stronger stronger even provokes n, do not simply operate on a on operate simply not do ted present. Casting aside aside Casting present. ted n f h frin groups foreign the of on ty. In cases when the the when cases In ty. -political arrangements arrangements -political l jsiid es of sense justified a el ae n 1984-1989. in came nature. This process process This nature. e f otnos and continuous of te stinct ethno-cultural ethno-cultural stinct eact by vehement vehement by eact r ulm n. It one. Muslim or novn state- involving h minority the CEU eTD Collection basic rights deprivations such as prohibiting the use of Turkish la Turkish of use the prohibiting as such deprivations rights basic place prior to the launching of the campaign in 1984. placecampaign 1984. of in the prior the launching to t group the towards policies assimilatory consistent of period police, dogs, state officials, gun-point threats, violence, and rape and violence, threats, gun-point officials, state dogs, police, silenced, began to acquire a more organized form. silenced,acquire a form. began more organized to receivi the on outrage even and discontent Tremendous population. its and try to – propaganda and bureaucracy, military, technology, i deploying was country) the of past agrarian the to (relative 145 Rights Publications, 1994), p.131. Rights Publications, culmina the only was This Bulgarian. as recognized commonly names pop unpr Turkish-speaking an of the campaign of a launched names Party the Communist Bulgarian change the to 1984 In nature and scale The“Revival Process”

nomn u wr sprse b te tt wtot infcn dif significant T without state the the intensify by suppressed to were but served uncommon only events the anticipated, be could As duri resistance and Protests minority. targeted the of consciousness onmsus n ulwn rdtoa rs. ayo hs restrict these of Many dress. traditional outlawing and mosques, down restricti further circumcision, as such practices religious se a by accompanied was This society. Bulgarian-dominated larger form a as meant was minority Turkish the consci of names and the Changing identity the assimilating of process protracted the to the majority.‘silently’ into them integrate used by the state resolute to bring to an end this endeavor. this end an to bring to resolute state the by used See Hugh Poulton, See Hugh Poulton, The Balkans: Minorities and States in Conflict in The Balkans: andStates Minorities

71 ng the freedom of religion, closing religion, of freedom the ng 145 The advanced Communist state Communist advanced The ts entire hegemonic arsenal – – arsenal hegemonic entire ts convert the minds of 10% of of 10% of minds the convert ousness of the group into the into group the of ousness hat sought to gradually and and gradually to sought hat were the tools of coercion of tools the were nguage in public, banning public, in nguage ng the campaign were not not were campaign the ng t of other restrictions and restrictions other of t (London: Minority ng end, though initially initially though end, ng iut. ros tanks, Troops, ficulty. ulation in Bulgaria to to Bulgaria in ulation tion stage of a 25-year a of stage tion ions were already in in already were ions of a ‘final solution’ solution’ ‘final a of rih ethnic urkish ecedented CEU eTD Collection rcie ilcty Trih agae a soe a hm eve home at spoken was language Turkish illicitly, practiced place and in what dimensions. In the years to follow, the program ac program the follow, to years the In dimensions. what in and place ieped Msi nms ol sil erty e ie t ba to ac given defiant “barricade” be the secretly of side still other the would on meantime, names the In Muslim widespread: compliance. ensuring totalitarian effortwas, nevertheless, failure. doomed to and supervision in involved were administration polic the of support in sentiments patriotic foster and instill majority the enterp economic and army the amongschools, as such structures influential ideas these disseminating in leadership political the with readily cooperated press The instrumental was identity. lost ‘conve of acts c spontaneouslybecame who Muslims and Turks the by voluntary,requested the that maintained also government the of part the dec starte policy minority state in Bulgaria,”turn 180-degree the completing in Turks no are “There line. official the asserted Bulgaria in people Turkish all Virtually occupier. the of also but Islam, to converted only not who Bulgarians indigenous were ances the historians, of work the to According identity. true their vol as name-changing the justify to and population Turkish-speaking Bul the of evidence historical provide to was purpose Its auspices. conduc scholarship ideological of resource abundant its unleashed government uig h nm-hnig a i poes te nomtoa “ecli informational the process, in was name-changing the During unaware kept largely was population majority the and complete

72 ies. All levels of government and and government of levels All ies. were of native Bulgarian stock, stock, Bulgarian native of were d in the 60s. Disinformation on Disinformation 60s. the in d mr, n sae ceremonies state and more, n of what precisely was taking taking was precisely what of (or was made to do so) and so) do to made was (or tors of the Bulgarian Turks Turks Bulgarian the of tors garian ethnic origins of the of origins ethnic garian rises faithfully worked to to worked faithfully rises bies, circumcision was was circumcision bies, ae Zikv n 1985 in Zhivkov lared quired publicity and the the and publicity quired untary rediscovery of of rediscovery untary adopted the language language the adopted so’ ee entirely were rsion’ population. Other Other population. s ee becoming were ts pse” was almost almost was pse” onscious of theirof onscious hs full-scale This ted under its its under ted CEU eTD Collection odr wt Tre i te ae er Oe 3000 epe ee enco were people 300,000 Over year. same the in Turkey with borders 146 boycotted. often were The Bulgarian state, from its inception, was never the enlight the never was inception, its from state, Bulgarian The b seen was state [Bulgarian] “The citizens. its of arbiter ethnic ideology. hegemonic powerful a within group minority a makes and constitutes differently understand to and process this over light that interpretative point vantage a assume to us allow instance for theory colonial from tools and Concepts group. ethnic new significantly a extent ult and, politicizing of process recognized, rarely but critical, rela the reflecting aspects crucial last these is It unde that, group minority the of consciousness heightened the and state Ethnicization and Hegemony constituency largest third actor the country. in consistent a –the with and united quickly and politics party democratic Bulgarian nascent the entered of protection the for out af party look political a to Freedoms, and was Rights for which Movement the minorities, 1991 In Muslim and Turkish later“the “voluntarily” Great Excursion”. mockingly onwhat termed was lives. Tumult across the country was escalating, which compelled t compelled which escalating, was country theacross Tumult lives. their and towns and villages swept demonstrations mass and strikes resistan for platform better a build to order in organizations

Dimitrov, “In Dimitrov, p.15. Search,” 146 uks euae eie a frig lea pltcl n disside and political illegal forming was elite educated Turkish

73 tionship between the all-encompassing all-encompassing the between tionship eing the ultimate ‘property’ of ethnic ethnic of ‘property’ ultimate the eing ce. In 1989, a series of hunger of series a 1989, In ce. imately, constructing to a large large a to constructing imately, critical liberalism and post- and liberalism critical he government to open the the open to government he core issues such as what what as such issues core established itself as a key a as itself established suppression took human took suppression state founded on a uni- a on founded state ened universal liberal universal ened r scrutiny, elucidate a elucidate scrutiny, r at mc needed much casts uraged to embark embark to uraged filiated with the the with filiated their rights, rights, their nt CEU eTD Collection ouain b ognzn acs t pwr rsucs ad citize and resources, power, to access organizing “by population (Cambridge: CUP, 2008).(Cambridge: CUP, motnl – hi efcie xlso fo scoeooi life majority.the respect socio-economicto with status subordinated from exclusion effective their – entit importantly cultural distinct as existence their denying simply not arbit potentially least at otherwise are that differences 120, PDF available at http://newleftreview.org/?view=2248, p.4. 120, PDFat available http://newleftreview.org/?view=2248, p.4. 147 representat not but se presence, provided it Krasteva, Anna of words the meaningful of form any state-sponsore of confines the ensure outside participation or empowerment to enough far reaching example, mode minority, Turkish the for autonomy cultural the was Neither that. name-changing the in culminating 1960s the in follow to soon policies and a The successfully. them with away deal not did Communism early socio-economic of legacy II War pre-World post-Independence The Bulgarian in ingrained deeply was Turkish-speakers of exclusion “classe “raced”, that state overarching the but structure other that writes this, acknowledge to theorists many among Jung, Courtney 150 149 148 above standing institution impartial an as than rather Bulgarians society. within division pre some not and politics, and history on contingent deeply outcome” an “c that asserts Jung groups ethnic of origins structural the about polit largely them making minorities, ethnic of roots concealed the Jung, “Introduction.” Jung, See Recognition,”“Rethinking Fraser, Nancy “Introduction,” Jung, Courtney See Ibid, p.9. 150

n e Te oa Fre f nieos Politics Indigenous of Force Moral The her In 74 149 New Left Review Left New This is very often what, in fact, constitutesfact, in what, very often is This rary.” 148 ircgiin f rus is groups of Misrecognition e, u – n mc more much and – but ies, ulture itself is a process and and process a is itself ulture (May-June 2000): 107- pp. national consciousness and consciousness national ical constructions. Talking constructions. ical d” and “ethnicized” the the “ethnicized” and d” d collective progress. In progress. collective d ssimilationist intentions ssimilationist si o te ai of basis the on nship ion; “visibility, but not but “visibility, ion; n rlgto t a to relegation and tnc differences.” ethnic historically it was no was it historically led after the Soviet Soviet the after led -existing objective -existing campaign proved proved campaign suppression and suppression lf-government, 147

