One step forward, two steps back: the Bosnian educational system as a means of strengthening ethnonationalism. Master thesis August 2018
Tea Martic (1365746) MSc Crisis and Security Management Under supervision of: Dr. Myriam Benraad Leiden University 21057 words ABSTRACT
After the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina education has become segregated on the basis of ethnonationalism in an effort to suppress ethnonationalistic tensions. This dissertation examines the influence of the infusion of ethnonationalism through education on the students’ historical perceptions of the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995. Through a combination of a content and discourse analysis of the history textbooks, a survey with the students and interviews with the teachers the purpose of this dissertation is to analyse the interplay between what the books show, what the teachers tell and how the students understand and reproduce this information. After conducting field research in a Bosniak, Croat and Serb primary school, this dissertation finds that the infusion of ethnonationalism through education influences the students’ perception of how and when the Bosnian War started and their perception of who helped Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war. This ethnonationalist influence also becomes visible in who the students consider to be the “winners and losers” of the war. The different perceptions of the history of the Bosnian War are a result of the call for ethnonationalist rights through the right to educate in their own language and from their own perspective. As a consequence, the Bosnian educational system contributes to the societal security dilemma. However, this dissertation also finds that students in schools with multiple ethnonationalities show less ethnonationalist influences and have a more neutral perception of the history of the Bosnian War. Segregation in education has proven to be counterproductive.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people that I would like to thank for their help and assistance in preparing for my field research. Also, I would like to thank the people that have helped me during my time in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the people that have inspired me to write my thesis by sharing their thoughts and ideas. Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Myriam Benraad, for her assistance throughout the whole process, for the understanding and all the useful comments and thoughts. Second, I would like to thank Andrea Knezevic, library assistant at the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, who made all the documents on former Yugoslavia and the war in Yugoslavia available for my research. Third, I am highly indebted to all the people that brought me into contact with either the schools or the ministries. Nada Stajic, Stana Krajina, Stjepan Krajina and Senad Hedzic, thank you for all your time and effort in order to organize my field research in the best way possible. I would like to give special thanks to Nada Stajic for making my entire stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina so pleasant and adventurous. Fourth, I would like to thank all of the schools, especially their directors and history teachers that were willing to find the time to let me conduct my research and to discuss the current system. It was their willingness to participate in this research that showed both bravery and positivity and made me believe that there is hope for change in the educational system in Bosnia in Herzegovina. Fifth, my sincere thanks goes to Mustafa Mustajbegovic for the inspiring conversations and for always providing food for thought. Last but not least, I would like to thank all of the students that participated in this research. The questions in the survey covered a very sensitive topic and it is likely that these questions reminded the students of their own family history. Therefore, I think that it was very courageous of them to try to answer these questions as honestly as possible. I sincerely admire their bravery.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK- ETHNONATIONALISM AND ETHNIC CONFLICT 9
3. METHODOLOGY 18
4. THE CURRENT BOSNIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM 25
5. ETHNONATIONAL INFLUENCE IN WHAT IS WRITTEN, SAID AND HEARD 30
6. CONCLUSION 59
LIST OF REFERENCES 64 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWS 68 APPENDIX B: HISTORY TEST SURVEY (TRANSLATED) 70
4 One step forward, two steps back: the Bosnian educational system as a means of strengthening ethnonationalism.
1. INTRODUCTION
“Forming a nation does not presuppose the possession of a common state or language, nor a common culture or shared religion; all that is truly indispensable is the sense of their members that ‘they participate in a common past’” (Budak, 1999, p. 15).
During and after the Bosnian War (1992- 1995), the education system of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) became highly decentralized, politicized and nationalistic, promoting competing visions and identities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Swimelar, 2013). Education and youth are among the most fertile grounds to study the cultural production of new forms of identity and solidarity (Hromadzic, 2008). While in Yugoslavia education played a crucial role in both creating and solidifying a Yugoslav identity and at the same time respecting ethnic differences, education in post-war BiH represents a key arena for nationalist and ethnic divisions (Swimelar, 2013). According to Swimelar, the three separate ethnonational groups in BiH, the Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs, all exploit education as a means of manifesting nationalism through calls for human rights, especially for their individual ethnonational group. These rights translate into the right to be educated in their own language, the right to have public support for their cultural preservation and the right to cultural autonomy (Swimelar, 2013). This also translates into the use of textbooks as the most important tool for the promotion and formation of national identity (Bartulovic, 2006). However, instead of promoting a unified Bosnian identity, the textbooks used by different mono-ethnic schools promote separate, exclusive identities (Bartulovic, 2006).
During the pre-war Socialistic Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), all cultural and historical heritages from the individual republics were suppressed in order to create a solidifying Yugoslav identity (Hromadzic, 2008). Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had an enormous cultural heritage from their time as a part of the Ottoman Empire, suddenly had to get rid of many of the traditional religious institutions. All memories of previous episodes in history were banned in Tito’s Yugoslavia (Bet-El, 2002). Soon after the death of Josip Broz Tito, the former leader of SFRY, in 1980, the contrasts between the ethnicities became visible again. In combination with the manipulation of these ethnonationalist feelings by the
5 politicians, the SFRY became destabilized resulting in the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995 (Kondylis, 2010). The war ended with the signing of the Dayton Accords in December 1995, resulting in the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina where 51% of the territory has become a Bosniak-Croat Federation and 49% of the territory has become a Serb Republic (see figure 1) (Owen-Jackson, 2015). This Dayton Peace Agreement was not only supposed to end the ongoing war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By creating a political structure that avoided any ethnic fusion on institutional levels, the creators of the peace agreement expected the agreement to be a long-term solution for the ethnonationalistic tensions in BiH. This high autonomy that was given to the separate entities has also resulted into their abilities to design the educational systems in favor of their ethnonationality (Russo, 2000).
Figure 1: Division of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Republika Srpska (Serb Republic) and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosniak-Croat Federation).
Source: Owen-Jackson, 2015, p. 127
While educators and politicians have recognized the role of education in socialization, identity formation and the promotion of peaceful relations; education as a non-traditional ‘security’ issue has been neglected by international relations scholars (Nellis, 2006). However, the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that education can be used not only as a socializing tool, but also as a potential security threat (Swimelar, 2013). According to the
6 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Bosnia and Herzegovina’s current educational system represents a serious obstacle to the reconciliation, stability, security, institution-building, economic recovery and the sustainable return of refugees (OSCE, 2002).
When summing up potential security threats, education has previously not been considered as a classic potential security threat in comparison to for example organized crime, terrorism and climate change. However, education is a human right and the societal insecurity can be intensified by the human rights exploited by the ethnicities. Swimelar has argued that the Bosnian education system leads to a societal security dilemma (2013). According to Swimelar, this dilemma appears when “the attempts of one group to attain societal security and promote its identity through cultural and rhetorical means lead to perceptions of insecurity by another group, which then attempts also to support its identity and gain security through similar means. These cultural means can be the call for human rights within education, such as the right to learn in one’s own language and from one’s own cultural perspective” (2013, p. 162). The concept of societal security was first introduced by the Copenhagen School of Security, in order to enable the security analysis to look at the “society” as a referent object, and not only the “state”. As Sadzovski argues, in societal security, “identity based threats and insecurities are of primary concern” (Sadzovski, 2015, p. 55). As Buzan and Waever argue, “survival for a society is a question of identity, because this is the way society talks about existential threats: if this happens, we will no longer be able to live as ‘us’” (Buzan & Waever, 1997, p. 242 as quoted in Sadzovski, 2015, p. 55). Now, a societal security dilemma occurs when two or more sub-state groups use conflicting and competing nationalisms and identities in order to strengthen their identity and security, which in turn weakens or threatens the identities of other groups, preventing the formation of a common national identity (Swimelar, 2013, p. 168). The uncertainty, misunderstanding and fear created through this societal security dilemma may lead to an unintentional conflict (Sadzovski, 2015, p. 56).
As Swimelar has argued, the Bosnian education system leads to a security dilemma (2013). In order to strengthen their own security and identity, the ethnonational groups may choose to promote their rights through education, such as the right to learn in one’s own language and from one’s own cultural perspective (Swimelar, 2013, p. 162). As already mentioned above,
7 education as a non-traditional security issue has been neglected by international relations scholars (Nellis, 2006). Therefore I would like to make a contribution by investigating whether these rights to learn from one’s own cultural perspective and own language lead to an eventual misinterpretation of the history, resulting in more segregation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this dissertation I will research to what extent does the infusion of ethnonationalism through education in Bosnia and Herzegovina influence students’ historical perception of the war (1992-1995)? The societal relevance of this research is to argue that ethnonational segregation does not necessarily lead to long-term peace between the ethnonationalities, like the creators of the Dayton Peace Agreements hoped. Rather, the segregation can lead to a societal security dilemma resulting in a potential new conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As the students learn about the Bosnian War in 9th grade of primary school, at the age around 14/15, I will conduct field research and carry out a comparative case study among three primary schools in BiH. However, in order to lay foundation for my research, this thesis will first provide a theoretical framework explaining ethnonationalism in general and ethnonationalism in BiH. Next the methodology will be discussed, followed by an introduction to the Bosnian educational system and the analysis of the results of the research. Finally, all findings are synthesized into a conclusion, where the contribution of the research to the current academic knowledge is discussed and suggestions for any further research on ethnonationalism in Bosnian education are made.
8
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK- ETHNONATIONALISM AND ETHNIC CONFLICT
Even though there were multiple efforts in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s to remain a multinational state through self-identification, modernization, political participation, demographic considerations and intergroup relations, these efforts were not able to withstand the forces of the rising ethnonationalism in former Yugoslavia (Kourvetaris, 1996, p. 163). This resulted in an ethnic conflict between 1992 and 1995 (Dyrstad, Ellingsen & Rod, 2015). In order to understand the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the war that has led to this situation, a thorough research on ethnonationalism, its roots and how it leads to ethnic conflict is required. In order to understand the importance of education in the formation of separate ethnonational identities, I will make an effort to discuss the controversy concerning nationalism and whether it is a social construct or primordial. As I believe that ethnonationalism is a social construct, Benedict Anderson’s theory on imagined communities will be summarized. Finally, I will discuss the intergroup contact theory, which states that intergroup contact can have positive effects on reducing prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998).
2.1 The Definition of Ethnonationalism
According to Dyrstad et al., what we consider as ethnonationalism today has previously been labelled as “intolerance (Massey et al., 1999), prejudice (Strabac and Ringdal, 2008) and ethnic exclusionism (Simkus, 2007a)” (Dyrstad et al., 2015, p. 10). All of these previous terms are loaded with negative emotions. According to Manza and Crowley, racial sentiments, anti-immigrant and anti-globalization sentiments fall under a broader scope of ethnonationalism (Manza & Crowley, 2018, p. 29). According to Kourvetaris ethnonationalism can be defined as ‘subnational movements for autonomy or independence organized along linguistic, ethnic, religious, or cultural lines’ (Connor, 1991 as quoted by Kourvetaris, 1996, p. 164). This can result in ethnic conflict as a consequence of social or political change (Kourvetaris, 1996, p. 164). The collapse of communism in the former Yugoslavia has led to an identity crisis followed by the creation of new subnationalist and revolutionist ethnopolitical movements (Kourvetaris, 1996).
