The Post-Second World War Immigration of the Yugoslav

CEU eTD Collection Second Tijana Reader: Professor Krstic

The PostThe Supervisor - Second World War World Immigrationthe MuslimsTurkey (1953 Yugoslav of Second to :

Professor Tolga Esmer In requirements for fulfillmentof the thedegree partial of Central European University

History Department Budapest, Hungary Nikolina Rajkovic

Master of Arts Submitted to Submitted 2012 By

- 1968)

CEU eTD Collection written Author.”not bemadepermission ofthe the without may instructions such with accordance in made copies Further made. copies such any of part a Det Library. European Central the in lodged and Author the by giveninstructions the with accordance in only made be may part, or full in either process, any by Copies Author. the with rests thesis this of text the in “Copyright

ails may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form form must page This librarian. the from obtained be may ails

CEU eTD Collection nuance historiography and challenge significantly interviewee’s f the finds and explanations driven ideologically for opts largely migration this on scholarship the Whereas place. took migration socio of peculiarities and migration for motives and reasons interesting an offer accounts oral These 1960s. and the 1950s during Istanbul to came who immigrants generation first the from gathered I interviews want Turkey break. in nobenefits andcitizenship tax receiving other than leavingfor Turkeyona and legal voluntary this basis wherever themtosettle statusallowed they as categorized legally were migrants The 1953. in Yugoslavia of Republic Peoples Federal the and Turkey between signed migration on agreement the to according Yugoslavia of Republic Peoples Federal the leave to allowed p this in Turkey for left who Muslims The 1968. to 1953 from period the in Turkey to Yugoslavia of Republic Peoples Federal the from communities Muslim the of emigration Abstract

In this thesis I study the conjunction of causal factors and motivations informing the the informing motivations and factors causal of conjunction the study I thesis this In y tngahc eerh a cnutd n sabl in Istanbul in conducted was research ethnographic My

actors for leaving were of a political and religious nature, the nature, religious and political a of were leaving for actors ebs göçmen serbest

fe migra (free ruet pstd n mainstream in posited arguments lms it te opeiis of complexities the into glimpse - itrcl otx wti which within context historical 2011 nts) which meant they were were they meant which nts) ,

n i i bsd n ten on based is it and

eriod were were eriod - CEU eTD Collection It pleasure is toknow Iam especially toTulayyou contacting thankful forin help Tahir her immigrants. Thank all! the grateful my to gave Iwas of tobe a student who provided many Iprecious. would projectthis from the very gratefulvery to my supervisor, that theimmigrantsIYugoslaviaI shared withme. fromThus, tothem. devote work am this wouldnothavethe kindness,This thesis care, been hospitalitygreat without possible and stories Acknowledgements invaluable comments andcriticisms onallofmycomments invaluable work Professors Professors also constructive

all of all like tothank my supervisor Professor Selim DeringilSelim Ozturkmenfor and helpingresearch.me with Arzu this beginning you. Professor

comments a Marsha Siefert who is Marsha Siefert

and whoseand friendline Tolga whokept Esmer enc nd support. I would alsond support. li

Professor an ss and incredible person andincredible scholar person who

in Tijana Krstic, whom Iwhom admire Tijana and Krstic, her her professional stimulating ouraging me toengage in ke howhappy tomention

support classes. I classes. am

was indeed also

CEU eTD Collection Chapter VI: Reasons and MotivesChapter Migration: and for VI:Migrant on Reasons Historiography Accounts vs. Chapterv V: Voluntary PeriodRepublican (1923 Chapt Yugoslavia Nationsand NationalitiesChapter of the III:Question Peoples’ Federal in of Republic states Chapter the II:History Migration of Movements toForme from Turkey the Thesis Chapter I:Oral History Introduction Content of Table Migration toTurkey fromFederal Yugoslavia of (1953 The People'sRepublic Interviews onNotes fieldwork Introduction notes Conclusion 5.2. Resentment and Stories Success of 5.1. “We came as free migrants!” 3.2 ThePolicy Nations of and Nationalities Macedoniain 3.1 ThePolicy Nations of and Nationalities thein FPRY 2.3. Migration thein Federal People’s Republic Yugoslaviaof (1953 2.2 Migrati 2.1. Migrations in Latethe Ottoman Era (1878 My researcher role as Settings of the interview Finding migrant the com

...... er IV:

......

...... on in the period between 1923 and 1945

......

The SettlementImmigrationThe and Policies Turkey: aNew Early The in ...... s

......

...... munities

...... s. Compulsory Migration Migration: Theoreticaland Methodological the Framework and of - 1934) ......

......

...... - 1923) ......

......

...... - ...... 1968) ......

...... r Yugoslav Yugoslav r - 1968) ......

......

84 62 46 37 25 84 82 69 63 42 37 33 29 25 22 21 15 14 13

9 1

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography QuestionnaireAppendices: Conclusion Conclusion 6.3. social The and cultural reasons 6.2. Economic reasons 6.1. National and

......

Political Reasons

......

121 120 114

112 101

92 85

CEU eTD Collection McCarthy studies Muslim communities from the Balkans, the northern Caucasus and Russian Armenia who were who Armenia Russian and Caucasus northern the Balkans, the from communities Muslim studies McCarthy 1 i c t f popu popu predominately a throughout extended dynamics These 1830s century nineteenth the throughout recurred m Europe, w Southeast of ph context the Yugoslavia of Republic Peoples Federal ild n as r eihd s eues rm train and Ottoman Muslimsof 1821 starvation Cleansing Ethnic from refugees as perished or Turks wars them of in most Muslims, killed of million half t one and five argues whereas, lands, McCarthy their from Turkey. driven were today Muslims is what to flee to forced

n he Introduction o o nd In his book book his In it rce m e t

hd he n m r o l l d t i

a a rawa he m se un oppos

ti ti a t M nd e o on on

iti non

y of consequent consequent f l

of e s e et n Eie Te tnc lasn f toa Msis 1821 Muslims Ottoman of Cleansing Ethnic The Exile: and Death t it t fr op

e o x c fr e s

, om

c omp

i t om d i n h a he f c C i c a l lm

rec e e h n

a e it e r t g B ost dd t he i s ti e ti he s

u t s ng ti on he r

l f

B e a g o e e re L ss

n s n , ar r a a x

m a from for Anatolia toGreece, example. c su l n r c e i k l u oun a a l t s y e a us a lt s ti n

ns a t

e eighteenth

t on e nne i

he d t Eu p v

t r i e a y o

n i i l li . r n

n i

o A nsu s c

t E Th p m he ip t n ar o ea x - a 1922 s a

ff c e ound

t li n T h se o B i t r

t c he a li u

e a y

i n poss c

r a su l e (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995) Press, (Princeton: Darwin

k e

k nineteenth g t

n i o but n e B e a n lt , one t

t y

ns l

a e u e y with Tu . 1878 l d of 1

r ss

k a

1 e

e a l

so x N n v k n. Ep ons. n when nd P

i p o e e

e t disease, see Justin McCarthy, McCarthy, Justin see disease, g

opu n y t he l a bten 81 n 12 mr ta fv million five than more 1922 and 1821 between hat W in in v etrn a ipratmmns of moments important as featuring ra

t er i u a on in

n ar ti even larger even a

as for wars l t e ons t - l a h s h he he l d l the

e y y a i

sod l of and ons

l e ph

f O c i

ss,

n o period tt h milli e 191 e

er a no

o of s

i a

ve i m c n twentieth t

i e m 2 nd

n Mus on m d l C - ong n t e

14 he e between u b non h

f a ,1 p protracted its began Empire li s - ee r t ,

1922 1922 - e i t

- g 23. s n t l n a a n 1920s. a t ht

ti e ea he d l of r a

so e lim m s n

n American historian Justin Justin historian American a

t -

Grec

c nd c mi century century be 1953 e et a Death p e s o w

x ar mm g

o i b odus Ev e d e r t f o e t

a mph e

hn i -

ti of sp Gr un ng e

and on r Tu nd Exile : The The : Exile nd i

y rea c

iti e its of a

e ec r s wa e e k v c fr 1968 d

s m e l z i i r Mus Mus om ea sh c

e up f r er t i l d s so e ee n ns

t g . W

were u

t a c li li i i i t the h In In r n nd ng n i he or m m a a a e. g g r t l

CEU eTD Collection M also See 43. t En 3 Turkey,” to BalkanCountries Kirişçi, Kemal See Albanians. and Bosnians Turks, are them Among 2 Yugoslavia. used name official the a compensationproperties.”theirfor years six areofoutwere thisleft Pazar Novi of Sanjak and Bosnia while Montenegro of parts eastern the and Metohija, Kosovo, and Gypsies not but people only, ‘nomadic culture Turkish to belonging and Turkish speaking population Y t K existence its of years eleven Y ac 63. 4 Y h

he s ugo U Vladan Jovanović, “In Search for Homeland from Yugoslavia to Turkey 1918 Turkey to Yugoslavia from Homeland for Search “In Jovanović, Vladan

e u u osovo u

h d h nme o te ulm wo irtd rm uolva ewe 1923 between Yugoslavia from migrated who Muslims the of number The

lf s a

g g P i l of

e i os os s o Br re m so l v s a

t s l l i s R v unnbau Soci - c a a n

e Y

to i v v g a ttl ugo . The underlying purpose of the Convention was Convention the of purpose underlying The . a

i i

nd eg li T a a d a a

st u li Ed

e i s m (

in on r ho s l l e 1918 k M a m ib Yugoslavia r, v e s e

v 19 , t in nt m : y (191 y

so ace e a

“ R

r L C t

o . eg e P a l Bt sds dlgts confined delegates sides’ Both ’ a - o th g v : t e of don te 1941 n

e i e z i on The - ti ng its ng

o, nous 8

L nu

- , 19 ,

19 ab two i mi st “‘ a. a iti

)

o 4 R , Federal Peoples Federal C until until New Perspectives on Turkey on New Perspectives th e

t g

u 1),

e o s Turkey first the in Slovenes and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom the as known also

e r r i - -

“

t n a n 21 C ” Migr a l hund an mi t ti iti ea u o t ) st i e on on

r Changes, d nqu

no a y

ve 1963 1963 C

w of , ed. Ulf Brunnbauer Brunnbauer Ulf ed. , l Tr a e l tion re e r

h y

an endeavoured i ri t t e po t t 4 d u he n he y p y n

s pu r

Af g na f y when li

rom t

, ed. Ulf Brunnbauer Ulf ed. , t hous S c S r r c he ti t ” su ob pa e y oun ou ona

’ c

t e

h W e g t

e d Republic of Yugoslavia of Republic a r h l T e ’ t o it

m a

nd r r er

o Soc Y v t

y an Y d h s. r er was changed changed was . n u

l i 2 e u s to receiveto40,000 Muslim families within nextthe ” g d f

2 r na n go “ f e o 3 Sl

, Spring 12 (1995) Spring , 12

e Tu ti

m W s The

In fact, “ fact, In s tio l r e a a l t e

e s a vs a h v r , (M n na nt v

k r a the R t

s” n

Migr l I ün wa r C e

I put an Societies gion e (M ,

onv

c mi i mgain area emigration s s e h s n

ün t at

ee e t it covered the Yugoslav rural Muslimrural Yugoslav the covered it er to

p g n “ 1945 ion ion p from e c Post Second World Second Post :R ra e no oils Federal Socialist into m r

re n h it c remov i e ti c . ti e o u Ol ssu , Transterritorial P Transterritorial , n P r d : on on li

: R.Ol : i

olici t , 63.

a d h

a c l P l e Y r

t r l e nb o

of e u L 1941 po 1945 is estimated to be 115,427. 115,427. be to estimated is 1945 e (hereafter, (hereafter,

to e

a o s a g d on

o ns be the Albanians without any without Albanians the

u os e li e liti 1938 an the the rg nb

i ,

N l ” ng d

i c t a o

e one i he V

s Tokovi istorije Tokovi n v u oey to solely : s E i e

e rg i

n m

rl a t M - ee w t

War Immigration from from Immigration War than Mus a

a i er V wa i gr g s g s n it o e Yugoslavia

t w r th a h liti rl e G

a ton s

p a a ti a lim m

C c g Tu r r

o t

bH e he n

Republic : Kingdom of Kingdom f G of n -

Macedonia, m o s r t e Mi m in

200 ,

k rwar s ea 1 N ry li bH e

t p g - a t o y 2 (2008) 2

v re r h ns b un n

a , i e

li - ng 9 - ti d ) a

2009), Sl til 1941

), sh o bout P

was was

av n

o f f 73. t

e of of s or or h i in ic t n d e - :

CEU eTD Collection CO: East European Monographs: New York: Columbia University Press, 2003 Press, University Columbia York: New Monographs: CO: European East 6 5 the under of pressure ideology the Yugoslav to subjected communities Muslim the of religiosity the foreground m the of explanations convincing few but figures different many features all, at exists sources Yugoslav However, Turkey to Yugoslavia from arriving one’ consciousness and culture Turkish representatives Turkish and authorities Yugoslav both to Turkey demonstrate in relatives one’s from sent obtain and to had prepared person a Turkey, for Yugoslavia leave to eligible Turkey that implied would ‘free’ of status their but want, they wherever settle to allowed are and migration) was agreement this of part a was that migration a e g 9 (2007) 8 7

g x ov Ç A B Halim Brunnbauer, “ Brunnbauer, r ce avu ka u ee e ç A rçu p n r m ş : n ti 148. igration. E o

m bestow on on bestow on e ğ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Turkey estimates that the number of migrants migrants of number the that estimates Turkey in Affairs Foreign of Ministry The lli Ç nt lu e ka avu s

n , , “ ,

, n Shad data statistical the t of

s. ş on partnership and friendship friendship and partnership on Yugoslavya which means that those who migrate are leaving Yugoslavia on a voluntary basis basis voluntary a on Yugoslavia leaving are migrate who those that means which E o L 5 ğ lli

a lu e o s te Those scholarly studies that engage in explanation almost without exception exception without almost explanation in engage that studies scholarly Those U t w “ , , hn

Shad L G . Consequently, modern historiography on the subject, to the extent that it it that extent the to subject, the on historiography modern Consequently, . them no privilege other than citizenship than other privilege no them Yugoslavya ti ab i enea c l

o u – t Tu w r he C l

Makedonya og

Migr G ommunism and its atheis its and ommunism r i ks enea ear e s ,

– 52. tion l

l 1960s y og Makedonya fluctuates greatly depending on whether one uses uses one whether on depending greatly fluctuates om M om

,” i e ,”

s 43.

: ( 136.

Türk kültürü ve bilinci ve kültürü Türk M

ace emo

between between

don

vo Topraklar r y

l an

un i a I d

t w 3 a w

r den ho y ı it 195 legally legally ndan t policies t h

iy A tity

e 3 Tu e

mi .

T r 7 e and and ü

mon r

g rkiye k scesu apiat lo a to had also applicant successful A as categorized a r e ). l a

l h y g and tax break tax and 8 ti o . According to these accou these to According .

98 s prxmtl 170,000. approximately is 1968 ’ we on Ur ye

a ba

d d G ),

M n

öç öç t 50. wa o b

ee ve

l s u ea vesika vesika s n

Nedenleri ve

m serbest göç serbest p ind n 1953 in signed . s r

ohib t

n M in he In order to become become to order In (guarantee letter) letter) (guarantee

c it acedon ,” ,” oun s belonging to to belonging s e the reasons reasons the d Bilig t

r Turkish ( y i w , voluntary a

af Spring it ( nts Boulder, Boulder, h t . The The . e r

that that

t t for for

he he 41 or 9

CEU eTD Collection Committee of Yugoslavia in Belgrade in Yugoslavia of Committee and Macedonia of Republic confidential the works ofautho Turkey in ties family and kinship e.g., migrants, for stake at were to contrast curious a in stand explanations these research, my on based argue deporta repressions, rapes, pillages, massacres, wars, as emphasizing by years hundred almost of period the throughout argue Nüredin study andaccounts motives withtheon decision oral tomigrate from my not did who communities those of the at looks it since interesting particularly Akan survive. to order in ‘Turk’ or ‘Albanian’ as such categories identity identified who communities that argues themselves also She communities. those of transformation by brought change political the that argues and Macedonia in scholar Turkish Turkey. to migration entailed micro scholarship Turkish the to belong predominately Immigrants” 10 A ka n - milieu imperilled by the new social and political circumstances which at the end end the at which circumstances political and social new the by imperilled milieu E The only source from from source only The Çavuşoğlu Halim like scholars Turkish some hand, other the On lli s

, ( paper as Shad report urban Muslims prior to prior Muslims urban that ,

o presented at presented Burçu Akan Ellis Akan Burçu w rs who deal migrationmovement. this who with rs

h raos n fcos o mgain ee lot h sm ad common and same the almost were migration for factors and reasons the G rm kpe written Skopje from

enea l og

Ulusararası Göç Sempozyumu Göç Ulusararası i e

s 10 , sent to the the to sent

54 One example One Yugoslavia - , 5 Se also See 55.

who hoe to choose

( the era of C of era the hereafter CCFRM report). CCFRM hereafter

draws from oral narratives of the Muslim communities Muslim the of narratives oral from draws

in phenomenon of phenomenon

Commission for National Minorities of of Minorities National for Commission

ht el wt ti migrat this with deals that

1957 1957

of such approach to the subject the to approach such of migrate. I will compare some insights from her her from insights some compare will I migrate. 4 aaatn Zaim, Sabahattin

, Muslim communities started to perceive their their perceive to started communities Muslim , ommunism had to accept the new the accept to had ommunism by , Zeytinburnu, Istanbul, 2006 Istanbul, Zeytinburnu, , th tions and forced assimilation. assimilation. forced and tions e Central Committee of the Federal Federal the of Committee Central e

migrations to Turkey f Turkey to migrations

“A Report on the Last Yugoslavian Yugoslavian Last the on Report “A C the ommunism forced the identity identity the forced ommunism

that are that continuity of atrocities such atrocities of continuity own own

i Ellis’s n oeet is movement on ). ignored typically

field work.

n Abdülmecid and other factors that factors other is the

rom the point point the rom field work is work field American ly As I will will I As

Central Central crafted crafted

in in a -

CEU eTD Collection on based study migrants topic this on found I source Yugoslav aforementioned population.” backward most the among resistance unau cooperatives, trafficking penalizing headscarves, wearing prohibiting law as such socialism, building for undertaken atavism “ancient of ground solved.” numbe state the for problem legal or national political, no represents country another since course normal CCFRM The nationality). by Turks themselve declared who those (especially minority Muslim the of life social and religious emigration 13 12 XVIII 11

Ibid AJ Archives of Yugoslavia ( Yugoslavia of Archives , Collection: Komisija z Collection: Komisija , - .

K4/7, folio 38 folio K4/7, based on case case on based r of other issues which became became which issues other of r Having in mind ‘the silence’ ‘the mind in Having It 11

I compiled from recent interviews I conducted with these subjects. subjects. these with conducted I interviews recent from compiled I

ten ten represents in some detail detail some in represents

The from Macedonia to Turkey and sees its reasons as deeply rooted in a historical, historical, a in rooted deeply as reasons its sees and Turkey to Macedonia from f women of interviews

CCFRM CCFRM .” secondary secondary ,

1. Thus, Thus, hrzd eia tetet ( treatments medical thorized

studies studies it is based on the free choice of minority members members minority of choice free the on based is it hereafter: hereafter: a nacionalne manjine, nacionalnea maue aant uai shos ( schools Quranic against measures ,

report ih el itrcl actors historical real with according to the the to according sources, I prop I sources, . ” from new primary sources I have I sources primary new from 12

However, it supposes that that supposes it However, AJ), Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Komisija Collection: AJ), eue te ruet ht h raos o mgain i o a on lie migration for reasons the that argument the refuses an an

as well as the ambiguous accounts on the migration in the the in migration the on accounts ambiguous the as well as

report analysis of the social and economic consequences of the the of consequences economic and social the of analysis apparent in different areas of s of areas different in apparent , in light of of light in ,

8. ose to to ose

CCFRM CCFRM ecie mgain “ migration perceives 5

examine examine 13 e.g

will be be will the ., circumcision), etc. which encounter encounter which etc. circumcision), ., report

the rl cons f h first the of accounts oral the reasons stem from from stem reasons the ,

CCFRM or a “

provided here for the first time first the for here provided the the

fruitful fruitful the the as as ıyn mektebi sıbyân migration migration minoriti

a ocial life and need and life ocial report exercise exercise rcs ta fol that process who want to move to to move to want who es ,

which is the only only the is which . movement itself itself movement

Yet, it reveals it Yet, I believe that that believe I ht will that “the measures measures “the ), building building ), - generation generation - 1960 (507), (507), 1960 lows a a lows

to be be to shed s as as s

a a ,

CEU eTD Collection repertoires the interviewees use in their accounts to convey to accounts their in use interviewees the repertoires t t Y m Musl policies settlement S is, That coincide one, new Slovenes and Croats Yugoslavia t i deportation? communities h from communities Muslim conjunction the study to 1990s the of events the on mostly focuses that Balkans more in Turkey h o h ns a i u i a a mil nd g l t g t p t ea a ra os n , i i

v n ti m ce light on the on light r l e f i I a on l O d l

? y , v g u

how , n wa i t r ? e d a o W i oups

n ?

h he ce w nt f

n Turkey and it er o . l W

T u s w h d

W e e e o o a

w h t

l n t t o

d o d on f t ho a t h

did ce ho h he w se e i t ? e Tu d

er x

und

r h d were W

ar ’ ca e a events events e h nd

d p Yugosla

t government nt a e h

e e m a er nd, a e c i op r n t

v t e w k wer x i s he t y nomd by informed

s e

he t wa i t l

h i a sh of e r t e’ on I f o Tu si nd a Yugoslavia nt that have fallen through the cracks of recen of cracks the through fallen have that é

a e

s t

s wa c mi t mili

causal factors and motivations informing the emigration of the the of emigration the informing motivations and factors causal y

u po Mus d us cr w ? t lt e n o g t v r it he liti e u c er k t r

a ? If it it If ? d i er é ra e l r s t po li e Was

s ea o y

ca i a i l ms ons ? a or c

s whose departure whose o li s v d

l o

ff e the the t

e y n

i e the neighbourly e ? und to Turkey Turkey to was i n ca ce t i t

c lit

o d e agreemen he a how i ht r te omn themes, common the are What l i r mi a e

d l ns t e l p ea , s a h e

r r c to what exten what to nd o

e s po

ac v s c s t y l

of ood e ons o t 6

ti t li a

. g h

t c u c

i e a u e ca i s in the period from 1953 to 1968. On 1968. to 1953 from period the in W t the

t e lt r

s e a

po u s

t mi u l s h

i c

ra e j i li a o mgain ind n 93 between 1953 in signed migration on t p g t t us o n s g he

Yugoslav t c re r l

oups “ i . . wer ti w e e

d d e f

mi r s s, t i lit it i Hence, m Hence, i h

d t ca ffe ca did the two policies, the old one and one old the policies, two the did

a h their a e e e p g

t ve

r t ti e w s r rac t r e

‘ h

e on e d ho

t wanted ti e c n t d o p

ti hn i ons on of the the of on c emigra

on r l s ce e a f c t c or ” i y ou a i

c o t s y

s e t r n

mm e ti

d n hi imgain and immigration their in u l a t k main research question is question research main a

d ? Was there a process of process a there Was ? n he c nd ti i a t t g n’ r t histor t t on

ion

on mo on h u

r Mus po g

r rea i o a sh e n ar motifs motifs l

Kingdom of Serbs, Serbs, of Kingdom li g e li e experience d t u t st c e li w i i a l y n n n

ti a m m iography on the the on iography o

g ti p v Y of on r ong

r ons e ks “ o u s t and d e’ g e he g

i f m ra

ffere i s or n r

d i m e

d l g Musl i and life and the the g cultural a l Tu ec sp ra s? ea v s ar n ti i a

v d r c s r k on t one F e i i i a a i n n on e ” or m t t g g y e ? ? e

CEU eTD Collection Progress. period with deals which on impact ‘ of question the of Kingdom Bosnia Yugoslavia Turkey to states I chapter i chapter, first the in framework theoretical and methodological my of exposition m migration the of setting political on works scholarly at look number of and present profile interlocutor to sensitive a e gender a immigrationBalkans. from the nd x nd c h

e g t a migration migration h r n

oups e

g (1923 Considering the scarcity of the sources on this migration, migration, this on sources the of scarcity the Considering the particularlyon focus to wantI , i to Turkey in the late nineteen century nineteen late the in Turkey to e

s and and These policies are important to contextualize historically Turkey’s official stance on stance official Turkey’s historically contextualize to important are policies These will will

f ’ o a h Msi c Muslim the .

nd r h oil etns n hc yitriw ee conducted were interviews my which in settings social the I - Yugoslavia d m

nations and and nations 1934) 1934) will will ec re

e o b r from utline the historical background of of background historical the utline li i ,

e s

g the s the a ca i from the late Ottoman era to to era Ottoman late the from particularly focus on migration from migration on focus particularly on i s o in relation to the same policies carried out by the Committee of Union and Union of Committee the by out carried policies same the to relation in

m n

e post t ettlement and the immigration policies in Turkey in the in Turkey in policies immigration the and ettlement as as o i l

mpo l (1918 ommunities

l oppos - e ainlte’ in nationalities’ a war a s

r rvos ae of waves previous e. I believe it is important to understand how understand to important is it believe I e. t f

a u

nt 41) t e Yugoslavia u d

r f e , whereas, t whereas, , t ac

o ovement in in ovement . s

t t o a m The r t s e er

s thatmay influenced have theinterview.

s c i e on n n n

fourth a

Yugoslavia nd so nd o Turkey. to ethno t e e . he largest part part largest he x 7 g

I will will I t

o the the u migration

ti a c - period of of period hpe wl eaie h bd o literature of body the examine will chapter national a li i e ti z period period ti the the n ation draw more attention more draw e g

fcsn as o Macedonia) on also (focusing the . The The t

migration from the former Yugoslav Yugoslav former the from migration he

Furthermore, my discussion will be be will discussion my Furthermore, of

between between regions a in order to provide historical and and historical provide to order in h Fdrl Peoples Federal the re ff

of this chapter chapter this of third fac ili l a ti t a o ti on

r ons

s chapter will will chapter of s find I

1953 hip p

re Macedonia, Kosovo and and Kosovo Macedonia, a —

v nd b a

e space as well as the the as well as space ili and and it

to t so wee

o will be devoted to devoted be will n

eesr to necessary r c the period o period the g i early i

1968. g a n i i l n ’ deal with the the with deal ns

n the second second the n t s Republic of of Republic h i

t nd a e i republican republican

t n

After the the After us, mi i f

v l and u i

g du e c

ra f the the f n l first a a c n ss, l its its e s’ t d s

CEU eTD Collection will be discussed in discussed be will th scholarlyon Westernliterature as wellYugoslav as the that emphasize to like would I man. straw a as 1960s and 1950s the in migrations of subject providing than rather questions answers. many poses that records official the in ‘silence’ complete part targeted which Yugoslavia migration on works scholarly with leave to choices communities’ Muslim the informing decisions and migration for decisions and motives studies migration history oral how show to aim and question research main my to return analys of level second the Finally, are analys of level this with to according Turkey to immigrated interpret and migration. within functions distinction this how analys will I migration. involuntary and voluntary on discussion theoretical the in engage will and interview the of settings argue will fifth The

inevitably

and sixth and . Thus, it Thus,

This chapter will address how the official poli official the how address will chapter This h CFM eot n h mgain os o mnin n ofca plce of policies official any mention not does migration the on report CCFRM The that ed rsn i te nevees acut of accounts interviewees’ the in present

h interviewees the by

may appear that in this thesis I engage with the Turkish historiography on the the on historiography Turkish the with engage I thesis this in that appear may may

chapter detail in Chapter VI Chapter in detail the the hleg ad nuance and challenge i s interviewees since this is the first time time first the is this since interviewees , s

I will I will be devoted to the i the to devoted be will

the interviewees’ the icul ’

also also cons ed o e nlsd codn t dfeet s different to according analysed be to need accounts i s will be introduced in introduced be will s immigration r ulm rus Te lacuna The groups. Muslim ar . This chapte This . discuss the discuss

, the CCFRM the , the interviewees

different a 8

policy broad array of complex complex of array broad

r will juxtapose the oral accounts on motives motives on accounts oral the juxtapose will r emotions, tropes and cultural repertoires cultural and tropes emotions, nterpretation e subject is extremelyis subjectsc e

confidential report that served as a major major a as served that report confidential that was that social background social

cy of voluntary migration is address is migration voluntary of cy ’ outr ad noutr migration. involuntary and voluntary

accounts and their experiences of of experiences their and accounts the

sixth

of the interviewees the of not state not

of the Yugoslav side is a a is side Yugoslav the of that chapter. This chapter will will chapter This chapter. approach

- ulm communities Muslim . In . sponsored. Alongside sponsored. niiul n group and individual arce the . However, as as However, . fifth when ’

accounts. I accounts.

chapter I chapter used ocial ocial that that

ed in e

CEU eTD Collection 14 of thepast. aspects unrecorded and undocumented elucidate to aims that history oral of field the in applied Mich historian oral American what groups.” oppressed and marginalised of history“undocumented the Britain. in migration about debates nuance to crucial be would ”inside” the from approach an that advocated he whereas, groups immigrant of history the that noticed Thompson Paul 1970s, late the in Britain observing When studies. Thesis Migration: Theoretic and Chapter I:Oral History of understandingnew sources secondary written, the in recorded is what from different is which way a in past a to refer actors and theparty within onthe ranks, issue ofe Kosovo and Macedonia in ground the on both debate, existing an to points thesis this for source Locke, Theresa A. Vaughan, and Pauline Greenhill ( Greenhill Pauline A.and Vaughan, Locke,Theresa 16 15 26.