CEU eTD Collection eo ad ihn ic te prse gop s ervd f l mea all of deprived is group oppressed the since within and below 151 153 152 activity”. a of assertion and articulation the through counteract to impossible pre-assigned into people slots and categories, and cent identities and authority epistemic highest the as state, The minority. et Bulgarian the of prophecy own its fulfill to tried scholarship extraordi an on occurred violence’that ‘epistemologicaltermed research historical over monopoly the was campaign changing the especially, and, processes assimilation the of accelera legitimation the and nation’, the to earl noted As visible. more ever becomes identities group ‘return control the stage, next the With and hegemony state of dimensions full the attempts, assimilation standards fromfar membership enough for was equal ensure to them. rai but communities, Turkish-speaking the long of exclusion and the subordination with break argument to measures of some introduced line Bulgaria main in Communism Fraser Nancy as inclusion, t and “displaces” redistribution and origins structural true its obscures only Addressin opposes. vehemently liberalism critical something is languagethroughthe injustices redress to tryingor claims, boundaries.social “free and group the for coherence internal complete assumes Fraser, Recognition” “Rethinking 2-3.pp. “Introduction.” Jung, Krasteva, “Identity and p.108. Power,” 151 Cultural autonomy is in itself an “exemption from democratic democratic from “exemption an itself in is autonomy Cultural 152 hs s h cnevn ad raiig oil ie mkn politi making life, social organizing and conceiving why is This

75 and politics of cultural recognition recognition cultural of politics and zes” the status quo and current current and quo status the zes” e uh edd oiis of politics needed much he nary scale, as state-sanctioned as scale, nary and truth. It was what Spivak Spivak what was It truth. and utfcto o te name- the of justification g the issue from this angle angle this from issue the g nc rgn o te Turkish the of origins hnic its capacities to fashion and fashion to capacities its positions, which is nearly nearly is which positions, ier, the main weapon in the in weapon main the ier, lternative discourse from from discourse lternative er of society constructs constructs society of er ns and channels for the the for channels and ns sing the economic economic the sing politics”, which politics”, goes. ting pace of of pace ting rdto of tradition 153 Early cal CEU eTD Collection y eiiin bud p [] ih h rcret xuso o national of expulsion recurrent the with […] up” “bound definition by Language, politics, belonging Language, politics, production and dissemination of discourse.of dissemination and production produces legitimate knowledge and, in turn, it sustains or buttress t buttress or sustains it turn, in and, knowledge legitimate produces 154 i why in is whichlegitimation,” its for basis the asserves by legitimation for basis bel national of own modes of heterogeneity and “complexity its the to Due reiterate only can state 158 157 156 155 (Central European University, 2010). Dec.1, “robbed” make to a tools statement about themselves. of margina the of Ong, Aihwa in ‘ethnicization’, the institutionalizes repre state, the groups into together them bringing and individuals to 159 deprived.” juridically and power of field a within discursivel once “at become who – qualify don’t who those - ones ‘odd’ the c creates state the population its of complexity the overcome coincide”.debate intellectual and leg as recognized spaces accessible publicly those in is categorie social that the create to propaganda its with education saturates and press as such spheres in is It holder. power the on discourses of economy the without power of exercise the understand key: becomes discourse and power between relationship inherent the famous the here and produce could it knowledge the of legitimacy and Ibid. Butler and See Gayatri Judith Spivak, Chakravorty Ibid. Rabinowitz. Krasteva, Power,”“Identity and 118. p. lecture:Approaches Class Ethnicity Dan to Rabinowitz, Anthropological (London: 2007), p.30-32.

156 Through prescribing the appropriate identity categories identity appropriate the prescribing Through 154 76 The stigmatized minority also lacks authority lacks also minority stigmatized The 159 Who the Nation-State?: Sings rm hs tnpit te Bulgarian the standpoint, this From

157 itimate carriers of truth that “politics “politics that truth of carriers itimate ts attempts to ‘purify’ the nation it is is it ‘purify’ nation to the attempts ts s and order it needs to rule over. It over. rule to needs it order and s

literally producing the nation that that nation the producing literally riteria, stipulates and designates designates and stipulates riteria, he dominant position of position dominant he ie sbet wo are who subjects lized Foucauldian notion of of notion Foucauldian senting the majority, majority, the senting the state usurps and and usurps state the i i ipsil to impossible is “it minorities.” onging, the nation- the onging, and State truth.” y constituted constituted y 155 Power 158 The CEU eTD Collection eptae sca, cnmc n oiia onaisbcm li become re boundaries political and and economic debate social, perpetuated heated of topic a and relevant highly becomes eogn i eeya lf, n sat t fe Trih oe than more Turkish feel to starts and life, everyday in belonging t s hog eet ad rtcl oet sc a ms expulsi mass as such moments critical and events through is It waves Bulgariathat historyemigrati by period marked of state is modern I nation. from expel and rights of deprive forefront, the to bring invoke, a but aside, cast enemy foreign the needs It nation. pure homogenous, continuously legitimacyown its reproduce state the canway this place equal an them denies and elements Islamic or Turkish with Or not is that one past, Ottoman its denounces completely that one proper The nation. the of needs the for reproduced continually humanity, r bare of position a in members true the alongside smoldering need always would it however, purposes, these For minorities. Muslim most Historically, nation. Bulgarian the of integrity the disturb of exclusion the with definition by up” “bound be would nation-state hp, o. t s hn ht h Trihsekn mnrt lss the s multiple the identity, loses human of transitivity minority and ‘shapelessness’ Turkish-speaking the that then is It too. shape, through coercion. me contextual and political particular, very a with ‘Turkishness’

ugra oe I odr o nue opine tas f at activist party of ‘applications’ soliciting house house went to civilpolicemen servants and teams compliance, ensure to order In one. Bulgarian eeatlclatoiy akn’t cag n’ uks aet n et an to name Turkish one’s change to ‘asking’ authority local relevant t application an submitting involved ‘renaming’ of process actual The 77 salient have been the Turkish- the been have salient based on the legitimacy of a a of legitimacy the on based ources of identification and and identification of ources teral and obtain a physical physical a obtain and teral cgiin br lf, bare life, bare ecognition, -thinking. It is then that that then is It -thinking. within the nation. Only in in Only nation. the within iental, refuses coexistence refuses iental, aning, however, accepted accepted however, aning, certain minorities that minorities certain nrni ambiguity, intrinsic to have them around, them have to t is, then, no wonder wonder no then, is, t on of Turks. of Turks. on ever before. It is is It before. ever Bulgarian nation is nation Bulgarian lways available to to available lways n ta ethnicity that ons the o . The hnic s, CEU eTD Collection part of its administrative reforms, and also in alignment with the gen the with alignment andreforms, also in administrative part of its rights curtailment in the 30s. in curtailmentrights 160 Kimon Georgiev’s government replaced the names of two-thirds of al of two-thirds of names I the replaced government Georgiev’s Kimon past. the in place taken had toponyms and locations of renaming Sta only. persons to names new giving to themselves limit not did region. Rhodope the mainly covering 1970s early the in effort all-out failed a then 1912, in place took which of more the attempts, scale subjected been had Pomaks The homogeneity. national Bulgarian the minoritie towards politics state Bulgarian in continuity visible wit intoxicated ruler authoritarian an indi of manipulating a method well-tested ratherunrestrained but power, of whim no was 1984 of decision as names new assigning particular, in or, renaming of state act Bulgarian The the by employed strategy assimilatory Renaming of ActThe of theinternalization new role. ultimatel which, ideology, else’s someone of subject a entirety physical compels and body autonomy of loss and and subjugation total is It consent. of manifestations actions very their conquers who else highest the of transformation the probably ide is renamed new Being their that means recipient the of position passive the 161