9 However, when looking at the word itself, it consists out of ethnos and nationalism, which can be translated to nationalism towards your own ethnic group. According to Chandra, we usually understand ethnic groups to have a common ancestry or a myth of a common ancestry, a common region of origin or a myth of a common region of origin, a common culture or elements of a common culture such as religion, language and customs, a common history, a bond with a homeland and a sense of solidarity (Chandra, 2006). Latest definitions of an ethnic group have incorporated the descent rule, where all of these cultural elements do not matter; all that matters is the parentage. The ethnicity of the parents automatically becomes the ethnicity of the child (Chandra, 2006, p. 407). According to Chandra, the best-fit definition of an ethnic identity is that ‘ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which eligibility for membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described here simply as descent- based attributes)’ (Chandra, 2006, p. 398). Thus, the word itself encompasses nationalism towards the group you descent from which shares the same ancestry or elements of a common culture. However, most dictionary- definitions, just as the definition as given by Kourvetaris, include an element of interest in political autonomy for its own ethnic group. The definition of ethnonationalism as given by oxford dictionaries is “the advocacy of or support for the political interests of a particular ethnic group, especially its national independence or self-determination” (oxforddictionaries.com, 18 May 2018). All of the definitions above suggest that ethnonationalism may eventually lead to ethnic conflict. This suggestion also becomes visible in Gurr’s theory about state power and communal groups in ethnopolitical conflict. He has come up with three analytically distinct orientations, with ethnonationalism as the first orientation that motivates regionally concentrated people to seek either independent statehood or extensive regional autonomy. Their main political objective is “exit” (Gurr, 1994, pp. 354). The second orientation towards state power is indigenous rights, which refers to the original inhabitants of a country that are occupied with the protection of their lands, sources and culture against the new state builders and developers. Their main political objective can be translated to “autonomy” (Gurr, 1994, pp. 354). Finally, contention of power is a third orientation where groups have a dispute about the distribution of, or access to the power (Gurr, 1994, pp. 354). Going back to the historical labels that have been considered ethnonationalism, such as intolerance and ethnic exclusionism, I believe that ethnonationalism does not necessarily mean intolerance towards other ethnic groups. Rather, the seeking of political independence
10 and autonomy suggests intolerance towards the status quo created by the government. If a particular ethnic group perceives disadvantages in their community, their feelings of being disadvantaged translate into intolerance towards the status quo that sustains these subjective disadvantages in the first place. To conclude, however, I do not think it is a necessity to incorporate interests of political autonomy in the definition itself of ethnonationalism. Rather, in a multi-ethnic state, ethnonationalism can be defined as “nationalism towards one’s own narrow ethnic group instead of nationalism directed towards a common geographical territory and its multi-ethnic identity” (Dyrstad, Ellingsen & Rod, 2015, p. 5).
2.2 Ethnonationalism By Birth or Born After Conflict?
When studying the literature on ethnonationalism, two distinct perspectives on ethnonationalism become evident. There are scholars that regard ethnic conflict and civil war such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina as evidence that the old resentments among the nations and religions were at most suppressed during the time of the communist authoritarian rule (Kourvetaris, 1996; Bet-El, 2002). Bet-El stated “conflict is inevitable in the region, due to embedded disputes between the ethnicities, which had been kept under control by the communism of old Yugoslavia” (2002, p. 216). Dyrstad, Ellingsen and Rod belong to another group of scholars, who do not believe “that widespread nationalism on the grass root level per se leads to civil war, we observe that it can serve as a reservoir that nationalist and populist elites can tap into in order to promote nationalist politics, thus hindering a consolidation of the post-war state” (2015, p. 5). These scholars believe that a conflict emerges out of other factors, whether social or economic or political, and that an increase in ethnonationalism is the result of conflict. Whether ethnonationalism results in conflict or is the result of conflict leads us to the debate on primordialism. Primordialism is “an explanation of group solidarity as derived from ‘primordial’ ties which bind people together, either by virtue of genetic links” (Smith, 1998 as quoted by Coakley, 2018, p. 332). Primordialism claims that nationality is something given to human beings by birth and is as natural as speech, sight or smell and that nations are something ancient (Özkırımlı, 2017 as quoted by Coakley, 2018, p. 334). Gurr argues that one view on ethnic identity is this primordial view, where an ethnic identity is genetically based and therefore stronger and more important than loyalties to larger social units, such as the state (Gurr, 1994, p. 348). Primordialism as a theory would imply that
11 ethnic violence is a result from antipathies that are permanent characteristics of the ethnic group and thus that hostility among ethnic groups is an eternal condition (Fearon & Laitin, 2000, p. 849). The opposite view is that ethnic identities do not weigh more than any other type of identity and that “they become significant when they are invoked by entrepreneurial political leaders in the instrumental pursuit of material and political benefits for a group or region” (Gurr, 1994, p. 348). However, when we consider ethnonationalism solely as an instrument used by politicians in the pursuit of political benefits for a group or region, we dismiss the mindset of ordinary people who actually think that they are born into an ethnicity and thus think that ethnicity is primordial. Thus, even when ethnonationalism and ethnic identity are imposed top-down by politicians in order to achieve political goals, it would not work if there were no ordinary people that believe that ethnicity is primordial. Therefore, it is crucial for politicians to make the people believe that the ethnic groups that have been created by humans are not created but primordial. This process is also known as a process of reification, where human phenomena and products are presented as if they are non-human. Instead, they are “facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will” (Berger and Luckmann, 1967, p. 106). As Berger and Luckmann argue, reification can be described as “an extreme step in the process of objectivation, whereby the objectivated world loses its comprehensibility as a human enterprise and becomes fixated as a non-human, a non-humanizable, inert facticity” (1967, p. 106). Hence, even though I do not believe that ethnonationalism is something primordial, I do believe that politicians try to reify ethnonationalism and ethnic identity to make the ordinary people believe that this identity is a fact of nature. Once they succeed and the community believes that ethnicity is given by birth, even when it is not necessarily true, one can speak of ‘everyday primordialism’, where the community in their everyday lives and interactions believes in ethnic primordialism (Fearon & Laitin, 2000, p. 848).
2.3 Ethnonationalities as imagined communities
In his book Imagined Communities; Benedict Anderson explains how and why nations have become socially constructed. Anderson mentions the paradox where nationalism is relatively new in the eyes of historians while in the eyes of nationalists; nationalism is an antiquity that cannot be traced back to a beginning (Anderson, 1983, p. 5). Anderson proposes a definition
12 of a nation which states that it is “an imagined political community- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” (Anderson, 1983, p. 6). These communities are imagined as, even in the smallest nations, none of the members will know all of their fellow-members, yet will always feel connected to them (Anderson, 1983). An imagined community is imagined limited, as even the biggest community will have finite borders isolating and separating them from other imagined communities (Anderson, 1983). An imagined community is imagined as sovereign, as every nation dreams of being free (Anderson, 1983). Finally, according to Anderson, an imagined community is imagined as a community because it is considered as a “horizontal comradeship” (Anderson, 1983, p. 7). Anderson argues that “nationalism has to be understood by aligning it, not with self• consciously held political ideologies, but with the large cultural systems that preceded it, out of which - as well as against which - it came into being” (Anderson, 1983, p. 12). One of the cultural systems that preceded nationalism was the religious community, which started to decline with the explorations of the non-European world, when the conception of men became widened both culturally and geographically. This decline was strengthened by the “gradual demotion” of the sacred language used by religions (Anderson, 1983, p. 18). The other cultural system was the dynastic realm, with its legitimacy derived from divinity and not the population (Anderson, 1983). However, after 1789, the principle of legitimacy had to be “loudly and self-consciously defended”, leading to a decline in dynasties (Anderson, 1983, p. 21). However, these two cultural systems can be seen as precedents of the nation as religious communities regarded themselves as cosmically central and connected their community through the sacred language and dynastic realms made the difference between their dynasty and foreigners very clear (Anderson, 1983). Together with a change in the “apprehension of time”, where simultaneity became introduced in the eighteenth century through the emergence of newspapers and the novel, it became possible to think of the “nation” (Anderson, 1983). Both the newspaper and the novel showed how it is possible to think of different events performed at the same time, by actors who are largely unaware of each other (Anderson, 1983, p. 26). This made it possible for people to think about themselves, and to relate themselves to others simultaneously, similar to people from an imagined nation (Anderson, 1983, p. 26). Therefore, it is not surprising that Anderson regards the emergence of print capitalism as the origin of imagined communities (1983, p. 37). With the emergence of print capitalism, the amount of publications in the vernacular increased in order to maximize circulation as the majority of people was not able to read the sacred Latin language (Anderson, 1983).
13 According to Anderson, these print-languages have led to the creation of national consciousness in three different ways: they created unified fields of communication below Latin but above the vernacular, it gave a new fixity to language which leads to the idea of antiquity which is so central to the idea of the nation and the creation of “languages of power” which dominate over other languages creating sub-nationalities (Anderson, 1983, pp. 44-45). Anderson ends the chapter on print capitalism by stating that “we can summarize the conclusions to be drawn from the argument thus far by saying that the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation” (1983, p. 46). Soon, governments adopted these new languages and a nation-state could be created (Anderson, 1983). Thus, in his book Anderson extensively discussed the creation of a nation as an imagined community. Also, he discusses how modern nation-states instill their nationalist ideologies “through the mass media, the educational system, administrative regulations, and so forth” (Anderson, 1983, p. 163). In imperial times, education was used as a tool to assimilate the children from the colony to the nation of the colonizers (Anderson, 1983). Thus “age-old” nationalism has become in a way propagated through mass communication and modern state- controlled educational institutions (Anderson, 1983, p. 227). Here the role of history in education becomes apparent, as the idea of antiquity in nationalism is very important (Anderson, 1983). As Anderson mentioned in the beginning, in the eyes of nationalists, a nationality is an antiquity that cannot be traced back to a certain beginning (Anderson, 1983). Therefore, teaching a common history becomes crucial in propagating age-old nationalism through education, as it gives a sense of connection to the nation throughout the past and present simultaneously. According to Anderson, this simultaneity and the feeling that the whole nation is moving steadily down history is a necessary condition in the idea of the imagined community (Anderson, 1983, p. 26).
2.4 Ethnonationalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina
According to Sekulic et al., the resurgence of ethnonationalism in Yugoslavia has been one of the most severe expressions of ethnic subnationalism (1994, as quoted by Kourvetaris, 1996, p. 172). It is known that throughout history all Balkan states have relied on ethnonationalism in their nation-building process (Stavrianos, 1958 as quoted by Kourvetaris, 1996, p. 174). All of these states emphasize ethnicity as the most important element of the nation-state rather
14 than citizenship, so this has been reflected in their national histories, public institutions, national literature and education (Kourvetaris, 1996, p. 174). When Hodson et al. conducted research on ethnic intolerance before the war in Yugoslavia they concluded that, even if there were ethnic divisions, these divisions were a weak explanation for the development of the war (1994 as quoted by Dyrstad et al., 2015, p. 7). Before the war in Yugoslavia, a substantial part of Yugoslavia and BiH in particular used to declare itself as Yugoslavs instead of declaring themselves part of their own ethnic group. Pre-war inter-ethnic relations were often described as peaceful and neighborly (Dyrstad et al., 2015). The last census in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was held in 2013, showed that the current population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided in Bosniaks (48%), Serbs (37%), Croats (14%) and a remaining group (1%) (Dyrstad et al., 2015, p. 8). Even though BiH has experienced geographical segregation of the ethnic groups, the population has stayed rather mixed (Dyrstad et al., 2015). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 5 stands for “strongly agree”, Dyrstad et al. have concluded that the mean score for ethnonationalism among the population in BiH is 3.07, which means, “neither agree nor disagree”. This number has been based on a survey on ethnonationalism indicators among the citizens and the results have been shown in table 1 (Dyrstad et al., 2015, pp. 12- 14). The geographical distribution of ethnonationalism per region in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been shown in figure 2.
15
Table 1: Ethnonationalism indicators in BiH as gave by Dyrstad et al., 2015, p. 14.
Figure 2: Geographical distribution of ethnonationalism in BiH (Dryad et al., 2015, p. 15)
Dyrstad et al. predicted that members of a local minority should be more ethnonationalist than members of a local majority. However, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the opposite is
16 true as minorities turned out to be less nationalistic than the majority of the region (Dyrstad et al., 2015, p. 18). On average in BiH, if the homogeneity of a region increases, the ethnonationalism of both the majority and the minority increases as well (Dyrstad et al., 2015). Thus, if a region is more heterogeneous, the ethnonationalism of both the majority and minority groups decreases.
2.5 Intergroup Contact Theory
Dyrstad et al. have shown that in Bosnia and Herzegovina ethnonationalism has proven to decrease as the heterogeneity of the region increases (2015). In 1954, Allport formulated the intergroup contact hypothesis in which he argues that intergroup contact can reduce prejudices towards the other group if the situation for the intergroup contact is marked by four key conditions: equal group status within the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, law, or custom (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 66). For equal group status within the situation, Allport stressed that it is important that both groups expect and perceive equal status in the situation (Cohen & Lotan 1995, Cohen 1982, Riordan & Ruggiero 1980, Robinson & Preston 1976 as quoted by Pettigrew, 1998, p. 66). Allport listed common goals as another key condition because an active, goal-oriented effort can reduce prejudices towards the other groups (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 66). Therefore, group projects and sport tournaments are crucial in in schools in multi-ethnic regions to set common goals for the children of different ethnonationalities. The third key condition is intergroup cooperation, where the realization of common goals must be an interdependent effort without any competition between the groups (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 67). The final condition for intergroup contact to reduce prejudices is the support of authorities, law or custom. According to Pettigrew, intergroup contact is more widely accepted and has more positive effects if there are explicit social sanctions (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 67). When authorities support both groups in the situation, norms of acceptance become imposed (Pettigrew, 1998). This theory can also be applied to education, therefore this thesis will also analyse whether these key factors are present in multi-ethnic classes.