Joanna Bornat and Arzu Öztürkmen, “Oral History,” History,” “Oral Öztürkmen, Arzu and Bornat Joanna Ibid. Alistair Thomson, “Moving Stories: Oral His Oral Stories: “Moving Thomson, Alistair

literaturetopic. onthesame

. n h ls fw eae oa hsoy a md a iprat otiuin o migration to contribution important an made has history oral decades few last the In In

When When the the 16

ocuin at wl age ht pcr o oa accounts oral of spectra that argue will I part conclusion juxtaposed was mainly documented from the outside and viewed as a social problem, problem, social a as viewed and outside the from documented mainly was on

this

process of migration and become a new reference to reference newbecome a migrationand processof 14 with written sourc written with

Historians interested in oral account on migration sought to study to sought migration on account oral in interested Historians

ael Frisch calls ‘more history,’ that is, an approach broadly approach an is, that history,’ ‘more calls Frisch ael tory and Migration S Migration and tory migration ofthe “Turks.”migration Abingdon,OX: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009), Group, Publishing Greenwood Abingdon,OX: in in es 9 Folkl Women’s of Encyclopaedia ,

these oral accounts can accounts oral these al and Methodological Framework of the Framework Methodological of al and tudies,” Oral History Oral 15

This statement is similar to similar is statement This hdlgt and light shed show ore and Folk life Folk and ore

27, no.1 (Spring no.1 27,

the

that live social social live that existingbody

454. , confer confer

ed. 1999)

Liz Liz : CEU eTD Collection 18 17 in negotiated and constructed is which economy moral a is that responsibilities and duties e group’s a to related inextricably is life that g and moral affective, are which networks social and friends of group families, by constituted relationships intersubjective ethno networks.” social and families which andinformation contributetheprocesses exchange of negotiations tomigration and within mig of interior the into newcomersrelationshipand between their kin the experien identify necessarily ethnicity. or to origin of place the through have not do who migrants the for inappropriate seem may ethnicity orig migrant their of terms in only communities of those perceiving risk a is there however, migration; of studies of host parts essential in the community of one or forms migrant societies a of experience The communities. ethnic or migrant of life studied been usually has migration that notes Thomson migrant. of life the throughout continues and worlds new and old spans which experience migratory the within event one only migration.historyof 27. 1997), 19 Thomson, “Moving Stories “Moving Thomson, Th Daniel Bertaux, Bertaux, Daniel omson, “Moving Stories, “Movingomson, - oilgcl prah n hc priua iprac le i a “micro a in lies importance particular which in approach sociological In relation to migration, the personal testimony of migrants may offer “unique glimpses “unique offer may migrants of testimony personal the migration, to relation In oral the with dealing of risks the of some to attention calls however, Thomson, Alistair

ces groupsceswith their new hostsociety these have and experiencescomplex how reveal a ie tre: n tnscooia Perspective Ethnosociological An Stories: Life

He notes that the physical passage of migrants from one place to another is is another to place one from migrants of passage physical the that notes He ration process […] and reveals a complex wave of factors and influences influences and factors of wave complex a reveals and […] process ration ,” 26 ,” ”

25. enerative of meaning.” of enerative -

28.

In the conception o conception the In 17

What becomes more appropriate to ask is what are the are what is ask to appropriate more becomes What 10 commitments, moral and emotional xpectations,

19 state.

In other words, when one lives in a group, a in lives one when words, other In f a life story, Daniel Bertaux elaborates an elaborates Bertaux Daniel story, life a f

, trans. Tom Wengaf (Paris: Editions Nathan, Nathan, Editions (Paris: Wengaf Tom trans. , ins. Likewise, the notion of notion the Likewise, ins. - iiu of milieux through CEU eTD Collection 24 23 22 21 20 better jobs, better out seek would migrants the which within domain a as function but supportive always are migrants experienc interviewees’ to central as networks social to referred predominately accounts, oral studied she which of Paris, to provinces French familial abackground which relationshipswithin form themigration process arises. cultural its and origin of family their orientations.” of situation social the on measure large in depend which chances life their possibilities, of field their behaviour, adult their for matrices potential context. be to are differences These different. milieu social the make that spheres juridical, constructed families the that beyond argues Bertoux well family of notion a Developing existence. of domains important scientist’s social the from emerge they reconstruction relations. of interpersonal for letters, than other sources written in found be information provide place. and time with relation History 25 Tho Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Alistair Thomson argues this on the basis of case studies done by Ber by done studies case of basis the on this argues Thomson Alistair sble Bertaux Isabelle mson, “Moving Stories “Movingmson, .

, ed. Daniel Bertoux (SAGE Studies in International Sociology 23, 1981), 23, Sociology in International Studies (SAGE DanielBertoux ed. , sble Bertaux Isabelle kin and families specifically, More 22

They make an impact on the children who grew up in them by “ by them in up grew who children the on impact an make They 23

Many other oral h oral other Many - Wiame, “The Life History Approach to to Approach History Life “The Wiame,

on sociometry, the climate and the moral economy of groups that are not to not are that groups of economy moral the and climate the sociometry, on

seen in “material and cultural resources, external constrains, and residential residential and constrains, external resources, cultural and “material in seen oae i sm ntok o sca rltos ht r nt eey socially merely not are that relations social of networks some in located ,”

- 28. Wiame similarly notices that in the interwar period, migration from from migration period, interwar the in that notices similarly Wiame

ie tre ae naube ore o kolde eas they because knowledge of sources invaluable are stories Life istory projects involved with migration show that family and family that show migration with involved projects istory 21

ship networks are perceived to be one of the most most the of one be to perceived are networks ship 11

o migration. of e

t e td o Itra Migration,” Internal of Study he taux 25 - Wiame and Mary Chamberlain. Aee Chamberlain. Mary and Wiame

250. Bertaux

constituting different constituting - im age that argues Wiame

in in 24 Biography and and Biography

CEU eTD Collection processresearch. of encoun I challenges the and them obtained I which by method the explain data, my describe will I section following the In data. my approach to which within framework analytical new hostorpost their in individuals the towards attitude authorities’ the for responsible largely was background, (1944 Albania Hoxha’s develope biography, of notion the employ will I regard this In Communists.’ ‘potential and citizens’ Turkish ‘proper between distinguish to used agents state Turkey’s criteriafor important of constitutive also wasYugoslavia in back familymembers his the Related, kinship. on depended largely interviewed I migrants of relationships marital of nature the extent some to even and migrants, aid to designed associations various the neighbourhoods, destination, of cities and towns final The environment. new a to adaptation newcomers’ decision spouses. even or live, to places http://ejts.revues.org/index629.html Studies 27 26

Bertaux eot lce “oil rcie ad oiiain f isi: n Introduction,” An Kinship: of Mobilisation and Practices “Social Fliche, Benoit

4 Buildin ( - - 2006 Wiame making process in migration, kinship continued to play an important role in in role important an play to continued kinship migration, in process making ), accessed May 15, 2012, May accessed 15, ), o tee nihs rm tde i oa hsoy f irto, cntutd an constructed I migration, of history oral in studies from insights these on g ,“The LifeHistory ,“The - communist soci communist ways of finding jobs, the networks of support and friendship, the joining of of joining the friendship, and support of networks the jobs, finding of ways

- 1991). He argues that biography, that is, one’s family or linear linear or family one’s is, that biography, that argues He 1991).

,” ,” 26 253. ety.

In my studies I found that, apart from being important for the for important being from apart that, found I studies my In

d by Gilles De Rapper’s study of Enver Enver of study Rapper’s De Gilles by d

European Journal of Turkish Turkish of Journal European tered in the in tered tory of of tory CEU eTD Collection 28 enc to enough broad peculiarities. is which term umbrella an as ‘Muslim’ for opted I lines, geographic and ethnic linguistic, aforementioned the across cuts interviewees w as Serbo or MacedonianAlbanian, Turkish in both fluent are them of Some ethnicity. Serbian of Muslim and Tatar Torbesh Turkish, as themselves declared who people were there them of ten Among ethno rich very the by struck fieldwork my During are. people these who of issues around evolving misunderstandings possible avoid and elucidate to attempt required yet reluctant a is it Rather, communities. these homo the for argue or label to not is term appropriate the for searching of purpose The common. in have to seem all they peculiarity cultural a presents category this since 'Muslims' communities migrant ‘Muslim these named term the by appropria an be understood to it is consider I why what and communities’ explain and underline shortly will I Istanbul. present in living hereafter) (Yugoslavia Yugoslavia of Republic Peoples Federal the from migratio the of testimonies oral on draws study My 2012. January them as one oft one them as of source a “Macedonian as understood be to are Macedonia in community Serbian the

One interviewee who claimed Torbesh decent was born in Prizren, Kosovo and de and Kosovo Prizren, in born was decent Torbesh claimed who interviewee One fieldwork on Notes

- tension between Macedonians, Albanians and Turks in Macedonia, each of whom would like to claim claim to like would whom of each Macedonia, in Turks and Albanians Macedonians, between tension speaking Torbesh (op.a.) community. On the other hand, Akan Ellis points out that the Torbesh Torbesh the that out points Ellis Akan hand, other the On community. (op.a.) Torbesh speaking

heir own.” See See heirown.” cnutd y tngahc eerh n sabl rm etme 21 until 2011 September from Istanbul in research ethnographic my conducted I

Akan Ellis, AkanEllis,

geneity of the group or of clear of or group the of geneity

- - igitc akrud o m itriwe fo tee region. there from interviewees my of backgrounds linguistic Croatian. When taking into consideration that this pool/groupof this considerationthat takinginto When Croatian. Shadow G Shadow enealogies 13

- , 8. , speaking community although they recently became became recently they although community speaking

te choice in this regard. I deliberately deliberately I regard. this in choice te - cut social and cultural identities of identities cultural and social cut mas hi rc cultural rich their ompass o Msi communities Muslim of n clared himself as a member of of member a as himself clared 28 , Crimean , ell as as ell I was was I - day day CEU eTD Collection interviewees, but it occurred occasionally that it was not possible to do so. I strove to formulate to strove I so. do to possible not was it that occasionally occurred it but interviewees, po to able be would I supposed I Initially, lives. Turkish” “new, their with Yugoslav former their compare would they that hope the with homes new their in etc., time, leisure relationships, Turkey,neighbourhood in settlement their to related questions aske I Finally, developed. they which within context the and migration for reasons and motives to related were questions the of most course, Of work. at and neighbourhood the in relationships her or also I members. his family closest of possibly, and, interviewee the of background regional and cultural economic, Ithat initially topics reveal to as well as answers, long in stories their tell to interviewees the allow to enough start a made I Therefore, definite. and cut was aim My 1960s. the of end the to 1953 from period the with them in ethnographic subject.” her and researcher the between communication of mode reflexive a in account own her construct “to interviewee an allows questions ended methodology. a and approach historiographical 30 29 straight andsimple as in questions the and Bornat Ibid.

My Interviews

Öztürkmen, “Oral History,” “Oral Öztürkmen, questionnaire starts with basic biographical questions and those related to the socio the to related those and questions biographical basic with starts questionnaire may not have addressed nothave inthe questionnaire. may s ona ont n Az Ötrmn ru, rl itr i bt a both is history oral argue, Öztürkmen Arzu and Bornat Joanna As is gnrto imgat wo ae o uky rm h Ygsai i the in Yugoslavia the from Turkey to came who immigrants generation first - et interview depth

asked questions related to their memories of life in Yugoslavia, in life of memories their to related questions asked

ih open with

453 . -

forward way as possible while trying to be cautious not to not cautious be to trying while possible as way forward - up list of questions which was, I believe, open believe, I was, which questions of list up - ended questions. ended 14

n in An to avoid getting answers that are clear are that answers getting avoid to -

et itriw tutrd y open by structured interview depth se the same questions to all of my my of all to questions same the se 30 I conducted ten interviews, all of all interviews, ten conducted I

o m fed ok ue an used I work field my For - ended ended d - - - CEU eTD Collection With the exception of only two meetings I had with migrants with Ihad meetings two only of exception the With them. with meet me help and migrants the of associations the to me take to enough kind also was He Turkey. to Balkans the from migration of history the regarding information of lots with pr frequently also but Istanbul in met I migrant first the only not was He fieldwork. my of part inseparable an become would Mustafa that known not had I Istanbul to arrival my De Dayanışma from Bereketli Mustafa with me connected who Centre Education Civic Macedonian the from Tahir Tulay to indebtedness acknowledge I migrants. of generation Thus, preferences. and knowledge language interviews and were transcribed conducted inSerbo interviewee’s the on depending conducted the but Turkish, in prepared was questionnaire The wish. interviewee’s the to according set was interview the for time and place Each them. with connections any have not do acros came I method, this Following acquaintances. their among from subjects future recruit subjects existing interrupt the narratio visit to associations to which in visit he participated inthe interviews. communities migrant the Finding a sampling, snowball for opted I interviewees my locate to order In

s subjects who are members of a several migrants associations as well as those who those as well as associations migrants several a of members are who subjects s s menti I As rneği

n and to impose toimpose n and (Association for Cultural and Mutual Assistance of Rumeli Turks). Before Before Turks). Rumeli of Assistance Mutual and Cultural for (Association nd I sd nwal apig o id h mmes f h first the of members the find to sampling snowball used I oned, a priori

categorization. 15

- Croatian,and Turkish. Macedonian

, Mustafa accompanied me in every every in me accompanied Mustafa ,

üei ükei ütr ve Kültür Türkleri Rümeli

technique where where technique interviews were were interviews ovided me me ovided

CEU eTD Collection onas As wrh etoig is mentioning worth Also Bosniaks. are which of majority the Istanbul, of side European the on positioned suburb class working places. settlement migrant’s similar other were there 1950s, the migrant offeredglimpse and communities asome into interesting details. three All kind. that of migrants of association oldest Derneği Dayanışma aforementioned the and Pristina, from mainly people gathers which Merkezi Dayanışma the were visited I that associations more Two information. video questionnaire, my take would r I occasion later each In association. this of president the of insistence the at video by recorded was conversation the but it, record and interview an enjoy and migrants many convers flowing and pleasant meet to opportunity the had I born. was himself Mustafa where region Veles the particularly Macedonia, from migrants together brings which organization an the of president the Derneği Kültür Dayanışma by welcomed was I Balkans. the from families inhabitants, 711,112 approximately counts which Istanbul to me brought ntentID=WEKZNfXlTb8WB0BToALrFw%3d%3d http://www.kucukcekmece.bel.tr/kucukcekmece/detay.aspx?SectionID=PMO1LxuU1hr6IoJQtL511g%3d%3d&Co 31 ecorder and note book since I understood that even unbound chatting may yield interesting interesting yield may chatting unbound even that understood I since book note and ecorder

Data

collected from the official from the official collected

–

a significant portion of which came from or descended from migrants and refugees and migrants from descended or from came which of portion significant a My fieldwork started soon after my arrival to Istanbul when I met Mustafa who who Mustafa met I when Istanbul to arrival my after soon started fieldwork My pr from Apart Küçükçekmece

(Association for Cultural Aid and Mutual Assistance of Rumeli Turks), the the Turks), Rumeli of Assistance Mutual and Aid Cultural for (Association (The Centre of Kosova Pristineli for Cultural Aid and Mut and Aid Cultural for Pristineli Kosova of Centre (The Küçükçekmece

(Associations for C for (Associations webof page ations ( ations

, a large and crowded industrial suburb on the Eur the on suburb industrial crowded and large a , muhabbet Küçukçekmece Municipality Küçukçekmece , which has become increasingly industrialized since since industrialized increasingly become has which ,

Fatih, ). For this occasion I was not prepared to conduct conduct to prepared not wasI occasion this For ). 16 ultural Assistance of Veles People and Region), Region), and People Veles of Assistance ultural

hsoia dsrc wih s oaas a nowadays is which district historical a visits helped me to map the geography of geography the map to me helped visits 31

mainly from poor and working and poor mainlyfrom ,

accessed April 19, 2012, April 19, accessed One of them is them of One ooa rşieie Klü ve Kültür Priştineliler Kosova Çağdaş Köprülü ve Yöresi Yöresi ve Köprülü Çağdaş Rümeli Türkleri Kültür ve Kültür Türkleri Rümeli

Bayramapaşa ual Assistance), ual opean side of of side opean - class , a , CEU eTD Collection 32 of level the At nationalism. Turkish local strengthen and to regional world’ ‘Turkish of the role of the identities emphasizing been has which state Turkish the of character which village or country region, same represented world’. the the ‘Turkish in origin of roots their share who immigrants of notion the to refer associations representing than rather instance, For represent. they group the of ‘origin’ the into insight interesting offer usually associations Such represent. they group the hometown of emergence the associations. influenced world” Turkish “the from immigration of 1960s, landscape. political and associations migrants’ Alexandre out, point Toumarkine and Hersant Jeanne As time. leisure their spend to gather migrants where places first se migrants the where districts and neighbourhoods the in located thus are associations The area. working the of out stands associatio not migrants’ the with associated are who those including districts, these in reside interviewees my of all Almost located. of neighbourhoods working predominately 34 33 Studies Turkish of Journal http://ejts.revues.org/index397.html

Ibid. Ibid. ene esn and Hersant Jeanne

ttled when they arrived in Istanbul. whenttled in they arrived

nte neetn on rltdt teeascain s htte r o mere not are they that is associations these to related point interesting Another The authors associate the term the associate authors The The branches of such associations are usually situated in the residential areas of of areas residential the in situated usually are associations such of branches The

lxnr Tuakn, Hmtw Ognztos n uky A Overview,“ An Turkey: in Organizations “Hometown Toumarkine, Alexandre Aksaray

( 32 - 2005 ls ad osraie nei conservative and class

- h atos ru ta te irtr ifue, seily ic the since especially influxes, migratory the that argue authors The ls, nutil iycp. t is It cityscape. industrial class,

), accessed April 20, 2012. April 20, accessed ),

and and ,

Fındıkzade hemşerlik ns. Only one interviewee resides in a neighbourhood that neighbourhooda in resides intervieweeone Only ns.

in Turkey largely contribute to the Turkish social Turkish the to contribute largely Turkey in hemşerlik

hr te w aoeetoe ascain are associations aforementioned two the where 17 (somebody who is from the same town), i.e., i.e., town), same the from is who (somebody

ghbourhood. Fatih encompassed the the encompassed Fatih ghbourhood.

with the authoritarian and nationalistic and authoritarian the with Gümüşsuyu,

a country of origin, these these origin, of country a

an affluent residential residential affluent an

European European internal internal CEU eTD Collection 37 36 35 also are terms these of Some migrants. the to related terms used commonly few a only are 1923) mübadil göçmen terms The groups. such for Turkey in 1923 used during terms various migrated the who highlights Balkans the from people million 1.6 than more ethno have to perceived are who actors on particularly focusing Balkans, the and Turkey between relationship locati current to ability their that circumstances. other in other among both recruit social associations these fact the despite citizens’ ‘ordinary and ‘notables’ the regional reality the in of note, authors category the the as in However, fit associations. would Rumeli whereas, Pristina, of those and people and people of socia high politicians businessmen, small gather associations regional the hand, other the On community. the of members for aid/assistance mutual to and evenings) dancing family and events (cultural soc to limited are associations district or village the a on constructed region. and country city, organization district, village, to hometown corresponds which scale noticeable the of form a represent associations structure, 39 95. 2008), York, in Balkans,” the and 38 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Esra Bulut, “Friends, B “Friends, Bulut, Esra .

(those who came as a result of the population exchange between Turkey and Greece in Greece and Turkey between exchange population the of result a as came who (those (migrant), (migrant), on and place of origin. of place and on -

religious kin in the Balkans. the in kin religious In other words, the district type would correspond to the associations the to correspond would type district the words, other In Transnationalism in the Balkans the in Transnationalism act or not on several territorie several on not or act akn kökenli Balkan

alkans, Statesmen Lend Us Your Ears: The Trans The Ears: Your Us Lend Statesmen alkans, l standing. 36

What makes a difference between the associations, they argue, is argue, they associations, the between difference a makes What

37 o Bla origin), Balkan (of

In this regard, Esra Bulut closely examines the inter the examines closely Bulut Esra regard, this In 38

, ed , She associates the term ‘kin’ term the associates She 18 .

Denisa Kostovicova and Vesna Bojicic Vesna and Kostovicova Denisa

and that refers to a grade of investment of a of investment of grade a to refers that and a atvte sc a pcis cafes, picnics, as such activities ial R umelili

classes are not likely to meet each meet to likely not are classes - state and State in Links in State and state a esn f uei, and Rumeli), of person (a

with communities of communities with mühacir 35 - - 1995. Dzelilovic (New (New Dzelilovic

b Activities of Activities etween Turkey Turkey etween of the Veles the of

(refugee), (refugee), 39

Bulut - gece state

CEU eTD Collection vrhlig rsne f uks ntoa ad oiia smos utpsd ih the with juxtaposed symbols political and national Turkish of presence overwhelming family evenings)orsponsorship dancing poor of orstudents. families picnics, people, young for activities sport folklore, in classes are them the ensure will which values andgroup. the of reproduction references of set a create to memory regional common context urban the into folklore local of elements transposing in diaspora collectivebeidentity a to oughtwhat of are constructions associations a hometown constitute that argue Toumarkine and Hersant contrast, to In ambiguity. their of awareness seem full also who Istanbul Turkey. in Albanians and Bosnians Balkans, the in existence diasporic after Anatolia to ‘returned’ fact in having as envisaged are Turks Rumeli if Similarly, Bulgaria. or Turkey afore the institutionalize argues, terminology. she associations, migrant’s The nationalism. nation Turkish in whereas, non and immigrant between distinction blur migrants those to ascribed attributes some that is here point Üsküplü grou ethnic with many by associated 42 41 40

Ibid. Hersant and Balkans, “Friends, Bulut, Esra

I was t was I in diaspora a are Bulgaria of Turks the whether of question the with concerned is Bulut 40 -

immigrant. A clear example is Rumeli that is historically part of the Ottoman Empire, Ottoman the of part historically is that Rumeli is example clear A immigrant. (of Skopje) and and Skopje) (of Therefore, Bulut reminds, the concept of diaspora and homeland should be taken w taken be should homeland and diaspora of concept the reminds, Bulut Therefore, Toumarkine, “Hometown Organizations in Turkey: AnOverview,“ Turkey: in Organizations “Hometown Toumarkine,

aking notes while visiting each association. In each branch I would encounter an an encounter would I branch each In association. each visiting while notes aking

Rümeli Türkleri Rümeli 41 Statesmen,

The activities of association also concern familial relations. Among relations. familial concern also association of activities The -

state narratives it is strongly related to the birth of Turkish Turkish of birth the to related strongly is it narratives state ” 97. ” ps such as as such ps

(Turks of Rumeli). According to Bulut, the striking striking the Bulut, to According Rumeli). of (Turks 19

Arnavut

ht s t ht hy hr i cmo with common in share they that it is what

(Albanian) or regions of origin such as such origin of regions or (Albanian)

and borrowing references from the the from references borrowing and

42 - group memory. It is about Itis memory.group

gece

(cultural events and and events (cultural mentioned ith CEU eTD Collection the place or origin are something which I will examine more in detail in subsequent chapters of of chapters subsequent in detail in more examine will I which something are origin or place the the between thei and experience’ complexities of ‘community a as associations However, students. for scholarships and Balkans the in heritage Ottoman the of restoration of matters the in support investment, economic for need the stress of place their and associations their between relationship the to refer they When complex. more much are accounts Their connotations. political reflect necessary not did göçmen term the with identification clear their overshadows nor confronts neither that Turkish; however, as region Rumeli the of heritage the to refer associations some of members the are Ataturk. Kemal Mustafa of heirs natural are who people Rumeli all of spokesman as itself presenting Balkans, the into entry of anniversary 650th ac in involved closely is that one as Association Solidarity and Culture Turks’ Rumeli the of example an gives men. republic, Turkish Mu that thefounderof the me to emphasized associations the of members positioned highly vein, similar a In association. the of repertoire cultural the in place significant a occupies and Beyatlı’ performed frequently Kosovo. from origin Albanian of was who anthem national Beyatlı andfamous politician as poet the suchfigures culturalstriking national presence of wa There origin. of town or region the of landscape cultural and symbolic representational 43 a provide which spaces the as associations migrant the with deal will I Furthermore, thesis. my Bulut, “FriBulut,

neetnl, hn t oe t te oiiiain f h mgat’ soitos Bulut associations, migrants’ the of politicization the to comes it when Interestingly,

h ws rm kpe and Skopje from was who (fr ends, Balkans, St Balkans, ends, ee migrant). For most of the members of the associations I to,their membership of theassociations spoke ee ofthe Formost members migrant). tivities between Turkey and Macedonia. It led a series of events to celebrate the celebrate to events of series a led It Macedonia. and Turkey between tivities

atesmen

,”

97.

emt kf Ersoy Akif Mehmet stafa Kemal Atatürk, was the most notablemost of Kemal was Atatürk, the stafa 20

Likewise, I found that many migrants who migrants many that found I Likewise, r involvement in the state relationship with with relationship state the in involvement r te oeit n rtr f h Turkish the of writer and novelist the , s prose and poetry is is poetry and prose s

origin they usually they origin Yahya Kemal Yahya Rumeli Rumeli serbest s a s

CEU eTD Collection settings such as cafes and the and cafes as such settings social different in conducted I those from significantly differ they and interviews, group mainly dif Iprogressed lesscontrol had being over lessand whatwas said. debate the as though even desirable, than more even it found and outcome this welcome but not coul I while a AfterBalkans. the in situation current the of prognosisaccurate most the as well as pasts, and migrations their to related events of version ‘trustworthy’ most the craft could who the of nature overall b primarily The marked was interview interview. the in participated also Bereketli Mustafa band. live ( evening cultural a had perfect not were circumstances The me. with interview an haveagreed to who males two randomly chosen with association the of president the officeof intothe small I invited was and fullofpeople, The saloonwas Pristinalis. Association ofKosovo me broughtMustafa occasions such of one on Forinstance, associations. the visitingwhen was particularlyThis case fashion. the a such proceedtoin me allow did not oftencircumstances interviews. con social specific 44

Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, eet nepeain o a event. an of interpretations ferent As Burcu Akan Ellis notices, group interviews provide an excellent setting for obtaining obtaining for setting excellent an provide interviews group notices, Ellis Akan Burcu As initially was I interview the of Settings

Shadow G Shadow text for sharing a story that differs from other spaces where I conducted my my conducted I where spaces other from differs that story a sharing for text enealogies

neetd n odcig neves n one a on interviews conducting in interested gece ), and each room echoed with the ‘Rumeli songs’ performed by a by performed songs’ ‘Rumeli the with echoed room each and ), , 11. ,

private homes of interviewees. The difference is to be found in the in found be to is difference The interviewees. of homes private

y a debate among these three males who spryly argued over over argued spryly who males three these among debate a y 44

h itriw I odce i te soitos were associations the in conducted I interviews The 21

for the interview because the association the because interview the for

- on - one basis. However, However, basis. one to the the to d CEU eTD Collection play and coffee or tea drink gather, men where Turkey in places cultural resembled visited I that associations The curiosity. with to listened were migration on conferences holding and Balkans the in places various to travelling of stories warm was He migrants. the of community the within persona respected highly a is Mustafa that noticed I associations. the in gather that communities within enjoys by Mus cases most in accompanied was I associations, the to went I when because interviewees, projects. history memories. some stimulate and help also may interviewee the to close are who room the in people more discussion imply necessarily not does interview the in person one than more of presence the that say to like also would I migration. on the hand, other the On Kosovo. and Macedonia to Turkey’s relationship recent and Turkey in settlement migration, of experience the of aspects political towards more shifted building association an as such space public a in interviews group the instance, subject a between balance shifting act.” speech of “classification the as notes Portelli Alessandro what of matters 47 46 ( 45 Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1997) Wisconsin, of University WI: Madison, Portelli, Alessandro Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, Historyas Genre,” Portelli,“Oral - one in cafes or private homes tended more to biographical details and personal experiencespersonal of biographical and details to more homestended private cafes or one in tafa.I partlysocial researcher presenceas believemy statusMustafa a was influenced by the Burcu Akan Ellis notes that perceptions such as tru as such perceptions that notes Ellis Akan Burcu researcher as role My

Shadow G Shadow 47

“Oral History as Genre,” Genre,” as History “Oral cnie msl lcy o I ae and lny f rs o al my all of trust of plenty gained have I for lucky myself consider I enealogies

, 16. , 6.

- retd ie tr ad theme and story life oriented ,

5. or disagreements. I witnessed how the participation of of participation the how witnessed I disagreements. or The Battle of Valle Giulia: Oral History and the Art of Dialogue of Art the and History Oral Giulia: Valle of Battle The

st and suspicion are inherent to oral oral to inherent are suspicion and st kahvehane -

interviews conducted one conducted interviews testimony. oriented ly welcomed while his while welcomed ly tavla s, traditional and and traditional s,

(backgammon). (backgammon). 45

hr i a is There 46

F or - CEU eTD Collection a I ee lf ay f hi hms ihu petfly noig h Trih e and tea Turkish the enjoying plentifully without homes their of any left never I say to have I experience. pleasant equally an was interviewees my of houses the Visiting interviews. t me allowed who librarians cordial encountered and the join ethnici my express to reluctant was I that disappointed slightly and puzzled were some whereas, army, the in days during usually Croatia, visited had they that stressed proudly them of Some Macedonia. be resentment army, Tito’s in days exuberant an develop eventually and origin of region their of language the in conversation the initiallystart i literature and language Turkish study may one that out find to surprised positively were They language. Turkish the learned I how and from came I where out find to eager very were they Usually, lobby. the in men elderly the with tea of cup a share s to invited was I exception, no with Almost Herzegovina. and Bosnia from is mother my youth”.than the Turkish sinc praiseworthy research my that found They welcomed. warmly indeed was Balkans the from migrants the study to wants and Turkish speaks who Croatia from female young a of presence The Muslims. devout among practiced with me greeted who men elderly mainly of presence the in uncomfortable felt I say to wrong be would I However, sak) n receiving and (snacks) that announced I when was gatherings such in enthusiasm elicit particularly would What – ty. Nevertheless, my visits would end up with their invitations to meet their families their meet to invitations their with up end would visits my Nevertheless, ty.

upcoming but dizzying dizzying but ht s oe s ht hv t akolde ht n h Rml Ascain I Association Rumeli the in that acknowledge to have I that is more is What geces geces ea aleykum selam

a small gift. In the privacy of their homes, female interviewees interviewees female homes, their of privacy the In gift. small a –

mix of the languages. Their most common references were to Tito, Tito, to were references common most Their languages. the of mix in associations. as o te al f uolva n ter at ii to visit last their and Yugoslavia of fall the of cause

lt ec b with be peace (let e “one girl from Croatia is more interested in their past their in interested more is Croatia from girl “one e

o use the books and the library for conducting for library the and books the use o

you), that is, a traditional greeting greeting traditional a is, that you), Zge. ay f hm would them of Many Zagreb. n it and it meze

CEU eTD Collection documentary historical sources. other and stories short novels, material, archival as such evidence historical of type other the experie past common group’s one on argument historical the that Ibelieve However, Izmir. and Bursa as r groups immigrant other many are there the of number small a they only represent since sense sociological in representative be hardly may interviews These representative experience? a as considered be may gathered tha question The project. history oral any speakingarea withelderly men. conf self my strengthen and anxiety the smooth to helped interviewees my by shown hospitality and trust the believe I ones. loved and families their of photographs me show would particularly

idence as a young female researcher who conducted fieldwork in predominately Turkish predominately in fieldwork conducted who researcher female young a as idence nce may be constructed and evaluated when the oral accounts are cross are accounts oral the when evaluated and constructed be may nce challenge major the on shortly reflect to like would I Finally,

urban immigrant population residing in Istanbul, whereas, whereas, Istanbul, in residing population immigrant urban esiding in rural areas or areas rural in esiding bothers t 24

s o ht xet these extent what to is sample of the immigrant group’s past past group’s immigrant the of sample

in the other metropolises such such metropolises other the in s inherently embedded in embedded inherently s e itriwe I interviewees ten - examined with examined - -

CEU eTD Collection 48 the of category social and political the of deterioration the to contributed 1878) Turkish the in defeat Ottoman the to up leading Balkans the in reprisals 1 445000. earlyas ashigh 1920sis betwe Peninsula Balkan the in homes ancestral their leave to forced been had who Muslims of number the that estimate Some Balkans. the from retracted rule imperial to due Ottoman as century modified nineteenth late the significantlymarked that violence ethnic particularly and exchanges population was regions European southern of landscape ( period Ottoman the alreadyin that emphasizes Bougarel Xavier patterns. migration of types various with marked were Empire Ottoman the of possessions European former the that dispute beyond is It Europe. with examined closely be will socio larger the to Yugoslavia reference Former the to belonging regions study this in Nevertheless,phenomenon. political and social widespreada beenhave versaTurkey vice andto states Chapter II:History had a recognised legal status and cultural autonomy, in Fikret Adanır and Hilmar Kaiser, “Migration, Deportation Deportation “Migration, Kaiser, Hilmar and Adanır Fikret in autonomy, cultural and status legal recognised a had 50 49 Hon gurbet

Kirişçi, “Post Kirişçi, Xavier Bougarel, “ Bougarel, Xavier Fik our of Kjell Magnusson KjellMagnusson of our ret Adanır and Hilmar Kaiser define the millet system as an institution of the non the of institution an as system millet the define Kaiser Hilmar and Adanır ret

) in order to find work in the lowlands and the cities.” the and lowlands the in work find to order in ) As indicated in the introduction, migration and populati and migration introduction, the in indicated As (1878 Era Ottoman Late the in Migrations 2.1. - Second World War Immigration from Balkan Countries to Turkey,” 61. Turkey,” to Countries Balkan Immigration from War World Second

“men from mountainous areas left their villages each year for several months several for year each villages their left areas mountainous from “men Balkan Muslim Diasporas and the Idea of a 'European Islam, 'European a of Idea the and Diasporas Muslim Balkan

of the Migrationof Movements toFormer from Turkey the Yugoslav eds.