Mahon, “Turkish Minority,” p.154. Mahon, “Turkish p.154. Minority,” “In Dimitrov, p.15 Search,” outside world.outside f off cut and carriers personnel and tanks by surrounded were villages 160

161

On the eve of the Revival Process, in 1982, a massive numbera massive 1982, in RevivalProcess, the ofeve the On 78 deserves some special attention. The The attention. special some deserves ntity is constructed by someone someone by constructed is ntity s perceived as problematic to to problematic as perceived s , ed t te inevitable the to leads y, symbolic value. Besides, value. symbolic eral tendency of minority of eral tendency te-led campaigns for the the for campaigns te-led one in the 1960s, and an and 1960s, the in one l Turkish settlements as settlements Turkish l Bulgarian governments Bulgarian ; one becomes in one’s one’s in becomes one ; to a number of large- of number a to 13s o instance, for 1930s n vidual identity with a a with identityvidual ntoaiig and nationalizing a rom the rom h a sense of of sense a h n material and CEU eTD Collection Revi ew t cannotOne re-naming. andnamingeffects ofand implications profound esnlt” a cmua ietfcto” ie b te les a elders the by given identification” “communal a – personality” bureaucratic issue used in state records; it is not merely a merely not is it records; state in used issue bureaucratic 162 http://www1.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol10num4/focus/zhelyazkova.html. 163 Neuburger writes refle herself, person very question the damaging Turkish without name Bulgarian the with dealing authors of number A group,seemed largest receive ready intractable to and the the Turks most st the and names Christian given been also had Gypsies Muslim of communication group.betweenthemselves and the “ an constitutes and Georgieva, I. writes power”, “magic a has entire one’s for stand can thus, and, person a invoke to world the for way w symbolism high of position a occupies and self-perception one’s the among is It society. esse and individual an the between as relationship figuring by deeper much runs significance emotional 164 connection God. with signify may is name one’s Losing sp God. under believers in of community Muslims to pertinence full with applies certainly This a identity religious their of component crucial a is name Muslim Antonina Zhelyazkova, “The Bulgarian Ethnic Model,” InBulgarian“The Antonina Zhelyazkova, Ethnic Model,” Georgieva, Revival,”“The p.96. So-Called Neuburger, Within,” “Orient p.143. , Vol.10, 4 (2001), at , Vol.10, 4 (2001), ulm ant nrdc hmef o la atr i dah sne All since to them take to whether decides death, then only and names their by his people after Allah to himself introduce cannot Muslim rel Muslim the nam proper his Without personhood. of of attribute vital a is name person's context the within that, out pointed be should It eaig s daai at f arlg bcue acrig o I to according because, sacrilege of act dramatic a is renaming assuming they had lived in a proper way. theyassuming hadlived in

79

164 163

tool for designation. Its psycho- Its designation. for tool East European Constitutional Constitutional EuropeanEast nd a sign of belonging to the to belonging of sign a nd inextricable component of of component inextricable . ot niae set of aspects intimate most 162 ithin it. It functions as a as functions It it. ithin t ‘aoaoy finally ‘laboratory’ ate Name is not simply a simply not is Name ta mdao i the in mediator ntial t birth as a form of of form a as birth t in Islam losing one’s one’s losing Islam in cfc o wo the whom for ecific . . ake away a person’saaway ake identity. The name The identity. Paradise h calls ah lm a slam, igion, igion, e, the e, t n the on ct CEU eTD Collection circumcision etc. It needed to get a tight grip on all possib all on grip tight a get to needed It etc. circumcision ‘shalvars veil, the as such identity of markers exterior targeted Bulg the process, assimilation larger the of part as why also re or cemeteries Muslim destroyed even and relatives, diseased a files, medical erased Itimmediately names. personal with whythe is This uphold. bureaucracy and institutions pervasive its Itsrenderconformity. powers legiti can hegemonic their ensure outward i of lives inner the control to need not does and cannot state The order. state of maintenance successful the to most matters compliance 165 1984/89),” Pr renaming, and(Bulgarian double identity Turks during the Revival so-called vremepo (Bulgarskiteidentichnost protses’ turtsi na 1984-1989). ‘Vuzroditelnia ofanalysis the experience Djemile the Ahmed, meanings preim ”Ime, of existence. her recognizing only by person Christian-Bulgarian while consciousness private the to person Muslim former the confine space Public unrealistic. be would this amnes completely demand become to needsone however, that mean, not does This To identity. former constantly is society asin it it, and and fr imputed internalizes reiterated submits eventually person The rest. the of care takes surroundings b interplay powerful The transformation. identity towards step Be society. majority a within person a of position the regarding effec far-reaching potential the knew They name. new a taking into name-chang the of master-minds the and representatives Muslim-specific the State and psychological the both of aware well

Foraccountaccompanied beingrenaming by profound a of philos personal Sociological ProblemsSociological

(2003), No.1-2: p.174. (2003), No.1-2: 80

rchival information, records of the the of records information, rchival le domains of social activity in in activity social of domains le etween the ‘self’ and the social social the and ‘self’ the etween implications of being coerced being of implications 165 ra Cmuit authorities Communist arian ’, the ‘fez’, customs such as such customs ‘fez’, the ’, ing renamed is only the first the only is renamed ing placed gravestones. That is is That gravestones. placed name-changing did not end not did name-changing usd mnfsain of manifestations Outside to his newly-ascribed role role newly-ascribed his to oiia ad ideological and political n sae institutions space and ts subjects as long as it it as long as subjects ts s hy ol achieve could they ts n cmag() were campaign(s) ing om the outside. om mate only that, which mate which only that, enuvane i dvoistvenaenuvane i legitimating the new the legitimating ophical ocess of Name, iac of one’s of iac CEU eTD Collection Across Time and Around the WorldAcross the Time and Around 166 Press, 2004), p.13. institutions. by reinforced and reproduced continually are society of composition un to start people which through notions emerging The majority. the unques the differ clearly group thought: monolithic a of as minority the line of existence one sides both for consolidate and uphold to served politic and debates protests, unrest, ensuing the and 1984-5 of campaign ess their ‘rediscover’ and ambiguities and doubts existential own not is however, internalized, and created ultimately was What help it Instead, ‘Bulgarian-ness’. to overnight Turks the converting of Inclusion through ‘Othering’ ‘Ottoman-ness’, ‘non-Bulgarian-ness’… ‘Musl ‘Turkish-ness’, of expressions trample and contain to order premise this on then soundly Resting majority the from separated clea identity unambiguous an with group monolithic a as minority the relat and common stays thought of line the one – “dissonance”, opposition this this of Despite result a as consolidates and sides both for Raymond Grew, “Introduction,” in Raymond in Grew, “Introduction,” power are limited or muffled. In this process the minority is l is minority the process this In muffled. appli or limited direct are power more when even role important an play – politicians involvi reciprocal, is discrim that process a social in legislation by or separation, reinforced be to tends difference of sense constituted and what it stands it for. andwhat constituted minorit the how of perceptions external and internal between dissonance ofte which self-definition, own its develop to and cohesive more as well as scientists social and linguists, census-takers, soci Thus, society. larger the as well as minority the within Once a group is defined as subordinate and subject to special provisi special to subject and subordinate as defined is group a Once

, ed. A. Burguiere(Universityed. A. Michigan and Grew R. , of The Construction of Minorities: Cases for Cases Minorities: of Comparison The Construction 166

81 ent and neatly separated from from separated neatly and ent religious leaders and leaders religious ety’s categorizers – categorizers ety’s and being informed by it, by informed being and unquestioned existence of existence unquestioned im-ness’, ‘Oriental-ness’, ‘Oriental-ness’, im-ness’, ed them overcome their their overcome them ed nil ohres. The ‘otherness’. ential ikely to become to ikely rly different and neatly neatly and different rly nto, spatial ination, the nonsensical notion notion nonsensical the n increases the increases n ng responses responses ng al mobilization only mobilization al esad h ethnic the derstand ulc eae and debate public cations of of cations ons, the ons, ively constant ively y is is y tioned CEU eTD Collection political leadership, policies and public debates as well a well as debates public and policies leadership, political economic cleavages that might stem from them. By the late late the By them. from stem might that cleavages economic differen religious and ethnic immediate erasing even or shrinking e also had economy state-run the into minorities Muslim the include to The Turkish. in than Bulgarian in fluent more be would Turks young Many Com first the that reality the to contrast in substantially la Bulgarian the of cent command and the literacy Their into system. educational incorporated were students Turkish and exist to ceased assimilati non-violent simply or ‘inclusion’ state-lead consistent a as came 1984 in attack frontal the many for at that fact The reached had Turks many that acculturation and integration of levels b debate, the unchallengedand the unaltered, and of timelessness blends with reality slowly of content the over increasing be might Dissonance ar imagined is society which along lines dividing the categories, na and origins the about Questions dichotomy. ‘us-them’ the of confines irrevers already is debate the yet by, above from imposed re to struggling are self-definitions competing, are Identities perpe and discrimination of cycle one into interwoven indistinguishably originat process the where often is former the while And imagined. categori conceptual same those buttress turn, in which, relations t arrangement conceptual Thereal. be It must individuals. of life both strongly impacts and visible becomes divide the importance; gi and it Itsexpressions value. and meaning social relevant with continuously reinforce time same the at experiences subjective