17
3. METHODOLOGY
For this research, I will conduct a comparative case study among 3 primary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina: - A Bosniak primary school in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - A Serb primary school in the Serb Republic - A Croatian primary school in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina The reason I have chosen these cases is because they represent schools of the three major ethnicities that have been at war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As there are no Serb schools in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb school is located in the Serb Republic. Because the Serb Republic has one curriculum for all schools, whether they are Bosniak, Serb or Croat, I have decided to incorporate a Bosniak and Croat school from the Federation, as the federation allows for more variation in the school curricula. Even though most schools are segregated on the basis of ethnonationality, in some regions it is impossible for a student to attend the school of his own ethnonationality due to for example the distance of the school. Therefore, if there are no mixed schools nearby and the school of their own ethnonationality is too far away, some parents may decide to send their child to a school of a different ethnonationality. In order to examine what influence this has on the child I have created the following subquestion: - How does the decentralized ethnonational education system influence a student from ethnonationality a attending a school from ethnonationality b?
In order to achieve the best results in this research, it is necessary to examine the interplay between what the books show, what the teachers tell and how the students understand and reproduce this information. Therefore, I will gather data through three different methods: - Surveys among the primary school students in the form of a history-test on the Bosnian War 1992-1995. - A content and discourse analysis of the chapters on the Bosnian War 1992-1995 in the used history books. - Interviews with the teachers on ethnonationalism and possible information distortion.
18
3.1 Surveys (SEE APPENDIX B)
As the students learn about the Bosnian War 1992-1995 in year 9, I have created a ‘survey’ in the form of a history test on the Bosnian War 1992-1995. The history test is one general test that will be produced to all students from year 9 from all three cases. The test is composed of open questions, consisting of questions about the facts of the Bosnian War, and questions that are more subjective to measure the ethnonationalist feelings of the students as well. The test will be made available in both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet. The students may choose in which language and alphabet they wish to answer. Afterwards I will check objective questions compared to my control variable: the history of the war as described by Muhamed Filipovic in his book “Pitanje Odgovornosti za rat u Bosni i Hercegovini 1992- 1996 godine” (The question of responsibility for the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992- 1996). I am well aware that it is hard to find an objective history of the Bosnian War. However, Filipovic analyses the responsibility of multiple countries and how they contributed to the war in a critical and structured way. In my opinion, neutral answers neither favour nor disfavour any of the ethnicities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and mention critical points in the history of the Bosnian War. Thus, when certain events are not mentioned, it will also be considered as a distortion. Therefore, certain chapters of Filipovic his book will serve as a control variable. For every question, whether it was objective or subjective, I will create 4 categories to sort out the data gathered: - The given answer inclines Bosniak ethnonationalist influence. - The given answer inclines Serb ethnonationalist influence. - The given answer inclines Croatian ethnonationalist influence. - The given answer is neutral. Within these categories, again, two separate categories will be created: - The student answered according to the history that has been taught at his or her primary school. - The student did not answer according to the history that has been taught at his or her primary school.
19 To be able to separate the answers in these two categories, a content and discourse analysis of the history books and interviews with the teachers are necessary, in order to find out what is exactly taught.
3.2 Content and Discourse Analysis
The second method I will use is content and discourse analysis of the chapter on the Bosnian War 1992-1995 in the history books the schools use. Again, I will compare the history that is taught in these books with the history of the war and the responsibility of the war as written by Muhamed Filipovic. The information that is gathered will be linked to the place of publication of these books and to the answers that the students have given on the history test. For each fact, points will be given where 0 points means the history taught is neither favouring nor disfavouring any of the ethnicities. When a fact is distorted, it will receive 1 point. For each book, the points will be added to a final sum. The higher the sum, the more facts have been distorted in the book. Each fact that has been distorted will be analysed to see whether the distortion is in favour of the ethnonationality that the school belongs to or not.
3.3 Interviews with the Teachers and Directors.
The final method to gather data is interviews with the teachers and directors. In these open interviews, I will ask open questions on how they teach the history, how the students react and whether they perceive certain information as distorted. The second part of questions will be on parts of the history books that have been rather subjective. I will ask whether these teachers are aware of this distortion and how they communicate this information to the class. These interviews mainly serve for a better insight in the students’ responses on the history test. For each case, I will conduct an open interview with two people: both the history teacher of year 9 and the (assistant) director of the school.
3.4 Unit of Analysis and Unit of Observation
In this research, the unit of analysis is the primary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The unit of observation are the students, teachers and history books from primary school (year 9)
20 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Year 9 specifically because that is the year when students are taught about the Bosnian War 1992- 1995.
3.5 Conceptualization and Operationalization
Ethnonational education system – an education system of either Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats or Bosnian Serbs that manifests nationalism toward their own ethnicity through a mono-ethnic curriculum favouring their own cultural and group rights. Indicators: - The language of instruction of the school and the alphabet used in the school (Latin or Cyrillic alphabet). - The holidays favoured and celebrated by the school. - The place of publication of the history books (e.g. Istorija, published in Belgrade, used by schools in the Serb Republic (Torsti, 2007)). For each school, the separate indicators of an ethnonational education system will be discussed.
“Two schools under one roof”- This is an administratively unified school with two separate curricula. There is a unified management, while preserving ethnic segregation and segmental autonomy for the separate ethnonationalisms (Hromadzic, 2008).
3.6 The Cases
As already mentioned before, Bosnia and Herzegovina has a complex legal system when it comes to their education (Russo, 2000). In the Serb Republic all schools conform to one system and curriculum on the level of the entity, where the Minister of Education has the most influence. The system in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is more complicated as the decisions about education have been taken down a level and are made on the level of the canton (Russo, 2000). However, according to Besim Dzanovic, director of the primary school in Tesanjka, even within cantons with a significant number of people from the other ethnonationality (whether Bosniak or Croat), schools have chosen to take the regulation of the school down for one more level to the level of the municipality. On this level, the municipality mayor functions as the prime minister and the head of social activities functions
21 as a ministry of education. Often these heads of social activities have no connection to or background in education (Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). In total I have contacted nine different schools that were all willing to participate in this research. What surprised me was that smaller schools both in the Serb Republic and in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not require approval of the ministries of Education. Bigger schools in the Serb Republic and schools in larger cantons in the Federation required an approval by the ministry of Education (Serb Republic) or ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of the particular canton (Federation of BiH). Unfortunately, after keeping me in suspense for two months and multiple official applications, both ministries declined because they were “too afraid” of the sensitive content about both the war and ethnonationalism in general. The applications have been declined on the basis of “not contributing to the improvement of the educational system in Bosnia and Herzegovina” for five of the nine schools I have contacted. The four remaining schools, that did not require an approval of the ministries, were happy to participate as they were convinced it would improve their reputation if they allowed the research to be conducted. As Besim Dzanovic, director of the primary school in Tesanjka, said: “if our educational system cannot be on the level of Europe, the least European thing we can do is be European in our mind-set and allow for research” (personal communication, 26 April 2018). The schools that agreed to participate are primary school “Kulin Ban” in Tesanjka, “21. Mart” in Matuzici, “Ivana fra Frane Jukica” in Zabljak and “Milan Rakic” in Kotorsko. All four schools are located in villages in a radius of 11 kilometres around one bigger city: Doboj. The geographic location of these schools is shown in figure 5. There are clear borders between these four schools that are located not far away from each other: these borders are visible but also tangible through the conversations with the directors and teachers. In the region there is a clear line dividing the Serb Republic and the Federation of BiH and simultaneously a line dividing the Croat Canton of Usora from the other Bosniak Cantons surrounding Usora. The primary school in Kotorsko is located in the Serb Republic, the primary school of Zabljak is located in the Usora Canton and the primary schools of Matuzici and Tesanjka are located in the Bosniak Cantons surrounding Usora Canton.
Primary School in Matuzici
After an interview with the history teacher of the primary school in Matuzici, Alma Halilovic, I found out that the school has decided to not teach about the Bosnian War at all. The school
22 is a mono-ethnic Bosniak school with the majority of the students Bosniaks and only two Croats attending the school. Mrs Halilovic told me that she finds it unnecessary for the children to be taught about the war and that the war is too recent to be discussed in history class (personal communication, 26 April 2018). She mentioned that a few years ago they did try to introduce the war to the children of year 9 by showing them a movie about the war. Half of the class was laughing nervously while the other half was crying. Therefore the school immediately decided not to teach about the war anymore. When students do come with questions about the war, Mrs Halilovic refuses to answer. As this research is focused on what the children learn about the war and the primary school in Matuzici refuses to teach about the war, this school does not meet the requirements for this research. Therefore, the research itself will only include the primary schools in Tesanjka, Zabljak and Kotorsko.
3.7 Number of Respondents
For the case of the primary school in Tesanjka, I have interviewed the history teacher of year 9 and the director of the school together. In total, 25 children received the survey and all 25 students were willing to respond. In the primary school in Zabljak I have held separate interviews with the history teacher of year 9 and the assistant director of the school. In Zabljak 12 students of year 9 received the survey. However, one of the students refused to answer any question (except for the eighth question, where he said that everybody loses in war), as his opinion was that we should not talk about the war anymore and we should only look forward. Finally, for the case of the primary school in Kotorsko I conducted separate interviews with the history teacher of year 9 and the director of the school. The survey was handed to 14 students of year 9 and all of the students were willing to participate.
23 Figure 3: Radius circle around the participating schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina
24 4. THE CURRENT BOSNIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, children start attending primary school from the age of six. As there is a relatively small number of kindergartens in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the majority of the children is not familiar with any pre-school knowledge and has spent most of its time at home, moulded by their families and direct surrounding. The primary school lasts for nine years so most of the children are at the age of 15 when they finish primary school. At the end of year nine the children have an external evaluation for two subjects: Croatian/Bosnian/Serb language and mathematics. This external evaluation determines which secondary schools the children can apply to. Secondary schools are either general (gymnasium) or vocational (economic secondary school, technical secondary school) and last either three or four years (Pasalic, personal communication, 27 April 2018).
In general, the Bosnian education system already has flaws concerning outdated teaching and learning methods, extensive curricula and untrained and underpaid educators (Bozic, 2006, p. 326). These problems are evident in both the Serb Republic and the Bosniak-Croat Federation. Since the beginning of the war in the 1992, the Bosnian educational system moved away from a centralized Yugoslav system and curriculum to a system with more pronounced differentiations (Swimelar, 2013). Based on the majority in a certain region, it was decided who could attend classes, which language of instruction would be used and which subjects would be included in the curriculum (Russo, 2000). Post-war Bosnian education has become politicized, fragmented and ethnonationalist feelings have become central to this system (Russo, 2000; Bozic ́, 2006; Nellis, 2006; Clark, 2010). Both entities in BiH have designed their education systems in different ways. Where the Serb Republic has adopted a centralized education system with the Minister of Education on the entity-level having most influence, the Bosniak-Croat Federation has a much more decentralized education system where the cantons of the federation create education-policy (Russo, 2000). The legal status of education in BiH is even more complicated with a complex relationship between at least six legal systems (Russo, 2000). The educators and policymakers must take into account the legal systems of BiH as a whole, the entity level system (Federation or Serb Republic), the system of the former Republic of BiH, the system of the
25 former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the system of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosna (Russo, 2000).
Bozic argues that the current education system of BiH exhibits three types of systematic segregation: ‘(1) “two schools under one roof”, (2) busing children into monoethnic schools, (3) teaching of so called “national subjects”’ (2006, p. 326). The phenomenon of “two schools under one roof” is a phenomenon that is only evident in the Bosniak-Croat Federation (Bozic, 2006). Because education is more decentralized in the federation than in the Serb Republic, this has resulted in this very physical segregation (Bozic, 2006). In these “two schools under one roof”, the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat students and teachers are segregated both psychologically and physically (Bozic, 2006, p. 328). Even though these schools are located in the same building, they have separated legal identities, administrations, school boards, school directors and teacher’s rooms (Bozic, 2006, p. 328). The students of the different ethnonationalities do not engage in any contact as they often have either different shifts or separate entrances to the building (see figure 4) (Bozic, 2006).
Figure 4: “Two schools under one roof” in Travnik. The Bosniak students enter through the door on the left, the Bosnian Croat students through the door on the right. There is a fence in between the two entrances.
Source: https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2017/03/14/bosnia-and-herzegovina-two-decades-after-dayton/
As this system is known to increase segregation, the International Court abandoned it in September 2003 (Bozic, 2006). However, this problem is not solved yet and even today there
26 are 32 of these schools left (see figure 5) (Diskriminacija, 09 June 2017). Even in schools where unification did happen, the Bosniak students and Bosnian Croat students still follow different curricula and use different schoolbooks, with separate classes and teachers from their own ethnonationality (Bozic, 2006, p. 329).