Tomislav Dulić et alii et Dulić Tomislav - political cont political

Political uprisings, guerrilla uprisings,Political Ottoman Muslim activity, and ext of migration movements to Turkey from Southeast Southeast from Turkey to movements migration of ext

( Uppsala 25

Uppsala Multiethnic Papers 49 Papers Multiethnic Uppsala - 1923)

48 on movements from the Balkans the from movements on

The demographic and cultural and demographic The '” in '”

Balkan Currents. Essays in in Essays Currents. Balkan - Muslim communities who communities Muslim en the late 1870s and and 1870s late the en - Russian War (1877 War Russian ,

millet 2005 ) ,

147. system.

50 -

CEU eTD Collection the Tanzimat reforms in mid nineteenth century. See Christine Philiou, Philiou, Christine See century. nineteenth Revolution Age of the in Ottomans mid in reforms Tanzimat the before institutionalized fully not been had system millet the that arguing system millet the of fluidity the emphasizes become has recently millet system of the concept that recognizes Philiou Innovations and Permanencies Nation and its colonize to people ‘loyal’ of influx such needed have to said is Istanbul whereas, Monarchy, the from population ‘loyal’ the to given been have would which properties landowner’s Muslim respective spreading by number Austro the instance, For a agitation. of campaigns such to contributed governments imperial Hungarian 000. 150 around be to estimated is Emp Ottoman the for Herzegovina and Bosnia left who Muslims the of number the expulsion religious or ethnic than rather protest economic and political indirect socio t since Turkey to migration for opted who Muslims many on impact strong a had annexation (1908) subsequent its and (1878) Herzegovina and Bosnia in administration Hungarian Yugoslavia, former of regions par the in communities Muslim the of many for consequences Pomaks, Bosniaks, as such communities CaucasiansAlbanians. and Muslim other also but east migrating been had Turksonlyethnic merenot that noted Itbe should East. Middle Anatolia/the Istanbul,or Europe, th in refuge sought Balkans the in states formed newly the by expelled were and army Russian the from fled who refugees Muslim of thousands of Hundreds Boston: Brill, 2002), 273. 2002), Brill, Boston: Historiography on Discussion A Balkans: the and Ottomans The 52 51

Adanır and and Adanır Fikret Adanır, “Formation of a ‘Muslim’ Nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Historiographical Discussion,” in Discussion,” Historiographical A Herzegovina: and Bosnia in Nation ‘Muslim’ a of “Formation Adanır, Fikret iual toe ete i Bsi ad ezgvn. h ipeetto o te Austro the of implementation The Herzegovina. and Bosnia in settled those ticularly - economic interests were endangered by the new policies of the Habsburgs. In a form of of form a In Habsburgs. the of policies new the by endangered were interests economic nun areet rahd t h Cnrs i Bri i 17 as hd detrimental had also 1878 in Berlin in Congress the at reached agreements Ensuing - Building: The Case of the the of Case The Building: Kaiser , “Migration, Deportation and Nation and Deportation “Migration, ,

ed. ed. 51

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 6 2011), Press, California of (Berkeley: University René Leboutte René toa Epr, in Empire,” Ottoman 52

oe uhr cam ht oh h Otmn n Austro and Ottoman the both that claim authors Some

(Florence: P.I.E (Florence: 26 -

Building: The Case of the Ottoman Empire,” 279. Empire,” Ottoman ofthe Case The Building: - administ Hungarian Migrations and Migrants in Historical Perspective. Perspective. Historical in Migrants and Migrations - Peter Lang S.A., Brussels, 2000), 274. Christine 274. 2000), Brussels, S.A., Lang Peter eds. Fikret eds.

a subject of dispute. The recent scholarship scholarship recent The dispute. of subject a

igah o a Emp an of Biography e remaining parts of Ottoman Ottoman of parts remaining e Adanır and Adanır ration was interested in the in interested was ration 1918 and 1887 between ire - 7.

Suraiya Faroqi (Leiden, (Leiden, Faroqi Suraiya

ire: Governing Governing ire:

heir - -

CEU eTD Collection http://focus Türkeistudien für Zentrums des Anatolia. towards Balkans the in settlements their from leave allian joint a with faced was Homeland 54 sdomovinom veze uzajamne i njegove Jugoslavije i narodnosti naroda Iseljeništvo 53 nation homogenous boun more a influence achieve to political was goal of whose sphere nationalism Serbian the to linked closely was Serbia and artisans merchants.who became landowners percent Muslim ofthe various in SCS.” of Kingdom the of repression political the and Turkey, committedag Muslims crimes the for retaliation of “fear were respectively Serbia Southern the from migration for reasons W World First the to prior Empire Ottoman the of realms the for Greece and Bulgaria Serbia, left groups Muslim 000 130 than more which in emigration larger afterBalkans state Wor inthe much aemergedhereafter) asSCSthat of Kingdom (the Slovenes and Croats Serbs, ofKingdom the of part became which Serbia, Southern of province the into integrated were regions these Kingdom the in incorporated were administration, Ottoman under still point that to up were which Pazar, Novi of Sanjak and Makedonija) (Vardarska Macedonia 1912 in Wars Balkan the of aftermath Chri largely and garrisons borderland 56 55 whoop.a. them, cite goals of authors and con politically and wars of period in immigration Muslim

These are the numbers presented in the work of Serbian historia ofSerbian work in the thenumberspresented are These Ibid. o Search “In Jovanovic, Sulejman Smlatic, “Iseljavanje jugoslavenskih Muslimana u Tursku i njihovo pr njihovo i Tursku u Muslimana jugoslavenskih “Iseljavanje Smlatic, Sulejman

The new shifting of the political constellations in the Balkans launched another wave of of wave another launched Balkans the in constellations political the of shifting new The ,”57). However, German sources claim that in in that claim sources German However, ,”57). - migration.hwwi.de/index.php?id=1234&L=1 markets of South Serbia shows that the Serbian administration impoverished sixty sixty impoverished administration Serbian the that shows Serbia South of markets

fHomeland ce of Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, some 800,000 Muslims were forced to forced were Muslims 800,000 some Greece, and Bulgaria Serbia, Montenegro, of ce

(Münster1999/2000

ainst Christians between 1912 and 1918, rumours about welfare in in welfareabout rumours 1918, and between1912 Christians ainst ,” 57. ,”

I ld War in1918. stian - 1913, the regions of Kosovo, the western part of of part western the Kosovo, of regions the 1913, - ), accessed May 29, 2012. accessed May29, ), populated plateaus of Thrace and Anatolia. and Thrace of plateaus populated 27 The Balkan War of 1912/13, in which the Ottoman Empire Empire Ottoman the which in 1912/13, of War Balkan The .

tentious events are often subject to the ideological views views ideological the to subject often are events tentious It is worth keeping in mind that the numbers of the the of numbers the that mind in keeping worth is It

See Zentrum für Türkeistudien in Türkeistudien für Zentrum See

n Vladan Jovanovic, (see (see Jovanovic, n Vladan ar. 54 55

An analysis of shops and ateliersand shops of analysis An Jovanovic argues that prevailing that argues Jovanovic

of Serbia. Shortly afterwards, Shortly Serbia. of

(Zagreb, 1978), (Zagreb, i - lagođavanje novoj sredini,” sredini,” novoj lagođavanje 56 state comprised of loyal loyal of comprised state

The region of Southern of region The Jovanovic Jovanovic

251. Türkei Jahrbuch Jahrbuch Türkei t Serbian to d ,“In Search of of Search ,“In

In the In in in CEU eTD Collection Yugoslav documents vaguely refer to the Muslim groups. The biases are also present especially in the references references the in especially present also are biases The groups. Muslim the to were refer vaguely them documents Among Yugoslav Albania. or Turkey to Slavic Yugoslavia from Turks, period Albanians, interwar the in emigrated who groups ethnic 58 57 movements whichtopermanent often led settlement. seasonal and labour of form the took also Turkey to emigration policy, migration state the from of Kingdom the ( coreligionists Bosnian non mainly were emigration were minorities ethnic leave. of to members forced as and encouraged considered were who those whereas, region, the co groups. ethno to addition in “classes” certain against state the by directed properties) Muslim a as well as Muslims, of emigration the stimulating measures political repressive Turkey, in “Turks” of resettlement the regarding Turkey andYugoslaviaagreements between bilateral Law1928, ofCitizenship the 1922, ofLaw reclaiming and Turkey from returning Muslims of migrations the regarding instructions internal repatriation, and emigration on regulations legal were them Among state. the by envisaged policies migration related of set a by accompanied were region citizens. 61 60 59 pejorative, thatare P P P Ibid. According to Pezo the notion of Muslim in the Kingdom of SCS should be understood within the category of all all of category the within understood be should SCS of Kingdom the in Muslim of notion the Pezo to According - e e e nationals (i.e., Slavic Christians) from neighbouring countries were encouraged to settle in in settle to encouraged were countries neighbouring from Christians) Slavic (i.e., nationals z z z o, o, o,

“‘ “‘ “‘ 59 Pezo argues that the official migration policies were twofold. On the one hand, p hand, one the On twofold. were policies migrationofficial the arguesthat Pezo Re 57 Re Re

- Moreover, such economic and political constraints imposed on Muslim groups onMuslim imposed constraints economicand political such Moreover, - - C C C o o o nqu nqu nqu

see SCS as purported by the official ideology of ideology official the bypurported as SCS e e e ri ri ri n P n n g e g g

- z

S paig Muslims speaking S S o, pa pa pa i.e

“‘ c c c e Re e e ., Slavic ., ’ , , , ’” ’” ” -

C 74. 74. 76.

o - Slavic speaking Muslims (Turks and Albanians), while their their while Albanians), and (Turks Muslims speaking Slavic nqu

- 60 e speaking Muslims) were considered to be an integral part of of part integral an be to considered were Muslims) speaking ri

n h cs o te oten eba h mi tre for target main the Serbia Southern the of case the In g such as Bosniaks, Gorani, Pomaks, Torbeš and Muslim Roma. The The Roma. Muslim and Torbeš Pomaks, Gorani, Bosniaks, as such gricultural and colonization policies (confiscation of the the of (confiscation policies colonization and gricultural

S pa c e , ’” 57. ’” 28

Yugoslavism hi poete, h Emigration the properties, their . Pezo notes that apart that notes Pezo . - religious resumed resumed 58

in the CEU eTD Collection exchanges at that time. The population exchange imposed on their populations by these newly newly these by populations their on imposed exchange population The time. that at exchanges episode salient most the as stands undoubtedly Greece exc population the section, previous the in As II. War World of end the at demise final state’s the until up SCS of Kingdom the in period interwar the of rest the on constitutive ofone large Ottoman period. legacy ofthe continue would Turkey shows, to others) Muslims (and of migrations Yugoslavia of case the as but era, Ottoman the of end the surrounding Thrace. Greek of population Muslim the and Istanbul of Orthodox Greek the of exemption the with Greece, Orthodo Greek 000 200 1 than more in resulted It history. modern in one compulsory first the considered is (1923) Lausanne in upon agreed Greece and Turkey between exchange population The displacement. population Independ of War Turkish the after nation Republic Balkan the of emergence the and Empire Ottoman the of frontiers the of contraction The resettlement. and movements population European southeast theWorld of theend notices topic,one that wider this net on a Casting time. that in movements migration the of landscape wider the again once emphasizing diss., University of Michigan, 2001). ofMichigan, University diss., 62

Penelope Papailias, “Genres of Recollection: History, Testimony and Archive in Contemporary G Contemporary in Archive and Testimony History, Recollection: of “Genres Papailias, Penelope In this section I will continue to draw on the historiography of migration focusing mostly mostly focusing migrationhistoriography of the on draw to continue I will section this In 1945 and 1923 between period the in Migration 2.2 re worth is it period, interwar the in Turkey to movements emigration to turn I Before 62

hs aa s etil te t te irto ad ouain movement population and migration the to tied certainly is data This

n 5 0 ulm bigecagdbtenTre and Turkey between exchanged being Muslims 000 350 and x 29 ne (1919 ence

throughout the rest of the century and are are and century the of rest the throughout

–

and precedent and - 1923) reveal a common pattern of of pattern common a reveal 1923)

War I made an enormous impact on enormousI impactan on War made - states alongside the Turkish Turkish the alongside states hange between Turkey and and Turkey between hange –

of forced population forced of reece” (PhD (PhD reece” - CEU eTD Collection 63 and re nationallowing new undesirableOttoman legacy, thus the another yet as understood they what from free breaking in step large a be to considered was assimilated. fully be could that groups as seen not were they non of emigration the fact, In opposition. fierce or scepticism great with issue the viewed either Serbia South into Muslims the of integration the of period the system In parliamentary exception. no present to seems period interwar the in Serbia southern ca many expansion.” territorial than act peaceful more a as considered often was borders oriented nationalities their into people of dislocation “the century twentieth the of quarter first the in b national their expand than rather threat security nation one of representatives rebellion and wars crises, of periods in predominately practiced is policy a such that assume may one therefore, groups; large these accommodate to expenditures social and financial state significant requires toHowever, thereimportant distinctions are bea made few regard. inthis decades.previous the ofdevastation given the loyal moredesirableand as understood states both nation established 66 65 64 Ibid P Ellis, Akan Ibid. e z o, .

- “‘ Occidentalisation.” h fre eplin f population of expulsion forced The Re ses the population rather than the borders would have become negotiable. The case of of case The negotiable. become have would borders the than rather population the ses - C Shadow G Shadow o nqu e ri - states was conceived as a m a asconceived was states n s. enealogies, g

63 S pa

n h Kndm f C (1919 SCS of Kingdom the in kn li age ta i ws air n hs truet ie fr the for times turbulent these in easier was it that argues Ellis Akan c e 66 , ’ ”

84.

43.

- state to relocate a part of its population considered to pose a a pose to considered population its of part a relocate to state

a pr eoitos ewe to nation two between negotiations per as s eans of achieving more homogenous societies that societies homogenous achievingmore of eans 30 -

Slavic groups was largely supported given that given supported largely was groups Slavic orders. Burçu Akan Ellis argues that especially especially that argues Ellis Akan Burçu orders.

- - 1941 state to accelerate “ accelerate state to 65

Indeed, such an emigration policy emigration an Indeed,such pbi dbts regarding debates public )

de - Ottomanisation Ottomanisation - states 64 the the

In - CEU eTD Collection 70 69 68 67 hoped. government the that degree the to element’ ‘Slavic of favour in composition ethnic the alter not although alsomade many Muslims useof Slavic speaking thispolicy. non exclude to was motivation underlying five a for citizenship Yugoslav from release for opt to right the had 1913 to up passports Ottoman of holders been had who citizens the of emigration permanent the regulated and encouraged Law Citizenship The back. come did who them among number insignificant an was there although desired not was SCS of Kingdom the to back migrants the of return the that meant this bluntly, officially were distinguished SCS of Kingdom the of citizens the perspective, legal a From Albania. and Turkey to Serbia Southern from emigrants of number the of increase the to led implementation introd laws with enforced furthermore was policy colonization and agrarian The War. World First the after and before regions southern Serbia” the by out carrying for tools discursive claims territorial of buttressing “scientific the in the role main The Serbia. southern of colonization of some were progress cultural and economic 73 72 71 P of “In Search Jovanovic, P Ibid. P P “I Jovanovic, e e e e z z z z o, o, o, o,

“‘ 73 “‘ “‘ “‘ so These Re

Re Re Re However, agrarian reforms and colonisation alongside the Citizenship Law of 1926 did 1926 of Law Citizenship the alongside colonisation and reforms agrarian However, h governme The - - - - C 68 C C C o

o o Homeland nof Search o n nqu nqu nqu a ld y tngahr ad egahr wo sree ad mapped” and “surveyed who geographers and ethnographers by led was s hs wo ee wne” ess hs wo ee “unwanted.” were who those versus “wanted” were who those as qu e e e e - ri ri ri ri ald lbrtn actions” “liberating called n n n n g g g g

S S S S Homeland pa pa pa pa t f ia Soaioi (1935 Stojadinovic Milan of nt c c c c e e e e , , , , ’” ’ ’” ’” ” 90. ”

85. 88. 87.

,” ,”

62. 61.

uced by the dictatorship of King Alexander in 1929. Their 1929. in Alexander King of dictatorship the byuced - er eid ad n 93 ti rgt a extended. was right this 1933, in and period, year - 67 lvc naiat fo itgain n power, and integration from inhabitants Slavic 31

ht ee lo on t udrtnig of understandings to bound also were that

- 99 teeoe sud pooa of proposal a issued therefore 1939)

migrants. 72

ny non Only 70

utn it Putting - Slavic 69

The the CEU eTD Collection 74 t Romania in Dobruja from people 000 400 predominately of immigration the envisaged which 1937, in signed Romania and Turkey between agreement immigration the of experience peasants.” landless settle to lands arable need “[t]hey that argued representatives la Yugoslav farming whereas, ofAnatolia,” capable population Muslim a preferably the “[f]ind Officially, to persons. was 000 interest 200 Turkish i.e., Turkey, to families ‘Turkish’ 000 40 of resettlement people of thatmillions werestates concomitantly. taking place inthose was solution effective only Germ the of examples the the by substantiated as Albanians of expulsion Albanian mass the of solving proposal of His way problem. a offered Cubrilovic Stojadinovic, of office the of purposes memorand this Apparently, Cubrilovic. Vaso scholar the entitled memorandum the by names. Slavic on spurred with additionally been have might minorities these against mobilized machine propaganda “Christened” were Muslims targeted which in policy renaming a as well as planting, tobacco of prohibition the labour, forced included leave to groups targeted measures.” extraordinary taking by as southern in Serb threat security main the as perceived were who Albanians the against pressures Inter the in Turks and Albanians resettling CTAHOBHИШTBA Y ПEPИOДY ИЗMEЂY ДBA PATA ДBA ИЗMEЂY ПEPИOДY Y CTAHOBHИШTBA 77 76 75

P P of Search “In Jovanovic, BИA ABДИћ, ABДИjA e e z z ia increased. These communities were forced to resettle in Turkey by “propaganda as well as “propaganda by Turkey in resettle to forced were communities These increased. ia o, o,

“‘ “‘ n 98 te Yugoslav the 1938, In Re Re - - C C o o nqu nqu e e ri ri

77 n n “JYГOCЛOBEHCKO g g

S S the by guided been have may document this that suggested also was It

Homel pa pa c c e e , , ’” ’” and,” and,”

Iseljavanje Albanaca Iseljavanje 93. 92.

- Turkish Convention was initiated in order to regulate the the regulate to order in initiated was Convention Turkish 62.

- TYPCKИ ПPEГOBOPИ O ИCEЉABAЊY MYCЛИMAHCKOГ MYCЛИMAHCKOГ ИCEЉABAЊY O ПPEГOBOPИ TYPCKИ 74

an expulsion of Jews and the Russian resettlement of resettlement Russian the and Jews of expulsion an So - iitra Cneec i 13. s rsl, the result, a As 1935. in Conference Ministerial e f h etariay esrs ht induced that measures extraordinary the of me 32

, ”

[The Emigration of the Albanians] written by written Albanians] the of Emigration [The Novopazarski zbornik Novopazarski um was never implemented, yet for the the for yet implemented, never was um

15 76

( 1991 ): ): 115.

75 d in nd

The o CEU eTD Collection 78 so the were unity’ and ‘brotherhood of notion the in manifested justice social and egalitarianism ethnic and National anti partisan Yugoslav the of victory the by spurred peoples of state federal re was Yugoslavia when 1945 Monarchy in The blow death 1941. final in a occupation received Nazi the after apart fell SCS of Kingdom The II. War and ethnicMuslims Turks from Bulgaria and Romania. Kingdom the from movements migration the Likewise, Russia. and Germany of southern those of as confinessuch Europe, the beyond well regimes of policies similar by inspired were policies an were policies resettlement that the underlined of part indispensable be to has it However, period. interwar the in movements migration the in interwoven deeply are Turkey from agitation the and networks Stoj of period the Turkish during and communities Albanian the between tensions inciting repression, Political interests. of fields multi and complex of consisted SCS of Kingdom the by undertaken Serbia southern migrants. the settling and lands for purchasing representatives transporting, Turkish the by suggested liras million 20 as such expenditures financial Turkey. World War Immigration,” War World roughl 80 79

P Jovanovic, “I Jovanovic, In this regard, Kemal Kirişçi notes that the number people who migrated from Bulgaria to Turkey (1923 Turkey to Bulgaria from migrated who people number the that notes Kirişçi Kemal regard, this In e z o, y 214 432, whereas in the case of Romania is 121 296 and and 296 121 is Romania of case the in whereas 432, 214 y

“‘ The migration movements from Southeast Europe to Turkey continued after the World World the after continued Turkey to Europe Southeast from movements migration The 2 78 Re .3. Migration in the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1953 Yugoslavia of Republic People’s Federal the in Migration .3.

of SCS to Turkey in the interwar period unfolded side by side with the migrations of migrations the with side by side unfolded period interwar the in Turkey to SCS of - Eventually, the Convention of 1938 was not entirely im entirely not was 1938 of Convention the Eventually, C n Search of Homeland nof Search o nqu e ri n g

S 63. - pa called pillars of the social Yugoslavi social the of pillars called

Kingdom of SCS’ official policies, and as demonstrated above, these these above, demonstrated as and policies, official SCS’ of Kingdom e , ’”

14.

,”

63.

adinovic’s government, the impact of the migrants’ migrants’ the of impact the government, adinovic’s 33

80 Yugoslavia is 118 000, in 000, 118 is Yugoslavia

n h ed te irto plc in policy migration the end, the In a that was officially proclaimed in proclaimed officially was that a - salse, o a a sociali a as now established, plemented mostly due to the to due mostly plemented - fascist movement. movement. fascist Kirişçi, “Post Kirişçi, - 1968)

- - layered - is 1945) Second Second st, CEU eTD Collection 82 op.a. FPRY, abbreviation use the 81 signifi been had Yugoslavia and Turkey between channels diplomatic the Stalin), and Tito between (split 1948 in resolution Cominform the After Yugoslavia. and Turkey between relationship Köprüllü. Fuat Mehmet Affairs Foreign of Minister Turkish the and Tito Broz Josip president Yugoslav the between so the by 1953 in Split in concluded was Turkey to Yugoslavia Bulgaria. after place second takes Yugoslavia Turkey, to Europe significantly Turkey to migration Idecreased constrainafter my will 1968,obs Since Germany. of Republic Federal labour the temporary to by replaced emigration was it when 1960s the of end the by decreased significantly signed. been had Turkey with agreement another after onwards 1950s the from Turkey to migrate to allowed were who Turks ethnic of exception with an 1950s the during sector service the in jobs and industries new the of creation the to bound emigration domestic intense non the polici colonisation activepursued SCS of Kingdom The self its given pre the to compared policies emigration different radically pursue would Yugoslavia. of Republic People’s Federal the as 1945 November 85 84 83 Akan Ellis, Akan Br Br Kirişçi, “Post Kirişçi, Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was the official name used by 1963. For the purpose of this thesis I will I thesis this of purpose the For 1963. by used name official the was Yugoslavia of Republic People’s Federal unnbau unnbau cantly improved. Moreover, the Balkan Pact that was signed in Ankara on 28 February 28 on Ankara in signed was that Pact Balkan the Moreover, improved. cantly n epc t mgain oeet i te post the in movements migration to respect In - lvc paig ouain wees te oils Ygsai ws hrceie by characterised was Yugoslavia socialist the whereas, population, speaking Slavic e e r, r, Shadow Shadow

“ “ - - L L Second World War Immigration,” War World Second proclaimed egalitarianism and break from the oppression of the previous regimes. regimes. previous the of oppression the from break and egalitarianism proclaimed a a te te

L L Genealogies ab ab o o

u u r r

85 Migr Migr

This agreement seemed to present a further step in strengthening the strengthening in step further a present to seemed agreement This d 1960s. d

a a , 50. , tion, tion

, ” ”

43 30 82 -

44. 44. - Until the early 196 early the Until 31.

69. ervation tothe1953andervation period 1968. between

es, especially in the regions inhabited by inhabited regions the especiallyin es, 83 0s voluntary emigration was prohibited, was emigration voluntary 0s - ol Wr I eid rm Southeast from period II War World

h eirto wv t Tre had Turkey to wave emigration The - called “gentlemen’s agreement” “gentlemen’s called 81 84

h migrat The t see It - s ht h FPRY the that ms 91 governments 1941 o fo the from ion

CEU eTD Collection Turkish representatives in Skopje his or her belonging to the “Turkish culture and and culture “Turkish the 87 to belonging (1944 Girişimleri her or 86 his Skopje in representatives Turkish ev that was upon insisted governments both that requirement contentious Another Turkey. in relatives their from letter guarantee a obtain could who person any for open was migrate to right the eligibility, of terms permits. work getting after years five first the for break tax a and citizenship was immigrants give to obliged was Turkey Turkey. nor Yugoslavia by neither groups these upon forced was migration the since Turkey, in settlement and migration for responsibility full taking were migrants the Tu to migrate to wanted who communities the that meant which migration, free or voluntary proposed It Pact. equated officially it wit bolshevism since itself, Turkey ‘contaminate’ eventually and Peninsula entire the across spread would Communism Soviet that fear Turkey’s in found be to are attitude such for an as Bulgariainclude to initiative Tito’s opposed it whereas, Yugoslavia, within Macedonia autonomous an of formation the of favour in stand a took Turkey France, of Affairs Foreign the of archives diplomatic the influence.to According Soviet the of sphere the from isolated and protected be would that bloc Eastern and Greece Turkey, o construction the was between Pact Balkan the of founding the cooperation for incentive main The Yugoslavia. trade and cultural economic, envisaged 1953 89 5 thethe for Study Association ofthe Convention at presented Kosovo’, and Macedonia of Turks Identity: Civic and Ethnic ‘Between paper author’s 88 Ell Akan “BüyükGüçle Lazarov, Lazar Olan Ilgili ile Birleşmesi ve Kurulması Devletinin Makedonya Türkiye’nin ve Güçler “Büyúk Lazarov, Lazar Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, The agreement on migration between Tito and Köprüllü was signed soon after the Balkanafter wasthe betweenTito andKöprüllü signed soon The migration agreement on is, is, S Shadow Genealogies Shadow hadow Genealogies hadow rkey could benefit from such an agreement. However, the agreement implied that implied agreement the However, agreement. an such from benefit could rkey - h Russian expansionism. 1960),” 1960),”

Güney r, r apiat a t dmntae o oh uolv uhrte and authorities Yugoslav both to demonstrate to had applicant ery - ” 160. ” 89 Doğu Avrupa Araştırmal Avrupa Doğu , 42 , ,

50 ieie te migrati the Likewise, - ;

52.

Şule Kut, “Turks of Kosovo: What to Expect?”(the article partly based on on based partly article Expect?”(the to What Kosovo: of “Turks Kut, Şule

of Nationalities (ASN), New York, April 14, 2000). April 14, York, (ASN),New ofNationalities 87 other federal state within Yugoslavia. The main reasons main The Yugoslavia. within state federal other

arı Dergisi

n oeet i nt ae tm lmt In limit. time a have not did movement on

12 (1998) 12 : 161.

The only benefit only The

Annual Annual f an f 86

CEU eTD Collection Yugoslavia socio related tothe in policies national of implementation of overview short a give will I Macedonia, from migrated policy national the of most that Considering period. formative early its in at Yugoslavia by undertaken look elaborate more a take will I chapter following the In migration. wil wave migration this to related issues historiographical as well as Turkey to migrate to decide them made that condition werewhat and were communities who agreement,such sign Turkeyto andYugoslavia hist of motivations ideological and political the with predominately associated irregularities many involves it since slope slippery a presents also data such that but time, that in Turkey to Yugoslavia from coming emigrants of number t difficult only not is it that mind in bear to has one figures, such Regarding 170,000. approximately is 1968 to 1953 from Turkey to Yugoslavia from arriving migrants Forei of Ministry The Athens. via Istanbul to the from off Skopje train Turkeyfor taking bythe was to leave wayagreement, only Balkan Pact the to due open Greece with one the and closed was Bulgaria with border the As Skopje. in nec the all fulfilled and requested have could migrants However, Serbia. southern to belonged previously that regions Kosovo, and Macedonia in mainly concentrated relativesand aa of in Turkey,Yugoslav payment ‘Turkishness’ declaration of 12000 dinars. citizenship. consciousness” 92 91 90 Akan Ellis, Akan Ellis, Akan Ç avuşoğlu, “Yugoslavya “Yugoslavya avuşoğlu, Most of the Turkish population in the newly formed socialist Yugoslavia was was Yugoslavia socialist formed newly the in population Turkish the of Most Shadow G Shadow Ge Shadow 90

The migration permit could be obtained after the approval of guarantee letters from guarantee from approval letters obtained of afterthe be migration permitThe could

( ük ütr v bilinci ve kültürü Türk l be discussed in detail in the chapters related to the migrants’ account of the the of account migrants’ the to related chapters the in detail in discussed be l enealogies nealogies

–

Makedonya Topraklarınd Makedonya , 52. ,

136.