82 munist government of Bulgaria found. Bulgaria of government munist s everyday private interactions and interactions private everyday s by rpe wti te stifling the within trapped ibly ject and overturn the labels labels the overturn and ject ransforms and dictates power power dictates and ransforms 1960s Muslims had become become had Muslims 1960s e rarely raised or paid heed. heed. paid or raised rarely e es through which society is society which through es e t ie y netn it investing by life it ve the material and emotional emotional and material the surprise had to do with the with do to had surprise n Trih col had schools Turkish on. es, the two soon become soon two the es, become real and acquire acquire and real become e a wl a socio- as well as ces the time as a result of result a as time the nguage had increased increased had nguage t t fr remains form its ut xerted its impact on impact its xerted tuating difference. difference. tuating aie Bulgarian ralized persisting effort persisting ue f h very the of ture . . CEU eTD Collection building of groupat crisis times and solidarity conflict. Identities D. writes 1960s, late the by identity ethnic of notion politicized becoming standardized. Far from any utopian images, country-wide i country-wide images, utopian any from Far standardized. becoming 167 ser and importance and visibility acquire suddenly may divisions Such 169 Turkey,” in 168 al was culture” Bulgarian “supra-ethnic the into assimilation 70s politi communal no symbols, outward few with minorities, “invisible bloc different Bulgaria, in progressed reportedly socialism As amongoralready reinforceexisting many sentiments pro-emigration inc of processes through even ‘foreignness’ their about them reminded Bulgaria. in socialism” “national only was there exodus, mass 1989 remem however, sixties, the in Already country. the of ‘organism’ full as minorities Muslim the include to strove allegedly which foll line (inclusion) ‘priobshtavane’ the of outcomes tangible the 1998), 147. p. InternationalZhelyazkovaIntercul(Sofia: Center Minority and for Studies representatives in certain sectors due to “inherent inefficien “inherent to due sectors certain in representatives conce disproportionate and and divisions labor informal for basis organizing as functioning of means a “as irrelevant increasingly B argues economy, of kind this In job. its doing simply or toll’ its Bates, “What’s in a Name,” p.220. Bates, a“What’s in Name,” p.220. Immi See Turks Bulgaria “Understated, Peter in Overexposed: Krasztev, – Identity Minorities,Bates, See a“What’s in Daniel Name? and Polit , Vol.1(2-3): pp.209-210. , Vol.1(2-3): pp.209-210. Between Adaptation and Nostalgia: the Turkey in Turks Bulgarian Adaptation Between

83 cies of the centralized system.” centralized the of cies most complete. most Bates, and by the end of the the of end the by and Bates, wd y h government, the by owed bers an emigrant from the the from emigrant an bers 168 members of the socialist socialist the of members Turks. Turks. production” while still still while production” The state continuously state The ates, ethnicity became became ethnicity ates, ntegration was ‘taking ‘taking was ntegration ics in Bulgaria.”ics in s f h nto were nation the of ks lusion, which revived which lusion, ntration of minority minority of ntration ve as networks for for networks as ve tural Relations, tural Relations, cal voice, and no no and voice, cal grants in , ed. A. , 167 Such wereSuch 169

CEU eTD Collection publicization of the mass exodus helped bring together and politici and together bring helped exodus mass the of publicization T their to them ‘awaken’ can state nation the in participating magnify its salience and attain new dimensions of cohesion. The event The cohesion. of dimensions new attain and salience its rediscove magnify to opportunity the seized leaders its and minority Turkish structure it within mutation permanent a achieving point’ ‘tipping a community unified a as themselves interests,” visualize to come to minorities Turks. other with contact posi privileged enjoyed assimilated,” “perfectly were many 170 degre unprecedented the expl process, the Revival and Turks, the the by of resistance comprehensiveness the pursued, The it suppression minority of politicization and resistance Violence, ofsense and at oppression injustice, times victimization of ethnic belonging, entire an kindle easily could Those inst other. the on minorities and the and side divisions, inequalities, st but the between relationships the such, plague to continued discrimination nominally only felt have might late under high were integration of Levels interviewee. Parla’s 172 171 process’ stayeither returned.immigrants from or who the ‘Revival (2003, work 4):Bulgarian 567.Parla’s pp. includes many interviews with Turkish e Turkish of stories one,” all was it the tell studies anthropological of number A “ when Communism under times peaceful the of reminisce Bulgariawho

Bates, a“What’s in Name,” p.219. Overexposed,” Krazstev, “Understated, p.148. SeeBulgarian-Turkish“Marking Ayse Parla, Border,” Time Along the 172 xrm isacs f ocd siiain evn te n reali no them leaving assimilation forced of instances extreme 170 when Turks did not feel as strangers and had Bulgarian friends, and whe and friends, Bulgarian had and strangers as feel not did Turks when 171 While at such times, writes Bates, “it is not easy for dis for easy not is “it Bates, writes times, such at While

84 urkishness, in the words of Ayse Ayse of words the in urkishness, tions, or did not even have any have even not did or tions,

communism and many Turks Turks many and communism ze the community beyond community the ze and self-awareness. The The self-awareness. and ate and majority on one one on majority and ate sv cnrvry and controversy osive s and their projection their and s Bulgarian, Turkish –Turkish Bulgarian, ter Turkishness, their r Ethnography Ethnography ly new, for many, many, for new, ly

with common common with irns from migrants tc oe for hope stic itutional persed of e n CEU eTD Collection breaching the bans 173 175 174 t to stubbornly “hung who Turks among feeling” national of growth The disposal. their at still practices and slipping persons own their over agency of sensation increasing The objects to cling to Tur of self-awareness ethnic the buttressing of effect The perspective.authors even a necessarily constructivist if not from Turkish minoritygroup.majority for the noti enduring introduced also 1990s the of scene political Bulgarian the onto comm group offeeling,” and content out emotional “increase of “working the in i “strengthening toof divions,” ethnic of ideologization an to led Turks differ of eradication forcible “The scale. mass a on nationalism reassure and highlight to order in traditions themsel forgotten about to statement political turning a By making were Turks Bulgarian Zhelyazkova, Ethnic Model.”“Bulgarian “In Dimitrov, p.15. Search,” Mahon, “Turkish minority,” p.156 rvosy ogte taiin, utm, aiy eed, n my and legends, family customs, traditions, forgotten Previously form of life they were left with was the community based on a a on based community the was with left were they life of form onl The Turks. Bulgarian the of identity ethnic the of strengthening characteristics order preserve in to and characterMuslim Turkish its and premodern, patriarchal,cultural restoredvarious and itself upon in cl community The results. tangible produced mobilization intellectual and This restored. purposively were unification socialist the and trends mod by obliterated been or faded had that ethnomarkers All resurrected. language, religion, familylanguage, the religion, from majority andalienation links It unintended. was policy Communist the of result important most The 174 and reviving old myths and symbols: and reviving myths old and symbols:

85 severe suppression “stimulated “stimulated suppression severe ences between Bulgarians and Bulgarians between ences ves and moving closer to closer moving and ves s s atrd y many by captured is ks nner groupsolidarity,” nner . 173 y organized y

away caused them them caused away heir identity” by by identity” heir . spiritual spiritual ths were were ths common common was the was 175 hi identity, their ons about the about ons on behavioral social

osed osed ern CEU eTD Collection patterns.” protests, refusal to comply with orders and clashes with the pol the with clashes and orders with comply to refusal protests, ulcly hi cnento o te eia Poes n t resis to and Process Revival the of condemnation their publically denie repeatedly have members whose 1985 in founded Liberation National 176 177

encour population Turkish the of portions among campaigns large-scale long the last to organization Turkish illegal the was Movement The Move organization illegal the to ascribed often are bombings The ‘Revival process’ repressions. a terrorist the using and fundamentalists Islamic fanatic Turks dis anti-Turkish extreme the by to referred often are killings B the of children with mothers for car the of up blowing the was a bloodiest The people. nine of lives the took which Varna, and Plovdiv ciand largest second third and airportswere the carried trains including in out bom of sets two 1985, and In1984 deaths. and violence involved and campaign Revival sup public made outrage fashion of instances first the uncompromising of One authorities. and timely a in were attempts organized te minor and organizations illegal of couple a prominently, most and, moment sporadic of consisted rather It movement. together put to managed Turks persecuted that resistance The lasting coordinated, unified group.preservingan around ethno-national of the idea [The Resistance of the Bulgarian Turks against the Forced Assimilation], (R Resistance theBulgarian Forced[The Turks of against Assimilation], the elections. Sahlim Georgieva, “The So-Called Revival,” p.97. Georgieva, Revival,”“The p.97. So-Called Karamustafa, 177 176 Its members are arrested in 1986 and sentenced to prison in 1987. Se 1987. in prison to sentenced and 1986 in arrested are members Its The name-changing campaign spurred an unprecedented grassroot unprecedented an spurred campaign name-changing The Saprotivata na Bulgarskite Turtsi sreshtu na Nasilstvenata TurtsiBulgarskite sreshtu AsimilatsiaSaprotivata

86 course trying to render Bulgaria render to trying course preceded the launching of the the of launching the preceded ice and army forces, strikes, strikes, forces, army and ice t ot f h cnet f the of context the of out cts was far from any sort of sort any from far was ra-oi tan Those train. urgas-Sofia est and to carry out two out carry to and est t by boycotting local local boycotting by t aging them to declare to them aging rrs atcs Any attacks. rrorist nd most brutal act brutal most nd azgrad,Bulgaria, et o Turkish for ment o discontent, of s pressed by the the by pressed ties in Bulgaria, in ties d involvement. involvement. d s mobilization s veral other veral bings

CEU eTD Collection people of Yablanovo, a large village composed entirely of ethnic T ethnic of entirely composed village large a Yablanovo, of people population to engage in hunger strikes and other protest activity s activity protest other and strikes hunger in engage to population of the courage demonstrated by inhabitants of Turkish villages and sm and villages Turkish of inhabitants by demonstrated courage the of The strikes. hunger and procedures, name-changing the to resistance quic Police Secret the suc which activities organizations, mass evanescent or the spontaneous Besides in participate Turks many on, dem the to leading Zhivkov regime. 80s late the in government the to opposition vigorous the u of h poe ie ad ae ln t epoe h big i or in bridge the name-c the out carrying and village the entering from authorities explode to plans make and wires phone the off cut 180 179 178 ‘Revivalgivenof Process’by i the organizations many in a participant theresistance Turkish a illegal2010), is unique accountp.106-107. The during the book of national of number a and Zhivkov Todor Embassy, British the to it sends t agenda its disseminates Proce and side its ‘Revival on agreements international the by affected those of Rights rights Human the for of restoration League Democratic the also is mentioning to Law Worth and Constitution Bulgarian the with accordance in 1988 in founded activity.were their spread to unable shorter significantly for lasted but 1989, and 1984 between period the in “Freedom Winter”, “Long “Struggle”, as such organizations similar number of the people affiliated with it grows fast and they h they and fast grows it with affiliated people the of number dissuad to army and police the of part the on attempts and siege Spring 1989.Spring Poulton, “Balkans,” Poulton, p.140. Ibid., p.63. Ibid., p.62. 179

The members of the League consider themselves instrumental in in instrumental themselves consider League the of members The 87 elp agitate and urge the Turkish the urge and agitate elp hanging. e the locals from resisting, resisting, from locals the e weeping the country in the in country the weeping h as village protests, local local protests, village as h hrough radio Free Europe, Europe, Free radio hrough ” and others were created created were others and ” re are many heroic tales tales heroic many are re urks, put up barricades, barricades, up put urks, s. t noe various invokes It ss’. n question. n question. all towns. In 1984, the the 1984, In towns. all periods of time and time of periods 180 e t peet the prevent to der newspapers. After a three-daya After campaign for the for campaign kly cracks down down cracks kly Protection keeping up keeping ise of the the of ise 178 The

CEU eTD Collection become irrelevant or disappear fully. become fully. irrelevant or disappear oie ewe My 19-30 May between police ex the before days final the – 1989 May in resistance peaceful n wr pltcly mniae fr h frt ie n over in time first the minori for emancipated Turkish politically were the and that declare to as far as goes Ivanov Andrey exclus identify to began they since all it of end the in winner” consciousness, experience, feeling and identification is set in mot in set is identification and feeling experience, consciousness, choic individual superseding interests and identity group over control 181 183 182 strike. hunger dissi for prison the of detainees ethnic the 1987, in protest mass of taking ammunition live and gas, tear tanks, troops, with enter they unprecedented scale of mass participation and publicity. On M On publicity. and participation mass of scale unprecedented authoriti the of control the escaped already has however, situation, y make to way certain most Krasteva. the is Turk a being stop to you m the into assimilation coercive intensifying of condition current beginnin were Turks autonomy. cultural of pre-text the under isolation p from departing radically of process the in was that situation experi be group to marginal interaction the and the center for between and interaction active violent The become to consciousness borders. open to its ain announcement public cl country the across locations various in protestors Turkish of Thousands Krasteva, “Etnichnost,” p.126. Krasteva,“Etnichnost,” Karamustava, “Saprotivata,” p.146-155. Ibid., p.142. 183 h otie rsue rae te ed o chso, nie organi inside cohesion, for need the creates pressure outside The 181 ugr tie ad as rtss eoe wdl epoe t employed widely a become protests mass and strikes Hunger th wo epn wt bua fre klig ad beatings. and killings force, brutal with respond who ,

88 a century becoming a “rational “rational a becoming century a ively along ethno-national lines lines ethno-national along ively ay 29ay s raiis f asvt and passivity of realities ast ajority society. “To compel “To society. ajority ion and internal differences internal and ion ou become one,” writes writes one,” become ou lives. In another instance instance another In lives. th dents of Belene stage a a stage Belene of dents odus of over 300,000. 300,000. over of odus es and has reached an an reached has and es , Zhivkov asks Turkey asks Zhivkov , g to emerge from their from emerge to g e. Homogenization of Homogenization e. ne truh t a – it through enced a frig ethnic forcing was ash daily with the with daily ash y a te “real the was ty ain and zation, 182 o of ool The CEU eTD Collection political actor”. political rvkd y h atc o ter ae bgn o oe taiy towards steadily move to began names their on attack the by provoked Process and advocated its visibility and equal position in Bulgarian in visibilityProcess position and and society. equal advocated its a as initiated identity ethno-cultural Turkish the of “formation” and continued party The politics. party Bulgarian in actor decisive its around consolidated quickly and Bulgaria in Muslims of rights the restoring, of cause the embraced 1990 in Zhivkov of fall the after 184 186 185 current stability. p the and ‘otherness’ essential their of Turks the remind to continued nationalis repeated provoked Parliament Bulgarian the in on MRF the The vote. political the of unity the in powers exceptional and new found 90s the In precursor. excluded and isolated but recognized culturally a representation agency, autonomy, political greater considerably 186 a within rights seek who groups ethnic of movement a or “effort,” an is nationalism Hartman, and Cornell to According nationalism. minority Reviva the Turkis The identity. from an of salvation ensuing the for struggle nation-wide ethnicity of politicization tremendous The ‘ethni latent of state mere a from transition a facilitated Cornell and Cornell and“Ethnicity Hartmann, Race,” 36.p. p.126. Krasteva,“Etnichonost,” Ivanov, pp.110-111. “Balkans,” after and during agenda full-blown a became movement of kind This 184 The MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms) party established s established party Freedoms) and Rights for (Movement MRF The