There are more than three different curricula: within the Bosniak-Croat Federation there are already a few different curricula: one issued by the Minister of Education of the Federation and other curricula offered by the individual cantons. The Serb Republic and Brcko District have their own separate curricula. Brcko District has the only curriculum in BiH that does not show any particular nationalist orientation (Palmberger, 2016). In principle, the children are allowed to enter every school. However, as schools and curricula are ethnically biased, the children from the minority ethnonationality are expected to accept the ethnonational bias of the school (Palmberger, 2016, p. 94). For a child to attend the school of another ethnonationality is often out of either practical considerations or due to the reputation of the school (Palmberger, 2016).
Figure 5: Locations of all “two schools under one roof” in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Source: http://www.diskriminacija.ba/teme/mapa-dvije-škole-pod-jednim-krovom-u-bih
27
Another way to segregate the students is through the creation of mono-ethnic schools. This type of segregation is not only visible in the Bosniak-Croat Federation, but in the Serb Republic as well (Bozic, 2006). Even though these schools generate segregation, they offer a friendlier environment for the students and pupils than the entrances separated by a fence in the previous system. These mono-ethnic schools with mono-ethnic curricula are mostly present in mono-ethnic areas (Swimelar, 2013). In addition to these mono-ethnic curricula, history books from Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats are often imported from Croatia or Serbia, providing a non-Bosnian perspective (Swimelar, 2013, p. 171). These curricula privilege subnational ethnonational identities and prefer those to a stable state (Swimelar, 2013).
The final way to systematically segregate students is by the introduction of the so-called “national subjects”. These subjects have been introduced through the right of minority groups to be educated in their mother tongue and according to their cultural and religious beliefs (Bozic, 2006, p. 330). Normally this would translate in minority students attending classes of both the majority and the classes of their minority. However, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, this has resulted in complete autonomy in all educational matters, resulting in the minority students only attending their national subjects, disregarding the national subjects of the majority (Bozic, 2006, p. 330). Even though some of these national subjects such as geography tend to favor harmonization, other national subjects such as history and language only intensify the segregation (Bozic, 2006, p. 331). Thus in this system, “general” subjects are taught according to the local curriculum, and “national” subjects are taught separately (Bozic, 2006). As Pasalic-Kreso argues, "education is often abused in practice, giving students different interpretations of the same facts," and "often schools divide students on the basis of their ethnic identity, language and religion" (Pasalic-Kreso, 1999, p. 7 as quoted in Islamovic & Blazevic, 2014, p. 56).
In high school and higher educational systems, on the institutional level, ethnic separation is less of an issue (NDC, 2012). All eight universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina are ethnically mixed with students coming from across the country. There are exceptions such as the Dzemal Bijedic University in East Mostar, which is considered a Bosniak University, and the University of Mostar in West Mostar, which is considered a Croatian University. However,
28 coming from segregated communities and schools, children are shocked when they enter university (NDC, 2012).
29 5. ETHNONATIONALIST INFLUENCE IN WHAT IS WRITTEN, SAID AND HEARD
5.1.1 Primary School “Kulin Ban”, Tesanjka
The primary school “Kulin Ban” in Tesanjka was originally founded in 1909. From 1967, when the school became renewed, the school was called primary school “Nikola Matkovic- Kolja”. However in 1991 the assembly of the municipality of the Tesanj Canton decided to rename the school “Kulin Ban”, after the ban that ruled Bosnia between 1180 and 1204, one of Bosnia’s most impressive rulers (Ljevakovic, 2009). Until and during the Bosnian War the school was a mixed school that was attended by both Bosniak and Croat students. After the end of the war, in 1996, the school became known as a “sator skola” (tent school), because the Croat children refused to have any lectures with the Bosniak children and therefore had class in a tent in the schoolyard (Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). Afterwards, the Croat children returned to the school and the school functioned under the system of “two schools under one roof” until 2008. In 2008, the Croat children left to a newly created Croat primary school in the Usora Canton (Mulalic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). Even though a few of the Croat parents decided to leave their children in the school in Tesanjka in the beginning, the pressure of the religious leaders on the parents to segregate the children became too high (Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018).
Figure 6: Primary school “Kulin Ban”, Tesanjka
30 Nowadays, “Kulin Ban” in Tesanjka is a mono-ethnic Bosniak primary school. The school favours Islamic holidays such as Eid. The alphabet of instruction is the Latin alphabet, but the children do start learning the Cyrillic alphabet in year 3. At the end of year 9, one hour is spent on the secession of the SFRY and one hour is spent on the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All children in year 9 identify themselves as Bosniaks.
5.1.2 History as written in the schoolbooks
The history book that is used in year 9 in Tesanjka is called “Historija, udzbenik za deveti razred devetogodisnje osnovne skole” (History, textbook for year 9 of nine-year primary schools). Immediately, the word “historija” stands out, as historija is the typical Bosniak word for history, while “istorija” is used by the Serbs and “povijest” by the Croats. The book is written in the Latin alphabet, “Bosnian” language and produced in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the end of the book there is one chapter on “the fall of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia” and one on “the period of war and post-war period in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 2000”, and the history lectures in Kulin Ban primary school are created accordingly. In these chapters, a Bosniak ethnonational influence is definitely visible. An example is when they write about an embargo that the UN placed on the import of weapons on the 25th of September 1991. According to the book, this embargo only denied BiH the right on weapons as the other Yugoslavian countries remained receiving weapons of non-Yugoslavian countries (Sabotic & Cehajlic, 2010). This passage already victimizes BiH, even before the war officially had started. Another example of Bosniak ethnonational influence is a few sentences away, when the moment “Arkan’s tigers” occupied the city of Bijeljina on 1 April 1992, is considered as the beginning of the war operations. Arkan’s tigers were paramilitary forces responsible for ethnic cleansing under the command of Serbian criminal Zeljko (Arkan) Raznatovic (Toal & Dahlman, 2011, p. 113). There are pictures of starved Bosniak men in concentration camps that have been created by both the Serbs and the Croats, who turned against the Bosniaks later on. There is a big focus on the removal of non-Serb populations together with their cultural, religious and historical markings in an effort to wipe out their national identity. The textbook is rather critical of the role of the UN, as they write that BiH demanded a military intervention from the beginning of the war but instead received a non-military
31 mission of UNPROFOR in order to create safe zones. The next sentence is very sarcastic, as it concludes “how safe these zones actually were has been proved by the incidents in 1995” (Sabotic & Cehaljic, 2010, p. 186). The book explicitly mentions the genocide in Srebrenica and that it has been confirmed by the International Court to be the biggest genocide in Europe since World War II (Sabotic & Cehajlic, 2010). Also, the post-war period is mentioned were BiH is obliged to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and where many efforts are made to create a new flag and new symbols that represent all of Bosnia’s people (Sabotic & Cehajlic, 2010). Also, the shelling of Sarajevo in 1995 and the attack on Tuzla on the 25th of May 1995, which were both registered as “safe zones”, have been mentioned in this rather sarcastic passage about the influence of UNPROFOR (Sabotic & Cehajlic, 2010).
After analysing all episodes that have been mentioned in this textbook, it is hard to say what is distorted. All facts that have been mentioned indeed happened during the war. However, all these facts are strictly from a Bosniak perspective and leave out a lot of information from the other ethnicities and how the war had affected them. The textbook describes the Bosniaks and Bosnia and Herzegovina as the biggest victims of war. Again, the facts they use to ground their arguments indeed happened. One episode that can be viewed as a distorted fact is when the textbook mentions that the war started when “Arkan’s tigers” occupied Bijeljina, because the beginning of the war is most often said to be the 6th of April 1992, when Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized as an independent state (Filipovic, 2002). Even though the recognition of BiH is mentioned two sentences later on and is also seen as a reason for the Bosnian War, the surveys with the children in class have shown that 64% of the students viewed Arkan’s tigers occupying Bijeljina as the beginning of the Bosnian War. As I arrange points to the books for every fact that has been distorted, this book only receives 1 point. However, we have to keep in mind that this book shows a strong Bosniak influence.
5.1.3 History as produced by the students
The survey I have given to the students of all schools is in the form of a history test consisting out of eight questions. The first five questions are mentioned most of the time in the textbooks, while the last three questions are very subjective and measure the ethnonationalist feelings of the children. The students of the primary school in Tesanjka did not mind whether the test was in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabet. However, because the textbook they use is
32 written in the Latin alphabet, they decided to complete the survey in the same alphabet. I have worked out every question according to the answers that have been given by the class. For each answer that had been provided, I have calculated the percentage of the class that has given that particular answer and established whether any ethnonationalist influence is visible in the given answer. For some of the questions students were able to write down multiple answers. The answers to the questions are presented below.
1. When did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence 1 April 1992 48% Bosniak influence 6 April 1992 36% Neutral The year 1992 16% Neutral
All answers that have been given could have been found in the textbook they use. Both the 1st of April and the 6th of April 1992 have been mentioned as the beginning of the war in BiH. The children that have mentioned the 1st of April 1992 show a Bosniak influence, while the children that have mentioned the 6th of April or simply the year 1992 show a more neutral influence, as the 6th of April 1992 has been marked as the official start of the war in BiH (Filipovic, 2002).
2. How did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence When “Arkanovci” 64% Bosniak influence (Arkan’s Tigers- Serb Volunteer guard) occupied the city Bijeljina Because the Yugoslav 4% Bosniak influence National Army started mobilizing the army and only the Serbs responded to this mobilization When the Yugoslav 8% Bosniak influence National Army together with the Serbian Democratic party of Radovan Karadzic attacked Sarajevo Because of multiple 8% Neutral conflicts and incidents leading up to the war As a consequence of BiH’s 8% Neutral independence Not answered 8% -
33
Again, all of these answers have been mentioned in the textbook the students use. In total, 76% of the students have written down an answer that represents a Bosniak influence on their perception of history, while only 16% of the class mentioned more neutral answers without a direct blame on the Serbs.
3. Which countries have helped Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war? (The students could have given multiple answers) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Germany 96% Netherlands 80% Italy 68% ‘Arab countries’ 48% Bosniak influence Croatia 44% Croat influence Switzerland 44% Turkey 32% Bosniak influence Austria 24% Sweden 8% United States of America 8% France 4% Belgium 4%
From the textbook students could have concluded that the Netherlands has helped through the creation of the ICTY or that the USA has helped with the Dayton Peace Agreements. The answers provided by the children show an influence beyond the textbook, where many countries can be considered as neutral answers. Many students did elaborate by saying that the countries they had written down accepted many refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4. In what way did the UN contribute to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence By providing humanitarian 52% Neutral help By sending weapons 4% Neutral By placing an embargo on 36% Neutral the import of weapons UN contributed negatively 4% Bosniak influence because the embargo only had effects on BiH – other countries still received weapons By creating safe zones 8% Neutral By creating international 4% Neutral cooperation
34 Not answered 8% -
Except for the answers ‘by sending weapons’ and ‘creating international cooperation’, all answers could have been found in the textbook. 4% of the class directly blamed the UN for the negative effects of the embargo. Even though the textbook was rather sarcastic about the safe zones created by UNPROFOR, 8% of the class did mention the safe zones as a contribution by the UN.
5. What was the aim of the Dayton Peace Agreements? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence To end the war 92% Neutral To divide Bosnia and 12% Bosniak influence Herzegovina and to divide the people
The division of Bosnia and the end of the war have both been mentioned in the textbook. However, the division of BiH and the people shows a rather ethnonationalist influence, as Bosniaks did not want BiH to be divided in separate entities. Division was only the goal of Serbia and Croatia (Filipovic, 2002).
6. According to you, could the war have ended in a different way? How? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence No 56% Neutral Yes (without specifying) 8% Neutral By expelling the Serbs from 4% Bosniak influence BiH The war could have ended 4% Bosniak influence much worse all Muslims could have been killed War could have ended 20% Neutral through an agreement with less violence Both the presidents and the 4% Neutral citizens could have put in more efforts to understand each other Not answered 8% -
35
7. In your opinion, who has gained most during the war? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Serbia 24% Bosniak influence The Serb Republic 12% Bosniak influence No one 36% Neutral BiH because they were able 8% Bosniak influence to defend their territory The ‘opposite’ side 4% Neutral Not answered 16% -
8. In your opinion, who has lost most during the war? Given answers Ethnonationalist influence Bosnia and Herzegovina 92% Bosniak influence Everybody 4% Neutral Not answered 4% -
These three questions have been very subjective and the answers could not have been found in the textbook. The answers to question 7 and question 8 show a very strong Bosniak ethnonationalist influence as 92% of the class believes that BiH has lost most during the war, and a little over a third of the class thought that Serbia and the Serb Republic have gained most during the war.