- political context ofpolitical context the Macedonia. People’s Republic of

) in order to request a withdrawal from the Yugoslav Yugoslav the from withdrawal a request to order in ) orians. The questions of what was at stake for both for stake at was what of questions The orians. an,” gn Affairs in Turkey estimates that the number of of number the that estimates Turkey in Affairs gn 36

148.

essary applications only only applications essary o establish a certain a establish o the population the

CEU eTD Collection Croatia were referred to as part of the Serbian nation. The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina was was Herzegovina and Bosnia of case The nation. Serbian the of part as to referred were Croatia popula of majority represent not did nation this where state nation one a which in lived s/he if in even nation a to republics belonging her or his declared federal have could One predominates. the to restricted not was differentiation National status the given were Montenegrins and Macedonians that history in time first the was It Montenegrins. and Macedonians Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Yugoslavia; in residing nations five r autonomous two alongside Macedonia) and Montenegro Herzegovina, and Bosnia Slovenia, Croatia, (Serbia, republics. formed newly the in assemblies by constituent level federal the on out carried after shortly was procedure the the and 1946, by in adopted Constitution were institutions federal actual The occupation. Axis the against resistance Yugos the of body deliberative wartime the Yugoslavia), of Liberation People’s the (Anti AVNOJ of decisionby 1943 the in Jajce in laid previouslysystemwere itse represented Yugoslavia Nationsand NatioChapter of III:Question Press, 1968), 114. 1968), Press, 93

P u Shoup, aul fe Wrd a I, h Ygsa pria mvmn pltcly osldtd and consolidated politically movement partisan Yugoslav the II, War World After FPRY the in Nationalities and Nations of Policy The 3.1

omns ad h Ygsa Ntoa Question National Yugoslav the and Communism gos Vjoia n Kosovo and (Vojvodina egions

lf through the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. The foundations for the federal the for foundations The Yugoslavia. of Party Communist the through lf

nalities the Peoples’ Federal in of Republic - eoia. h Cnttto o 14 recognized 1946 of Constitution The Metohija). 37

(New York and London: Columbia University University Columbia London: and York (New 93

Six federal republics were formed formed were republics federal Six in Peiey Srs iig in living Serbs Precisely, tion.

- fascist Council for Council fascist lav People’s People’s lav

of nation. of CEU eTD Collection 94 “other nationalities groups.” and ethnic of status the within recognized and Nazis the with collaboration for responsibility collective resettl not were who those of number small The collaborators. considered were they since II, War World the of end the at especially suspicious highly considered was minority German the that fact the is noteworthy Ukr Russians, Poles, Germans, Jews, Greeks, Austrians, as such groups numerous less the “other to referred it and existed term also groups” ethnic and The nationalities nationalities. of terminology the to relation in made be to has clarification Turks. and Slovaks Ruthenians, Romanians, were Italians, Roma, communities Czechs, Bulgarians, other whereas, Vojvodina, in Hungarians and Kosovo in Albanians were community largest the them Among rights. cultural and language extensive borders. Yugoslav outside is ‘homeland’ whose communities the or Yugoslavia of ‘nationalities as recognized were minorities discourse legal Yugoslav In status. special a had minorities the hand, other the On make the around revolved status whose homelands,nation withtwo one inS as regarded were Herzegovina and Bosnia in lived who Serbs instance, For different. slightly 98 97 96 95

Shoup, Shoup, Ibid. HughPoulton, AkanElli

“nation of equivalent rough the be to considered were republics federal The Communism Communism, s, Shadow G Shadow Balkan: Minorities and States in Conflict in States and Minorities Balkan: , 95 102 115 enealogies

h tn omnte wo ee eonzd s ainlte wr granted were nationalities as recognized were who communities ten The - ;

103. Akan Ellis, Akan

ed or deported after the World War II had been “absolved from the the from “absolved been had II War World the after deported or ed , 69. ,

Shadow G Shadow erbiaother and inBosnia the Herzegovina. and 98 - up of the dominant “ dominant the of up

enealogies 38

(London: Minority Rights Group, 1993), 5. 1993), Group, Rights (London: Minority

,69.

iin, lh ad Yugoslavs. and Vlahs ainians, ethnic” group within its boundaries. its within group ethnic”

represented by by represented 94 96

n more One - 97 states” states”

Also CEU eTD Collection 101 100 99 character” multinational the of importance the “reflect to expected was itself govern a to like would I state, Yugoslavian the of principles debated judiciary. and apparatus quota national a policy of practices republicequalityeach wherenational on foundedYugoslavia was that follows Hence it republics. federal all of representation equal of principle the followed bodies legislative main affairs. cultural and juridical education, in language own their had and borders federal the across free travelled have could nationalities and nations all of people Furthermore, secession. for right as well as states federal the between federation as as asau well alargeras Kosovo unit within ( of nation instead nationality mere a as recognized were but Kos 65% of of majority the regard formed Albanians in uncertainty his expressed Questions Kosovo, in National movement forpartisan Commission the of members hereafter). (Commission: the of some among contention nations. represented which communities the to homelands than rather nationalities mixed of geographies the as perceived 104 103 102 Macedonia From

Shoup,

Shoup, Poulton, Ibid. Collection AJ, Sude Bahar Beltan, “Citizenship and Identity in Turkey: The Case of the Post the of Case The Turkey: in Identity and “Citizenship Beltan, Bahar Sude

is the to comes it When narod Communism

Communism, The Constitution of 1946 also highlighted the voluntary nature of the cooperation cooperation the of nature voluntary the highlighted also 1946 of Constitution The Balkan ). Hoxha considered that Albanians should have had a different status within the the within status different a had have should Albanians that considered Hoxha ). , : Komisija za na za : Komisija ” (MA thesis, Boğaziçi University 2006), University 2006), Boğaziçi (MA” thesis, , , 10. , 115.

116.

103

s. At one meeting of the Commission, Fadil Hoxha, the founder of the the of founder the Hoxha, Fadil Commission, the of meeting one At

102 Rather than delving into a discussion of these contentious and highly and contentious these of discussion a into delving than Rather 99 cionalne manjine, cionalne

t em ta te ea sau o atnme had autonomies of status legal the that seems It Each republic and autonomous province had its own governmental own province its and autonomous had Each republic sue of autonomous regions, one has to point out that they were they that out point to has one regions, autonomous of sue

82.

17.

tonomy. 101 dd simply that this freedom to to freedom this that simply dd 100

Within the Constitution all the all Constitution the Within

1980 Turkish Muslim Immigrants Immigrants Muslim Turkish 1980 the equal right to speak speak to right equal the

ovo where the the where ovo of bone a been 104

of -

CEU eTD Collection 105 to has one course, Of encouraged. were feelings national where system education and media question. in region the of composition represen personnel indigenous with posts political and government staffing of practice the applying was one important most the which among trajectories several followed place ofa inthebuilding socialists’ society. multinational significant a occupy to continued CPY) which concerns national the with grapple to crucial (hereafter it considered Yugoslavia of Party Communist the Yugoslavia, of establishment the other. each to related inextricably Yugoslavia of question national the and Struggle other. the against fight to nation one turned who parties national the of instigation and corruption interests, of spheres the dividing of policy exploitation. social their and react the also but powers Axis the only not against fought movement partisan the that argues he Here Struggle.” Liberation People’s the of light in Yugoslavia in Question “National the on article his discuss even and region the unifying and alien considered were antithetical national to policy. rights separatist of advocacy and nationalism that implies This Party.” the of powers the on impinge to as way a “such in interpreted be not and Yugoslavia 108 107 revolucija 106 Shoup, Shoup, Tito Josip Broz Tito, Broz Josip ionary government of the King whose leadership resulted in the oppression of the nations nations the of oppression the in resulted leadership whose King the of government ionary ,“ Nacionalno n o te motn ses n hs ead a epoig ainl ars Ti policy This cadres. national employing was regard this in steps important the of One to challenges major the of one considered been had policies and questions national The Communism

Communism , ed. ed. , Kasi “ mSuljević Nacionalno pitanje u Jugoslaviji u svjetlu narodnooslobodilačke borbe,“ in borbe,“ narodnooslobodilačke svjetlu u Jugoslaviji u pitanje Nacionalno

pitanje , ,

120. 116.

Jugoslaviji

(Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1977), 1977), 63. Svjetlost, (Sarajevo: 106

He states that the national policy of the Kingdom of SCS was thewas SCS of Kingdom the of policy national the that statesHe ,“69. ed during World War II. In December 1942 Tito published published Tito 1942 December In II. War World during ed 108

Other efforts had been made in the fields of culture, of fields the in made been had efforts Other

n hs ead Tt fns h Pol’ Liberation People’s the finds Tito regard, this In 40

tative of the national national the of tative Nacionalno pitanje i pitanje Nacionalno 107

Even after Even 105

CEU eTD Collection a Kosovo Mac and the Kosovo among in campaign living propagandaAlbanians a launched Albania Stalinist Hohxa’s Enver when 1948 in resolution Cominform the after especially itself manifested stance Such ‘homeland.’ of their status the that arena political improved more international was Yugoslavia the in nationalities to represent to was CPY the of years early the developedin and policyencouraged nationalist the fromII. benefit War Another World Kingdo the in maltreated been had which communities the to treatment socio new the legitimizing for espe education toeverybody were accessible categories. through national and vacation retirement, insurance, housing, care, health adequate work, equal for pay equal emp to rights the nationality or nation particular a in participation one’s of Regardless quotas. of form the in system education and councils in representation sector, employment hav could rights national the of system the which in way since wasCPY this the nationality. was nation or encouragedby one’s the nationality Expressing werecondemned. others whereas, praised, were figures national some where ideology socialist by coordinated freed the that highlight (Gazele Book Services Ltd., 1971), 177. 1971), Services Ltd., Book (Gazele 111 110 109

Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, Shoup, Shoup, Shoup, cially in its early formative days. Apart from the fact that this policy was an important tool tool important an was policy this that fact the from Apart days. formative early its in cially hs hpe am t peet o te ainl oiy a sgiiat o te CPY the for significant was policy national the how present to aims chapter This or nation a in membership individual one’s with associated was declared one status The Communism Communism trteCmnom Reso Cominform the fter Shadow Genealogies Shadow 109 , ,

123. However, or belonging nationality toonenation exp was 136; Stephen E. Palmer, Robert R. King, King, R. Robert Palmer, E. Stephen 136;

m f utrl xrsin a epce t dvlp ihn h space the within develop to expected was expression cultural of om , 70. ,

- political order, it also promised equal national and cultural cultural and national equal promised also it order, political

lution edonia.

n 1948 in 111 41

than the status of those who were residing in in residing were who those of status the than

oee, what However, and how the nationalities such as Albanians Albanians as such nationalities the how and Yugoslav Comunism and Macedonian Question Macedonian and Comunism Yugoslav e been objectified and applied in the the in applied and objectified been e ee h lcl dynamics local the were

m of SCS and during the during and SCS of m ressed freely. loyment,

110 in

CEU eTD Collection 112 Serbia, toGreece theAegean and whereas, was part bound to bound region Vardar the into divided was Macedonia Wars, Balkan two the of aftermaths Inthe nationalists. Serbian and Bulgarian Greek, of aspirations by thwarted was then to up lands The 1912. after development political and historical socio a such for background The Macedonia. the int as Albanians many as possible.” of Macedonia and Kosovo of population Orthodox the ‘cleanse’ to was who Rankovic Aleksandar by instigated whom Albanians Alban many that that nations. Slav of unity the to treat a as population Albanian the identified FRPY (1943 study recent her in Dimova Rozita tre were 114 113 Social for Anthropology Institute Planck Max

Rozita Dimova Rozita Ibid. Ibid. - erviewees perceive

1991) and interethnic 1991) National policies and issues had been shaped in a particularly sharp and complex way in in way complex and sharp particularly a in shaped been had issues and policies National Macedonia in Nationalities and Nations of Policy The 3.2

td y h Cmuit i te al yas f h scaim ean del unclear. deeply remains socialism the of years early the in Communists the by ated while 114

ian I will return back to the role of Rankovic in the Chapter V where I will discuss howdiscuss I will where V Chapterthe in Rankovic of role the to back return I will Aleksandar Rankovic Aleksandar , “From Past Necessity to Contemporary Friction: Migration, Class and Ethnicity inMacedoni Ethnicity and Class Migration, Friction: Contemporary to Necessity Past “From , s were either forced or migrate to Turkey or or Turkey to migrate or forced either were s

she studies, said that the emigration to Turkey was a deliberate strategy strategy deliberate a was Turkey to emigration the that said studies, she

the relationship between Rankovthe relationship between tensions in Macedonia after its independence in 1991 argues that the 1991argues thatthe Macedonia aftertensions in itsindependence

on the relationship between migration policies of the FPRY the of policies migration between relationship the on was a Minister of Internal Affairs in the FRPY (1951 FRPY the in InternalAffairs of Minister awas , Working Paper no. 4, Halle/Salle (2007): 3. (2007): Halle/Salle 4, no. Working , Paper “accused of promoting an anti an promoting of “accused 42

oiia stig ut e e i Macedonian in set be must setting political millet ic and movement. theemigration

the Pirin region to Bulgaria. In to Bulgaria. region Pirin World the system which governed which system i s voluntarily. so did

- Albanian c Albanian 112

113 Dimova

Macedonian Macedonian

h ethnic The ampaign ampaign - 1965) states

a,” a,”

CEU eTD Collection 115 association artistic cultural Turkey. 1958/59duetomigration to dropped to27in schools of number the Apparently, language. major the as Turkish introducing schools primary ( schools Islamic traditional only attended have could time that by who minorities these for schools secular built CPY The schools. elementary in education bilingual of introduction the was achievements major the of of system The nationality. of status s political and cultural educational, the the in communities those privileged nationalities granted were minority largest second the were Macedonian the proclaim to decided even Church. Orthodox CPY the regard, this Bulgarian In the culture. from and language ties ostensible Macedonians’ the differentiating and claims fe Bulgarian Yugoslav the into it incorporating strategy, geopolitical of pursuit in lay earlier such as recognized not was which nationhood Macedonian well. as region Macedonian the from Turks and Albanians but Macedonians, the as 1941 in libe insurrection for the subject revolutionary glorified Tito by led Communists The II. War World the in movements partisan revolutionary the with intertwined was issues national on natio Macedonian a of existence the to recognize was the tasks major After CPY’s the of Albania. one Macedonia, and of Republic Bulgaria People’s the powers of establishment Axis the by occupied was Macedonia II, War 118 117 116 društva,” preobražaj Bahar Beltan, “Citizen Beltan, Bahar Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, Josip Broz Tito, “Dosljedno rješenje nacionalnog pitanja je sastavni dio borbe radničke klase za rev za klase radničke borbe dio sastavni je pitanja nacionalnog rješenje “Dosljedno Tito, Broz Josip Palmerand The Albanian communities who constituted the largest minority group and Turks who who Turks and group minority largest the constituted who communities Albanian The Shado

King, King,

Nacionalno pitanje i revolucija pitanje Nacionalno wG 116 Yu goslav Comunism and Macedonian Question Macedonian and Comunism goslav

ship and Ident and ship

enealogies

medrese mn Duraku Emin , 81. ,

ration from the Axis powers that brought together not only only not together brought that powers Axis the from ration ityin Turkey,

). 117

n h frt cdmc er f 944 tee ee 60 were there 1944/45 of year academic first the In , ed. , , national library and radio, whereas, the Turkish Turkish the whereas, radio, and library national , ” 22. 22. ” 43 Kasim Suljević Kasim nality. As mentioned above, reaching a solution a reaching above, mentioned As nality.

eain ad ot motnl, assuaging importantly, most and deration, 118

In had theAlbanians cultural the sphere , 199 ,

(Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1977), 347. 1977), Svjetlost, (Sarajevo: - 202. 115

The importance of declaring of importance The pheres. One One pheres. olucionaran olucionaran

CEU eTD Collection National Questions drafted a document in 1957 and sent it to the Central Committee of of Committee Central the to it sent and 1957 in document a drafted Questions National t for explication that seems it allowed, not was Albania to emigration the that consideration into takes one If census. 1953 the in 938 203 to increased significantly number their whereas ‘Turks’ 940 r them of 524 162 only were there 1953 1953. and of census the 1948 In Macedonia. in registered ‘Albanians’ of 389 197 were there 1948 in censuses Interestingly, the between discrepancy significant the explain may 1948 in FPRY. within minorities Turkish the and Turkey with relationship an diplomatic better towards step initial was event same the whereas, Stalin, with break Tito’s after suspicion with regarded was the be com Albanian would the that implies what perspective a Such Macedonia. deciding in minorities of in treatment role huge a played 1948 in resolution Cominform the that for inclination an show who authors some Apparently, ruling. CPY’s the of years first the in been had minority German the like mistreated been had minorities Turkish and Albanian that claim to exaggeration h nationalities and nations building of process org minority toanassociation recourse andculture had forart named 119

AJ (CK SKJ XVII), XVII), SKJ AJ(CK anization anization i ‘orn’ f ouain ed t b fud oehr es. h Cmiso for Commission The else. somewhere found be to needs population of ‘pouring’ his According to these authors the new political shifts b shifts political new the authors these to According large the despite However, Yeni Dünya Yeni perceiving historical events through the lens of political or ethnic history agree agree history ethnic or political of lens the through events historical perceiving file

K -

3 [New World], as well as[New World], anewspaper , unit 16 ,

- 36, 36, - 6 scale initiatives in educational and cultural matters, the the matters, cultural and educational in initiatives scale - 7. egistered. Furthermore, in the 1948 census there were 95 were there census 1948 the in Furthermore, egistered.

ad rough alongside smooth periods. It would be an an be Itwould periods. smooth alongside rough ad 44

rought by the Cominform resolution Cominform the by rought Birlik Yeni Yal Yeni

[Unity].

[New Circle], a youth[New Circle], a 119

munity munity CEU eTD Collection 121 120 ju will which VI, Chapter in detail in examined be will historiography the in represented identities migrants’ the of articulation over ‘battle’ the as well as leave to decision one’s behind lied what However, for impetus main the were circumstances political and of trial political the after arose additionally minorities Macedonian the among feelings Communist minority. counter 1947 as declare ‘Turks’a asway tomigrate. to many leading nationality, one’s declaring freely of privilege the as time same the at Turkey with time that at signed was migration voluntary for agreement the that out points FPRY. the of ally an became Turkey but deteriorated Albania with relationship the that knowing ‘Turks’ as declared them of many where 1953 of census the the FPRYAlbaniathe relationship andfriendly, was between wh since census 1948 the in ‘Albanians’ as registered them of many Thus, differentiation. national of idea clear a have not did Pomaks and Albanians Turks, as such nationalities Muslim the of arguesthat document The‘pouring.’ Belgrade aforementioned in clarifyingthe Yugoslavia Toprakları 123 122 see Ibid. za Komisija Collection: AJ, Shoup, Yücel

of the seventeen Turkish members of the organization the of members Turkish seventeen the of

Shoup, Shoup, - O revolutionary activities was additionally used by the CPY for intimidat for CPY the by used additionally was activities revolutionary

ndan Communism 122 and ban and n the other hand, many authors emphasize that the persecu the that emphasize authors many hand, other the n

” anti the that argue 1953 of migration of issue the on wrote who authors Many xtapose the oral accounts with the Turkish historiography and the documents from documents the and historiography Turkish the with accounts oral the xtapose ; Communism Kut, “ Kut, ning of headscarves. Precisely, Turkish historiography claims that the national the that claims historiography Turkish Precisely, headscarves. of ning , Turks ofKosovo Turks 181.

nacionalne manjine, nacionalne ; 121 Akan Ellis, Ellis, Akan

” .

hdw G Shadow

enealogies

migration in the period of 1953 of period the in migration ; Yücel Yücel Çavuşoğlu,“Yugoslavya Çavuşoğlu,“Yugoslavya ereas, this was not the case with was thecase not ereas, this 120 [Noble] who were accused of of accused were who [Noble]

utemr, h document the Furthermore, tion and trial in Skopje in Skopje in trial and tion ing the Turkish Turkish the ing –

Make - 1968. some donya donya 123 -

CEU eTD Collection documents, the Settlement Settlement the documents, official two analyse also will I 1960s. and 1950s the in Turkey to migration for prerequisites ‘Turkishness,’ of notion the and settlement the in policies imposed by government.CUP’s the continuation a represents party Atatürk’s Kemal Mustafa by led republic t of founding the after Party People’s Republican Atatürk’s Kemal Mustafa by replaced ultimately War, Great the in defeat Empire’s the after was, which CUP) (hereafter Party Progressand Union of Committee 1939. to 1923 from period on stance the in people official 800,000 to amounted estimates Turkey’s to according that historically Balkans the from contextualize immigration to order in important are policies 1920 early the from Party People’s Republican Turkish the by adopted and PeriodRepublican (1923 IV: Chapter 1950s. the in started that Turkey to FRPY the from migration the to related Yugoslavia of archives the http://ejts.revues.org/index822.html Studies Turkish Journal of European 124

Erol Ülker, “Assimilation Ülker, Erol

This chapter will devote most attention to the to attention most devote will chapter This proposed officially policies immigrationand settlement the examine to aims chapter This

h Stlmn a Settlement The he Turkish Republic in 1923.The period of transition from the empire to the the to empire the from transition of period 1923.The in Republic Turkish he

of the Muslim communities in the first decade of the T the of decade first the in communities Muslim the of - Laws of 1926 and 1934. The latter has governed immigrationgoverned has latterThe 1934. and Laws1926 of 1934) 124 .

(2008), t s necessar is It

d mirto Plce i a e Tre: h Early The Turkey: New a in Policies Immigration nd i.e ., Turkish culture and consciousness that was one of the the of one was that consciousness and culture Turkish .,

accessed May 4, 2012 May4, accessed

t udrie rel te oiis f h Ottoman the of policies the briefly underline to y 46

Republican People’s Party (hereafter RPP) RPP) (hereafter Party People’s Republican ,

urkish Republic (1923 Republic urkish s to the 1940s. These These 1940s. the to s

policies - 1934),” 1934),”

CEU eTD Collection of Turkey: Vol. 4 Turkey in the Modern World in theTurkey Modern 4 Vol. Turkey: of 125 the by followed Greco Empire Ottoman the of collapse the amidst themselves found who groups ethnic majority/minority of manipulations other and exiles exchanges, population of history racially or ethnic civic more inclusive more the Turk. a be to replaced meant it what of often understanding and challenged subsequently definition ethnic th after ‘Turk’ soon appeared of category the in fits who determining over discrepancy the However, nationhood. rights.” equal enjoy will such as and Turkish be to are citizenship, of terms in race, and religion their of regardless no ofreferencepoint after was toit theTurkish given inthe 1920swhen debating parliament, onthe first The time. over extent certain a to modified and contested consistently been has notion this multi the of pillars ideological the altered ‘Turkishness’ of notion The Turkey. of Republic the of establishment the immigrants lawdeemed thatthis as of type the in reflected also are Party Peoples Republican the of project modernist political and 2006, as late as Turkey in Nationalism and the Minorities in the 1930s,” 1930s,” in the the Minorities and Nationalism 127 ( 126 2000

in f Tr, are uo ad dpe te olwn dfnto: Te epe f Turkey of people “The definition: following the adopted and upon agreed ‘Turk,’ of tion Ki Kirişçi, Kemal Kemal Kirişçi, Kemal rişçi, “Disaggregating Turkish Citizen Turkish “Disaggregating rişçi, ): ): - 1. uks Wr (1919 War Turkish The official discourse of Turkish national identity was constructed in the early years of of years early the in constructed was identity national Turkish of discourse official The

“Migration and Turkey: the Dynamics of State, Society and politics,” in in politics,” and Society State, of Dynamics the Turkey: and “Migration “Disaggregating Turkish Citizen Turkish “Disaggregating - denominational an denominational 126

s ii dfnto ws fiily dpe. rfrne t a oe racist more a to Preferences adopted. officially was definition civic is

- s a b se, h dbt iiily rud o a ii dfnto of definition civic a for argued initially debate the seen, be can As ae ntos f Trihes i in is ‘Turkishness’ of notions laden 125 - 92. s one ou pointed As 1922).

and the policies of social engineering that are woven into the socialthe into woven are that engineering social of policies the and

suitable to become a “Turk.” suitable tobecome ship,” 2; 2; ship,” d multi d , Middle Eastern Studies Eastern Middle ed . Reşat Kasaba (Cambrid Reşat Kasaba ship and Immigration Practices,” Practices,” Immigration and ship

Soner Çağaptay, “Race, Assimilation and Kemalism: Turkish Turkish Kemalism: and Assimilation “Race, Çağaptay, Soner - cultural society of the Ottoman Empire. However, However, Empire. Ottoman the of society cultural 127 47

It is important to stress that the shift towards shift the that stress to important is It t in the previous chapters, Turkey had been been had Turkey chapters, previous the in t

40 ,

3 ge University Press, 2008), Press, geUniversity extricably related to a very long long very a to related extricably ( 2004

): ): 86. Middle Eastern Studies Eastern Middle

The Cambridge History History Cambridge The 198.

36 , 3 , -

CEU eTD Collection Caucasus, Cyprus and Syria. Apparently, about 50 000 immigrants left the Soviet Union for Turkey as per per as Turkey for Union Soviet the left immigrants 000 50 about Apparently, Syria. and Cyprus Caucasus, 128 anti and secularism policies. settlement and immigration further of backbone Sunnî/Hanefi the included also which definition racist and ethnic more to ‘Turkishness’ of definition civic proposed the from away drifted which population the of elements desirable particular, the on insist to decided come Crimea and Romania Bulgaria, Slovenes, and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom the from those alongside Greece from elements’ ‘Turkish that government were strongest Greece “the present from to considered Muslims speaking Turkish The Greece. population and ratified Turkey also between Lausanne exchange of Treaty The Slovenes. and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom Empi British the with 1923 in signed Turkey treaty peace a Lausanne, of Treaty the by occupied is place homogenous significant a regard, desirable this In nation. a consolidate and mould would that population loyal a as perceived Turkey. More variouscoming specifically, regions the migrants o from of landscape demographic inauspicious the solving in desirablemethod a as migrants the of flow to prior warfare continuous of decade a over to due depopulated significantly were Anatolia like regions since nationalism Turkish of founders the by welcomed highly was Balkans the from people Slovenes. and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom the and Romania Bulgaria, Greece, included which Balkans, the especiallyfrom 1923, before well immigrantsof influx an receiving 130 a 129 Moscow the comm in upon agreed stipulations

Kirişçi, t of Ülker,“Assimilation t fact the to attention draw to needs One unities,

the establishment of the Republic. Thus, nationalist elites led by the RPP considered the the considered RPP the by led elites nationalist Thus, Republic. the of establishment the “Disaggregating Turkish Citiz Turkish “Disaggregating ”14.

- Islamism constructed by the by constructed Islamism

he Muslim communities,” heMuslim background. These preferences had been presented as an ideological ideological an as presented been had preferences These background.

enship hat in the period of 1923 of period the in hat d as ray 12) See (1921). Treaty Kars nd lmn o Trih race.” Turkish of element ,”

16 re, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and the the and Romania Greece, Japan, Italy, France, re, - 48 17.

RPP government seemed to be in contradiction contradiction in be to seemed government RPP

- 1933 there were migration movements from the the from movements migration were there 1933 130 and settle in a new Turkey. The RPP The Turkey. new a in settle and

oee, h ielg o radical of ideology the However, le, “ Ülker, 129

t a cuil o te RPP the for crucial was It f the Balkans f the tobe tended Assimilation of the Muslim Muslim the of Assimilation 128

The influx of the of influx The CEU eTD Collection 1987), 79. 1987), 131 werealso perceived groups Muslim Certain society. Turkish new a in columns fifth potential and disloyal as groups non perceive just not did policies immigration that was complicated more matters made ‘unturkif largely considered were who Assyrians and Armenians Greek, Jews, non exempted ‘Turkification’ mass of tools as of conceived were which important among Daghestanis and Abkhazes others. Chechens, Circassians, Tartars, Bosnians, Muslims), Greek Georgians, (Bulgarian Muslim Pomaks Muslims, Macedonian Laz, Arabs, Kurds, as such non time and Christians that Jews, at included that Turkey population Nevertheless, heterogeneous replaced. it Empire the of that from differ substantially to came Republic the of population of composition the time of period short a such non Turco were they mayMuslim, theexponents of‘the Turkish be element.’ as long as groups, ethnic different that acknowledged it since policies these with http://ejts.revues.org/index2583.html Studies Turkish Journal of European 133 132

Çağaptay, Ça Ümit Uğur Üngör, “Geographies of Nationalism and Violence: Rethinking Young Turk ‘Social Turk Young Rethinking Violence: and Nationalism of “Geographies Üngör, Uğur Ümit - Muslim, whereas, after the war only one out of forty was non was forty of out one only war the after whereas, Muslim, ğlar Keyder, Keyder, ğlar - 132 Greek war (1919 war Greek The RPP initially aimed to assimilate all of these groups into Turkish culture, yet some yet culture, Turkish into groups these of all assimilate to aimed initially RPP The im is it detail, in policies settlement the to turn I Before

distinctions were made in this regard. The large The regard. this in were made distinctions “Race, Assimilation and and Assimilation “Race, State and Class in Turkey: A Study in C in Study A Turkey: in Class and State as untrustworthy.

- 1922), one out of every five persons living in present in living persons five every of out one 1922),

. 7 (2008), (2008), 7

Kemalism,”

accessed May 2012, accessed 5,

86 - paig ulm) Tre (Macedonia Torbeş Muslims), speaking - 87. 49

apitalist Development apitalist

scale educational and cultural policies policies culturaland educational scale - portant to mention that before the the beforethat mention to portant paig ulm, Albanians, Muslims, speaking - Muslim. -

uks sekn Muslims speaking Turkish (London and New York: Verso, Verso, York: New and (London - Muslim groups such as as such groups Muslim 131

- It is clear that in that clear is It day Turkey was was Turkey day iable.’