89

city’ or suppressed ‘ethnic group’ to a to group’ ‘ethnic suppressed or city’ the drive for the “activation” “activation” the for drive the protecting and representing representing and protecting mblzto i Bulgaria in mobilization h d atcpto ta its than participation nd n “encompassing state.” state.” “encompassing n reaction to the Revival the to reaction large constituency as a a as constituency large recariousness of their their of recariousness the Bulgarian Turks Turks Bulgarian the a political sentiment, political a strong positions of of positions strong lsia frs of forms classical bcls, which backlash, t 185

h 8s with 80s the Process l hortly CEU eTD Collection period – of unconstitutionality, as well as of neglecting the living the neglecting of as well as unconstitutionality, of – period 187 effective interests their articulate to position a in are […] and ethnic undisputed as themselves organize and live “can minority Mus the Hopken, writes sentiments Constitution, the in anti-Turkish even entrenched inequalities enduring nationalism, Bulgarian strong Despite is Freedoms and Rights for Movement the of creation the Undoubtedly, Turkishthe of empowerment relative and politicization the of sign Revival Process. the institutions ideas, of outside persistence the illustrate largely to necessary are 1989 after developments the politi ethnic though the of Eventendencies basic some sketching exercise, Continuitiesin the 1990s rights religious and cultural some of return gradual the enabled pa party a such of existence the doubt, no is, it claims, these D fear. ethnic fostering through power retain to votes its using and Bulgarian of involvement generally of enemies its characteristic by accused been - continuously has MRF The corruption and fraud a is clear theelection, with past. the one, last but break ever in coalition governing a constitute helped have votes their that MR in of participation grassroots their nominal how of Regardless politic Bulgarian the on voice unitary a have now minorities Muslim i as Muslims Bulgarian in of majority large actor the attracting political leading a became MRF the establishment Hopken, “From Religious Identity,” Hopken, “From Religious p.79.

90 ts faithful constituency. Turkish and and Turkish constituency. faithful ts and arrangements created by the the by created arrangements and tron of Turks and Muslims that Muslims and Turks of tron cs in Bulgarian in the 90s are 90s the in Bulgarian in cs ly.” politics during the transition transition the during politics to the communities. Through communities. the to ugra pltc swiftly politics Bulgarian and Muslim ethnic groups.ethnic Muslim and espite the validity of some some of validity the espite F politics is, the mere fact mere the is, politics F 187 standard of its electorate its of standard meitl atr its after Immediately y single parliamentary parliamentary single y religious groups, and and groups, religious al stage that matters. matters. that stage al i ad Turkish and lim scope of this this of scope n ethnic and the strongest strongest the in financial in CEU eTD Collection principles and ethnic equality. There has been some success in educ in success some been has There equality. ethnic and principles n rlgos rus ae o vle o tlrne n cvc democracy civic and tolerance of values on based groups religious and peaceful The model. ethnic Bulgarian the ris namely politics, b Bulgarian given avoid have to neighbors Bulgaria troubled democratic for its allowed of that many arrangements unlike The line ethnic Processassimilation. and forced still the by dictated clearly are Bulgaria in field ethnic consi fundamental These levels. political highest the in minorities securing by 1980s of those to similar atrocities future any of and rights cultural basic only of advancement calculated the through prese on based power of distribution ethno-political Comm new under entirely repression severe of realities the to a nor Muslims II, that War World arrangements and rights political conc the and to neither ethnic compared be can The Bulgaria democratic in obtained afterReligiousfallalso largely of freedoms have the restored the been class elective to students Turkish of right the procured have they nat civic inclusive an stressing discourse a and nationalism, Turkish 188 opeetr euain n uks, tnmnt diy es broadc r news minority daily basic ten-minute only a astelevision, well as some symbolic rights. cultural attainment Turkish, the in speaks education complementary which of so, consciously “self-res of program a adopted have whythey is This well. this and Bulgaria present-day in question the of out is Muslims for restoration A minorities. for privileges and rights of sphere ma to managedhas MRF the field, political the wisely playing

bd, p7-8 I Hpe’ ve te ainls o te R i rather is MRF the of nationalism the view Hopken’s In pp.74-78. Ibid.,

91 unn mmre o te Revival the of memories burning traint” of the broad cultural autonomy cultural broad the of ke some limited progress in the in progress limited some ke representation for the Muslim the for representation 188 es in their native language. language. native their in es the MRF understands full understands MRF the and symbolic or ‘benign’or symbolic and derations structuring the the structuring derations ion based on democratic on based ion ruling out the possibility the out ruling ation for instance where instance for ation e to a new concept in in concept new a to e vn te tnc peace ethnic the rving Zhivkov regime. regime.Zhivkov co-existence of ethnic of co-existence essions made prior to prior made essions ns. hr i an is There unism. as well as older older as well as s o national on ast d uk have Turks nd odhd along loodshed gt sc as such ights iie, and limited, CEU eTD Collection en ukn udr h srae ic ad s ay o nlm a t at inflame to easy is and since surface the under lurking been people. people. 189 ai Tdrv o te subject. the on Todorova Maria Ne concludes relationship”, Bulgaro-Turkish the rendering of the academic in outweig “would sentiments” anti-Turkish extreme “most the in ideas The years. five past the in prominence and heights new attained anti-Tur powerful a unleash to managed Process Revival The enemy. past Ottoman the of symbols and myth on soundly rests it and Communism, and histor education of legacy the in embedded is it prevalent, generalin very Patriot history. Bulgarian of facts undisputable as line this na the into Bulgarian date, To voices. alternative with ideas away do and imaginary these instill to was however, did, Process Revival histori the What narratives. other among historiography, Bulgarian long-st their have they 1980s; the in historians ‘Revival’ by invented Mus all of origin native Bulgarian the about Ideas today. Muslims confli violent of lack rather or peace, ethnic about of notions idealization population the This saturate which attitudes, other obscured roote deeply and times Ottoman to back dating ‘komshuluk’ of traditions importantly, most and, w a to sentiments, birth gave Communism under assimilation narratives, forced Attempted historical ideas, of social relations. inform keep to scene democratic shaky Bulgarian the through way ha Process’ ‘Revival the during magnified orintolerance created Neuburger, “Bulgaro-Turkish Encouters,” Neuburger, “Bulgaro-Turkish p.7

189 laae, itut n ee sniet o ethnic of sentiments even and mistrust Cleavages, 92 ic history education in Bulgaria is is Bulgaria in education history ic ve also securely worked their securely worked also ve continuity of discourse and discourse of continuity ing present-day ethnic and and ethnic present-day ing cal propaganda during the during propaganda cal lims in Bulgaria were not not were Bulgaria in lims nationalist discourse uses discourse nationalist imes of elections. It has has It elections. of imes the new deeply political political deeply new the h any substantive change substantive any h kish sentiment that has that sentiment kish minorities, Turks, and Turks, minorities, anding continuity in in continuity anding d in the mentality of of mentality the in d t i Blai has Bulgaria in ct, inls collective tionalist hole new industry new hole and the Turkish Turkish the and y during written uburger quoting quoting uburger CEU eTD Collection turbulent events here Process’ is of it the like stay. ‘Revival to looks la reality new This minorities. Muslim and Turkish the of dimensions

93

rgely shaped by the the by shaped rgely CEU eTD Collection oiia ft o te ioiy ok hm hog tms f far- of times through them took minority the of fate political ec ad rseiy ee ee icie twrs acceptance. towards inclined never were prosperity and peace sought to incorporate ethnically. State as well as popular a popular as well as State ethnically. incorporate to sought repr and deprived economically, discriminated and excluded It itself. nationali Bulgarian the state, the in climate ‘ethno-political’ nation building. of Regardless the current and Bulgarian poli nationalism however, constant, one is There group. the obliterate culturally Bul the vis-à-vis assumed attitudes and policies of array The broa and toleration benevolence, from pole, to pole from stretching and perceptions. outside organizat current their defining experienced Turks the suppression mos the was latter The assimilation. complete at attempt an integra top-down violence, and oppression exclusion, deep with combined of the driving forces for its transformations and at times visi times at and transformations its for forces driving the of religious subdued a from evolved Bulgaria in minority Turkish The p and policies state Bulgarian group. ethno-national conscious highly

myths and histories are the pillars on which the legitimacyof the which on pillars the are histories and myths unrea rather are however, expectations, Such dismantled. them around state-ideologic the and minoritie Muslim and Turkish the reconsideredwhether to as questions begs This are notions such before equality Bulgarian nationhood. indispe as relations social and institutions state through reproduced ‘ Ottoman the and ‘Turk’ blood-thirsty the about myths and narrative Conclusion 94 ttitudes even in periods of relative of periods in even ttitudes t recent and most ruthless form of form ruthless most and recent t ig ee sopd o manifest to stopped never zing the state rests. This raises, then, raises, This rests. state the bly the major determinant. The The determinant. major the bly present at all times and that is is that and times all at present reaching religious autonomy autonomy religious reaching d autonomy to attempts to to attempts to autonomy d h dmnn national dominant The ion, awareness, cohesion, cohesion, awareness, ion, garian Turks seems wide seems Turks garian slavery’ are continually continually are slavery’ olitics were always one one always were olitics al industry constructed constructed industry al sbe opnns of components nsable tical conjunctureand tical se pltcly or politically, essed itc sne those since listic, s can ever receive receive ever can s tion, and, finally, finally, and, tion, community to a to community CEU eTD Collection pre-determined of theby state. founding that moments rbes o mnrte mgt i i te ey dooia str ideological very the in lie might minorities for problems

nation-state. Their misfortunes as well as their very existe very their as well as misfortunes Their nation-state. et exclusive an of idea the nation-stateson founded in minorities of insurmountab possibleand inherent the about questions disturbingmore even