5.1.4 History as told by the teachers In an open interview with Besim Dzanovic (director of the school) and Sakib Mulalic (history teacher) we have talked about the history classes, ethnonationalism and the school in general. Straight away it became very clear that both Dzanovic and Mulalic are very Yugo-nostalgic and that they would prefer mixed school-settings. Mulalic used to be the director from 1996 to 2004 and thus experienced when the school was a tent school and when they had the ‘two schools under one roof’ system. According to Mulalic, both the Croat and the Bosniak department used the same textbooks in this period. However, the Croat department used additional textbooks that were produced in Mostar and showed the Croat perspective as well. The teachers had the most influence in the way that they decided which information would be discussed more extensively (personal communication, 26 April 2018). When in 2008 the schools became divided there were a number of Croat parents that left their children in “Kulin Ban” in first instance. However, after a lot of pressure of the religious leaders, these children got transferred as well (personal communication, 26 April 2018). According to Dzanovic, the students do not want to be segregated. They still organize sport tournaments and school
36 competitions to make sure the Bosniak and Croat children interact (personal communication, 26 April 2018). The school is very open about the history of the Bosnian War. The students are allowed to ask questions about the war events and the school perceives an increase in questions about the war after the children have watched a movie or documentary about the war that has been broadcasted on national television. As Mulalic was an adult during the war and thus has his own memories and stance on what happened, he also shares his own story with the class (personal communication, 26 April 2018). Mulalic admits that he adds information about the UN, both their positive influences and the times it backfired (personal communication, 26 April 2018). The school is well aware of the Bosniak influences in the textbook they use, but if the other ethnicities are allowed to use their own textbooks and their own language of instruction, then the school almost feels compelled to show their ethnonational influence (personal communication, 26 April 2018). This decision supports the concept of a societal security dilemma as mentioned by Swimelar, where “the attempts of one group to attain societal security and promote its identity through cultural and rhetorical means lead to perceptions of insecurity by another group, which then attempts also to support its identity and gain security through similar means. These cultural means can be the call for human rights within education, such as the right to learn in one’s own language and from one’s own cultural perspective” (2013, p. 162). Because one school uses its right to educate from its own ethnonational perspective, another school almost feels obliged to do the same in order to protect its own national identity and thus the schools become entangled in a societal security dilemma.
37 5.2.1 Primary School “Milan Rakic”, Kotorsko
The primary school “Milan Rakic” in Kotorsko is a regional primary school that shares a school board with multiple Serb primary schools around the city Doboj. The school was created in 1968 and served as a primary school for students from the village Kotorsko and the surrounding villages Bukovac and Vranduk (Pasalic, personal communication, 27 April 2018). The school used to be a very large school with over 100 applications a year. This year, only 3 new students have applied for year 1 in this primary school (Ciric, personal communication, 30 April 2018). This strong decrease in applications is a consequence of the war: a large number of residents of Kotorsko and the surrounding villages were forced to flee abroad and never returned. The residents that did return to their homes after the war were often elderly people and thus there is a small number of children in Kotorsko. As the primary school in Kotorsko is Serb but all three ethnicities attend this school, a large number of the remaining children have applied to mono-ethnic schools in the region, such as Serb children from Kotorsko going to a primary school in Doboj (Ciric, personal communication, 30 April 2018).
Figure 7: Primary School “Milan Rakic”, Kotorsko
38 “Milan Rakic” is a mixed school in Kotorsko with children attending from all three major ethnicities. The school functions according to the system of the Serb Republic and thus the textbooks that are used are the same as everywhere else in the Serb Republic. However, the children can choose which language they want to learn, whether it is Bosnian-Croatian or Serbian, and there are different religious classes available (Pasalic, personal communication, 27 April 2018). The holidays the student gets are according to the religious classes they choose. Before I conducted my research, the school board told me that all three ethnicities are represented in year 9 (Pasalic, personal communication, 30 April 2018). I was surprised that on the survey I provided, 42,86% of the students refused to write down their ethnonationality. The remaining students declared themselves Bosniaks (35,71%) and Serbs (21,43%). The same 21,43% of the students explicitly asked for the test to be in Cyrillic, the rest agreed to do the test in the Latin alphabet.
5.2.2 History as written in the schoolbooks
The history book that is used in year 9 in Kotorsko is called ‘Istorija- za 9. Razred osnovne skole’ (History- for the 9. grade of primary school). Again, the Serb influence becomes clear immediately through the word ‘istorija’, compared to historija (Bosniak) and povijest (Croat). The book is written in Cyrillic and produced by the institute for textbooks and teaching tools in Eastern Sarajevo, which belongs to the Serb Republic. In the section of the book called ‘Yugoslavia after the Second World War’, three chapters are dedicated to the fall of Yugoslavia and to the war: ‘violent secession and the breakup of Socialist Yugoslavia’, ‘the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the formation of the Serb Republic’ and ‘the formation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’. In all three chapters the Serb influence is very strong. The chapters start off by mentioning that the Western countries aimed for a breakup of Yugoslavia. Directly after, they mention that the disintegration of Serbia started in 1974, when “great damage was inflicted on Serbia” through the creation of the autonomous provinces Kosovo and Vojvodina (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 192). These provinces could make decisions without consent of Serbia, while Serbia could not decide anything without the consent of Kosovo and Vojvodina. The textbook considers this decision as one of the reasons why Yugoslavia became “broken” (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). The chapter talks a lot about Kosovo, where the Serb population was in a very difficult situation because the Albanian separationists became very nationalistic and put
39 constant pressure on the Serb population to emigrate. According to the book, this is why Slobodan Milosevic came to power, “in order to protect the Serb people” (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 193). Next, there is a subtitle called “secession and war in Croatia”. Here, they mention that the political party that came to power in Croatia in 1991 was very nationalistic and decided that the rights of the Serb people in Croatia had to be reduced so the Serb people became second- range citizens (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). They also refer to the NDH (Independent State of Croatia) during the Second World War. They mention that in Croatia the national identity of the Serbs became threatened. Therefore, they had to organize on political level in order to protect their national rights and their basic human rights (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). They say that the war in Croatia started on the 17th of August 1991, when the Croatian police tried to prevent a plebiscite of the Serb people that decided on Serb autonomy two days before (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). Furthermore, they mention the creation of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatia and the Croat military operations against this Republic killing thousands of Serbian women, children and elderly (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). They mention that the NATO did not disapprove of these actions against the Serb people. In contrast, they even helped Croatia (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 194). They end this chapter by saying that “the UN did not have any understanding for the Serb people who only wanted to have their freedom, own national rights and human rights” (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 194). The next chapter has the length of only one page and talks about the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the formation of the Serb Republic. They talk about a rapid creation of multiple political parties in BiH: first the creation of the SDA (Party for Democratic Action, Bosniak), afterwards the creation of the HDZ (Croat Democratic Union) and at last the SDS (Serb Democrat Party) was created. According to the book, the SDA and HDZ cooperated in order to breakup Yugoslavia. The Croat and Bosniak members of the assembly decided without any consent of the Serb members (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). As a consequence, in November 1991, the Serb members left the assembly and created their own Serb National Assembly. The assembly held a plebiscite where 97% of the Serbs and a few Bosniaks and Croats voted to remain in Yugoslavia. Based on these results, they created the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 9th of January 1992. Finally in this chapter they mention that the Bosniaks and Croats in BiH created a referendum without consent of the Serbs, where the majority of the Bosniaks and Croats voted for BiH to become an independent country. When the independence of BiH was recognized on 12 April 1992, this came as a total surprise
40 to the Serb people and this was marked as the beginning of the Bosnian War (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 195). The final chapter is on the creation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the war on Kosovo. Aggressions of NATO towards the Serb people are mentioned a lot in this chapter. All three chapters are full of pictures of bombed Serb homes, trains, bridges and firms.
Analysing these chapters, there is a huge Serb ethnonationalist influence visible which tries to victimize the Serb people that “only wanted their freedom, national and human rights” (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 194). All of these victimizations serve as a justification of the decisions made on the side of the Serbs. The use of adjectives really enforces the feelings of maltreatment: a “great” damage to Serbia, the Serb people were in a “very” difficult situation. These words really contribute to the feeling that the Serbs were the biggest victims of the war. They mention that many decisions were made without Serb consent. Again, the story is told from only Serb perspective. Compared to the Bosniak book, nothing has been written about Srebrenica. Information from the perspective of the other ethnicities is left out. All decisions made by the Serbs are considered legitimate while the decisions by the other ethnicities are considered illegitimate and without any consent of the other ethnicities. However, they do not mention any consent of the Bosniaks and Croats in the decisions that they made. On various moments in the chapters, the negative attitude of the NATO/UN/ Western countries towards Serbia and the Serb people is mentioned.
Again, most of the episodes discussed actually happened. After the elections in Croatia, indeed few changes had been made that for example obliged the use of the Latin alphabet and thus forbid the Cyrillic alphabet (Kubo, 2010). Also, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, few decisions have been made excluding the politicians of the SDS (Kubo, 2010). Nonetheless, episodes of negative Serb contribution to the war and episodes from the perspective of the other ethnicities have been left out. Also, there are some parts that can be considered as distorted. First, the textbook mentions that prior to the war, the Serbs were denied basic human rights (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric). As Filipovic mentions in his book “not one ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been threatened nor denied any basic human rights in any way prior to the war” (2002, pp. 125- 126). Second, according to the textbook, the war in BiH started on 12 April 1992. Again, according to Filipovic, the war started on the 6th of April 1992 (Filipovic, 2002). Third, a conspiracy of the Bosniaks and Croats against the Serbs is mentioned multiple times. Not
41 once have they mentioned a collaboration of Serbs and Croats in order to divide the territory of BiH, such as the Karadordevo meeting between president Milosevic of Serbia and president Tudman of Croatia (Filipovic, 2002). Finally, saying that Milosevic only came to power to protect the endangered human rights and freedom of the Serbs is also considered as a distorted fact, as Milosevic was accused by the ICTY to be a war criminal on the territories of Croatia, BiH and Kosovo. Some of the accusations were genocide, torture, extermination and Persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds (ICTY, IT-02-54). For these distortions, the textbook written by Pejic, Tesic and Gavric receives 4 points.
5.2.3 History as produced by the students
The answers given by the students of the primary school in Kotorsko have been analysed and are presented below. Again, for some of the questions the students were able to write down multiple answers.
1. When did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence 1992 92,86% Neutral 1991 7,14% Croat influence
The majority of the class has answered that the war had started in 1992, which is both according to the book and according to the official start of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina on April 6th, 1992 (Filipovic, 2002). The remainder of the class has answered that the war had started in 1991, which was the case in Croatia (Filipovic, 2002). Therefore this is considered a Croat influence.
2. How did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence The war started as a 7,14% Neutral consequence of the breakup of Yugoslavia Because politicians wanted 7,14% Neutral money As a consequence of the 35,71% Serb influence protests in Sarajevo Because people started to 7,14% Neutral shoot No answer 42,86% -
42 42,68% of the class did not answer this question. It is not clear whether this is because they simply did not know the answer or because they refused to answer this question. The majority of the class that did answer showed a Serb ethnonationalist influence in their answers. However, this answer did not come forward in the textbook they use. The only answer mentioned, which can also be considered as the correct answer, is that the war started as a consequence of the breakup in Yugoslavia.
3. Which countries have helped Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Turkey 28,57% Bosniak influence Croatia 14,29% Croat influence Russia 14,29% Serb influence Albania 7,14% Serbia 7,14% Serb influence United Kingdom 7,14% United States of America 7,14% Italy 7,14% France 7,14% No answer 35,71% -
The textbook mentions that many “Western countries” did not understand the Serb people that only wanted basic human rights (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016). Also, the textbook mentions that Western countries motivated Bosnia and Herzegovina to become an independent country. Therefore, the Western countries that have been mentioned here can be considered as anti- Serb influence from the perspective of the textbook.
4. In what way did the UN contribute to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence By providing humanitarian 28,57% Neutral help By sending their army 14,29% Neutral They tried to resolve and 14,29% Neutral calm down difficult situations Don’t know how UN 57,14% - contributed
More than half of the students specifically mentioned that they did not know how the UN contributed to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The textbook they use mentioned a rather negative influence of the UN were the UN “did not understand that the Serb people only
43 wanted freedom and nationalist rights and basic human rights” (Pejic, Tesic & Gavric, 2016, p. 194). Therefore, even though “providing humanitarian help” is considered a neutral answer, there is a large chance that this answer was given by either Bosniak or Croat children.