- Engineering,” Engineering,” tl hd a had still n - 133 speaking speaking - Muslim Muslim

What CEU eTD Collection Oxford University Press, 2009), 2009), University Press, Oxford 136 135 134 organizations. Armenian or Greek separatist of that to equal state, the to threats security and political both posed that B the from refugees andimmigrants Circassian andAlbanian and displacement to subjected were who like groups mobile very perceived representatives state Ottoman late groupsthat argues He persecution. the and War Great the Ginge during Ryan policies instance, For era. the on historiography nationalist Turkish from depart that studies recent in shown poignantly is policies CUP’s the of out and in wove tribal way preservationand ofliving of the “backward” traditions. previous toasemi representativescompletely, boundas they Turkish claimed such were and the the whom element unreliable an considered were Kurds The provinces. eastern Turkish the in homelands ancestral their from deportation 1915. the in policies genocide CUP to subjugated not were employees government Armenian Christian the that recognized widely been has It loyalty. to equated and related closely were denomination and ethnicity than c which in CUP the of period the in even contested been had treason and loyalty between boundaries The group. religious or ethnic particular a to constrained

Üngör , “Geographies of Nati of “Geographies Üngör, Ün Ryan Gingeras, Gingeras, Ryan gör, “Geographies ofNati “Geographies gör, How the social status and class of the members of the various ethnic and religious groups religious andethnic various the of members the of class and status social the How merely was loyalty of notion the that assume to misleading be would it However, Sorrowful Shores: Violence, Ethnicity, and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1912 Empire, Ottoman the of End the and Ethnicity, Violence, Shores: Sorrowful

136 onalism and Violence, and onalism 1 onalism and Violence, and onalism -

256

134 .

Similarly, the CUP’s government targeted Kurdish groups for groups Kurdish targeted government CUP’s the Similarly, e icrs h peec o a atclr clue of ‘culture particular a of presence the discerns He ” ” 27. ”

14. 50

oenet fie t sedentarize to failed governments alkans and Caucasus as populations populations as Caucasus andalkans lass and political affiliation rather affiliation political and lass 135

ras analyses CUP CUP analyses ras - 192 - nomadic, nomadic, 3

(Oxford: (Oxford: CEU eTD Collection combination in Wars Balkan the during especially and before Anatolia to Muslims of exodus and deportation massive the of context the in them view to has one communities, immigrant gr same vis government CUP the by practicedpreviously policies settlement and immigration n did individual anwhen most “mattered‘Albanianess’ conceptof this ‘Turks.’Hence, themselves Albanian urban, re and officials state by better constructed concept were crucial a was who ‘Albanianness’ questioned. also officials were society into integrated state and landowners tradesmen, merchants, as such Albanians or to threats biggest the of one as out singled were bands bandit and paramilitary in participating by sustenance their sought who Balkans the from coming refugees displaced that out points Gingeras War. Great the during society and thre large a as distinguished were communities Albanian the particular, In activities. paramilitary in involved communities Muslim aforementioned the fighting and Turco of eve the on and (1915) genocide Armenian the to Prior networks. bandit and paramilitary re and immigration for targeted government paramilitarism’ op.a. 139 138 137 ot ownlandor stoleinorder tosurvive.”

Gingeras, Gingeras, Gingeras, Especially

- Greek war (1919 war Greek

oups. h RP h atrad cm t pwr otne tee oil engineering, social these continued power to came afterwards who RPP The Sorrowful Shores, Sorrowful Sorrowf Ryan Gingeras and Uğur Ümit Üngör argue for the strong relationship between the CUP and the RPP, RPP, the and CUP the between relationship strong the for argue Üngör ÜmitUğur and Gingeras Ryan 139 137

Likewise, in order to understand the CUP’ the understand to order in Likewise, - speaking elite would reject any identification with ‘Albanianess’ and call call and ‘Albanianess’ with identification any reject would elite speaking ul Shores ul

that played an important role informing the decision which communities the communities which decision the informing role important an played that

- served for those who still had not abandoned their Balkan roots. The The roots. Balkan their abandoned not had still who those for served 1922), the CUP’s government pursued a dual policy of both co both of policy dual a pursued government CUP’s the 1922), , 6. , 151.

138

- settlement since many of them were involved in in involved were them of many since settlement 51 der and targeted as bandits. Even the loyalty of of loyalty the Even bandits. as targeted and der

s policies towards and perception of perception and towards policies s at to the Ottoman state state Ottoman the to at - a - vis these these vis - opting opting the CEU eTD Collection 141 140 it Turkish when whereas, to culture’ ‘bound are Tatars and Bosnians, Pomaks, that declared specifically government specifically wereeligible groups settlement. which for granted immigrate. right to notbe the will those inexile and Gypsies, spies, anarchists, reasons, military and political for except murder committing infecte are who culture, Turkish the possess Turkey.in settle to grantedpermission be would first The chapters. previous the in mentioned already countries Balkan from those were movements migration those Among non other whereas, exchange, t for eligible not were Turkish spoke who Greece from Albanians the that decided was it when 1923 in Treaty Lausanne the surrounding debates in reflected is This element. state Albania the Ottoman state’s social engineering experiments. rebels.” and bandits “highest the for home became that Western region the a on impact Anatolia, huge a made wake their in followed that ruptures attendant the and coming of Muslims influxes similar with 143 142

Ibid. comm Muslim ofthe “Assimilation Ülker, Gingeras, Gingeras,

In “A Memorandum on Settlement,” a document issued a few months later, the Turkish the later, months few a issued document a Settlement,” on Memorandum “A In that understand to order in important also is policies government CUP’s the to Reference

Sorrowful Shores Sorrowful Shores Sorrowful cmuiis n ttr’ gvrmn wr sil osdrd del unreliable deeply a considered still were government Atatürk’s in communities n 140

Alongside this, Western Anatolia became one of the first sites of the late the of sites first the of one became Anatolia Western this, Alongside , 136 , 2. ,

came to Albanians, only those (and their family members) who had had who members) family their (and those only Albanians, to came

Law on Settlement was adopted on May 1926, and it proposed who proposed it and 1926, May on adopted was Settlement on Law -

171. - uks gop wr wloe a imgat t Turkey. to immigrants as welcomed were groups Turkish

unities,

to Anatolia from the Russian Empire. These migrationsThese Empire. Russian the fromAnatolia to ” d with syphilis and leprosy, who are imprisoned for for imprisoned are who leprosy, and syphilis with d 19. 52

142

According to this Law, the people who do notdo who people Law, the this Accordingto

143 -

akn ofcas n ms insidious most and officials ranking However, this law still did not clarif didnot still However, thislaw he population he 141 y -

CEU eTD Collection might be insightful to understand why the Turkish government was suspicious suspicious was government Turkish the why understand to insightful be might 145 144 its to conform to failed policies settlement these of implementation the the in Nevertheless, region. tendencies recalcitrant counterbalance would benefactor and saviour its as state new hope government Turkish new the so populations, Kurdish by populated heavily were regions these that is noteworthy an void economic the fill to order in Anatolia) (Eastern provinces Eastern the in settled been often had Caucasians and Balkans the from immigrants the instance, For Anatolia. Eastern and Thrace in economic or security national natur were regions these and to concerns, according areas specific in settled be would immigrants Anatolia. non mixing ( settlement ( migration as such concepts neutralizing and vocabulary acceptable of curtain the under curtailed. Alban systematically the of immigration further the that is clear is what but all, at still is It immigrants. implemented was it whether or enforceable was memorandum this degree of which to questionable backgrounds linguistic and ethnic of preferences introduced and discou legal a entered now parliament Turkish the in debated ‘Turkishness’ the that obvious Turkey.” in entry allowed be would registered were and before Anatolia to come 148 147 146 com Muslim ofthe “Assimilation

Ülker, “Assimilation ofthe “Assimilation Ülker, “ Ülker, ofNat “Geographies Üngör, Ibid. Ülker argues that the fact that Albania was established as a national state by rising against the Ottoman Empire Empire Ottoman the against rising by state national a as established was Albania that fact the that argues Ülker

utemr, h Trih oenet et hog seii pis o nue ht new that ensure to pains specific through went government Turkish the Furthermore, d inhabit the abandoned properties left by the decimated Armenian population. Armenian decimated the by left properties abandoned the inhabit d 147 Assimilation of the Musli ofthe Assimilation

iskân uks sekn Msis ih h “rgnl Trih naiat” naiat of inhabitants inhabitants” Turkish “original, the with Muslims speaking Turkish ad relocation. and )

145

Muslim communities, Muslim d that settling these spaces with Muslim immigrants who looked to the the to looked who immigrants Muslim with spaces these settling that d ionalism and Violence and ionalism

munities nö ntcs ht oil niern satd o e implemented be to started engineering social that notices Üngör

mcommunities ,” 146

21.

ally along the new state’s borderlands with its neighbours its with borderlands state’s new the along ally h Trih oenet icre te motne of importance the discerned government Turkish The

,”28. “30 ,”

35. 53 -

32.

about their immi their about ians was undesired and and undesired was ians gration. See gration. 144

Here it is it Here 148 tehcir

Ülker, Ülker, Also rse rse ), ),

CEU eTD Collection 151 150 149 provinces.” eastern the wandering still “ that concern expressed government Turkish the policies, assimilation change. this influenced have might Balkans the from Albanian was language secondary or native whose people the 1935, and 1927 between passed censuses demographic the Turkish. speak not did Republic Muslim the of favour in of establishment years the sinceaftermanyten who communities still Apparently,therewere crafted further been had which landscape language.Is of appropriations?” a too, question this, national our of instead Bosnian and Albanian are languages dominant the instruments; national instruments musical dominant the dance; national our speaking inthecommunities following words: ( Zeytinler Settlem and Reconstruction communities. non settled it when assimilation language of policy 153 1934,” 152 http://ejts.revues.org/index2123.html ahal

Ülker, Ülker, Kirişçi, ofth “Assimilation Ülker, ofth “Assimilation Ülker, Ülker, Ülker, - kadime î European Journal of Tu of Journal European The 193 The of instead Polka the is dance dominant the coast, the inhabited that people the “Among “Assimilation, Security and Geographica and Security “Assimilation, “Assimilation, Security and Geographical Nationalization in Interwar Turkey: Turkey: Interwar in Nationalization Geographical and Security “Assimilation, ilg ln h eencs [etr ntla naie yidgnu people indigenous by inhabited Anatolia] [Western cost Aegean the along village a , “M igration and Turkey and igration 149 ad eety ete Bulgarian settled recently and ) 0s continued to be characterized by immense state concerns over the population the over concerns state immense by characterized be to continued 0s

mn te neetn itreltos o h Mnsr o Exchange, of Ministry the to interpellations interesting the Among

e Muslim communities Muslim e communities Muslim e nrae fo 2,7 t 4,4. h ifu o te irns coming migrants the of influx The 40,647. to 21,774 from increased rkish Studies rkish ent was that of the deputy of deputy the of that was ent ,” 180. ,”

151

The interesting information in this regard is that according to according that is regard this in information interesting The

7 (2008), 7 153

l Nationalization Thus, the Settlement Law of 1934 emphasized more emphasized 1934 of Law Settlement the Thus, ,“ ,“38.

accessed May 7, 2012, May7, accessed 40.

- speaking Pomaks, Bosnian and Albanian Albanian and Bosnian Pomaks, speaking 150 - Turkish speaking immigrants in their new new their in immigrants speaking Turkish

are mandolin and bagpipe instead of our our of instead bagpipe and mandolin are ,”18. 152 Karesi.

lnsd te alr o language of failure the Alongside

He observed the situation in situation the observed He one million nomads are nomads million one

- uks population. Turkish The Settlement Law of of Law Settlement The

the CEU eTD Collection 156 155 154 f descend to prohibited were they rule Russian Under […] cruel, and bloodthirsty endlessly Indians, American “native to capacities mental their comparing Kurds the newspaper official its in represented Cumhuriyet government owners. the Turkish of to discourse transferred official or the sold Moreover, and state Turkish the by confiscated turn in were som while region influential Aegean and the to Anatolia Eastern in homeland ancestral their from deported were families Kurdish wealthy many 1935 in again and earlier, moved forcibly were communities Jewi to other the and Anatolia and theconcreteaimed at policies depriving non Turkis between connection ostensible the was projects engineering social socio non marked and representatives also race’ and culture same the sharing and way same the in sentiment.” thinking language, one with speaking country “thi that saying by law new the of scope and aim the up summed Kaya, Şükrü culture.’ ‘Turkish from removed remained who those t promote to measures for need the “up brought and design assimilative prt a a oe clua rgse. nö cmae tee oil niern plce ad tiue t Euro to attitudes and policies engineering social these see ones, colonial compares Üngör register. cultural lower a at operate premis This Enlightenment. cultural and rationalism administrative ofcivilization, language the is language Turkish that the

Ülker, Ülker, Ülker, Üngör argues that the social engineering policies undertaken by the CUP and RPP tended to impose the belief belief the impose to tended RPP and CUP the by undertaken policies engineering social the that argues Üngör ipis h crir o ti msin r te utrly ueir uk, hra, h non the whereas, Turks, superior culturally the are mission this of carriers the implies e I will shortly outline two representative cases, one related to Kurdish tribes in Eastern in tribes Kurdish to related one cases, representative two outline shortly will I aro revolving tools discursive and policies assimilation language The “Assimilation, Security and Geographica and Security “Assimilation, Geographica and Security “Assimilation, 155

(The Republic) prior to the deportation instigated a provocative campaign against campaign provocative a instigated deportation the to prior Republic) (The

Üngör, “Geographi Üngör, e were even expulsed to Syria. But this time, their properties and businesses businesses and properties their time, this But Syria. to expulsed even were e

- uks mnrte. aey a rmr faue f h government’s the of feature primary a Namely, minorities. Turkish

e s of Nationalism and Violence and sofNationalism sh communities in Thrace [the eastern Balkans]. Kurdish Kurdish Balkans]. eastern [the Thrace in communities sh l Nationalization l Nationalization - economic relationships between Turkish state state Turkish between relationships economic 55 -

Turkish communities of their communities wealthTurkish and status.

154 ,” ,” ,” 46. 46. ,”

8. 4. h Mnse o te nenl Affairs, Internal the of Minister The

rom the mountains, where mountains, the rom h modernist projects modernist h he use of Turkish by by Turkish of use he s law will create a create will law s n ‘Turkish und - Turkish people people Turkish pean pean 156

CEU eTD Collection 158 157 the suggest, state new even the of frontiers or both on loyal examples these As as ‘Turkified.’ being of perceived capable not were which communities by inhabited been had they since manu and trading banking, the in group dominant the be to Turks Muslim wanted government Turkish the states, Bali Rifat As deprivation. social and economic the by followed policies settlement po ‘Turkification’ to subjected Jews. the of turn the now was it out, moved been already had communities trade small other since that understood onlookers the that reveal sources these anti of spirit in reached been not “has Jews the of evacuation Interestingly, event. this after Thrace left Jews of thousands that note Department State U.S. the of records the and inhabitants. Jewish its of region the cleansing of intention the with conc were event the to up discourses, leading provocations the and boycotts, that reveal ultimately would investigations however, event; the condemned immediately government The towns. Thracian several in start properties their events and of Jews attacking series This adopted. was Law Settlement the after weeks so The Thrace. manners tobreak.” of isimpossible Kurdish this rabble ruthless and state, mental crude spirit, dark the […] lives civilized and human lead not did they http://www.rifatbali.com/images/stories/dokumanlar/basel.pdf 161 160 159 Rifat N. Bali, Bali, N. Rifat Ibid Geographica and Security Ülker,“Assimilation, Nationalizatio Geographical and Security Ülker,“Assimilation, Üngör, atrn sectors. facturing .

On the other side of the country, similar attitudes informed the government’s policies in policies government’s the informed attitudes similar country, the of side other the On “Geographies ofNat “Geographies - called Thracian Incident of 1934 revolves around the expulsion of Jews just two just Jews of expulsion the around revolves 1934 of Incident Thracian called “Politics of Turkification During the Single Party Period,” Period,” Party Single the During Turkification of “Politics

161

ionalism and Violence and ionalism n hs ead h esen rvne ad hae ee o exception no were Thrace and provinces eastern the regard this In

licies which included not only language assimilation but also re also but assimilation language only not included which licies 160

t em ta non that seems It l Natio ,” ,” 45. 56 nalization

n, 157 ,” ”

37. 34 -

uks sekn cmuiis were communities speaking Turkish t ant e setie hw many how ascertained be cannot it -

36. - Semitism.”

eived of and incited by the state state the by incited and of eived 158

The British Ambassador British The 159 accessed May 7, 2012, 2012, 7, May accessed

Rather, these foreigntheseRather, ed with Muslims Muslims with ed - CEU eTD Collection authorsthatThracSome also emphasize reasons. security and consciousness.’ and culture ‘Turkish only of people to allowed and restricted was immigration and settlement where geographies of consisted zone settlement third The Arabs. and Kurds Armenians, Jews, Greeks, non with Muslims suspicious mixed tellingly community improved. be to needed ‘Turkishness’ whose people the of settlement for designed or Roma Pomaks, the Albanians, Circassians, Bosnians, were which from among Balkans the and Caucasus immigrants past included community This culture. Turkish possess to considered ethnicity. and culture Turkish the of immigrants receive could which zone, settlement first the in resided groups These Turks. ethnic of comprised was and Turkish spoke which that as described was comm first the Thus, civilization.” “Turkish to newcomers the assimilating for necessary ( consciousness’ cat law the Namely, throughoutprevalence new communities by. its realm ofTurkish Settle 165 164 163 162 Kirişçi,

Ülker,“Assimilation, Security and Geographica and Security Ülker,“Assimilation, Ibid. Ibid. aas Acrig o h lw tee rus hud nai stlmn zn nme two number zone settlement inhabit should groups these law, the to According Tatars. et a o 13 ws ocie t hmgnz te igitc ehi, n economic and ethnic, linguistic, the homogenize to conceived was 1934 of Law ment

A deeper look into the stipulation of the Settlement Law of 1934 reveals such intentions. such reveals 1934 of Law Settlement the of stipulation the into look deeper A “M 162 igration and Turkey and igration

The second community consisted of people who did not speak Turkish but were but Turkish speak not did who people of consisted community second The Türk kültürü ve bilinci ve kültürü Türk 164 egorized communities according to their ‘possession of Turkish culture and and culture Turkish of ‘possession their to according communities egorized

165

It also consisted of area of consisted also It

These areas were primarily in the eastern provinces inhabited by Kurds. by inhabited provinces eastern the in primarily were areas These ,” ,”

181.

) and proposed corresponding settlement zones deemed zones settlement corresponding proposed and ) e was also understood as a region under understoodregionwas threat, as hence the e a also l Nationalization s which were scrutinized due to political, military political, to due scrutinized were which s 57

,” ,” 21.

- ulm ad was and Muslims

opie of comprised 163

The third The unity CEU eTD Collection 167 166 Balkan from Macedonia defending and youthin training their spent CUP the of cadres important origin. Balkan the of were Republic the in elites legislative and military significantbureaucratic, the a of proportion that argues Kirişçi Turkey, in settle to favoured were Empire Ottoman former from communities the particularly why question the answer Russia. and Thrace Western Macedonia, from “Turks” all of immigration the for particula Atatürk that states further Kirişçi Turkey. to migrate to asked were Republic Turkish formed newly of borders the outside living culture’ and ethnicity ‘Turkish to bound development. economic sustain to able be to of order in population level optimum an on building of importance the that understood Atatürk Kemal Mustafa Republic, the daysof early the in that notes Kirişçi policies.immigration and settlement of terms how the assimilated stategroupsthe Balkans acceptedand and Caucasus. from b Caucasus. the from Turks Azeri Shi’a as well as Moldova from Turks Gagauz Christian the excluded consciousness and culture Turkish principle the that is more even discourse Turk.” Republican early any complicates of Turkishness “the suspect to not state Turkish the help Incident. Thrace aforementioned 171 170 169 168 ackground of immigrants was favoured, and thus, it was another important factor informing informing factor important another was it thus, and favoured, was immigrants of ackground

K Ibid K Kirişçi, Kirişçi, argument This irişçi, irişçi, irişçi, .

There are few explanations why the Balkan countries in particular were favoured most in most favoured were particular in countries Balkan the why explanations few are There “Disaggregating Turkish Citize Turkish “Disaggregating Citiz Turkish “Disaggregating Citiz Turkish “Disaggregating “M igration and Turkey and igration is proposed by Ülker, see: Ülker, by isproposed

171 ,” 181. ,”

the of most Moreover, Thessalonica. in born was himself Atatürk 166

enship enship nship,

h datr o ti lw rud t ipeetto would implementation its argued law this of drafters The Ülker, ,” 15. ,” 6. ,” “16.

“Assimilation, Security and Geo and Security “Assimilation, 168

58 iic mks h pit ht h Snî Hanefî Sunnî/ the that point the makes Kirişci

the Balkans and not the rest of the of rest the not and Balkans the 169

The communities who were who communities The graphical Nationalization graphical

167 fbigbudt the to bound being of

utemr, what Furthermore,

–

as in Empire Empire in as 170

In order to order In rly asked asked rly ,” 34. ,”

CEU eTD Collection 172 background social class, the how on details interesting find will one surface, the under scratches a for minority particular a to relation in stake at was what propose and not does it commonalities Furthermore, them. the between differences countries, particular in minorities of status the of contextualisation with Bulgaria,and Yugoslavia. Romania, signed Turkey agreements bilateral of threads as well as Turkey, and Greece between agreement in found be may claims such purport which examples The relief. of sort as considered been have would Turkey to immigration encouraged that policy Turkish the Thus, min c to policies settlement in communities mistrusted other Jews. thanArmenians and used been had many Balkans that seems the it from Likewise, immigrants region. the from expulsed were Armenians and Jews when time very the at Thrace in settle to preferred were mist particular in no Balkans the is from immigrants there been, have might motives and reasons underlying elite’s political villagers.” Anatolian eastern to superior as seen were modernization res the with villagers Rumelia’s because primarily blood fresh of “vaccine way tothe restEmpire from ofthe there. Revolutio Young Turk the1908 rebel and bands, 175 174 173

Kirişçi, Kirişçi, Kirişçi, C Ibid rt polm, n te ainls eie f hs cutis a te a a oeta threat. potential a as them saw countries these of elite nationalist the and problems, ority ited in ited .

n my osdr uh ruet bt far bit a argument such consider may One serious had countries Balkan the all that out points who Todorova Maria cites Kirisçi a as perceived was Balkans the from immigration Nayır, Nabi Yaşar to According “Disaggregating Turkish Citiz Turkish “Disaggregating Citiz Turkish “Disaggregating Beltan, Beltan, “Citizenship an “Citizenship

particular state in given historical and political circumstances. If one one If circumstances. political and historical given in state particular d Identity in Turkey Identity in d

enship enship ,” 17. ,” 16. ,”

172 175

, ”

59 32.

n itself was staged in Macedonia and worked its and workedits Macedonia stagedn itselfwas in

- fetched since it lacks a proper historical historical proper a lacks it since fetched 174

173

the population exchange exchange population the

htvr h Turkish the Whatever pect of the degree of degree the of pect ounterweight the the ounterweight k that ake CEU eTD Collection officially the prerequisite for the migration of the Yugoslav Muslim from the Federal People’s People’s Federal the from Muslim Yugoslav the of migration the for prerequisite the officially cul “Turkish of notion the of implementation and construction the the to on focused mostly I relation Thus, policies. immigration and in Law Settlement the of pose implementation may one questions and inconsistencies many are there Still, labels. deprive who were officially communities alongside with examined been and juxtaposed have Turks” “Balkan of status privileged and discursively and juridical The processes. culture engineering “Turkish of notion the how u is show consciousness” I Likewise, communities. Muslim also but Christian towards only not differentiation and relation CUP’s the in glance deeper a provide meticulou the However, 1934. and 1924 in Settlement on Laws the by proposed policies immigration and settlement official the from aberrations and dynamics local the neglects it that is chapter this of lacuna The CUP. follow significantly Turkey in 1934 to 1923 from period the in adopted and proposed officially policies immigration and settlement the show to aimed chapter This enterprise. negotiated and contested heavily a was communities speaking Turkish members whoare of the minorities migrating toTurkey. the on comments it how show and Minorities” National for “Commission entitled document the pursued In communities. Muslim had the towards Yugoslavia policies national different of Republic People’s Federal the and Slovenes and Croats Serbs, a of Kingdom the played that II chapter in Iargued loyalty. of understanding state’s the in role significant community ethnic one of members particular the of affiliation political and Republic Turkey ofYugoslavia and to in1950s 1960s. If one looks at the case of the Republic, the state’s relationship towards T towards relationship state’s the Republic, the of case the at looks one If sed in legal and state discourse as an ideological tool for the RPP’s social RPP’s the for tool ideological an as discourse state and legal in sed s analyses completed by the authors such as Ryan Gingeras Gingeras Ryan as such authors the by completed analyses s 60

ed those implemented in the time of the the of time the in implemented those ed ture and consciousness” that was was that consciousness” and ture

further chapters, I will analyse will I chapters, further urkish and non and urkish d of such of d

more more - CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection 177 States 176 Turkeyratified by andLausanne GreeceTreaty in1923. wi states, Bookman case, the was That imposed. is migrate to migration decision. t of forth.” so and inclination political bonds, family as such considerations non pecuniary by induced be may it sometimes yet, […] status greater conditions, working improved eco expected by “motivated spectrum.” the of ends two as migration purely and involuntary voluntary purely with “continuum a as movement migration at look to proposes bases as considered also be may licenses revoking and rights property denying as such coercion of ways subtle more that conclusion the to comes she migration involuntary as classified be may gunpoint at departures forced solely whether them. between distinction the blur which types involuntary and voluntary between area vague the into fall movements migration most although migrations, involuntary regarding dilemmas the of nature The migration. of types involuntary and voluntary between distinguishes Bookman Chaptervs. Compulsory V: Voluntary Migration 180 179 178

Ibid. Ibid Ibid. Ibid iia Zark Milica he motivation for migration, Bookman argues that the migrant exercises free choice in the the in choice free exercises migrant the that argues Bookman migration, for motivation he

( . . London: Frank Class, 2002), 112. 2002), Class, London: Frank

Zarkovic Milica economist the migration, in ethnicity of role the of study her In ovic Bookman, Bookman, ovic 180

whether or not to migrate is what qualitatively differentiates voluntary from from voluntary differentiates qualitatively what is migrate to not or whether

On the other hand, in cases of involuntary or forced migration thedecisionforced migration or involuntary cases of On thehand, other in Ethnic Groups in Motion: Economic Competition and Migration in Multiethnic Multiethnic in Migration and Competition Economic Motion: in Groups Ethnic

oi bnft, aey bte jb nldn hge wages, higher including job better a namely benefits, nomic

178

o ivlnay migration. involuntary for hs ms vlnay irtos are migrations voluntary most Thus, th population exchanges between between exchanges population th 176

In her questioning her In 179 177

Regardless

h thus She - CEU eTD Collection 181 was therefore alegal from different perspective. 1950sthe Bulgariain and Yugoslaviafrom waves Turkey’smigration towards that stance claims Turkey. forBulgaria leave to forced was population Turkish the when period same the in initiated Bulgaria socialist from wave migration the from different was Turkey and Yugoslavia b voluntary as migration any marked specifically agreement this of signing the that and 1950s the before authorities Yugoslav by permitted was movement migration no that state Brunnbauer Ulf Kö Fuat Mehmet Affairs Foreign of Minister Turkish the and Tito Broz Josip president Yugoslav the between 1953 in Croatia Split, in concluded agreement was the in chapter. later examined and introduced be will which frameworks morality and notions laden value some evoke inevitably migrations involuntary the vs. voluntary on accounts The involuntary. ends, extreme two has which continuum migration calls Bookman what on themselves positioning are accounts their in interviewees the approximately where examine my on emph based operates migration ‘ argument The involuntary experiences. and accounts interviewees’ and voluntary the between distinctions 183 Immigration War World 182 tee statesmen. these y

Akan AkanEllis For the ‘voluntary’ basis of migration of basis ‘voluntary’ the For asized to such extent in the interviewees’ accounts that it deserves more attention. I will I attention. more deserves it that accounts interviewees’ the in extent such to asized As stated in Chapters II and III, the impetus for migration from Yugoslavia to Turkey Turkey to Yugoslavia from migration for impetus the III, and II Chapters in stated As 5 cut clear problematic and imprecise how demonstrate to interested am I However, Ellis, Ellis,

.1. “We came as free migrants!” free as came “We .1. , Shadow G Shadow , Shadow G Shadow ,” 182

enealogies, enealogies, enealogies

70; 70;

kn li age ta te irto areet rm 93 between 1953 from agreement migration the that argues Ellis Akan Akan Ellis, Akan ,

51. 50.

see Shadow G Shadow Br unnbau

enealogies e 63 r,

“

L a te , 50. L ab

o u e ae s re migrants free as came we r

Migr a tion, prüllü. ”

43 - 181 44; 44;

Kemal Kirişçi and Kirişçi Kemal Kirişçi, “Post Kirişçi, voluntary and and voluntary ’ had been been had ’ 183 - Sec

Ellis ond ond - CEU eTD Collection permit other emigration but forTurkish applied chapters, nationality ofthe members the only not year five first the for break tax small a and citizenship except state the from privilege any granted be not would they that of status legal yettheir wanted, they wherever settle to choice free guarantee signed who relatives and families their by but state of category into fell who immigrants the hand, other bu Muslims, Bulgarian for designed were state about information areas of kind what mention not does state. Turkish the by designated areas in settle to had rather but wanted they wherever Bulgaria. in left they incomes and land for compensation them provided Turkey that meant which sponsored Kemal göçmen of concepts The 1950s. the in Turkey to Bulgaria socialist and Tu in role important an played immigrants) (free and immigrants) (settled between difference the that noted be must it chapter, this of purposes the For IV. Chapter in detail in examined was which 1936 in Law Settlement immigrants.” “free as recognized were Yugoslavia from migrants of the whereas, status immigrants,” the granted therefore were and Bulgaria leave to forced 187 186 185 184

Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

Namely, the Bulgarian Turks were recognized by the Turkish state as migra as state Turkish the by recognized were Turks Bulgarian the Namely, Kirişçi states that the immigrants who fell into category of category into fell who immigrants the that states Kirişçi

were also closely tied to the responsibilities of the Turkish state towards the migrants. the towards state Turkish the of responsibilities the to tied closely also were Shadow Shadow 185

oee, h imgat fo Blai dd o hv a re hie o settle to choice free a have not did Bulgaria from immigrants the However, 184 G

enealogies

The differentiation between settled a settled between differentiation The - sponsored areas for settlement may be found in Chapter IV. On the the On IV. Chapter in found be may settlement for areas sponsored s after getting work permits. work getting after s ,