95

nce as minorities may actually be be actually may minorities as nce cue f h encompassing the of ucture hnic nation. That is to say,to is That nation. hnic le disadvantages disadvantages le CEU eTD Collection ______. “National Minorities, Nationalizing and States, NationalMinorities, External Hom “National______. ——— Vol.1(2-3): pp.201-225 InBrubaker, Groups.” “Ethnicity Rogers. Without bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika%20na%20BKP.pdf Bates, Daniel G. “What’s in a Name? Minorities, Identity Minorities, aBates, in Name? Bul in G. “What’s and Daniel Politics Problems Kalinova.IskraBaeva, and Evgenia (Bulgarianthe so-called Turks of during 1984/89).” Revival Process na 1984-1989). ‘Vuzroditelnia renaming, protses’ identity Name, and double Ime,Ahmed, Djemile.” (Bulgarskite identichnost turt preimenuvane dvoistvena i World Changing 2007. London: belonging. politics, StephenCornell, and Douglas Hartmann. Lan and Chakravorty Sings Gayatri Butler, the Nation-State?: Who Spivak. Judith nte New Europe.” the in 1995): pp.107-132. Brubaker, Rogers, and Frederick Cooper. “Beyond Identity.”In Brubaker, “Beyond and Frederick Cooper. Rogers, Bien, David. “Imagining the Huguenot Minority in OldRegimeFrance.”the HuguenotBien, Minority “Imagining in David. Intercultural Relations (IMIR), Sofia 2000. At 2000. At (IMIR), Relations Sofia Intercultural 1944-1989.” turtsi i International a pomatsi romi, Center for Studies Minority kum vBulgaria.BKP Buksenshutz, Ulrich. politika na “Maltsinstvenata Politikata N.J: Princeton UniversityN.J: Press, 2006. bulgarskite turtsi [ turtsi bulgarskite 2004. Harvard Cambdridge,RogersUniversiBrubaker, Massachussets: 7-27. pp. A. Burguiere and R. Grew, pp.65-97. University of Michigan Press, 2004. ofA. Michiganand Grew, Burguiere Press,pp.65-97. 2004. R. University World for Cases Minorities: Acrossof Timeand theAround Comparison . 2 vols. Sofia, Bulgaria: Darzhavna Agentsia "Arhivi" [State Archive Sofia, Bulgaria:2 vols. [State "Arhivi" Agency]. Darzhavna Agentsia University 2004. Press, Harvaredited Massachussets: by Brubaker, 28-63.pp. Cambdridge, Rogers Nationalist Politics Town aTransylvanian in and Nationalist Everyday Ethnicity (2003), No.1-2: 166-178.pp. (2003), No.1-2: . London: Pine Forge Pine London: Press,. 1998. The RevivalBulgarianBulgarian state Turks Process: and the the Daedalus Vuzroditelniyat protses: Bulgarskata durjava i protses: durjava i Bulgarskata Vuzroditelniyat Bibliography , Vol. 124(2), What Future for the State? (Spring, Vol.124(2), Future for What the State? Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a in and Race: Making Identities Ethnicity 96 Ethnicity Without Ethnicity Groups, http://www.imir- Ethnicity Without GroupsWithout Ethnicity , pp. 1-147. , 1-147. pp. In The Construction The Construction Sociological Sociological garia.” . Princeton, edited by , edited by, edited si vremepo si guage, evrei, evrei, ty Press, ty d Identities elands nd , ] . , CEU eTD Collection ______. ______. At http://ebox.nbu.bg/pro/12%20Dimitar%20Giudurov%20+.pdf. Religious ofpolicies Bulgaria and the Muslims]. (1919 naGyudurov, Bulgaria miusiulmanite politika Dimitar. i “Religioznata Gurr, Ted R. Ganev, Venelin I. “History, Politics, and the Constitution: Ethnic and Conflict Consti I.Ganev, and the Constitution: “History, Venelin Politics, 1992), In at an Attempt Oral History).” Ivanichka.Georgieva, Revival Process So-Called Gr “The and the Great Tourist Minority Affairs, 1997. Minority Affairs, 1997. andEndelman, of Discontinuities Jewishness Todd. Constructions “Continuities Euro in in Gruev, Kalyonski. and Mihail Aleksei Grew, Raymond. “Introduction.” InGrew, “Introduction.” Raymond. Istanbul: Isis Istanbul: Press, 1990. aminority of fate culture, and political “There Ali. NoEminov, Turks Bulgaria.” in Are Isis Press, 1990. Vesselin. ofDimitrov, Bulg “In TheNation: Assimilation Search a Homogeneous of Minoritya Fateof Political and Culture, In 1878-1944.” Bulgaria, in Turks “The J. R. Crampton,

pp.66-89. Across Time and Around the WorldAcross the Time and Around Europe [History department Annual], Vol.2(2007):[History 342-390.pp. Annual], department Institute United Peace States c1993. of Press, Adjudication in Postcommunist Bulgaria.” Postcommunist Adjudication in 1789-1945.” In1789-1945.” of Michigan Press, 2004. of Michigan Press, 2004. World theand Around Communist regimeCommunist komunisticheskiyat [ rezhim University of Michigan Press, 2004. University Michigan Press, 2004. of Turkish Minority, 1984-1985.” Turkish and Other Muslim Minorities of Bulgaria of andOther Minorities Muslim Turkish Minorities at at Minorities edited Elena by Marushiakova, 1, no. 4 (2000): pp. 1-21. 1, no.4(2000): pp. The Construction of Minorities: Cases Minorities: Across of Time Comparison for The Construction ] risk . Sofia, Bulgaria: Ciela, 2008. , edited by Grew,Burguiere R. University, edited A. and pp.127-146. : a global view of ethnopolitical conflicts. conflicts. view: of a global ethnopolitical The Revival Process: the Muslim communities andthe Muslim The the Revival Process: The Construction of Minorities: Cases for Cases Minorities: of Comparison The Construction Vuzroditelniyat protses: miusiulmanskite obshtnosti i i protses: obshtnosti miusiulmanskite Vuzroditelniyat Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority and IssuesMinority in Ethnopolitics Journal of The Ethnic Situation in Bulgaria (Researches Bulgaria in in The Situation Ethnic , edited by A. Burguierepp.1-14. edited A.by and Grew, R. ,

pp.94-97. Sofia: “Club’90 Sofia: Publishers”, 1993. pp.94-97. 97 , edited Kemalby Karpat, 203-222. pp. , edited by Kemal Karpat, pp.43-77. Istanbul: Karpat,pp.43-77. by editedKemal , In The Turks of Bulgaria: the history, the history, Bulgaria: of TheTurks In Slavic ReviewSlavic Godishnik na department Istoria Istoria Godishnik nadepartment The Turks of Bulgaria: The History, History, The Bulgaria: of Turks The . London: Institute of Muslim ofInstitute Muslim . London: , Vol.63,1(Spring, 2004):

Washington, D.C.:Washington, -1925)” [The ip (Anip aria’s tutional tutional pe,

CEU eTD Collection ______. “Identity and Power: Communist and Postcommunist Discourse and Postcommunist Power: onMinorities.” “Identity______. Communist and before, under and since Communism.” In and since Communism.” before, under Identity The Religious Tur Mobilization: Hopken, “From Wolfgang. Ethnic to