5. What was the aim of the Dayton Peace Agreements? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Don’t know about the 28,57% - Dayton Peace Agreements To end the war 71,43% Neutral To establish borders 14,29% Bosniak influence
A few of the children never heard of the Dayton Peace Agreements. The majority that did know about the Dayton Peace Agreements gave the correct answer, which was to end the war. This answer is also mentioned in their textbook.
6. According to you, could the war have ended in a different way? How? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence No 14,29% Neutral Yes (without specifying) 14,29% Neutral War could have ended 7,14% Neutral through an agreement with less violence The war should not have 50% Neutral started in the first place People should not have 7,14% Neutral become displaced, everyone should have stayed in their own towns/villages No answer 7,14% -
All answers that the students gave were neutral and did not show any ethnonationalist influence. Whereas all of the students of the primary school in Tesanjka either answered ‘no’ or gave other possibilities, 50% of the students in the primary school of Kotorsko answered that the war should not have even started in the first place.
44 7. In your opinion, who has gained the most during the war? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence The politicians 14,29% Neutral No one 21,43% Neutral The Serbs 7,14% Bosniak/Croat influence The Bosniaks 14,29% Serb/Croat influence No answer 42,86% -
Here, 42,86% of the students did not answer the question, which is the same number as the number of students that refused to write down their own nationality. Only 21,43% of the class gave an answer that showed ethnonationalist influence.
8. In your opinion, who has lost most during the war? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence The Serbs 14,29% Serb influence The Bosniaks 7,14% Bosniak influence Everybody 35,71% Neutral The mothers who lost their 7,14% Neutral sons No answer 35,71% -
It has become clear that the children that said that the Serbs gained most during the war answered that the Bosniaks lost most during the war and vice versa. A smaller number of students did not answer this question compared to the question who gained most during the war, because more than one third of the class wanted to stress that no one wins during the war and everybody loses.
This class showed more neutral answers compared to the answers given by the students of the primary school in Tesanjka. All children that refused to write down their ethnonationality also did not show any ethnonationalist influence in their answers. From the students that did write down their nationality, 100% of the Serb students showed ethnonational influence in their answers while only 20% of the Bosniak students showed an ethnonational influence in their answer.
5.2.4 History as told by the teachers
In an open and relaxed conversation with Ljubisa Ciric, history teacher at the department in Kotorsko, we talked about the history of the war, ethnonationalism in class and the
45 educational system in general. Ciric says that it is rather hard to teach about a history that is so recent that the children do not only hear about it in class, but are confronted with it on a daily basis. As the class in Kotorsko is mixed, he mentioned that the children were never hostile towards each other and did not show ethnonational influences in class. Therefore, he was rather surprised to find out that some answers certainly did show ethnonational influences. I believe that the anonymity of the survey and the fact that the classmates would not find out about each other’s answers contributed to these influences in the survey. In class, Ciric tries to be as open and objective as possible. As he is aware of the ethnonational influence in the textbook and the class is mixed, he does not really stick to the information of the textbook. He finds that many other teachers in BiH really contribute to the current system as they “fuse science with ideology” (personal communication, 30 April 2018). He says that there is one simple solution that would make both the students and the teachers more open-minded: travelling. Many of the students and teachers have never left their hometown and therefore are filled with prejudices (personal communication, 30 April 2018). Ciric argues that, as soon as they see the world is bigger than their region, many of these prejudices disappear. Therefore, he attempts to organize many excursions to other regions and to religious objects of various religions. The children are very open to these excursions and new impressions (personal communication, 30 April 2018). Another topic we have touched upon is taboo themes in class. Ciric mentioned that there are definitely taboo themes when it comes to the history of the Bosnian War. Talking about Srebrenica in the Serb Republic can be compared to the Second World War in Germany or talking about slavery in the Netherlands (personal communication, 30 April 2018). Therefore, it is not a surprise that Srebrenica is not mentioned in the textbook they use. Nonetheless, Ciric does not seem reserved when it comes to discussing taboo themes with this class.
5.2.5 Intergroup Contact Theory Applied
The answers of the children from the primary school in Kotorsko have shown that the ethnonational influences are lower compared to the ethnonational influences in the answers given by the children from mono-ethnic schools. Consequently, it has become very clear that intergroup contact has decreased prejudices about the other groups and about the history of the Bosnian War. When analysing the setting of the intergroup contact, all four key conditions that Allport mentioned for a positive effect of intergroup contact are visible. In class, the history teacher does not favour a certain ethnicity and thus an equal status can be identified.
46 Even though the book that the Serb Republic produced shows a Serb influence, Ciric (history teacher) tries to stay as objective as possible by also discussing taboo themes and other perspectives. Therefore, all ethnicities in class have the support of the authority, which in this case, is the teacher himself. Finally, there are many inter-school competitions and tournaments in the region of Doboj that force the class to cooperate in order to achieve one common goal, which is to win from the other schools. To conclude, all four key conditions are visible in the mixed setting of the primary school in Kotorsko, which should lead to a decrease in prejudice towards the other groups in intergroup contact. This decrease in prejudice has become visible in the answers given by the students, where less ethnonationalism was visible compared to answers given by students in mono-ethnic schools.
47 5.3.1 Primary School “Ivana fra Frane Jukica”, Zabljak
The Primary School in Zabljak is a regional primary school that shares a school board with multiple primary schools in the Usora Canton. The primary school shares the building with the “Mixed Middle School Stjepan Radic”. The term mixed gives the impression that multiple ethnicities attend this school, which is not the case: both the primary school and the middle school are schools that only Croat children attend. In this case, the term mixed refers to multiple middle schools (gymnasium, technical middle school, economic middle school etc.) being situated in the same building. In 2008, all Croat children that attended the primary school in Tesanjka transferred to the primary school in Zabljak, ending the “two schools under one roof” situation in Tesanjka and creating two mono-ethnic schools. Many of the teachers at the school, such as Mladen Jozic (assistant director in Zabljak), used to work at the primary school in Tesanjka. Instead of being regulated on the level of the Canton, the primary school in Zabljak is regulated on the level of the municipality (Pasalic, personal communication, 27 April 2018). On this level, the municipality mayor functions as the prime minister and the head of social activities functions as a ministry of education (Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). The school favours Catholic holidays and classes are only available in Croatian. The alphabet of instruction is the Latin alphabet (Nikolic, personal communication, 27 April 2018).
Figure 8: Primary School “Ivana fra Frane Jukica”, Zabljak
48 At the end of 9, three hours are dedicated to the war on Yugoslavian territory. The whole class identifies themselves as Croats. When asked whether they would like to take the survey in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabet, the class reacted rather astonished. They were surprised I even gave them the option to choose, as the Latin alphabet was the only possibility for them.
5.3.2 History as written in the schoolbooks
The history book used by the primary school in Zabljak is called “Tragom proslosti- udzbenik povijesti za osmi razred osnovne skole” (The trail of the past- history textbook for the 8th grade of primary school). Once again, the Croat influence directly becomes visible through the specific usage of the word “povijest”. The book is produced in 2010 in Mostar, written in the Latin alphabet and Croatian language. The same book is used throughout Croatia. There are three chapters that cover the war on Yugoslavian territory: “the emergence of an independent Croatian state”, “the emergence of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina” and “Croatia as a sovereign and international state”. The focus of the book clearly lies on Croatia and the creation of the Croatian state. In many ways, the first chapter is the opposite of the story told by the Serb textbook “istorija- za 9. Razred osnovne skole”. The chapter starts with the Balvan revolution- their term for the rebellions of a large part of the Serbian population in Croatia on 17 August 1990. They say that the Yugoslavian National Army openly supported the idea of a “Great Serbia” which was created in Belgrade in 1991. One of the reasons for this open support was that most non-Serb citizens left the YNA (Erdelja et al., 2010). They mention the first Croat victim of the homeland war and that the YNA tried to show themselves as unbiased but in reality they enabled the Serbs to have a lasting occupation of the Croatian territory (Erdelja et al., 2010). On the 25th of June 1991, Croatia was declared an independent state. The textbook says that, as the European community delayed the independence for three months, the YNA had plenty of time to direct large armed forces against Croatia (Erdelja et al., 2010). Again, they mention the idea of a “Great Serbia”. Furthermore, they mention the ultimate senselessness and cruelty of the YNA in context of the war crimes in Vukovar, when many people were killed, the city was almost destroyed and all of the Non-Serb population was abducted (Erdelja et al., 2010). They point out that the Croats were poorly armed but still fought very bravely against the much stronger enemy- the Serbs (Erdelja et al., 2010). Just as the other two books, this textbook also showed a negative attitude towards UNPROFOR, as they failed to protect the Croatian people (Erdelja et al., 2010).
49 The textbook does mention the genocide on Bosniaks in Srebrenica in July 1995. The military operation “Oluja” is praised as it liberated a large part of the Croatian and Bosnian territory and thus prevented a catastrophe that could have been, according to Erdelja et al., much worse than the one in Srebrenica (2010). When it comes to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is written that it started on the 1st of October 1991, when the Croat village Ravno had been attacked by the YNA (Erdelja et al., 2010). Erdelja et al. mention that the Croatian military operation “Oluja” enabled the success of Croat and Bosniak units in BiH. This particular military operation is considered to be the force that pushed the Serbs into negotiations, which resulted in the Dayton Peace Agreements in November 1995 (Erdelja et al., 2010).
The focus of the textbook is mostly on the war on Croatian territory. A negative stance on the YNA is really visible and a project of a “Great Serbia” is mentioned multiple times. In many ways, the first chapter on “the emergence of an independent Croatian state” can be seen as the exact opposite story of the one told in the Serb textbook. It is often mentioned that the Croats in both Croatia and BiH fought very bravely and that many military successes were by virtue of the Croat military operations (Erdelja et al., 2010). What surprised me is that the genocide in Srebrenica did get mentioned in the textbook. But again, the genocide was only mentioned to indicate that “Oluja” liberated a large part of the Croatian and Bosnian territory and thus prevented a catastrophe that could have been much worse (Erdelja et al., 2010). Even though a Croat ethnonationalist influence is present, they do mention influences of the war on the Bosniak people and they mention the genocide on the Bosniaks. The other two books did not mention influences of the war on the other ethnonationalities. The fact that the chapter on the independent Croatian state opposes the history written in the Serb textbook proves that each ethnicity is giving voice to their own truth: the same historical events are described, which indeed happened, but from their own perspective. Saying that the war in BiH started with the attack on the Croat village ‘Ravno’ can be considered the only real distortion. Therefore, this textbook receives 1 point.
50 Figure 10: The different textbooks used by the different schools Bosniak textbook Serb textbook Croat textbook
5.3.3 History as produced by the students
The answers given by the students of the primary school in Zabljak have been analysed and presented below. Again, for some of the questions the students were able to write down multiple answers. The students in this class were particularly sceptic about the content of the survey and one of the students refused to answer any question (except for the eighth question, where he said that everybody loses in war), as his opinion was that we should not talk about the war anymore and we should only look forward.
1. When did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence 1992 83,33& Neutral Not answered 16,67% -
The majority of the class answered 1992, which is a neutral answer and also the correct one according to Filipovic (2002). The children did not answer according to the book as, according to the textbook, the war started on 1 October 1991.
51 2. How did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Because the Croat village 41,67% Croat influence ‘Ravno’ had been attacked in Herzegovina Because the chetniks 8,33% Croat influence attacked Croatia and BiH Because of inconveniences 16,67% Neutral between the three ethnicities The war in BiH started as a 8,33% Doubtful. Might be both prolongation of the war in Croat and Bosniak influence. Croatia Not answered 25% -
A quarter of the class did not answer the question. The majority of the children that did answer, showed a Croat influence and stated that the war started after the attack on the Croat village Ravno, which is according to the textbook. It is surprising that all of the children that gave this answer answered that the war started in 1992 on the previous question, as Ravno was attacked in October 1991. 8,33% of the class answered that the war in BiH started as a prolongation of the war in Croatia, which can be interpreted in two ways. One can interpret the answer the Bosniak way, which would mean that the war in BiH started to relieve Croatia from the attacks on their territory. Once the war moved to Bosnian territory, the Croats attacked them as well (Filipovic, 2002). The other interpretation is that the war in BiH started as a prolongation of the war in Croatia because BiH followed Croatia’s example and wanted independence from Yugoslavia. As the whole class is Croat, I assume that the second interpretation is correct.