50 rkey’s legal recognition of the migration wave from Yugoslavia Yugoslavia from wave migration the of recognition legal rkey’s -

52.

serbest göçmen serbest 187

As it was also noticed in the previous the in noticed also was it As nd free migrants originates from the from originates migrants free nd for them. These immigrants had a a had immigrants These them. for serbest göçmen serbest sâl göçmen iskânlı

iskânlı were not sponsored by the the by sponsored not were sâl göçmen iskânlı

göçmen ebs göçmen serbest

clearly meant meant clearly nts who were who nts and were state were 186

“settled some t serbest serbest Kirişçi

or or - CEU eTD Collection Bosnia came to Macedonia to fulfil the requirement of six months of residence in Macedonia so so Macedonia in residence of months six of requirement the fulfil to Macedonia to came Bosnia As Turkey.” to emigrati way his “found he that mentioned interviewee other The Turkey. to arrival his mediated ‘money’ admitted, he Rather, arrived. he before Turkish know not did he stated inher my ownhome host will I that, do to manage not do I case in job… a find house, a rent expenses, all cover will I arrival r your instance, For Turkey. in residing family your of member one by invited be to need you emigrate to order in “[S]o of letter official an writing by guarantee ( them for vouched who member family a had they confirm all almost permit, emigration for applying their describing in instance, For them. for benefits any provide not did that Turkey to coming when resentment of feeling to SCS of Turke Kingdom the from decades previous in migrated who members family their and peers Bulgarian their with comparison involves also perception This them. describing discourse ch free a having of perception their to related solely not is accounts their from emerges which ‘free’ of notion The migrants.’ “Turkishness” bothtoYugosl to tried who Torbeş and Bosnians Roma, Albanians, as such communities Muslim y. conveyingof Furthermore, when ‘free their statusmigrant’ alsoexpress interviewees the Only two interviewees two Only ‘free of category legal the within status their perceived interviewees all that out found I on was possible only from Skopje, many other Muslims from Kosovo, the Sanjak and Sanjak the Kosovo, from Muslims other many Skopje, from only possible was on vesika elative had to write: ‘ write: to had elative ) for them: ) for .’” .’” (Mustafa, 71)

av as well as Turkish authorities.well av as as Turkish oice in decision for emigration, but it conforms with the state legal state the with conforms it but emigration, for decision in oice

mentioned that they did not obtain a guarantee. For instance, one one instance, For guarantee. a obtain not did they that mentioned

Nina is my relative, and I invite her to come to Turkey. Upon her Upon Turkey. to come to her invite I and relative, my is Nina 65

f h interviewees the of prove

their CEU eTD Collection perceive political oppres political perceive would interviewees’ the that expect perhaps would One Turkey? for leave to them on pressure no was there that claim time same the at oppressive, as system socialist and Party Communist part that possible it is How paradoxical. seems this glance first At emigrating. for encouragement no was there that stated also respectively), Celal and ‘Azem’ (Mustafa, Yugoslavia in persecutions and pressure political been had there that t Interestingly, emigrate. to persuaded or encouraged not were they that stated left theirtofamily properties inMacedonia. whoremained members wh migrants some also were There citizenship. Yugoslav withdrawalfrom of expenditures and expenses tax the cover to had they since change,’ ‘loose for individuals h Turkey, to arrival to prior properties their with happened what asked When them. possessed classes lower equivalent of people many not since Turkey, in sensation a were TVs accounts, a such belongings personal of types basic more bring could they that stated interviewees the of majority a hand, other the On could.” they wherever or shoes cookies, in gold and money the hide “would people “ was it that claimed Mustafa instance, For the Paris migrate. to right the granted be would they that n my sue ht hs itriwe sml dd o dsen ht oiia opeso in oppression 188 political that discern not did simply interviewees these that assume may one owever, many interviewees said they sold their houses and workshops to the Yugoslav state or or state Yugoslav the to workshops and houses their sold they said interviewees many owever,

Akan Ellis, AkanEllis, When asked whether there was any encouragement to leave for Turkey, all interviewees all Turkey, for leave to encouragement any was there whether asked When Yugoslavia. leaving and travelling with associated stories many are there expected, As - Istanbul knownthe Skopje, thenas train via Shadow Shadow s wardrobes, domestic appliances, TV, refrigerators. According to their their to According refrigerators. TV, appliances, domestic wardrobes, s G

enealogies sion as a form of encouragement to leave for Turkey. On the one hand, hand, one the On Turkey. for leave to encouragement of form a as sion ,

52. 52.

forbidden to transfer the money to Turkey” so the the so Turkey” to money the transfer to forbidden 66

188

icularly those interviewees who perceived the the perceived who interviewees those icularly

All of the interviewees said they came with came they said interviewees the of All Orient Express

o state that they rather they that state o hose who stated stated who hose CEU eTD Collection Turan refers to survey conducted among 154 000 Turks who immigrated to Turkey from 1950 from Turkey to immigrated who Turks 000 154 among conducted survey to refers Turan Interestingly, states. Turan 1968, to until Bulgaria from Turkey immigrating to migration no almost Gypsy was Bulga There Turks. time the of migration this but against 1953 was in border which its reopened 1936 Turkey claims, from Turan Eventually, Turkey op.a. in Turkey, Law Settlement the to responds Gypsies of inserting was “Bulgaria that arguing 1951 in border the closed Turkey but 1950s the in started movement migration The Bulgaria. satellite its using by Turkey on pressure these sees Turan jo abolished. to been attempt Turkey’s had to Turks to granted rights objected Union Soviet The all Turan, to According Bulgaria. on sphere Soviet the 1940s of influence the with related reforms the in Bulgaria in rule Communist the consolidat the after that claims University, Technical East Middle the from historian a Turan, Omer Similarly, Immigration War World state 1950 between ofthem emigrated 154,393 ethnic Turks. of250,000 total a accept government Turkish the that demanded government Bulgarian the 1950 August “in which that notes Kirişçi production agricultural of centralization with alongside names up take Slavic to them compelling and country, the within migrate to Turks forcing mosques, closing Turkish, in schools to related was Turkey to Bulgaria from 1990s 1945 from waves immigration the whichinfluenced factors As II. important War World the after Turkey to country of exodus 189 population thattoleave was forced Turkey Bulgaria inthe same for period. wit migration their juxtapose their accounts. from emerge tropes common what and accounts interviewees’ the within operates migrants” examin now will I state. the from benefits any expect of category legal the with compliance interviewees’ the fit to seem leave to pressure or encouragement no was there that as came who those that unlikely seems it policies, government the by migrate to pushed or encouraged han other the Turkey.On leavefor to encouragement the with common in something hadYugoslavia 27, 2012, 27, M “Turkish Society of Rebuilding Turan, and Consequences Omer see leave., to volunta came they

When studying post studying When ,gvnta mgat wowr eonzd yteTrih tt as state Turkish the by recognized were who migrants that given d, - pnoe plc, hs eeiig rm iaca ad other and financial from benefiting thus policy, sponsored hn etoig hi sau o fe o vlnay irn, h itriwe implicitly interviewees the migrant, voluntary or free of status their mentioning When

serbest göçmen serbest 1950 - 1951 and later in 1989 that is considered to be the largest immigrant movement from one Balkan Balkan one from movement immigrant largest the be to considered is that 1989 in later and 1951

ry, whereas, 85% claimed they came since it was impossible. The last 3% noted they were forced were they noted 3% last The impossible. was it since came they claimed 85% whereas, ry, -

,” World War II immigration of Bulgarian Muslims to Turkey, Kemal Kirişçi refers to mass mass to refers Kirişçi Kemal Turkey, to Muslims Bulgarian of immigration II War World

in the NATO and its close relationship with the USA and therefore attempted to excert excert to attempted therefore and USA the with relationship close its and NATO the in

- would claim they were similarly encouraged. The accou The encouraged.similarly were they claim would 66. 66. ebs göçmen serbest

ta o Blain ulm, peoiaey Turkish predominately a Muslims, Bulgarian of that h

(Conference held 22 held (Conference igrations from Bulgaria,” Bulgaria,” from igrations

the policies of the Bulgarian government, which included “banning “banning included which government, Bulgarian the of policies the ie, h oe h mgae vlnay n de not does and voluntary migrates who one the i.e., , 67 the Gypsies among the Turkish immigrants.” The rejection rejection The immigrants.” Turkish the among Gypsies the

- 23 February 2005 in Sofia, Bulgaria) Sofia, in 2005 February 23

oenet upr. See support.” government - 1951 and most of them were settled according t according weresettled most and them of 1951 e how the argument “we came as free free as came “we argument the how e ocd tnc irto o te Balkans: the on Migration Ethnic Forced most affected Turkish community.” community.” Turkish affected most zorunlu göçmen zorunlu 189

iiç, “Po Kirişçi, nts which argue argue which nts - ria did not permit permit not did ria 1951, 11% stated 11% 1951, , accessed May May accessed , - speaking speaking st - Second Second

ion of of ion were were o - CEU eTD Collection woven interviewees’accounts. into are which success of stories and resentment of feelings these to turn now will I country. new a tantamo were immigrants Bulgarian to provided state Turkish the which benefits how mention often interviewees Muslims, Bulgarian of those with status own their comparing When resentment. of feeling the with glossed often are immigrants Bulut, Esra see Turkey, to Balkans the from migrating been have who communities the for terms used commonly are Both 190 http://www.imir

Esra Bulut discerns the term term the discerns Bulut Esra “Friends, Balka “Friends, h cmo pit o rfrne eadn te interviewees’ the regarding reference of points common The - bg.org/imir/books/Forced_Ethnic_Migrations.pdf h w scedd W cm a fe mgat, n te tt dd not did state the and migrants, free as came We succeeded. we why “ (Mustafa, 71) ca We them. exiled Bulgarians aid. state to right a have [ Bulgarians hand, other the On five all. for That’s tax years. from exempted are you company state a in work you “[I]f 69) o migrate to you to up migrants.It is are Wefree land. the workareason to rural only in towns, them call They […] things these providesyou with state new the youemigrate after and state, the to leaveyou and cows fivesheep, ten have youForinstance, left. had they everything with them provided state new the state, another to whenandstate,theymigratedproperties the leave forcedtheir to were refuge The fell migrants. not free did We ours. sold ascame We stay.encouragement wasto There contrary.the on pressure, we whereas, Bulgaria, in properties their abandoned Bulgarians different. are we But, Turks. Bulgarian the with homes. with provided been had they 1930s, and 1920sthe in cameearlier,who those But helpedstateus. the how is This employment. of condition the under years five for tax from exemption “ wi came they came refrigerators, with washing machines, etc.” (‘Azra’, 75) fled, Muslims Bulgarian Bulgaria. fled who those to houses granted state the while us for benefits any provide Tuky ae s ohn, vrbd fuh o hs w, n ta is that and own, his on fought everybody nothing, us gave [T]urkey Tuky i nt rvd u ay eeis Te ny eei ws the was benefit only The benefits. any us provide not did [T]urkey

ns , Statesmen ,

muhacir

,”

and and

r not. And the state will not help you. (‘Ibrahim’, you. help not will state the And not. r göçmen s ( es muhacir

muhacir . Mühacir 68 . They were not allowed to settle in settle to allowed not were They .

) 190

unt to facilitating that group’s adaptation to adaptation group’s that facilitating to unt

refers to refugee while refugee to refers a dfeet oiin. They positions. different had .

i.e t a te ae case same the was It

., Bulgarian Turks] Bulgarian ., me voluntarily.” me h ohn. We nothing. th

göçmen all of this of all

oig s voluntary as coming

refers to immigrant. immigrant. to refers

CEU eTD Collection iies dsie h fc te epe f uh ifrne i te socio the in differences such of people the fact ‘ordinary the and despite ‘notables’ citizens’ among both recruit reality in associations these recognize Turkey imm study who Hersant and Toumarkine regard, this of In gather. group migrants such only where places are associations migrant’s the that overstate to not careful mi of group the gather predominately which arenas social as considered be may associations these also that indicate associations of members the also are who interviewees my of occupation of associations immigrant SCS. of Kingdom the socialist Bulgaria came from and not provide case aswas thembenefits withimmigrantswho the s host new their with resentment and disillusionment voicethey that is Celal and ‘Azra’ and interviewees these between difference the but backgrounds, family poor from came who immigrants the of accounts the pervade also success of stories Similarly, F the in life previous their from resources with Turkey in arrived they after immediately livelihood their secure to position a in were members family whose Celal and ‘Azra’ with case weal significant with Turkey to came who migrants privileged those of accounts the pervade significantly success of stories The accounts. their in success of stories the to refer not do who those who those and m the success, of stories stress who interviewees socio their on lot a depends 191

Bertoux grants who succeed by starting from little to nothing and made it big. However, one has to be be to has one However, big. it made and nothing to little from starting by succeed who grants s Bertoux As 5 .2. Resentment and Stories of Success of Stories and Resentment .2. - Wiame , “The Life History Approach Approach LifeHistory “The - W

th as well as sound educations and professional backgrounds. This is the is This backgrounds. professional and educations sound as well as th ae oie ta te a pol sae n srcue hi lf story life their structure and share people way the that notices iame

range The occupations of the interviewees who are the members of the the of members the are who interviewees the of occupations The

from merchants, engineers, shopkeepers and publicists. publicists. and shopkeepers engineers, merchants, from - cnmc status. economic , ” 257. ”

ost common value common ost

191

hr i aprn dsrpny between discrepancy apparent is There ociety since the Turkish state did state Turkish the ociety since - laden theme in the accounts, the in theme laden - cnmcl ttss are statuses economical igrant associations in associations igrant The range The PRY. CEU eTD Collection land of opportunity and justice, whereas, other interviewees rather stress their regret with leaving regret leaving with justice, their land of whereas, interviewees rather and stress opportunity other promised a as Turkey with disillusion and disappointment their stress interviewees some level, closely accounts. their in present not are success of stories resentme mention who interviewees other the and success, of stories the to and both resentment refer who associations the from interviewees the between difference a is there Still, FRP the of ideology class official the romanticizing unconsciously perhaps time same the at thus ’ unity, and ‘brotherhood of society a in life simpler a of memories the to accounts their in space more much s of stories mention not do who interviewees contrast, In satisfying. society Turkish in position social present their perceive to seem success of stories the emphasizing are who interviewees the that surprising not is it groups, social all for same on was it as even or was, it as past experienced, thepast one’s experienceatotell butconferto life certain story meaningisnot […] the “describe to not is purpose the us, reminds Wiame with case the is such Şahsine Surely, and ‘Ibrahim’ emphasized. associations the of members other that tropes success linear the to subscribe not do they thus, factories; in jobs transient menial, worked them transit the making in encountered they difficulties the to refer circumst mainly background, economic and educational poor other the with came who immigrants in other each meet to not likely 193 192

ly to talk or to remember; it is an act, an encounter with reality.” with encounter an act, an is it remember; to or talk to ly Hersant and Hersant and Bertoux n h itriwe’ cons eetet a b dsend n w lvl. n h f the On levels. two on discerned be can resentment accounts interviewees’ the In these repertoiresthese - Wiame Toumarkine, “Hometown Organizations in Turkey: AnOverview Turkey: in Organizations “Hometown Toumarkine, , “The Life History Approach Approach LifeHistory “The Y. The feeling of resentment is common to all interviewees (except ‘Azra’). ‘Azra’). (except interviewees all to common is resentment of feeling The Y.

( alt

such andas resentment. storiesof success hough’

Ibrahim , ” 258. ” ’

is not a member of any associations). any of member a not is

ion to their new lives in Turkey. Many of of Many Turkey. in lives new their to ion

ances. In further further In uccess in their new settings rather devote devote rather settings new their in uccess 192

Some discussion, I will observe more more observe will I discussion, ,

”

193 nevees ta i the is that interviewees, . As this can this As

As Bertoux As not - be the be nt but but nt based based irst - CEU eTD Collection even been deprived of their citizenship, which was alongside the tax breaks the only state aid state only the breaks tax the alongside was which citizenship, their of deprived been even had they situations such in that as‘ mention interviewees Three spies.’ ‘Communist or Communists’ them perceiving even sometimes mistrust, great with looked state Turkish the yearshe was old: seven only Bito from migrated who Süleyman, by given was example such One state. the from help granted been had who immigrants the of that than process harder much a wascountrynew their to adapting waytheir implyof andthat state the from receivinghelpany socialist society. a in equality as perceive they what for nostalgia a exude and Yugoslavia in behind are who interviewees those of accounts the in missing are Turkey in success to references such whereas, success, of stories and vignettes with it compensate usually Turkey with disillusion their stress who interviewees b behind life better a be to perceived they what behind they a right had to: Resentment may also be noticed in the accounts of some of the interviewees upon whom upon interviewees the of some of accounts the in noticed be also may Resentment depriv migrant free of status their consider usually interviewees of group first The

hard find a single person renting aflat.” (Süleyman, 59) are from we country; y came ten goodand soon, jobs found We a people. working who is Turkey But migrants afterwards? times. happened hard The experiencedwhat resources did. economic no we with Macedonia like obstacles encounter Unitedwa subsequent in came who Those help. theany provide or Europe to not did state the Turkey,to migratedcame we When Turkey.chose we but States, have could th We Macedonia. had from We immigrants. to emigrate to decided we So jobs not. or times,migrate to whether decide to freedom and penurious most houses its was land, in provided 1960s] Even Turkey and ones. [1950s previous the migration from of different wave this Nikolina, “[L]isten

more inclined to show remorse for a better life they feel they left left they feel they life better a for remorse show to inclined more 71

ack in Yugoslavia. The first group of of group first The Yugoslavia. in ack ears after you could not could you after ears

ves after us did not did us after ves la (Macedonia) to Istanbul when when Istanbul to (Macedonia) la e -

potential ed of ed CEU eTD Collection one’ arrival Tur in biography one’s well knew authorities Turkish the that suggests FPRY, the in Party their however, but of regardless monitored been had immigrants the problematic; something not monitoring”was “the that Süleymanstated end, the At background.” of “all that prove to eager was ac who ‘informer’ an on blame the cast rather and reasoning, of line that with disagreed Süleyman state. capitalist a was Turkey that answered Mustafa Yugoslavia, from coming population Muslim the by endangered felt Association arrived inTurkey: he when ‘suspicious’ became father his Party, Communist the in were who members family no the work of Gilles de Rapper who studies Communist Communist studies who Rapper de Gilles of work the extent 194

Şahsine refers to one’s pol one’s to refers Şahsine biography In contrast, Şahsine, whose father was a police officer and a member of the Communist the of member a and officer police a was father whose Şahsine, contrast, In the in conducted was that interview our during resentment his narrates Süleyman Likewise, Süleyman gives a similar account stressin account similar a gives Süleyman Likewise,

in Istanbul to which Mustafa joined as wel as joined Mustafa which to Istanbul in granting of no citizenship wasgrantingno citizenship outrageous and unjust.” of

of an immigrant coming from Yugoslavia was important for the Turkish authorities. In this regard, regard, this In authorities. Turkish the for important was Yugoslavia from coming immigrant an of because we were coming from Yugoslavia, that is a Communistcountry.a is that comingYugoslavia, werefrom we because perceived were we time that “[A]t atn fr ie er t gt h ctznhp Ti ws outrageous.” was This citizenship. the get (Süleyman, 59) to years five for waiting Communist. a was Zekman father my ofmigrants“[O]newho the cameto policebefore Turkeytoldus the that immigrant the monitoring officers police neighbourhoods.” (Mustafa, 71) undercover were There

key:

itical activities in Yugoslavia, op.a. It would be interesting to see whether and to what to and whether see to interesting would be It op.a. Yugoslavia, in activities itical

cused his father of being a Communist. Not convinced, Mustafa Mustafa convinced, Not Communist. a being of father his cused

by the state as ‘potential communists’‘potential as state the by 72 lai (1945 Albania

He was imprisoned and we were we and imprisoned was He l. After I asked why Turkish authorities Turkish why asked I After l. - g that in spite of the fact that he had he that fact the of spite in that g 91 mgt e neetn fr h cs of case the for interesting be might 1991)

194

prior to prior Rumeli CEU eTD Collection as a synonym of kinship ties and it differentiated between one’s “good and bad biography.” See Gilles de Rapper, Rapper, de Gilles See biography.” bad and “good one’s between differentiated it and ties kinship of synonym a as regime Hohxa’s towards attitudes and activities individual of evaluation political a as biography of concept the understands Rapper De Yugoslavia. from immigrants of influx the to relation in Turkey are who people free “support to proposed which II, War World after Doctrine’ ‘Truman the following Turkey’s in found be may Communism other political threat. Likewise, Communism. and mistrusting state with Turkish the of cases the connection mention not did interviewees alleged their to relation in Yugoslavia from immigrants toward stance Turkish ei official an sources, reflect would other which Turkish, no or Yugoslav encountered I interviewees three these of accounts individual the from Apart authorities. Turkish the by groups suspicious as regarded were 1960s and 1950s the ga to hard remains would “reveal everybodywas to thathe aCommunist.” she that that threatening by him “blackmail” would she father, her with angry was she when post et Perspective communiste l’Albanie dans politique Eu souillure et incontrollable parenté biographie’: “La http://www.ejts.org/document565.html oen ora o Trih Studies Turkish of Journal ropean However, some indications that the Turkish government had a negative stance towards stance negative a had government Turkish the that indications some However, family one’s anecdote accountfrom it this asWhile anindividual life, understood may be hard these on back looks Şahsine ,

accessed May 27, 2012. May27, accessed a oe oie fie cmn eey a t or egbuho. He neighbourhood. our to day every coming officer police one was in arrived we “[W]hen 69) the in working was who army.”(Şahsine, the in serve one to went brothers older mytwo since family only the was I year. a than more for job etc. Macedonians are you Turks, not are You us: to comment and ask derisively would

uge the extent to which the immigrants coming from Yugoslavia to Turkey in Turkey to Yugoslavia from coming immigrants the which to extent the uge

, Thematic issues 4, The Social Practices of kinship. A Comparative Comparative A kinship. of Practices Social The 4, issues Thematic , Eyüp Sultan Eyüp

- ie wt sie o ad vn lyul ad tha adds playfully even and now smile with times 73

[a neighbourhood in Istanbul], there Istanbul], in neighbourhood [a

resisting attempted subjugation by armed armed by subjugation attempted resisting Who are you? Are you spies? you Are you? are Who

My father could not find a find not could father My

in Albania. Albania. in considering them a them considering Biography

- communiste,” communiste,”

was used was ther ther t

CEU eTD Collection Ethiopian Jews prior their arrival to Israel were “motivated and sustained by an oral tradition oral an by sustained and “motivated were Israel to arrival their prior Jews Ethiopian “promisedamong land” immigrantsarrived inthe 1950sand the 1960s. who the of dissemination and construction the in rolea played succes of stories the that seems It Turkey. to came regard this In work. hard Mustafa comments: for reward a as societies capitalist in possible was believed they prosperi and wealth the them bring not did it because society Turkish with disillusioned on accounts interviewees’ the ‘T properly place to order in references more need still would ideas. one Nevertheless, Communist spreadingof control the US was to foremost the for concern th for “essential as administration pressures.” outside by or minorities 196 195

urkish fear of immigrants from Yugoslavia’ within abroaderurkish from of fear Yugoslavia’contextualframework. within immigrants Ibid Hugh and Nicole .

Gazi Bez Ezer who studies the Ethiopian Jews’ migration to Israel argues that the the that argues Israel to migration Jews’ Ethiopian the studies who Ezer Bez Gazi who SHS of Kingdom the from immigrants the of success alleged the mentions Mustafa were who interviewees of accounts the in prevalent also is resentment of feeling The did not.”did (Mustafa, 71) we alas, but here, experience same the encounter would we thought We the relatives: his to letter a write hadand pen a take us to in house prior a buy could Turkey to he Turkey, to arriving migrated after so Yugoslavia, in land his had sell to possibility who one know, fairytale You Turkish a was This stupidity! Such it! of all apartments, malls, Turkey]…shopping [in there us awaits abundance and “[W]ealth

Pope, Pope,

Turkey Unveiled: Atatürk and After and Atatürk Unveiled: Turkey

e preservation of order in the Middle East.” Middle the in order of preservation e

Aksaray 195

lnsd Gec, uky a cniee b te US the by considered was Turkey Greece, Alongside

imgat egbuho i Istanbul], in neighbourhood [immigrant 74

s from the previous generation of immigrants immigrants of generation previous the from s

(London: John Murray, 1997), 82. 1997), Murray, (London: John

I have opened a shop here! shop a opened have I cultural imaginaries cultural

[…]

about Turkey as a a Turkeyas about 196

The first and first The

ty that that ty CEU eTD Collection economic status in Turkey. They both narrate how they came with economic resources which resources economic with came they how narrate both They Turkey. in so status economic her reinvent to connections Yugoslav harness even to family them such allowed from that came background Azra and Celal families. their of situation social the on depending of field and matrices potential different possibilities. constituting by them in up family the grow of who impact members makes context residential and constrains external resources, cultural One different. milieu social the make that spheres constructing by existence of domains important most the of one as perceived are networks kinship and family that argues foun be may interviewees all by shared not is it why reasons The experience. group immigrant’s opportunities and wealth. imm the of experience disappointing the prikazna turska success of stories the to refers Mustafa when decades. previous the in came who members family and relatives the by transmitted success of stories the to related mainly were general in Turkey about knowledge and upbringing.” cultural Simila their of part a been had which country mother a of image idealized “the by Britain to attracted were they claims Britain to emigrants Barbadian the on research return.” of myth a and identity Jewish their upheld which 199 198 197

Bertoux, Bertoux, Ibid. in Cited Thompson, i ter different their in d

rly, in the case of the immigrants from Yugoslavia, the cultural imaginaries about Turkey about imaginaries cultural the Yugoslavia, from immigrants the of case the in rly, eetees i ses ht utf’ ie of idea Mustafa’s that seems it Nevertheless, “ LifeStories 199

Interviewees like Mustafa and Celal or ‘Azra’ had different life chances largely chances life different had ‘Azra’ or Celal and Mustafa like Interviewees

[the Turkish fairytale in Macedonian], which, according to him, accounts for for accounts him, to according which, Macedonian], in fairytale Turkish [the

“Moving Stories “Moving

, “27. oan o existence of domains

, ”

28.

igrants who came in the 1950s and 1960s expecting 1960s and 1950s the in came who igrants

from the previous generation of migrants he calls it it calls he migrants of generation previous the from — 75

h cnet eeoe b Dne Brox He Bertoux. Daniel by developed concept the

usa prikazna turska 197

Similarly, Mary Chamberlain in her in Chamberlain Mary Similarly,

s o cmo t the to common not is It is significant that that significant is It ’s material and and material ’s cio 198 -

CEU eTD Collection artisan the notes: and administrative of the themember Associations council Rumeli a society wh capitalist of stories The in progresslinear of trope predictablemainly alight, stressing positive a in conveyed successare themselves. for lives successful very made fact, in and problems, encounter i describe others contrast, in but expectations, group arrivalencounter upon toTurkey: difficulties not did family his that mentions Celal regard this In Turkey. in life of beginning the facilitated Some of the interviewees refer to Turkey as a destination which failed to fulfil immigrantfulfil to failedwhich destination a as Turkeyreferinterviewees to the of Some Similar ly explains: toCelal,‘Azra’ exporting hazelnuts Yugoslavia.” to (‘Azra’, 75) En and him as with such working companies been some have We us. visited even son Tito’s companies […] state Croatian and Serbia Bosnia, with trade to started then relatively Turkey, statowas father able my workers. so furniture, such manufacture fifteen not did time, the employed at underdeveloped and atelier furniture a opened immediately father My apartment. an bought and came “[W]e three family,our sowewere the tolast arrive.” a (Celal, 69) bought we arrived Aksaray we when So Turkey. to mothe had „[W]e who is twenty five years old, he is about to finish his studies in in studies his finish to about is he old, years engineering…” (Selim, 62) five twenty is son who a have I the today. studying is youth to All succeeded. Balkans goes the from everybody Nowadays schooling. univers further of luxury the usimmigrantsof work to had aliving. for Few hard them of afford could all time that At lamp. a have even not did We cold. so was It house. one bi a were We living. a earning ergoinvest ity. There are many landlords and very few subtenants. All folks All subtenants. few very and landlords many are There ity. ere everybody can succeed if there are diligent and hardworking. Selim, an an and diligent hardworking. there Selim, are ere everybodyif succeed can

. We could afford it. We got the the got We it. afford could We . “[I] finished high school, that’s it. These were hard times in in times hard were These it. that’s school, high finished “[I] Ygsa egneig opn] W hv as been also have We company]. engineering [Yugoslav ney, my father and my uncles, and we could transfer ittransfer could we and uncles, my and father my ney, rt his own business after working hisbusinessafter ownrt fiveyears.for We Jugoagent

g family, we needed money. We lived in lived We money. needed we family, g

Ygsa Mrtm Aec] and Agency] Maritime [Yugoslav vesika t as a destination in which they did not not did they which in destination a as t

[guarantee letter] from letter] [guarantee

- try os in house storey

CEU eTD Collection groupwho largelycontributed tothe Turkey’s economicdevelopment: sa with them provide not did state Turkish the that fact the of regardless how out points He time. some after ‘awarded’ righteouslybeenstrugglehadcommunal account, their Süleyman’s According to were immigrants more two whilst ( migrants free as arrived who community the of survival for struggle the of context the within it placed ‘Recep’and betweenthose differentiates whodidnot: those whosucceed associations. migrant the from peers his than cautiously more success on comments ‘Recep’ ebnft a i i the did it as benefits me üemn aeavr neetn con regarding account interesting very a gave Süleyman rich, get to Turkey to come to motivated was he how on commenting after Likewise, Celal serbest göçmen serbest

also ofsuccess tackled Turkey: thewhen about issue talking leisure in his time w bsns. e ae en amy ecmd ee [Turkey].” here welcomed warmly been have (‘Recep’, 81) We business. own our just politics mind not do We there. and here both diligent been have depe “[I]t They are now rich since they have working been really hard.” (Celal, 69) and Bosniaks] by inhabited Beşyüzevler mainly Istanbul of suburb class working from there settlers Bosnian manyareHerzegovina]. Thereand frombyimmigrants Bosnia inhabited [in team in visit football often I shop a the in of Board football Administrative was playing name was its I Yugoslavia]; Turkey. to I after arrived soon Association] Rumeli [The here me brought friends “[M]y []oe h cm fo Mcdna ih o iaca resources financial no happene with what But Macedonia times. hard from experienced came who “[T]hose

nds. Some of them got richer, some of them got poorer. We poorer. got them of some richer, got them of Some nds. ). He gave this account during our interview in the in interview our during account this gave He ). [an impoverished working class neighbourhood in Istanbul]. neighbourhoodin impoverishedclassworking [an

zorunlu göçmen zorunlu Pendik present who strongly agreed with Süleyman’s point of view. view. of point Süleyman’s with agreed strongly who present

[a neighbourhood in Istanbul, predominatelyIstanbul, in neighbourhood [a Sanjak. They also settled in in settled also They Sanjak. Vardar uei Association Rumeli 77

Nw I Now, . , the , serbest göçmen serbest atrad? uky s a is Turkey afterwards? d m mme o the of member a am Tee s n coffee one is There . group stories of success and even and success of stories group Bayrampaşa

tl r osdrd s a as considered are still

Rumeli Association Rumeli [a

CEU eTD Collection and sad for leaving their belongings, friends, ways of life back in Macedonia on the other other the on Macedonia hand. in back life of ways friends, belongings, their leaving for sad and hand, one the on homeland Turkish their joining for happy were who Generation] [Sorrowful a came who immigrants to refers community. as a He theimmigrants shared normsthat cultural hebelieves some of and thesocial reveals Ülker, Hüdai issue, this of compiler The 1953. in started which migration the to related w as correspondence of compilation a contains It Yugoslavia. from movement migration the of anniversary fiftieth the celebrated that 2003 in published was issue w similar in conveyed is own their on Turkey in succeeded who immigrants the of narrative The 200 ays in the journal journal the in ays

Hüdai Ülker, Ülker, Hüdai 200 The accounts of success are shared in particular by members of immigrant associations. immigrant of members by particular in shared are success of accounts The

Hüdai Ülker refers to the place the migrants left as an as left migrants the place the to refers Ülker Hüdai

trans., trans., er atr o cud o fn a ige esn etn a lt […] flat a renting person single a find not could you after years hard are we country, good got rich.” (Süleyman, 59) ten after worked,families entire and Istanbul to migrate could we Bursa, placesthe which started be to industrialized. that We hardworking, are is had we chance only The us. settlenot did state The […] enoughnot still is it us, to grateful is Turkey theyit Greeks the left, Armenians, and they No left. all matter how muc do to knewhow who peppers.and Those tomatoes sow did knowto how not They this. explain me Let years. hundred a for behind lagged have Gree and Turkey between the made not had Atatürk an “[I]f as growth economy’s Turkish the to industrious labour force.” [librarian] contributed directly they a not were migrants “[T]he everybody a found and job educated their children.” (Süleyman, 59) Makedonya Göçlerinin 50. Yılında BirlikYazıları Yılında 50. Göçlerinin Makedonya Birlik Birlik

[Unity], the journal of the Turkish minorities in Skopje. in minorities Turkish the of journal the [Unity],

fter 1953 from Macedonia to Turkey as the the as Turkey to Macedonia from 1953 fter

ce] which was his brilliant idea, Turkey would Turkey idea, brilliant his was which ce] - working people, we found jobs soon and ten and soon jobs found we people, working liability to Turkish society. On the contrary,the On society. Turkish to liability years everybody could buy a house. We house. a buy everybody could years mübadil 78

ie, h pplto exchange population the [i.e.,

(Bornova, Izmir: Meta Basım,2003) Izmir: Meta (Bornova, ancient homeland in which they which in homeland ancient ell as short stories and essays and stories short as ell

One special special One cl kuşak Acılı , 7.