Karamustafa, Sahlim. edited by Hugh Poulton and by and Hugh Poulton London,Suha Taji-Farouki, pp.54-81. 1997. edited Ivanov, Andrey. Main, 1996. Courtney.Jung, “Introduction.” Köksal Yonca. “Transnational networksBulgaKöksal and the states: “Transnational Yonca. Turkish minority kin in Fate of a FateMinority of Identities: andModern ethnic GypsKolev, changes social in “Shaping Deyan. Bulgaria, 2010. In Karpat, “Introduction.” Kemal. ResistanceBulgarianForced Turks of against Assimilati the the [The identity, citizenship] In identity, citizenship] Krasteva, natsionalna grazhdanstvo.”Anna. identichnost, “Etnichnost, nationa [Ethnicity, International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations, 1994. Intercultural InternationalMinority and 1994. for Studies Relations, Center Kepell, Jilles 5 pp. and Antonina Zhelyazkova, Nielsen partners Jorgen in and Muslims between Bulgaria incompatibility Christians In Turk, and the theMutafchieva, Jew, Gypsy.”Vera. “The Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations, 1995. Intercultural Center and for Studies Relations, Minority International andIvan Makariev, Plamen 111-164.pp. Bogomilova, Sofia: Katzarski, Turks BulgariaKrasztev, in Immigrants Peter. Overexposed: “Understated, – power.” Intercultural and 1998. Relations, Bulgaria of ethni minorityMahon, Milena.Turkish “The Communist – politics under International 140-181, Center Sofia: Antonina Zhelyazkova, for Studi pp. Minority Between Adaptation and Nostalgia: The Bulgarian Turkey, in Turks Between and Nostalgia: Adaptation and the Zapatistas 2004. period.” Central EuropeanBulgaria MA Thesis. Communist Universi during the 1878-1940.” In Petekston, 1998. Petekston, Communities and IdentitiesCommunities Journal of Southern EuropeJournal of and the Balkans The Balkans Divided: Nationalism, Minorities, andSecurity Minorities, Divided:The Balkans Nationalism, Nationalities PapersNationalities Saprotivata na Bulgarskite Turtsi sreshtu Nasilstvenata sreshtu Asimilatsia na Turtsi Bulgarskite Saprotivata , edited by Kemal Karpat, pp. 1-15. Istanbul: IsisIstanbul:, edited Press, 1990. by Karpat, 1-15. pp. Kemal . New York: Cambridge University 2008. Press, Identichnosti The Moral Force of indigenous politics: critical liberalism liberalism critical politics: indigenous of The Moral Force The Turks of Bulgaria: The History, Culture and Political The CultureHistory, and Political Bulgaria: of The Turks , edited byBulgaria:Krasteva, 103 - Anna 123.Sofia, 38, 2 (March 2010): 191-211. 38,2(March 2010): [Identities], edited [Identities], AnnaNonkaby Krasteva, 98 Muslim Identity and the Balkan State, Muslim Identity andthe Relations of compatibility and compatibility of Relations , Vol.1, 2(1999): 149-162.pp. , director project of the edited by edited . Frankfurt am in Turkey.”In in y community in ks ofks Bulgaria -62. Sofia: on]. Razgrad,on]. city andcity ria, ty,

l l

es CEU eTD Collection Neuburger,“Bulgaro-Turkish the B Re-Imagining Mary. of and Encouters the ______. ______. ______. “Terms of Belonging: Turkish immigrants from Bulgaria imagined “Terms______. Belonging: from Turkish immigrants the of in ______. ______. Bulgaria atand“Treaty Ango Signed Turkey. between Friendship of ioiy n h Pol' Rpbi o Blai. In Bulgaria.” of Republic People's the in Minority LawTh Law: International in Minorities of Rights “The Mete. A. Tuncoku, BulgariaBetween and“Treaty Turkey.” Peace of (1878- 1995).” (1878- Todorova, Maria. “Identity (Trans)Formation Among Pomaks in Bulgaria. ” In”Todorova, Bulgaria. “Identity in Maria. Pomaks Among (Trans)Formation Karpat, pp.159-178. Istanbul: Isis Istanbul: Karpat, Press, 1990. pp.159-178. a FateMinority of and Political Culture, The History, Bulgaria: European 2010. Dec.1, University, Bilal. Minority “TheIn Bulgaria:Simsir, History in Turkish and Culture.” 1994. Publications, Dan. lecture:Approaches Class Ethnici Rabinowitz, to Anthropological

International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural InternationalMinority and 1994. for Studies Relations, Center InTajfel, Psychology Social “The Henry. of Minorities.” Kepell, Zhelyazkova, Jorgenand Jilles 268-272. pp. Nielsen Sofia: partners Bulgaria in and Muslims between Christians Ankara, 1986. InTurksStoyanov, of Bulgaria.” Valery. “The Parla, Ayse. “Marking Time Along the Bulgarian-Turkish Border.” AlongBulgarian-Turkish Parla, Ayse. Time the “Marking Poulton, Hugh.Poulton, pp. 561-575. pp. League of Nations, TreatyLeague Nations, of Series Borders: Remaking Cultural Identities in the New East and Central Europ andCentral theEast Identities in New Borders: Cultural Remaking Modern Bulgaria 1997. Langman, Press,Boulder, Laszlo 63-78.pp. Kurti and Westview Colorado: Juliet Categories homeland.” New diss., PhD York University, 2005. , Vol.8, 1,Supplement: Official Documents 1914): pp.27-45. (Jan., The Turkish minority press in Bulgaria: its history andtragedy, history its Bulgaria: press minority in The Turkish 1865-1985 The Balkans: Minorities and States in Conflict in andStates Minorities The Balkans: The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and the Negotiationof Nationhood in Within: in andthe Negotiationof Nationhood The Orient Muslim Minorities , 309- 343.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. East EuropeanEast Quarterly . Ithaca,. N.Y: University Cornell Press, 2004. , vol. 54 (1926): pp.127-133. 54(1926):, vol. 99 Relations of compatibility of andincompatibility Relations , vol.31, 1(March, vol.31, 1997): 1-20.pp. The American Journal of International International The American Journal of , director of Antonina the project Human Groups and Social Social Human Groups and . London: Rights Minority The Turks of Bulgaria: The The Bulgaria: of Turks The Ethnography ra, October 18,1925.” ty andty Central State. , edited Kemalby e Case of the Turkish the of Case e The Turks of of The Turks ulgarian Nation ulgarian Beyond Beyond 2003(4): e

, edited by . CEU eTD Collection ______. ______. ______. “The Social and Cultural Adaptation of Bulgarian Immigrants of Bulgarian and Social Adaptation in “The ______. Cultural ______.“The______Bulgarian Ethnic Model.” problem”[Islamicization of the proble Balkans as historiographic Bulgaria]. 2005. Sofia: Balkanite katoZheliazkova, istoriografski na“Isliamizatsiata Antonina. Community Sofia, 2002. Bulgaria]. in Turkey.”In Intercultural and 1997. Relations, Zhorzheta Center Aleksiev,International Nazarska. for and Minority Sofia: communities Muslim Bozhi Zhelyazkova, the Balkansin edited Antoninaby 1, Intercultural Relations, 1998. Intercultural 1998. Relations, At http://www1.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol10num4/focus/zhelyazkova.html. Vol.10 No.4 (2001). Yalamov, Ibrahim.Yalamov, At and W. Warhola,Bulg Minority James Orlina Boteva. Turkish “The Contemporary in Istanbul: Isis 260. Press, 1990. Constitution]. [Turnovo “Turnovska konstitutsia” Minoritya of Fate Political and Culture, History,

Miusiulmanskite Obshnosti Na Balkanite IIstorichesk Na V Balgariia: Obshnosti Miusiulmanskite Nationalities PapersNationalities edited by Antonina Zhelyazkova. Sofia: International Center for Minority St Zhelyazkova. CenterInternational edited forAntonina by Minority Sofia:

http://www.kingsimeon.bg/downloads/Turnovska_Konstitucia.pdf. Kemalizma I Negovoto Otrazhenie v IKemalizma NegovotoBulgaria Otrazhenie Istoria na Turskata Obshtnost Obshtnost naTurskata vIstoria Bulgaria Between Adaptation and Nolstagia: The Turkey, in Turks Between Bulgarian Adaptation , Vol.31, 3(Sept. 2003): pp.255-279. 100 East European Constitutional Review EuropeanEast Constitutional , edited by Kemal Karpat, pp.241- Karpat, Kemal by edited , [History the Turkish of [Kemalism and its Impact and its in [Kemalism

m]. In m]. i Eskizii

. Fate of Studies Studies udies and aria.” dar ,