3. Which countries have helped Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence ‘Multiple countries’ 8,33% Neutral Croatia 66,67% Croat influence Serbia 41,67% Serb influence Slovenia 16,67% Germany 16,67% United States of America 8,33% ‘Members of the UN’ 41,67% United Kingdom 8,33% Not answered 16,67% -
52
4. In what way did the UN contribute to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence By providing humanitarian 75% Neutral help By sending their army 58,33% Neutral Not answered 16,67% -
Most children gave a neutral answer and did not show any negative feelings towards the UN. This goes against what is written in the textbook, as it is written that the UNPROFOR failed to protect the Croat people.
5. What was the aim of the Dayton Peace Agreements? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence To end the war 91,67% Neutral Not answered 8,33% -
Almost all students answered according to what is written in their textbook.
6. According to you, could the war have ended in a different way? How? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence No 16,67% Neutral Yes (without specifying) 8,33% Neutral Through the total division 8,33% Croat influence of BiH BiH should not have been 8,33% Bosniak influence divided in separate entities at all The war should not have 33,33% Neutral started in the first place War could have ended 8,33% Neutral through an agreement with less violence Not answered 16,67% -
Again, a third of the class answered that the war should not have started in the first place. Only 8,33% of the class showed a Croat influence in their answer. The answer that BiH should not have been divided in the first place would normally indicate a Bosniak influence. However, as all students stated that they are Croats, it can be considered as a Bosnian influence because they live on Bosnian territory. It is possible that these students think that BiH would function better with a central system without separate entities.
53
7. In your opinion, who has gained the most during the war? Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Nobody 25% Neutral The Serbs 25% Croat influence Rich countries 8,33% Neutral Everybody 8,33% Neutral Smugglers 8,33% Neutral Not answered 25% -
8. In your opinion, who has lost most during the war? (Multiple answers could have been given) Given answers Percentage of students Ethnonationalist influence Everybody 25% Neutral The families of the victims 16,67% Neutral Smaller countries that 16,67% Neutral fought most during the war Bosnia and Herzegovina 16,67% Bosniak influence Croats 16,67% Croat influence Serbia, because they 16,67% Croat influence wanted a Great Serbia but it did not succeed
Most answers that were given for question 7 and 8 were neutral answers. The answers that were not neutral mostly had a Croat influence. The answer that BiH has lost most during the war is given by the same student who answered that BiH should not have been divided in separate entities in the first place. A Great Serbia has been mentioned in the history book used by this class.
5.3.4 History as told by the teachers
While the students were writing their answers to the survey questions their history teacher, Ljuba Nikolic, told me that they do not really teach about the Bosnian War. Rather, they spend more time on the war in Croatia and the independence of Croatia, just as described by their textbook (personal communication, 27 April 2018). They teach an hour per chapter, thus three hours are spent in total about the war on the territory of former Yugoslavia (Nikolic, personal communication, 27 April 2018). The students did not really seem interested in learning about this period, which also became clear when one of the students refused to fill in the survey. As the children do not show much interest in learning about the war, they think it is not necessary to dwell on it (Nikolic, personal communication, 27 April 2018).
54 Mladen Jozic, assistant director of the school and religious teacher, says that the children like to look forward and are willing to engage in contact with other religions and ethnicities. Therefore, he occasionally organises field trips to other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also to religious objects of other religions. Even though the students have always enjoyed these trips, there were many parents that complained about the children visiting places of worship of other religions (Jozic, personal communication, 27 April 2018). However, Jozic definitely thinks that these fieldtrips are necessary in order to bridge the differences between the different ethnicities (personal communication, 27 April 2018).
55 5.4 Hope for change? The new textbook for the Federation
In the primary schools in Matuzici and Tesanjka, the teachers revealed they expect a change in the curriculum the coming years (Halilovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018; Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). According to Halilovic, the number of history classes in year 9 will be doubled and it is likely that the schools will have to teach more about the Bosnian War (personal communication, 26 April 2018). From a source that would like to stay anonymous, I managed to receive an example of the history textbook that will be introduced in the Federation in the coming years. The author and the producer of the book have not been made public in this impression. The book is written in the Latin alphabet and is called “Historija- udzbenik za 9. razred devetogodisnje osnovne skole” (History- textbook for year 9 of nine-year primary schools). Again, the term historija indicates that the Bosnian language is used.
In the introduction of the textbook, the authors write “it is especially important to mention that in this period [20th century], after a difficult and terrible war, an independent state of Bosnia and Herzegovina was formed, even though the war was directed against the country by all means” (Historija, n.d., p. 5). In this book, we have tried to describe the war events and the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the post-war period the best way possible (Historija, n.d., p. 5). The book first discusses the world history and the European history, followed by the Bosnian history of the end of the nineteenth and the entire twentieth century. The part about the history of BiH starts off with a chapter about BiH in the First World War. This chapter is followed by multiple chapters on the position of BiH in various episodes, such as the position of BiH during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the position of BiH during the 6. January Dictatorship. The section about the wars on Yugoslavian territory starts with a chapter called “Political and economic crisis – Breakup of the SFRY”. Here, they mention the political and economic tensions after the death of Josip Broz Tito and that inter-ethnic relations became tenser. The intolerance between the Serbs and Albanians on Kosovo is mentioned. The leadership of the Serbian Republic wanted to abolish the constitution of 1974 as, according to them, it gave too much autonomy to Kosovo and Vojvodina (Historija, n.d.). The writers point out that the 1988 constitution in Serbia led to a rise in nationalism on the side of the Serbs (Historija, n.d.).
56 Furthermore, they talk about the first multiparty elections that were held in 1990 in al Yugoslavian Republics. According to this book, “the newly elected presidents of all six Yugoslav republics failed to reach an agreement on the internal reorganization of Yugoslavia” (Historija, n.d., p. 205). Because of this, the crisis in Yugoslavia reached its peak and already in June 1991 Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence. This independence meant the break-up of Yugoslavia and the start of the war in Slovenia and Croatia (Historija, n.d.) It is mentioned that after the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, BiH applied for its own independence. The author of the book also mentions that the representatives of the Serbian Democratic party “demonstratively” left the Assembly after BiH adopted the Memorandum of Independence on October 15, 1991 (Historija, n.d.). When it comes to the Bosnian War, the author states that the war started on 6 April 1992, when the independence of BiH became recognized (Historija, n.d.). However, he also mentions that the first major war crimes in BiH happened already in November 1991 when the YNA destroyed the Croat village ‘Ravno’ (Historija, n.d., p. 209). Also, the aggressions of paramilitary forces such as “Arkan’s Tigers” and “Seseljevci” are mentioned (Historija, n.d.). There is a whole chapter dedicated to the genocide in Srebrenica. There are also names mentioned of the people that are considered to be responsible for the war crimes on the side of the Serbs (Karadzic and Mladic) and it is also written that these two are accused of war crimes at the ICTY (Historija, n.d.). The section finishes with a chapter on the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and a chapter on post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina (Historija, n.d.).
There are more pages dedicated to the Bosnian War than in all three books that were discussed above. The pictures in the book are more neutral and do not show starving people during the war. There are pictures of refugees with a caption that says ‘do you know any refugee? If you do, ask him or her what it is like to be a refugee’. Another picture of the bridge in Mostar has a caption that says if the children ever have the opportunity to go to Mostar, to ask about the history of the city and the bridge. On Page 210, there is a quote by Robert Henlein: “A generation that ignores its history, does not have a past, nor a future” (Historija, n.d.). From my own judgment, this book definitely is an improvement compared to the books that are used at the moment. The breakup of Yugoslavia and the wars that followed are described in much more detail and the descriptions seem more neutral. Elements of all three books that have been analyzed in the previous sections have been incorporated into the book. The war in
57 Croatia is mentioned and the attack on the Croat village in Ravno as well, just as in the textbook they use in the primary school in Zabljak. Also, the tensions between the Serbs and Albanians on Kosovo have been mentioned together with the belief of the Serbs that Kosovo and Vojvodina were too autonomous as a consequence of the constitution of 1974 (Historija, n.d.). This was also visible in the textbook that is currently used by the primary school in Kotorsko. The paramilitary forces such as “Arkan’s Tigers” and “Seseljovci” are discussed, just as in the textbook used by the primary school in Tesanjka. In my opinion, this book is written out of the perspective of what happened on Bosnian territory, contrary to the other textbooks that were written out of the perspective of what happened to a certain ethnonationality. If this book would get introduced in the whole country, the ethnonational influence in history class would decrease. However, I do not think that the Serb Republic will accept the book, as only Serb leaders such as Karadzic and Mladic have been sketched off as war criminals and have been mentioned in the context of the ICTY (Historija, n.d.). The book has not mentioned any Bosniak or Croat war criminals. Therefore, it would already be a success if both ethnonationalities in the Bosniak-Croat Federation accept the book.
58 6. CONCLUSION: COUNTERPRODUCTIVITY OF PEACE RESOLUTIONS IN BIH
At the end of the Bosnian War in 1995, a political structure was created in Bosnia and Herzegovina that avoided any ethnic fusion on institutional levels, as the creators of the peace agreement expected this to be a long-term solution for the ethnonationalistic tensions in BiH. The high autonomy that was given to the separate entities has also resulted into their abilities to design the educational systems in favor of their ethnonationality (Russo, 2000). Because of this segregation on the level of all public institutions, schools that were multi-ethnic a hundred years ago, such as the primary school in Tesanjka, have changed into a mono-ethnic school as a consequence of the war (Ljevakovic, 2009). Systematic segregation in education has become visible through multiple methods. One of these methods is the system of “two schools under one roof”, where children of different ethnicities attend school in the same building but are segregated both physically and mentally (Bozic, 2006). Even though the International Court abandoned this system, it is still visible in approximately 32 schools throughout the Bosniak-Croat Federation (Diskriminacija, 09 June 2017). The primary school in Tesanjka used to employ this system until 2008 (Ljevakovic, 2009). After the war, many mono-ethnic schools were created, such as the primary school in Zabljak. The school was created to transfer the Croat children that attended the primary school in Tesanjka (Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). Finally, ethnonational segregation is also promoted through the teaching of so-called “national subjects”, as is the case in the primary school in Kotorsko. Here, the children can choose which religious subject and which language they would like to learn. The aim of this research was to examine to what extent does the infusion of ethnonationalism through education in Bosnia and Herzegovina influence students’ historical perception of the war (1992-1995)? In order to answer this question in the best way possible, I conducted a field research in three primary schools of different ethnonationalities: a Bosniak primary school in Tesanjka, a Croat primary school in Zabljak and a Serb primary school in Kotorsko. Through the combination of a content analysis of the textbooks, a survey with the students and interviews with the teachers, my aim was to examine the interplay between what the books show, what the teachers tell and how the students understand and reproduce this information. In all three schools, the textbooks showed a large ethnonational influence narrating what happened in the Bosnian War from their own ethnonational perspective. The books show their own truth, leaving out events that affected the other ethnicities in Bosnia
59 and Herzegovina. The Serb textbook had more distortions compared to the other two books, as they tried to victimize their own ethnicity. The Croatian book did mention some influences of the war on the Bosniaks. However, the genocide in Srebrenica was only mentioned to acknowledge that the Croats prevented a catastrophe that could have been much worse. The teachers in all three schools are well aware of the ethnonational influences in the textbooks they use. While the history teacher of the primary school in Tesanjka has an open approach and is also open about his own experiences in the war, the history teacher of the primary school in Zabljak has chosen to strictly adhere to the content of the textbook. As the class in the primary school in Kotorsko is mixed, the teacher has chosen a more moderate approach than the approach of the book and also discusses certain taboos such as Srebrenica. Even though the teachers often do not perceive any hostility towards other ethnicities in class, ethnonational influences in the answers given by the students do come forward. In three different schools, three different starts of the Bosnian War have been mentioned. Different attitudes towards the UN come forward and different countries are listed when asked which countries helped BiH during the war. The questions about who gained and lost most during the war really showed the result of the infusion of ethnicity through the different narratives of the Bosnian War. The narrative of one ethnicity makes the student blame the other ethnicities more. Thus, the infusion of ethnonationalism through education, in particular in history class, definitely influences the way the students think about the events of the Bosnian War and the “winners and losers” of the war. In Kotorsko, where the class is mixed and the teacher has a more moderate approach than the textbook, the children had a more neutral perception of the Bosnian War and showed less ethnonationalism in their answers. In the schools that explicitly used the textbook as a guideline for their classes, the ethnonational influence of the book comes forward in the answers given by the students, which results in different perceptions of the war among students from different ethnonationalities in different schools. The primary school in Kotorsko showed the influence of the ethnonationality of the school on the students from other ethnonationalities and therefore this case can be used to answer the subquestion: how does the decentralized ethnonational education system influence a student from ethnonationality a attending a school from ethnonationality b? The students of the primary school in Kotorsko surprised me as almost half of the class refused to write down their nationality. None of the students that refused to write down their ethnonationality showed any ethnonational influences in their answers. From the students that did note their nationality, a 100% of the Serb students showed ethnonational influence in their answers while only 20% of the Bosniak students showed an ethnonational influence in their
60 answer. As the nationality of many students in this class is unknown, it is possible that there are children from all three ethnicities not identifying themselves. Therefore, it is possible that the mixed setting influences ethnonationalism of both the majority and the minority of the class. However, from the children that did identify themselves, the students that have the same ethnonationality as the school showed 100% ethnonational influence, while only a fifth of the minority students showed ethnonational influences in their answers to the survey. Thus, a student from ethnonationality a attending a school from ethnonationality b shows less ethnonationalism than students belonging to the ethnonationality of the school.