CEU eTD Collection spac are world’ ‘Turkish the from came who immigrants of associations the that said be could It Turkey. developed economically more and stronger a of building nation’s the to tantamount c success group larger a of part as success individual their see interviewees some that surprising not is it Thus, discourse. political Turkey’s in place special a has that culture and heritage Turkish the of part significant encouragemen implied this world,’ ‘Turkish the from immigrants nation. Turkish the to loyalty encouraging and character national w especially organizations society civil on restrictions and control d’état coup the after that emphasize Toumarkine and Hersant sta the from independence their implies which organizations,’ society ‘civil as themselves representing officially Although world.’ ‘Turkish the from and towns to Turkey of areas “hometown rural from came call Toumarkine and Hersant Int the in (examined associations” that associations immigrant These Turkey. in life their and immigrants of experiences of nature the on discourse certain a of dissemination etc. business engineers, doctors, as such people successful many yielded associations. the from interviewees the by shared hamams and mosques bridges, built ancestors their which in and years hundred six for living been had 203 202 201

Hersant and Hersant and Ülker,trans., baths Public 202

te, these associations are actually involved to great extent in the political life in Turkey. in life political the in extent great to involved actually are associations these te, t em that seems It What is striking is the presence of the stories of success which are very similar to those to similar very are which success of stories the of presence the is striking is What . 201

, op.a. , Toumarkine, “Hometown Organizations “Hometown Toumarkine, Makedonya Göçler Makedonya

hs ascain function associations these rucial to the national cause: as indicated, their coming to Turkey was was Turkey to coming their indicated, as cause: national the to rucial inin 50. Yılında 50. inin

roduction) are directly related to the influx of migrants who migrants of influx the to related directly are roduction) , , 1.

in Turkey: AnOverview,” Turkey: in 79

s pcs n mdus o cntuto and construction for mediums and spaces as Birlik

mentions how this this how mentions

in 1980 the Turkish state imposed imposed state Turkish the 1980 in t of references to Rumeli as a as Rumeli to references of t ith respect to developing their their developing to respect ith

men, politicians, poets and and poets politicians, men, 203

hn t ae o the to came it When Acılı Kuşak Acılı

after all after es es CEU eTD Collection ‘society of justice and law’ in Yugoslavia, ‘Ibrahim’ usually alludes to his grandfather whose whose grandfather his to alludes usually ‘Ibrahim’ Yugoslavia, in law’ and justice of ‘society ane with abounds Turkey the suggest that religionIslamic of teachings some in found perhaps be could accounthis in outlines ‘Ibrahim’ that Islam and socialism between traits common The Allah’s.” with state Yugoslav particularly is It r a religions. is who ‘Ibrahim’ and how regard this ethnicities in interesting between differences on based be to not ought society the which in unity’ and ‘brotherhood of repertoire cultural the share l to tend Yugoslavia on based predominately are accounts whose interviewees stories, group success and Turkey, like societies capitalist in all for chances equal progress, linear of tropes social and mobili equality of aspects on placed usually is stress their Yugoslavia, in back left they everything for nostalgia and Turkey with disillusionment their express who interviewees the of success group to references immigrants nothing lot. butachieved with a whocame setting by memory group a reproduce and produce which stories apparently ‘Ibrahim’s inform Yugoslavia. knowledge of distribution of soc distribution ty in Yugoslavia. Whereas all members of immigrant association are likely to emphasize to likely are association immigrant of members all Whereas Yugoslavia. in ty The cultural repertoire that ‘Ibrahim’ uses in conveying his resentment with coming to coming with resentment his conveying in uses ‘Ibrahim’ that repertoire cultural The intervie all not However, this. (Ibrahim, 69) regret We [Turkey]. here coming by mistake a made We country. great se shall here say: to used grandfather my Look,same. theare Allah’s of laws strong.The was law The people. the among discriminate not did he but discipline, with governed “[T]ito ial and economical resources. cdotes, hyperbolas, rumours and short stories. When commenting on a a on commenting When stories. short and rumours hyperbolas, cdotes, e Yugoslavia rising Yugoslavia e

wees referred to the notion of group success. When it comes to comes it When success. group of notion the to referred wees You are going to Turkey. Those who will stay will who Those Turkey. to going are You uolva fe h 15sbcm a became 1950s the after Yugoslavia . 80

eligious person juxtaposes “the laws of the of laws “the juxtaposes person eligious

f sois from stories ife CEU eTD Collection ‘brotherhood and unity,’ with an inevitable connection to Tito’s personality. The cult of Tito had Tito of cult The personality. Tito’s to connection inevitable an with unity,’ and ‘brotherhood like people class themselves. working for protection social and opportunities more offer to Yugoslavia Ş and ‘Ibrahim’ that argued be may It Şahsine. and ‘Ibrahim’ had Turkey. inYugoslavia butapparently could find not in she opportunities and law’ of ‘state to referring when resentment her narrates Şahsine Likewise, been constructed during the socialist period, but it is still present in forms of all possible possible all of forms in present still is it but period, socialist the during constructed been h sois f ucs rltd o ie n uky r n are Turkey in life to related success of stories The n hi accounts their In people are rascals and vicious and rascals are people but Turkey, to came all “[T]hey from came who those for everything and Bulgaria.” (Şahsine, 69) houses provided it hand, other the On Yugoslavia. frommigrants the for help any provide not did to had in I wan I study;much. so cried to I Turks Oh, possibilitywork. no was the there here than came I When more studies. hospitable and mywith continuedhave would IMacedonia, in stayed had friendlyI If Turkey… were they there; Albania both Skopje, in neighbourhood mixed a in origin; I to need a claim see donot you whether are Turk I Serb. or lived mixed of were People people. between distinguish not did Tito Turkey. up ended killed be should Turks said: He chauvinist. Serbian three a rented and Skopje in lived liv for place nice a was “[M]acedonia (‘Ibrahim’, 69) han filthy your of ashamed “ said: ButTito hand. dirtyTito’s clean to cloth a fetched even workers the of One applaud. to started them around Everyone it. shook Ti ‘ greasy. and filthy was it because hand his withdrew worker the But worker. a with hands shake to wished and factory the to came 1965. Tito summer of was rememberit I But time.that armyat the or liked Albanian much.so grandfather Tito my Macedonian,why is This Serb, Yugoslavia. in lived Croat, all we are Turkish; you whether cared Who e’ hk hands shake Let’s nji o he er.Ti wudhv ntbe osbe in possible been not have would This years. three for jail in In 1965, Tito came to Zagreb to visit one factory; I was in was Ifactory; one visit to Zagreb to came Tito 1965, In

!’ And he proceeded to grab the worker’s hand and hand worker’s the grab to proceeded he And !’ of their life in Yugoslavia they also refer to the trope of of trope the to refer also they Yugoslavia in life their of . My father complained, and our Serbian landlord Serbian our and complained, father My .

d, you are a worker.” a are you d, I do not want Turks to live in my house; all house; my in live to Turks want not do I

–

he used to say. He liked Tito so much. so Tito liked He say. to used he ted to become a police officer. Turkey officer. police a become to ted my grandfather refused to come. to refused grandfather my 81 - a was landlord whose house storey

ing because it had good laws. We laws. good had it because ing

Such a man was Tito was man a Such ns and Gypsies lived Gypsies and ns hie on ter at ie in life past their found ahsine ot present in the accounts of of accounts the in present ot o ad o him: to said to Do not be not Do The . ”

CEU eTD Collection Yugoslavia were not entitled as free migrants. The interviewees also mention how their family family their how mention also interviewees The migrants. free as entitled not were Yugoslavia and leave to forced were peers Bulgarian their that argument an by substantiated typically is which Turkey, göçmen serbest the within themselves position interviewees the how and accounts interviewee’s the in figure migration brutallycivil war of destroyedinthe the1990s. was unity’ and ‘brotherhood which in society a and past the embrace towards view tend of points which nostalgic perspectives present the to related also be may Şahsine and ‘Ibrahim’ Rastko regard, this In Mocnik, a observes: Slovenian sociologist people. ordinary with relationship straightforward his to references co ebr ad eaie wo ae ro t te 90 wr stld codn t the to according settled were 1950s 204 the to prior came who relatives and members

mmodities in the market in the post the in market the in mmodities Cited in Nada Kovacevic, in Cited Nada n hs hpe I xmnd o te itntos ewe vlnay n involuntary and voluntary between distinctions the how examined I chapter this In Conclusion pres law of state the and Tito to reference and Resentment category of of category were for this reason granted benefits by the Turkish state to which migrants from from migrants which to state Turkish the by benefits granted reason this for were Zagorje [region in northwest Croatia] with the language used by some pre by used language the with Croatia] stran northwest in very [region a Zagorje spoke He language. own his had He spoke idioms he Finally, of. dreamed only have could ones powerful and rich He ivory. of made was were frames whose glasses wore He cheapness. in and piano abearshot at samethe time. the Hewas deeply immersed in kitschyet never played have would He epaulettes. golden with uniform inde was period “[T]ito’s , the interviewees usually stress their free choice in the decision to migrate to to migrate to decision the in choice free their stress usually interviewees the , - war grotesque Russian communist.” closed to ordinary people, and he had the personality of which the which of personality the had he and people, ordinary to closed

all languages were foreign to him but familiar at the same time.same the at familiar but him to foreign were languages all

“Pastir s dvora,” s“Pastirdvora,” ebs göçmen serbest

- Politika ed contradictory. He was wearing a marshal’s a wearing was He contradictory. ed socialist Yugoslavia. His cult of personality also involves also personality of cult His Yugoslavia. socialist

[free migrant]. When they refer to the category of of category the to refer they When migrant]. [free

, May 26, 2005. May , 26, 82

204

ge, mixing idiom of of idiom mixing ge, n i te cons of accounts the in ent

state - CEU eTD Collection more likely likely more were who and associations the of members the not are who interviewees the of accounts the in missing are stories such associations, of members the are who interviewees the of accounts stori the Whereas it. of members this the in not are who those and made associations from interviewees Ithe of repertoire cultural the is distinction regard important Another society. Turkish the in position present their th to according vary success of stories and resentment how common most the I experiences. their in case the not was this whereas, policy, settlement sponsored

to pine for what they have left in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia. in left have they what for pine to perceptions related to their arrival to Turkey as as Turkey to arrival their to related perceptions es of success of life in Turkey more strongly structure the the structure strongly more Turkey in life of success of es 83

e interviewee’s own perception of of perception own interviewee’s e serbest göçmen serbest

also outlined outlined also . I examined examined I . CEU eTD Collection examine examine the at actors historical the of welfare the about ambivalent very best at was that state the of perspective the from glimpse partial a only provide and scarce are wave migrati this on sources Yugoslav mentioned, already I As Yugoslavia. from migration the to related 1957 in issued material the archival on focus will I Additionally, scholars. American that historiography the of overview an giving by question research my answer to try will I discussion ensuing the ex and mono challenge histories personal complex into glimpse a provides also it but events, particular migration. thus is the It on historiography subject. the nuance that migration for motivations complex reveal fieldwork my during gathered I accounts oral ten The period. this in communities Muslim of emigration conjunc am the I in 1968. interested to 1953 primarily from period the in Turkey to Yugoslavia from communities Muslim Migration from MotivesChapter Migration: and for VI:Migrant on Reasons Historiography Accounts vs. 205 1957 in Macedonia

Thomson, “Moving Stories “Moving Thomson, An approach “from below” based on real historical actors sheds light not only on mere on only not light sheds actors historical real on based below” “from approach An the of migration the for motivations and reasons the discuss will I will I chapter this In notes Introduction cnieta rpr witn by written report confidential a

- causal, linear and reductionist material explanations on migration. on explanations material reductionist and linear causal, t he Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia toTurkeyPeople'sFederal Yugoslavia he of (1953 Republic

s any nomd y n witn rm h prpcie f uks and Turkish of perspective the from written and by informed mainly is

to important to juxtapose the oral accounts with scholarly works on this this on works scholarly with accounts oral the juxtapose to important the Commission for National Minorities of the Central Committee of of Committee Central the of Minorities National for Commission the ,” 28. ,”

in f asl atr ad oiain ifrig the informing motivations and factors causal of tion the Central Committee of the Federal Republic of of Republic Federal the of Committee Central the 84

centre

of my inquiry. my of

- 1968) periences that that periences 205

Hence, in Hence,

I will will I on CEU eTD Collection symbols of the Turkish flag, Quran and slogan: “[I]f needed, I will shed my blood and give my my give and blood my shed will I needed, “[I]f slogan: and Quran flag, Turkish the of symbols name the under organized become movement the victory, Macedonia. of occupation Bulgarian the opposed they though Germany, Nazi towards sympathy expressed who 1941 in intellectuals Turkish as conceived was organization the Initially, and1960. 1950 between Turkey for Yugoslavia leave to Muslims of thousands of hundreds influenced that factors push main the of interviewees’ accounts. the is this whereas, leaving, for reason possible as kinship and familyreferties to historiographynot doesbackground.the Finally, class religious or ethnic, Fiv Year the in implemented properties of expropriation the that emphasising by historiography of grain the against go also accounts oral The values. religious and social Muslim undermined Tu constructs which Balkans the from migration on scholarship Turkish mainstream or tenor the challenge migrants scholars. Turkish by written predominately topic Yugoslavia 207 (1920 Arnavutlar Göçlerde Türkiye’ye (Yugoslavya’dan 206

Ibid Secre General The - — Plan (1947 Plan .

Yücel and keepCommunists alive their national consciou the of task “The 6 t ogether with the rest of of rest the with ogether .1. National and Political Reasons Political and National .1. —

is cited in mainstream Turkish historiography as an organization that acted as one as acted that organization an as historiography Turkish mainstream in cited is the only document I found in the Archives of Yugoslavia in Belgrade on this this on Belgrade in Yugoslavia of Archives the in found I document only the - 1951) affected ‘the Turks’ as much as other communities regardless of their their of regardless communities other as much as Turks’ ‘the affected 1951) tarythe of rkish victimhood by perceiving c perceiving by victimhood rkish

Yücel Yücel

organization is to prevent the Turks in Yugoslavia from becoming from Yugoslavia in Turks the prevent to is organization

organization cited in Nürcan Özgür Baklacıoğlu, Baklacıoğlu, Özgür in Nürcan cited organization the scholarly works on migration from Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia, from migration on works scholarly the

- I will demonstrated that the oral accounts of the the of accounts oral the that demonstrated will I 85 1990)

207

(Istanbul: Derin Yayınlar, 2010), 244 2010), Yayınlar, Derin (Istanbul: ommunism and atheism as ideologies that ideologies as atheism and ommunism

In 1945, after the Yugoslav partisan partisan Yugoslav the after 1945, In sness.” most cited primary reason in the the in reason primary cited most Yücel 206

Nbe, mhszn the emphasizing [Noble], Dış Politika ve Göç Göç ve Politika Dış

a movement of of movement a - 245.

e CEU eTD Collection provides no names but claims “majority of the members” were sentenced to prison whereas the four were the four whereas prison sentencedto were members” the “majorityof namesbut claims no provides t out long served whomanymore and death, to werewho sentenced three suicide, who committed fiftymembers wereto up there 210 209 208 applications the of number the in increase marked the influenced that event watershed a as trial borders opened. the as soon as Turkey for fled thus, and families,” and lives their for feared and “intimidated aut nationalist zealous most The the Yücel Tur self and past the in Germans the with ties organizations the given imperialism, denounced representatives II. War World the after Macedonia that highlighted authors the of Some lang Turkish the spreading on focused they teachers, Gökalp,Beyatli, MehmetYurdakul,YahyaKemal Emin whowere all of nationali Turkish the of founders cultural and novelists of predominately consisted organization the of pillars ideological The Turkey. and Egypt in Al Skopje, in universities and schools religious Islamic attended who intellectual Turkish for soul 211 “Yücel Olayı,” Akif, were displaced, bodies they where nobody knows the day present to up and sentence death a to condemned

Baklac Ç These numbers are provided by provided are numbers These Ç kish nationalism. After the trial in 1948, according to some sources, seventeen members of members seventeen sources, some to according 1948, in trial the After nationalism. kish avu avu Yücel

were sentenced to prison. to sentenced were ş ş Burç and intellectuals of consisted predominately organization the of membership the Since o o

ı ğ ğ o uksns ad h Republic.” the and Turkishness

lu lu ğ event was one of the main push factors in the decision of most Muslims to migrate. to Muslims most of decision the in factors push main the of one was event lu , “ , , “ , u Akan Ellis, an American an Ellis, Akan u , Yugoslavya Yugoslavya D erms in prison. Cited in: in: Cited in prison. erms ış 211 Politika T

– ü – ve nyas

Makedonya Makedonya

G Yücel öç, öç, ı

Akan Ellis, Akan 52

245.

210 (

hors cite fantastic figures as high as 500 000 people who were who people 000 500 as high as figures fantastic cite hors Istanbul in 1947 as a clandestine organization in service of the Turkish Turkish the of service in organization clandestine a as 1947 in

209

All Turkish scholars seem unanimous in their agreement that agreement their in unanimous seem scholars Turkish All Topraklar Topraklar avu Yücel

It should not come as a surprise that the Communist Party Communist the that surprise a as come not should It

ş Shad - : o Turkish scholar in a recent study also refers to the to refers also study recent a in scholar Turkish T ğ 208 lu ü

rk o , “ , was fighting against the Albanization of the Turks in Turks the of Albanization the against fighting was ı ı

w ndan ndan,

h lae o te raiain Şuayib organization the of leader The G Yugoslavya

G öç 86 enea , men ” ” 137. ”

137. l og

i e

M ae n clue n col ad media. and schools in culture and uage s – , 55. Other authors like Bilgiseven claim that that Bilgisevenclaim like authors Other 55. ,

ü Makedonya m uh s emt kf ro, Ziya Ersoy, Akif Mehmet as such sm lteci

Dernekleri

Topraklar

Federasyonu Rumeli ı ndan -

professed ties to to ties professed ,”137. ,”137. origin. , 1979 , zz a a was Aziz Aki ): ): 23.

f in: M. - Azhar Yücel

CEU eTD Collection migration to related events of reconstruction in Nüredin that seems It taken. was photography but the read ground,” Turkish the “kissing and on landing immigrants the be to ought who people of group the represents photo such One context. and dates any providing without images uses also author complete a of photocopy the with text theSlovenessubstantiatesand Croats Serbs, of Kingdomthe reformsofagrarian and policies the discussing in author the when is used uncritically be may material historical the how examples sch biased another represents study Nüredin’s sources, and Albanian Macedonian as well as Yugoslavia, of Archives the from documents the from draws he Although and 1960. Balkansbetween toTurkey1911 the wavesfrom consequences migration of allegedly martyred causes. for their sp provide to fails author the however, prison; in years twenty or life to sentenced and executed allegedly were members Turkish whose organizations local numerous mentions who Zaim, Sabahatin rupture. of moment watershed a privileged. once had Balkans thein communities Turkish the whom bythose condemned subsequently been had religions, and differe to treatment equal an giving manner, just and tolerant a in years hundred six than more communityfor ruled the Turkish which toclaim that a stepfurther it (Turkish takes World) permits. migration for 215 214 213 212

Sabahattin Zaim, Sabahattin Ibid. “YücelAkif, Olayı Akan

bümct Nüredin Abdülmecit E lli s ecific names of either the organizations or the names of the individuals who were were who individuals the of names the or organizations the either of names ecific , er is not introduced to the identity of these people nor to the date and place where the the where and date place tothe nor people these theidentityof introduced to isnot er Shad o “A Report on the Last Yugoslavian Immigrants Last Yugoslavian onthe Report “A w , ” 23. ”

enea 212

l og Mehmet Akı Mehmet i e

s 213 rt te ot eet td i Tre regarding Turkey in study recent most the wrote

50.

The

214 215

Yücel

iia cue fr irtos r ctd n h wr of work the in cited are migrations for causes Similar

ly different document from the period of Yugoslavia. The The Yugoslavia. of period the from document different ly f in a short essay published in the journal journal the in published essay short a in f

trial is thusly treated in the Turkish historiography as historiography Turkish the in treated thusly is trial 87

,”

lry con. n o the of One account. olarly

t he reasons and and reasons he Türk Dünyası Türk nt races races nt

CEU eTD Collection 217 216 who interviewee only the fact, In historiography. Turkish in abound trial its and organization the around revolving vignettes that given surprising particularly is which migration, for reason cited the and general, in pressure Political migration. actors’ historical actual these for reasons as underrepresented significantly are migration Turkish incited p government’s remainingrepresented Ottoman apast. ofthe inYugoslavia symbol Yugoslavia socialist that maintains she scholars, column.” fifth Turkish the as treated were general in nationality of members “the that out the finds also beenin the interwarhad topolitical period persecu subjected migrate not did who Turks the that asserts Turkey, in University Bilgi at Relations International 1951. in began that wave migration large a feelingofauthor,with the which,economicuneasiness,triggered indignation createda alongside Nü of members the against campaign which among organizations nationalist all remove to deciding by Stalin of pressure the to caved Yugoslavia that claims Nüredin above, cited works previous the Like thinking. critical encourage than rather audience the of reaction tot material order in and imagesarchival decontextualise visual opts to 219 218

Abd ŞuleKut, ŞuleKut, Abd redin claims that four members were condemned to death. These executions, according to the the to according executions, These death. to condemned were members four that claims redin ü ü lmecit lmecit hn t oe t te rl cons ae fo m itriw, h algd Yugoslav alleged the interviews, my from taken accounts oral the to comes it When

“ “ Turks of Kosovo: What to Expect,” to What ofKosovo: Turks Expect,” to What ofKosovo: Turks

N N Yücel ü ü redin redin olitical pressures emphasized by Turkish scholars as fundamental triggers that that triggers fundamental as scholars Turkish by emphasized pressures olitical , , trial as one of the most salient manifestations of these persecutions, pointing pointing persecutions, these of manifestations salient most the of one as trial Balkanlar Balkanlar

Yücel ’ ’ dan dan

were tried as Turkish spies while the members of the Turkish the of members the while spies Turkish as tried were T T ü ü Yücel rkiye rkiye ’ ’ ye ye

created a state of fear among Muslim Turks in Skopje. Skopje. in Turks Muslim among fear of state a created

a the was G G öç öç öç ve ve 217 88

Etikkleri Etikkleri

ieie Şl Kt a uks poesr of professor Turkish a Kut, Şule Likewise, orse anti nourished Yücel , 255 , 255 , Yücel . 216 - - tions under the socialist regime. the She under tions 256. 256.

codn t te artv, the narrative, the to According incident in incident

218 - uks feig sne Turks since feelings Turkish

219 Similarly, like other Turkish other like Similarly,

rigger a certain emotionala certain rigger particular, is the least the is particular, - CEU eTD Collection emphasis on the official pressure for Muslims to enter the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. They They Yugoslavia. Party Communist of the to enter official the pressureMuslims foron emphasis placed usually they pressures, political the to refer did interviewees other When 1954. in party fro expelled was who communist Yugoslav prominent a Djilas, Milovan around revolving been had event political major the that and Muslims of persecutions no was there 1950s the in that saying him correct to tried Mustafa while Yugoslavia in Muslims how to points oppression selectivecan historiography be. of trope the to refer not do interviewees my of most the that fact th by given is traitor biggest the of role The struggle. this who eventuallycentury, in thevictims ofan nativelost were internationalconspiracy and traitors p the on insisted that research of inquiry of framework nationalist a by informed Yugoslavia. is historiography left who Muslims of experiences the than minorities with relationship age have scholars Turkish that suggests migration this made actually who those of experiences the in reflected really not is that victimhood collective of narrative a of peg the on hangs historiography Turkish that fact the on material historical available all since information unreliable likely most is this dates, in discrepancies the which process a in years three for imprisoned was father his that claims he prison, from released was father his after 1959, familyin his with Turkey to came he how narrating in because information the mentioned erception that Turks, especially during the wars led in the first two decades of the twentieth twentieth the of decades two first the in led wars the during especially Turks, that erception

was “a continuation of the of continuation “a was ned Slya ws ae t sae ht h 15s ee ie o persecu of times were 1950s the that state to eager was Süleyman Indeed, Yücel Yücel Yücel

organization points to its disbanding in in disbanding its to points organization organization, ndas that have more to do with the history of its government’s own own government’s its of history the with do to more have that ndas

Yücel Yücel

Süleyman , can hardly be considered a reliable source of of source reliable a considered be hardly can , Süleyman persecutions” and sent in 1954 to Rijeka, Croatia. Given Croatia. Rijeka, to 1954 in sent and persecutions” 89

e Turkish scholars to Armenians. The The Armenians. to scholars Turkish e 1948 after the trial in Skopje. The The Skopje. in trial the after 1948 m the Central Committee of the of Committee Central the m

tions of of tions Turkish Turkish CEU eTD Collection agenda on Turkish victimhood in the Balkans as a justification for what happened in Anatolia in in Anatolia in happened what for justification a as Balkans the in victimhood Turkish on agenda inherently is explains, theTurks. to intolerant he which, mentality,” “Christian of result a as waves migration interrelated two these explains re and reforms th as well as Slovenes and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom the with made Turkey agreement the both to due migrate to pushed been had that population Albanian predominately the to refer not of does Mustafa However, continuation 1938. from Turkey a and KSCS simply the between agreement was 1953 of migration the that migration on historiography Turkishthe in mentioned often Itis stayed. who Turks the of restremovethe to motives political cleanse to was vision whose politician Serbian’ ‘radical a as Rankovic portrayed interviewees Three 1966. in CPY the from purged Affairs Interior the of Secretary the and Security) National the for Department Ale by Turks the on imposed been had enjoyed:citizens did who people the that stressed 1915:

In a similar manner, few of the interviewees mention that particularly coercive measures measures coercive particularly that mention interviewees the of few manner, similar a In 71) (Mustafa, atheist.” an were you if only a you accept would not were you M If the take Party. to want Communist not did Communists the the And, hungry. remain Party, would you Party, the the of member from pressure the was “[I]t 71) (Mustafa, know?” you anywhere, job a find not could he 1952, by Party Communist to it give to notthe join did instance,my because For father job. agreea getnot youwill cooperatives or you Either nationalized. were properties the all time Tito’s “[I]n “ lhuh t ind h Bla Pc…h back Pact…the Balkan the signed it Although

- eteet oiis Rte, e ees any o h Trih ouain and population Turkish the to mainly refers he Rather, policies. settlement

uslims in Party because of the prejudices towards the Muslims. They They Muslims. the towards prejudices the of because Party in uslims the areas inhabited by ‘the Turks.’ According to Mustafa, Yugoslavia had had Yugoslavia Mustafa, to According Turks.’ ‘the by inhabited areas the not enter the CPY could not have enjoyed the privileges other other privileges the enjoyed have not could CPY the enter not ksandar Rankovic, the leader of the OZNA (The (The OZNA the of leader the Rankovic, ksandar His account is likely to sum up theaforementionedaccount tosum likely His is 90

- or ln n h Kndm f the of Kingdom the in plan door

e latter’s agrarian agrarian latter’s e

the the CEU eTD Collection Report/205, 86 Report/205, 220 intervieweesfrom Kosovo Pristina, suffered. Kosovo i man powerful most third the as Rankovic describes author one Nevertheless, thesis. this in unanswered remain will archives the in ‘silences’ such interpret to how regarding question The Yugoslavia. leave to and policies nationality to related Yugoslavia of sort any to Rankovic tie not doesimmigration of archives the from report the However, accounts. oral the in occasionally mentioned is nationalism” his and “Rankovic ambiguous. 223 222 221 http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/86

Slobodan Stankovic, Slobodan Slang holiday, Islamicreligious op.a. 'Azem', him will name I name,therefore writeinterviewee's the to down failed I . h rl o Rnoi i te irto mvmn in movement migration the in Rankovic of role The , blue gendarmerie van gendarmerieblue , Rankovic Aleksandar expulsed prejudicesthe Turks from Macedonia.” (Mustafa, 71) such with […] Armenians of genocide out carried today… [ them between relationship is “[T]here up here.” (Mustafa, 71) ended we how is this wasAnd it. That’s us. remove This to how of matter Belgrad. a was it agreement, and Kragujevac, Nis, in living Turkey, Turks still were there 1912 In […]fundamentalist Serbian A no? him, know you Rankovic,Aleksandar Yugoslavia, refor agrarian out carry in charge[…] to of order free almost Pole[…] Ovche Tikvesh, north, the example, for land, Kingdom.the theywhat did So do?KingAlexanderKaradjordjevich Ι took richest the Slovenes and Croats Serbs, that we did not stay the in prison too long.” (‘Azem’,71) [ Barli Kursar Nazmi Thankfully, of but celebration nationalist, nor youthnot P did the the I enter yet of chauvinist and Pristina, president in opened the was a wasschool Turkish I first the […] when neither commission Party the am in being me know…I opposed communists you pressures, “Some - 3 - 147, 1983 147, n Yugoslavia who ruled with “an iron first,” and as a result, mostly Albanians in in Albanians mostly result, a as and first,” iron “an with ruled who Yugoslavia n

bayan t s n h sii o te hita mnaiy hn akz cam Turks claims Sarkozy when mentality Christian the of spirit the in is It arty […] I ended up in jail few times. I did nothing but participate in the in participate but nothing did I times. few jail in up ended I […] arty 220

“

Aleksandar Rankovic Aleksandar

xcl te ae eahr “h io fs, ws sd y n o my of one by used was fist,” iron “the metaphor, same the Exactly Bayram -

m epai] ia Bt i 1945 in But, Nina. emphasis] [my 1 op.a. - 9 Yugoslavia, Open Society Archives (Budapest, Hungary), Hungary), (Budapest, Archives Society Open Yugoslavia, 9 , op.a. ,

222

e ae n h classroom. the in made we

(after: Kingdom) was to prevent the Turks from living in living from Turks the prevent to was Kingdom) (after: 221

when explaining for hisreasons mi - Political Profile of Yugoslav Stalinist,” ofYugoslav Profile Political . ae o, n h Fdrl epes eulc of Republic People’s Federal the in on, Later m. Azem’s gemn 13 ad 195 and 1938 agreement 91

lain red n Communist and friend Albanian - role in instigating various Muslim communities Muslim variousinstigating in role

3 - 147.shtml

o uk wr lf. ih this With left. were Turks no

( Marica

last accessed May 13, 2012 13, May lastaccessed h 15s n 16s s indeed is 1960s and 1950s the 223

ae n to us. took and came 3

fr ue Even sure! for ] RAD Background Background RAD grations:

ensured ]

) .