6.2 Different narratives of the history as a consequence of the societal security dilemma – practical recommendations
Through the interviews with the teachers it became clear that, even though they are aware of the ethnonational influences in the textbook, they still stick to the ethnonational content. If other ethnicities use history textbooks to promote their own ethnonational vision, schools feel obliged to do the same in order to protect their own ethnonational identity (Dzanovic, personal communication, 26 April 2018). The societal security dilemma intensifies when every school uses its right to teach in their own language, their own alphabet and from their own perspective. Indeed, ethnicities feel threatened by the history children of other ethnicities learn and choose to teach the children from their ethnicity a history from their perspective. These calls for human rights in education for every separate ethnicity prevent the formation of a common national identity (Swimelar, 2013), as the other ethnicities are rendered as a threat and their perspective on the Bosnian War is considered as incorrect. A common history that is taught would reduce the threat of the other ethnicity, reducing the societal security dilemma and therefore enabling the creation of a national identity. The introduction of a new, more neutral book would be a move towards the right direction, but a revision of the total educational system proves necessary. While the segregation of public institutions was created as a long-term solution to the ethnic tensions in BiH, this ethnonational segregation in education has proved counterproductive. The children in the primary school in Kotorsko showed less ethnonationalist influences as the class existed out of all three ethnicities. As most children do not want to be segregated, mixed schools without ethnonational influences
61 would be a better solution to ethnic tensions, because the tensions would decrease through regular contact.
6.3 Limitations of the research
I am well aware that the upbringing of the children and other factors can have an effect on their vision of the historical events and on their level of ethnonationalism. In school, only a few lessons have been dedicated to the Bosnian War and as the war is very recent, it is possible that the children are confronted with it at home on a daily basis. For this reason, I also analysed what is written in the books and whether the teachers add any information that is relevant according to them. Nonetheless, many of the answers were given according to what was written in the book. Another possibility is that a given answer does not necessarily represent another ethnonational influence; it is possible that the child simply gave the wrong answer. Maybe the student could not remember the right answer and therefore for example answered the wrong date when asked when the war started. For this reason, I conducted my research at the end of their school year, when they learn about the Bosnian War, to make sure that what was taught about the topic was very recent. However, even with all these precautionary measures, these influences cannot be totally prevented.
6.4 Possibilities for further research
The narratives that are taught about the Bosnian War have proven to be significantly different between schools that are located in a radius of 11 kilometres. The region where these schools are located, around Doboj, has mostly experienced comparable damages during the War. Therefore, it would be interesting to compare the history that is taught at these schools to the history that is taught in other regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina that have been affected by the war in a different way, whether suffering from more damage or less, in order to analyse whether this also contributes to the ethnonational influences in education. Furthermore, the new textbook that will be introduced seems more neutral and covers aspects of all three ethnicities. Another possibility for further research would be to analyse the different textbooks that were used from the end of the war until now. Perhaps, through the analysis of these textbooks, episodes in time can be identified when ethnonationalism increased or decreased. I assume that the ethnonationalist influence increased in the first years
62 after the war. Therefore, it would be interesting to research whether a critical point can be identified where ethnonationalist influence started to decrease, or whether this influence continued to grow. A final possibility for further research is to analyse the ethnonationalist influence on other historical events that were crucial for this region. For example, the same research can be conducted to see whether the infusion of ethnonationalism through education has an influence on the student’s historical perception of the Second World War. The Second World War has also been an important episode of the history of the Balkan-region. However, after the Second World War ethnonationalist influences were suppressed in an effort to create a unified Yugoslavian identity. It would be interesting to compare the perception of the students now with what was being taught about the Second World War before the Bosnian War. That way, we could analyse whether the increase in ethnonationalism during and after the Bosnian War has also influenced and changed the perception of historical events prior to the Bosnian War.
63 LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson, B. R. O. G. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Bartulovic, A. (2006). Nationalism in the classroom: narratives of the war in Bosnia- Herzegovina (1992- 1995) in the history textbooks of the Republika Srpska. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 6(3), pp. 51- 72.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bet-El, Ilana R. (2002). “Unimagined Communities: The Power of Memory and the Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia” in J.W. Müller (ed.) Memory & Power in Post- War Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past. Cambridge University Press, pp.206-222.
Bosnia and Herzegovina- Two Decades after Dayton. [image]. Retrieved on 3 March 2018 from https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2017/03/14/bosnia-and-herzegovina-two- decades-after-dayton/
Bozic, G. (2006). Reeducating the hearts of Bosnian students: an essay on some aspects of education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. East European Politics and Societies, 20(2), pp. 319- 342.
Budak, N. (1999). ‘Etnicnost i povijest.’ In Hersak, E. (ed.), Etnicnost i poviijest. Zagreb: Institut za Migracije i Narodnosti, Naklada Jesenski i Turk, Hrvatsko Sociolosko Drustvo.
Chandra, K. (2006). What is Ethnic Identity and Does it Matter? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, pp. 397- 424.
Clark, J.N. (2010). Education in Bosnia-Hezegovina: the case for root-and-branch reform.
64 Journal of Human Rights, 9, pp. 342–362.
Coakley, J. (2018). ‘Primordialism’ in nationalism studies: theory or ideology? Nations and Nationalism, 24(2), pp. 327- 347.
Dvije skole pod jednim krovom- TV Debata. [image]. Retrieved on 1 March 2018 from http://www.diskriminacija.ba/dvije-škole-pod-jednim-krovom-tv-debata
Dyrstad, K., Ellingsen, T. & Rod, J.K. (2015). Ethnonationalism in Post-War Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo. The Effects of Local Violence and Ethnic Composition. International Area Studies Review, 18(1), pp. 4-25.
Erdelja, K., Stojakovic, I., Madzar, I. & Lovrinovic, N. (2010). Tragom Proslosti- udzbenik povijesti za osmi razred osnovne skole. Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Skolska Naklada.
Fearon, J.D. & Laitin, D.D. (2000). Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity. International Organization, 54(4), pp. 845- 877.
Filipovic, M. (2002). Pitanje odgovornosti za rat u Bosni i Hercegovini 1992- 1996. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Svijetlost.
Gurr, T.R. (1994). Peoples Against States: Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World System. International Studies Quarterly, 38, pp. 347- 377.
Historija- Udzbenik za 9. razred devetogodisnje osnovne skole. (n.d.). IMPRESSUM
Hromadzic, A. (2008). Discourses of Integration and Practices of Reunification at the Mostar Gymnasium, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Comparative Education Review, 52(4), pp. 541- 563.
“Indictment and charges against Milosevic” Case Information Sheet Slobodan Milosevic, (IT- 02-54) [online]. Retrieved on 6 June 2018 from http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/cis/en/cis_milosevic_slobodan_en.pdf
65
Islamovic, E. & Blazevic, N. (2014). The Prospects of Intercultural Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies, 7(1), pp. 47- 62.
Kondylis, F. (2010). Conflict displacement and labor market outcomes in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Development Economics, 93, pp. 235- 248.
Kourvetaris, G.A. (1996). Ethnonationalism and Subnationalism: The Case of Former Yugoslavia. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 24(2), pp. 163- 187.
Kubo, K. (2010). The Radicalisation and Ethnicization of Elections: The 1990 Local Elections and the Ethnic Conflict in Croatia. Ethnopolitics,6(1), pp. 21- 41.
Ljevakovic, K. (2009). 100 godina skole u Tesanjci 1909- 2009. Tesanjka: Biblioteka preporod.
Manza, J. & Crowley, N. (2018). Ethnonationalism and the Rise of Donald Trump. Contexts, 17(1), pp. 28- 33.
Mapa: Dvije skole pod jednim krovom u BiH. [image]. Retrieved on 2 March 2018 from http://www.diskriminacija.ba/teme/mapa-dvije-škole-pod-jednim-krovom-u-bih
NDC. (2012). Leaving the past behind: The perceptions of youth in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [online] Available at: https://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloadfile.php?filepath=downloads/pubdocs/Leavin g%20the%20past%20behind_perceptions%20of%20youth%20in%20Bosnia%20and% 20Herzegovina.pdf. [Accessed on 26 Dec. 2017].
Nellis, W. (2006). Bosnian education for security and peacebuilding? International Peacekeeping, 1(2), pp. 229- 241.
OSCE (2002). Bosnia High Representative Urges OSCE to take lead on education. Press release, 4 July.
66 Owen-Jackson, G. (2015) Political and Social Influences on the Education of Children: Research from Bosnia and Herzegovina. New York: Routledge.
Palmberger, M. (2016). Institutionalizing Mostar’s Division: Divided Education. In How Generations Remember: Conflicting Histories and Shared Memories in Post-War Bosnia and Herzegovina (pp. 93-105). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pejic, R., Tesic, S. & Gavric, S. (2016). Istorija za 9. Razred osnovne skole. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Zavod za udzbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, pp. 65- 85.
Russo, C.J. (2000). Religion and education in Bosnia: integration not segregation? Brigham Young University Law Review, 27(1), pp. 945- 966.
Sabotic, I. & Cehajic, M. Historija, Udzbenik za deveti razred devetogodisnje osnovne skole. Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina: NAM Tuzla.
Sadzovski, A. (2015). Nation-Building Under the Societal Security Dilemma: the Case of Macedonia. Journal of Regional Security, 10(1), pp. 53- 78.
Swimelar, S. (2013). Education in Post-War Bosnia: The Nexus of Societal Security, Identity and Nationalism. Ethnopolitics, 12(2), pp. 161- 182.
Toal, G. & Dahlman, C.T. (2011). Bosnia remade: Ethnic cleansing and its reversal. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Torsti, P. (2007). How to deal with a difficult past: history textbooks supporting enemy images in post-war Bosnia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(77), pp. 77-96.
67 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWS
1. Besim Džanović Primary School “Kulin Ban”, Tesanjka Director Tesanjka, 26 April 2018
2. Sakib Mulalić Primary School “Kulin Ban”, Tesanjka History teacher Tesanjka, 26 April 2018
3. Alma Halilović Primary School “21. Mart”, Matuzici History teacher Matuzici, 26 April 2018
4. Mladen Jozić Primary School “Ivana fra Frane Jukica”, Zabljak Assistant director and religious teaching Zabljak, 27 April 2018
5. Ljuba Nikolić Primary School “Ivana fra Frane Jukica”, Zabljak History teacher Zabljak, 27 April 2018
6. Slađana Pašalić Primary School “Milan Rakic”, Doboj Director Rudanka, 27 April 2018
68 7. Ljubiša Ćirić Primary School “Milan Rakic”, Doboj- History teacher of the department in Kotorsko Kotorsko, 30 April 2018
8. Mustafa Mustajbegović Assembly of the municipality Modrica and MSc. in political science Modrica, 7 May 2018
69 APPENDIX B: HISTORY TEST SURVEY (TRANSLATED)
The purpose of the test you have in front of you is to help me with my research on what you learn about the previous war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The test is anonymous and the results will exclusively be used for this purpose. You are not under any obligation to answer any question you do not want to answer. It would help me if you answer to as many questions as possible and as honest as possible, in order for me to be able to process the results for my master thesis.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and your help!
Date of Birth: Nationality:
1. When did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2. How did the war start in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
3. Which countries have helped Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war?
4. In what way did the UN contribute to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
5. What was the aim of the Dayton Peace Agreements?
6. According to you, could the war have ended in a different way? How?
7. In your opinion, who has gained the most during the war?
8. In your opinion, who has lost most during the war?
THANK YOU!
70