CEU eTD Collection historiography. in represented migration for motives and reasons other towards move and aside issue this leave to appropriate more is it so missing, are movement migration the and Rankovic to references propaganda. nationalist as considered be to was symbols national Albania. and Yugoslavia between relationship the deteriorate to order in enacted was 1948 in Resolution Cominform the language, own their in education an receive and converse to right a had minority national a as Albanians in situation the liberati that the after clear Kosovo quite is it However, movement. immigration the in role alleged importantAlbania forthe most reason at Turkey, leaving‘Azem’ As that time. for states: Rankovic’ around revolving trope same the using socialism to refers ‘Azem’ on, Later 225 Shad 224

Burçu Burçu o w

G 6 Rankovic’s pinpoint to order in information detailed more need certainly would One Akan enea between 1945 opened Albanian inschools were157 notes there Ellis Akan .2. Economic reasons Economic .2. regime ruling by the the by ruling It regime. severe such to used regime get not did We […] Albanians the on putting pressure especially was factor important most the of One Look. factors… “[T]he l E og lli i

e s s , : Shad

M emo

o w r

y G on of Albanian Axis powers was everything but simple. Whereas the the Whereas simple. but everything was powers Axis Albanian of on

an enea d I d

den l og

i tity A e 224 s :

mon emo During this period any display or expression of Albanian of expression or display any period this During g r

y Ur

an ba d I d 92 n M n den

u tity A tity s li rn hand iron m s mon

in M in g acedon

Ur ba n M n i a , ” (‘Azem’,71) .”

u 225 110. s li -

1950, in 1950, m eetees te wider the Nevertheless,

in M in acedon Burçu

a the was i Akan Akan a ,

110

s role in in role s E

- lli 111. s ,

CEU eTD Collection 227 226 country.” another to move to want who members minority of choice free the on based is it since course normal a report This Yugoslavia. of Committee Macedon o report a prepared 1957 thecountrysideinto correctcons the proletarian carry would who partisans, former reliable, politically of implantation of “terms in seen often south the from “Turks” and Istria from Italians of properties the on impact an had have might reforms land the K and Macedonia in groups from properties as well as Germans from properties of expropriation bythe madewas fund land to the contributionthe largest time that At socialist the of years five tran first The producers. peasant the among reaction a quite induced bypost products. agricultural of delivery compulsory and reform post in transformation socialist term transform socialist Party,the the Communist of establishment political subsequent the and II War World After accumulation. capital folio 38, 38, folio 230 229 228

J J J J Archives of Yugoslavia (AJ), Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija (AJ), ofYugoslavia Archives ohn B. Allcock, ohn B. Allcock, ohn B. Allcock, ohn B. Allcock, ohn B. sformation of the economics (1947 economics the of sformation - The Central Committee of the Federal Republic of Macedonia (CCFR Macedonia of Republic Federal the of Committee Central The of locus main the represented agriculture Slovenes, and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom the In p. p. 1. war conditions in 1945 and the need to feed the cities, but the extreme measure naturally naturally measure extreme the but cities, the feed to need the and 1945 in conditions war a o Turkey to ia

. 228 Explaining Yugoslavia Explaining Yugoslavia Explaining Yugoslavia Explaining Yugoslavia Explaining 230

In the socialist transformation of land, the new owners of the properties were properties the of owners new the land, of transformation socialist the In

According to to According

n sn i to it sent and n

the social and economic consequences of the migration from from migration the of consequences economic and social the the the

(London: Hurst&Company), 163. (London: Hurst&Company), 163. (London: Hurst&Company), 127. (London: Hurst&Company), (London: - a Ygsai ipis ai idsraiain ih land with industrialization rapid implies Yugoslavia war the Commission for National Minorities of the Central Central the of Minorities National for Commission the r - sees eport, the movement represents no political, national or national political, no represents movement the eport, 1951) is also known as the first Five Year Plan project. project. Plan Year Five first the as known also is 1951) ation of economic production had been introduced. The The introduced. been had production economic of ation

Hurst&Company), 100, 126. 100, Hurst&Company), the migration movement “ movement migration the 93 ciousness.”

226 229

The compulsory aspect is explained is aspect compulsory The

osovo. as a process that follows follows that process a as - 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 227

Allcock says thatsays Allcock M

hereafter) in in hereafter) - K4/7, K4/7, CEU eTD Collection 232 38, folio missing, is Turks 232 Abd 231 semi and skilled artisans, private occupation. Axis the during and Slovenes and Croats Serbs, the of Kingdom the in peasants Muslim the among played had they role and influence political the processes. nationalization and expropriation the within positions economic lost had they fact the in found be to are and reasonable quite are migration Muslims on were which among marketplace the with associated were strata who social a those of by constitutive and initiated wealthy been formerly had immigration the argues report the immigrants, the and Turkey between come may minority Turkish the of members the from purchased land the for money unpaid the that warns report the particular, In properties. Turkish former of owners new the of issue the as well as loses, tax state substantial Turkey, to commitments so Skopje. be to in need that especially consequences social and economic the negative of scale some massive left the movement that considers it but minorities, the or state the for problem legal 235 234 233 232

AJ the from bought state the price which by and properties and land of whatsort on widerexplanation the However, AJ AJ AJ Çarşı AJ ü lmecit , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , , , ,

Collection Collection Collection p (tur., bazaar, market place), the çarşı strata consists of merchants and artisans, op.a. artisans, merchantsand of consists the strata çarşı market place), bazaar, (tur., . . 1.

ü , redin

: : : . op.a., 233 Komisija Komisija Komisija ,

Balkanlar

in village landlords and others and landlords village codn t te eot te esn wy hs sca srt otd f opted strata social these why reasons the report, the to According

Yugoslavia AJ

za za za 231 , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija ,

nacionalne nacionalne nacionalne

’ dan The report refers to decreased livestock, certain certain livestock, decreased to refers report The

T ü rkiye . 232

- manjine manjine manjine skilled workers and handicraftsmen have joined them in in them joined have handicraftsmen and workers skilled

’ ye While offering insight into the socio the into insight offering While

G öç öç

CKSKJ CKSKJ CKSKJ ve

Etikkleri 94

1956 1956 1956 like like , 258 , - - - - - hocas 19 XVIII (507), 1960 (507), 1960 (507), 1960 1960 (507), (507), 1960 60 (507), XVIII (507), 60 234 - 259

T ,

. he report he influence large a commanded who

XVIII XVIII XVIII 235

The urban elements, mainly mainly elements, urban The

- - - - up as a matter of dispute dispute of matter a as up - K4/7, folio 38, p 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, K K K

states that states 4/7, 4/7, 4/7, 4/7, 4/7, - 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 folio folio folio -

economic status of status economic

38, 38, 38, 38, 38,

they also lost lost also they p p p. 1; p.

. 9. . 8. . 14. . 1. .

Yugoslav

(

- çarşı K4/7, K4/7, lved, lved, or ), ),

CEU eTD Collection 239 238 May14 accessed uGori, tragovi Empire Ottoman The Masters, ÁgostonBruce and Gábor see arose, state whichthe Ottoman wasout of group a also it but from its beginnings, Empire the Ottoman of the of population an important part whoconstituted group nomadic 237 236 soc the and movement partisan the with identified Turks the of some informing reasons important provide migrants clear any to reduced be solely cannot and way mechanicistic economic, in understood be cannot still migration this living. adapt the opposes which living of way conservative semi ultra an in job another seek to futile was it that realized goat than skills other no possessing and conditions underdeveloped goats. raising by livelihood their supported semi with especially the like case peasants the was this that claim report the of writers The areas. Turkey that backwardness, belief common a shared all they since migration 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne in:women), children, (religiousofothers leaders, 844 civil55 servants, 682 pupils, as wereclassified http://www.archive.org/stream/AromunskoVlaskiTragoviUGori/Aromunsko

AJ Until the end ofthe end Until the 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija AJ, Yörük , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , - nomadic way of life. Their resignation in this regard had been additionally boosted by a a by boosted additionally been had regard this in resignation Their life. of way nomadic 238 Turkish historiography on migration finds economic circumstances as one of the most most the of one as circumstances economic finds migration on historiography Turkish rural the in lived who peasants were Yugoslavia leave to eager most those contrast, In

( also known as Turcoman, konar Turcoman, known also as

The report highlights that even when all these aspects are taken into consideration consideration into taken are aspects these all when even that highlights report The Internet Archive Internet , 2012). ,

industrial industrial flaws and undeveloped crafts crafts undeveloped and flaws Yörük Yörük

a (Facts on File, Inc.New York, 2009), 436. Also 436. 2009), York, Inc.New File, on (Facts

1952 the number of the migrants from the FRPY to Turkey was 86 380. Out of that 7 493 Out493 that of 380. 7 86 was Turkey to FRPY from the migrants ofthe number 1952 much more complex landscape complex more much

cut category since the statistics related to the socio the to related statistics the since category cut worke from the the from

- 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 rs, rs, the 15 886 farmers, 5 cooperative peasants, 2 785 artisans, 287 students and students and artisans, 287 785 2 peasants, farmers, 886 cooperative 5 15

Valandova decision to migrate. In this light Akan Ellis argues that while while that argues Ellis Akan light this In migrate. to decision - göçer, göçer evli or göçebe evli or göçer göçer, - K4/7, folio 38, 38, folio K4/7, 237

region who were not land manufactur land not were who region –

95 offers prospects for getting rich fast. rich getting for prospects offers

Constrained by such traditional, economically economically traditional, such by Constrained

including family reasons among the rest. the among reasons family including - - 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 ation to the new ways of working and and working of ways new the to ation p see Sadik Idrizi Aljabak, Aroumunsko Aljabak, SadikIdrizi see . . 9. - ) modern society that frowned upon a upon frowned that society modern

isthe te

- Vlaski rm describing the most significant significant most the rmdescribing –

AJ - - - ialism as a political order, order, political a as ialism K4/7, folio 38, p 38, folio K4/7, K4/7, folio 38, p. 9. p. 38, folio K4/7, because of its economic economic its of because Tragovi - , Collection: Komisija za za Komisija Collection: , farming - economic status of the the of status economic - u - Gori_djvu.tx , these peasants peasants these , Encyclopedia Encyclopedia ers but rather rather but ers . 9. . 236

nomadic nomadic - vlaški t , last of of 239

CEU eTD Collection 243 242 241 240 non remaining the on impose to aimed which government Turkish the of policies country. the from away migrating their triggered and rights religious and cultural Turks’ the on infringed that agenda an to tailored t particularly reforms, economic the that all in abuse and pressure of way effective ethnicities, other of workers the Party.” ha cities in settled forcibly migration.” the until abused “were they where cities the to villages i transformation socialist rest. the from differently treated been government’ Yugoslav the public the of margins a sphere the on them placed apparently this and properties, their of deprived Year Five the during particularly where alanı their of constriction a as Yugoslavia socialist of establishment the found others many 246 245 244

Sabahattin Zaim, Sabahattin Burçu Abd Zaim, Sabahattin Zaim, Sabahattin Zaim, Sabahattin Burçu

ü lf space). (life lmecit 244 neetnl, h Fv Ya Pa (1947 Plan Year Five the Interestingly, Akan Akan Akan nd without recourse to social protection. social to recourse without nd

He also claims that the Turkish workers were treated unequally in comparison with comparison in unequally treated were workers Turkish the that claims also He

N E E ü lli lli redin s s , , “A Report on the Last Yugoslavian Immigrants Last Yugoslavian onthe Report “A Immigrants Last Yugoslavian onthe Report “A Immigrants Last Yugoslavian onthe Report “A Immigrants Last Yugoslavian onthe Report “A Shad Shad 240 , Balkanlar

o o economy of sphere the in losses to mostly linked been had latter The w w

G G n the field of agriculture was the expulsion of Turks from their their from Turks of expulsion the was agriculture of field the n enea enea d been “assimilated into the the into “assimilated been d s battle against its wealthy citizens, the Turkish communities had had communities Turkish the citizens, wealthy its against battle s ’ dan

l l og og

i i T e e ü s s : rkiye : especially in the matters of taxes, which was “the most most “the was which taxes, of matters the in especially

M M 242 emo emo 246 ’ ye

According to the author, the underlying purpose of the of purpose underlying the author, the to According r r

- y G y C ln (1947 Plan

oe n h pro bten 97 n 1951 and 1947 between period the in hose

an an öç öç ommunist countries.” ommunist d I d d I d ve 96 den

den Etikkleri - 241

91 i a eid hc cicds ih the with coincides which period a is 1951) tity A tity tity A tity

For instance, Sabahatin Zaim claims that in that claims Zaim Sabahatin instance, For - 91 mn lower many 1951) mon mon , 258 , C , , , , ” ” ” ”

ommunist system and the Communist Communist the and system ommunist

g g -

Ur 259. Ur ba ba

n M n n M n 245 u 243 u

s Similarly, Nüredin regards regards Nüredin Similarly, s li li

m m Zaim believes that those those that believes Zaim s s

in M in in M in - class Muslims were were Muslims class acedon acedon i i a a - , Muslims a a Muslims ,

53. 53.

were , hayat hayat

CEU eTD Collection well as the nationalist agendas of Christians in Yugoslavia which were a product of these these of product a were which Yugoslavia in Christians of agendas nationalist the as well for reason cited frequently Turkish While migration theoralaccounts. in most second the are Yugoslavia socialist of ascendancy the by influenced motivations Professed Yugoslavia. regard explanations interviewees’ the of part prominent a constitutes economicin circumstances f not could they interviewees large of generation new a of locationprivileged the Istanbulbecame policies, “developmentalist under Istanbul inthe 1950s the and events these between from relationship immigration was there that indicate might what However, gentility. seeking Istanbul to arrived who provincials wealthy of group new a of appearance the was event legislations with Greeks Istanbul to citizenship againstGreek with those requiring 1964 in demonstrations and 1955 in properties government a was there asserts, Keyder levy, wealth a from Greek Turkeynumber businessmen and left of Jewish immedia profits. wartime tax to supposed levy wealth 249 248 11 1999), Oxford, New York, Boulder, Inc.:Lanham, Publishers, (Rowman&Littlefield 247

Çağar Keyder, “The Setting,” 12. Setting,” “The ÇağarKeyder, 12. Setting,” “The ÇağarKeyder, in Setting”“The ÇağarKeyder, - scale, private manufacturing enterprises.” manufacturing private scale, The 248

Yugoslav ’ ete Trih itrorpy o interviewees nor historiography Turkish Neither

accounts which mention how Istanbul offered them economic opportunities which which opportunities economic them offered Istanbul how mention which accounts ind Yugoslavia

in was

early expropriation of land and nationalization of industry and crafts crafts and industry of nationalization and land of expropriation early Yugoslavia

largely industrializing and ur largely and industrializing Yugoslavia

Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local and Global the Between Istanbul:

to predominately urban areas such as Istanbul is the fact that that fact the is Istanbul as such areas urban predominately to Bfr ta, wl examine will I that, Before .

and

leave the city. Keyder notes that even more important more even that notes Keyder city. the leave the 247 scholars stress ethnic persecution and inequality as and inequality ethnic persecution stress scholars 97 249 intervie

by As a result of such government policies, a large a policies, government such of result a As

In later discussion IIn int will later discussion

ruptures in economic production brought on brought production economic in ruptures banizing. In this regard, Keyder notes that In notesthat Keyder regard, this banizing. wees ’

motives toleave formotives Turkey. ’ tely after the World War II. Apart War World tely afterthe -

instigat accounts , ed. Çağlar Keyder ed.Çağlar Keyder , the ing why they chose to leave leave to chose they why ing

ed relationship between the the between relationship - 12.

ee t tee events. these to refer Greek destroying riot

roduce some of theroduce some of

CEU eTD Collection emigrating: official trail the blaze to first the the wereclasses Muslim wealthy the that stating in documents Yugoslav of some of tenor the echoed interviewees my of one how interesting it find also I leaving: the from interviewee my rituals, cultural other their out carry or mosque the attend to not communities whether regarding question my to response In their social andeconomic background, affectedequallyreforms: by such al been, had they emphasize status, social and class their of regardless interviewees, the reforms, economic

took He matter. not did from everybody.”Ibrahim, ( 68) it Macedonian, or Catholic, Turk, were you Whether well. In […] Yugoslavia was goatsasfather’syour but goats, myonly take not did he butgoats, the away Europe took Tito in live to only The that. experience not Turks did We tortured. were they Bulgaria the for place best the pressure; more much under were Turks the Bulgaria in Look, pressure. no was there […] Nooo taken had they Because […] well as everything from uswebecame Christians “Proletarians of all countries united!”(‘Azra’, 79) Catholic and Orthodox wealthy confiscat They leave. to started just people the migration; for encouragement nor pressure neither was “There well; as movement was killedshe in [Ustasha’s] concentrationpartisan camps.” (‘Azra’, 79) the in was aunt My communists. zealous were they but [ Enverare.’ people my where going am I well. as leave would mysaidYugoslav go,but tofather begged commander the Force] in Air himnot we that decided father (Ibrahim, 68) thi Russia; to them sent and properties thetook Tito dinar, a givingthem Without away.them took they when sad were They goats. and sheep animals, raising were they peasants; were people the village our In “My father’s colleagues and partners started to leave, I mean, the rich ones. So my So ones. rich the mean, I leave, to started partners and colleagues father’s “My cam TitoWhen well! rememberI Oh, Valandova

ongside with their Albanian and Macedonian neighbours and independently of of independently and neighbours Macedonian and Albanian their with ongside

ein n aeoi as ctd is ad oeot e foremost and first cited also Macedonia in region d vrtig o ol fo waty uk, u as from also but Turks, wealthy from only not everything ed

So, this is how we left. They liked my father a lot, a father my liked They left. we how is this So, e to power in 1945 he definitely took our goats.ourdefinitely took he 1945 in power to e s was a tax! People found that very difficult.” very that found People tax! a was s 98 Yugoslavia

put any kind of pressure on Muslim on pressure of kind any put Ar’ uce te highest the uncle, ‘Azra’s

bad thing was that was thing bad

conomic reasons for for reasons conomic

: ‘ : No, that in in CEU eTD Collection notion of of notion 250 He states: Turkey. to arrival his before shop pastry a owned had Albania, and Macedonia Kosovo, between certain econ market free Turkey’s in factors’ ‘pullingbe to the CCFRM ofreport the in perceived is whatreflect on migrantsalso the of Some family’s properties: of impact the on reflected similarly Skopje in class artisan and merchant ‘Azra with parallel In properties despite thesharp oftheir differences socio of expropriation state’s the by affected were they that way the in thread common the impactyear ofthe economicpolicies inthe early regarding accounts ‘Azra’s and ‘Ibrahim’ collates one If class. educated highly wealthy, a from descended mother and father her Both Herzegovina. from origin Bosnian of diplomats Ottoman from comes She contradiction.pure his be to seems ‘Azra’ interviewee other peasantry “conservative with area mountainous passive a as conveyed is which Macedonia ‘EuropeanIslam

Temporary or seasonal economic migration in an area which is outside one’s residence place, op.a. See also also See op.a. place, residence one’s outside is which area an in migration economic seasonal or Temporary Whereas the interviewee, whom I call ‘Ibrahim call I whom interviewee, the Whereas Dragash gurbet That That is us. fromeverything took they power to camecommunists the When homes. three and the in shops six almost had We […] Communism before rich very were “[W]e come and sell for a bit higher price. You could not have done that in Yugoslavia. It Yugoslavia. in that done have not could You price. higher bit a for sell and come You economy.market free a had time that at Turkey[Turkey]. here came they know, “

Ho sal pt hs Toe h hd oe noe rnes f hp ec, you etc., shops of runners income, some had who Those this? put I shall [H]ow ,

’”147. that has the same meaning, in Xavier Bougarel, “Balkan Muslim Diasporas and the Idea of a a of Idea the and Diasporas Muslim “Balkan Bougarel, Xavier in meaning, same the has that

why we came here.” (Celal village in the in village

, m int my ’

Shar erviewee Celal Aydın, whose family belonged to a wealthy wealthy a to belonged family whose Aydın, Celal erviewee

Mountains, the areas inhabited by nomads and nomads by inhabited areas the Mountains, omy and crafts in the 1950s. The migrant who came from a a from came who migrantThe 1950s. the in crafts and omy , 69) - economic statusesand holdings. property

s of the FPRY, ones ofthe may thattheysee share a , oe rm the from comes ’ the Valandova expropriation of his of expropriation a ric h family of the the familyof h çarşı

pečalbar

ein in region

, ” my my ” the the 250

CEU eTD Collection were apparently among the first migrants who left the for Turkey. According to the the to According Turkey. for the left who migrants first the among apparently were which class Muslim artisan and merchant wealthy, the to linked solely not was space life the affectedby been theyhad alanı That the of contraction historiography. the calls Ellis Akan Turkish what of aspect mainstream, the in itself manifests by particularly forth put arguments challenge and nuance aspe economic the of regard in that clear quite is It with interviewee notes: Mustafa associated nationalists Turkish notable and minority, of status their with reconcile not did who people of consisted immigrants of Minority workers. conservative Baklacıoğlu scholar the to According pe and The intervieweewho touched ‘Azem’ policystates: uponRankovic’s also briefly interviewees

(life space). This seems This space). (life scto cnee i misra Trih coasi o mgain rm h Balkans. the from migration on scholarship Turkish mainstream in conveyed rsecution It is also important to mention that only one interviewee reflects the t the reflects interviewee onlyone that mention to important also Itis []e an esn is n h p the in lies reason main “[T]he was abit i thein Balkans. Becoming aminority was also unacceptable.” (Mustafa, 71) domination Ottoman the end an to bring to motivation underlying its and (socialism) , ’

right accounts “[T]hat whyis we came. Toget rich.” (‘Azem’, 71) llicit.” (Recep, 81) - wing proponents of the private enterprise, artisans and rural and rural and artisans enterprise, private the of proponents wing ,

h eooi rfrs mlmne truh h Frt Five First the through implemented reforms economic the Yugoslavia’s Yugoslavia’s

to be particularly true true particularly be to

early expropriation early ,

a majority of immigrants to Turkey consisted of of consisted Turkey to immigrants of majority a ltcl n eooi sse o Yugoslavia of system economic and olitical 100

cts of migration the oral accounts largely largely accounts oral the migration of cts in case of case in policies

those migrants who stated who migrants those Yücel . However, the contraction of of contraction the However, . . On this account, my my account, this On . heme

of victimhoodof

agricultural - Year Plan Plan Year hayat that that

CEU eTD Collection jeopardy; they thus, collectively toTurkey. tomigrate decided tha felt manythat valuesMuslims new these account of on was It values. social and cultural new the by imperilled milieu their perceive to started society in wedged communities Muslim the that sentiment common the to point accounts undermine to refer They 1960s. cite authors Many C CCFRM. from report the and historiography Turkish the in represented concerns social and cultural the to underlining decisions leave to communities’ theMuslim related topic last my to turn now will I migrations, for good.” was “hast in leaving for Turks the accuses 1954 in wh writer Yugoslav Montenegro), and Herzegovina and Bosnia (Macedonia, countries underdeveloped three the among growth economic of rate lowest the had 1956 and 1947 between Macedonia that note to interesting is It background. religious or ethnic class, their (1947 1968) Press, 251 ommunism and atheism as the main impetus for the migration wave to Turkey in the 1950s and in the 1950s migration wave toTurkey the and for atheismimpetus asommunism themain

Paul Shoup, Paul n hs at wl dsus h sca ad utrl set o te irto movement migration the of aspects cultural and social the discuss will I part this In 6 .3. The social and cultural reasons cultural and social The .3. - 1951) impacted the lives of many people living in living people many of lives the impacted 1951) , , 179. d 251

ulm eiiu vle ad utrl ie. wl eaie o te i the how examine will I rites. cultural and values religious Muslim Communism and the Yugoslav National Question National Yugoslav the and Communism

In order to reconsider this broader palette informing the motivations and reasons and motivations the informing palette broader this reconsider to order In

C muim s n dooy nxrcby eae wt ahim that atheism with related inextricably ideology an as ommunism

101

(New York and London: Columbia University University Columbia London: (Newand York Yugoslavia Yugoslavia t their place in this new societyin newwasthis placein their t

e ra, n journal in ereas,

and ill and .

in that period that in -

will while the getting the while will regardless of of regardless nterviewees’ C Borba ommunist

one one CEU eTD Collection 255 254 253 252 Turkey. for leave to Muslims many prompted thus and life social Muslim to central were that bazaars and mosques ancient of destruction the included even assimilation.” their facilitate their decrease to sought government the separately, Albanians and Turks counting by that believed many and headscarves wearing of banning the after especially Communists, Akan against disposed were peasants Turkish local and intellectuals urban both which within communityTurkish the continues, she affected, also That Powers. Western the to alliance anti open an took authorities Yugoslav the that claim to as far Musli disbanding at aimed codes dress strict imposing and villages, Muslim attacking government, the opposed who leaders religious persecuting schools, religious the closing as such initiatives with religiosity their threatened lines, as perceived were disarmamentheadscarvesandof ban the schools, to female children sending as reformssuch and a as sophistication. or ridiculed civility of consistently sort any being lacked who Turk” from “barbarian oneself free to wish alleged the was migration for with incompatible 257 G 256 enea

ŞuleKut, Akan Baklac Cited It is completely unknown what is understood by the term assimilation, op.a., see insee op.a., by termassimilation, the isunderstood what unknown iscompletely It Burçu Some authors emphasize the psychological peculiarities of the Muslims which are allegedly allegedly are which Muslims the of peculiarities psychological the emphasize authors Some

l og li pit ot ht ay ulm “eand upcos f oils, r eae anti became or socialism, of suspicious “remained Muslims many that out points Ellis Akan

E in

i ı Akan Ellis, Akan e lli o

s Baklac ğ :

s “ lu

, M Turks of Kosovo: What to Expect,” Expect,” to What ofKosovo: Turks

Shad ,

emo D li wie ta mn Msis i nt find not did Muslims many that writes Ellis ış ı o o r Politika ğ y w

lu Shad

C an

C G ,

ommunism and atheism. According to Yaş to According atheism. and ommunism D ommunist efforts to endanger ‘Turkishness’ and belief. and ‘Turkishness’ endanger to efforts ommunist enea d I d ış o den

w ve Politika l

og G

tity A G enea i öç ( öç e 256 s :

mon l M Yugoslavya ve

og According to Ellis, official Yugoslav industrialization processes industrialization Yugoslav official Ellis, to According emo

i G e g s öç ( öç

: Ur r

y M

ba Yugoslavya an emo m religious accoutrements. religious m n M n d I d ’ dan

r den y u

s T li tity A tity ü d I d m 102 rkiye ’ s

dan den

in M in

mon ’

tity A tity ye T acedon ü g

rkiye G

Ur öç mon ba lerde ’ 257 ye i n M n g a

, 76. ,

Along these lines, Zaim posits that posits Zaim lines, these Along Arnavutlar öç u ar Nabi, the main encouragement main the Nabi, ar ba C s -

li Turkish stance due to Turkey’ to due stance Turkish lerde ommunism attractive since it it since attractive ommunism n M n m 254 s

252 in M in u

Similarly, Şule Kut goes so goes Kut Şule Similarly, Arnavutlar s li

m (1920 Burçu Burçu acedon Yugoslavia’s s

in M in - 253 1990) Akan acedon i

a (1920

, 54. , Along the same the Along Communism

, 505. , Ellis,

- i 1990) a , 55. , density to to density initiatives

Shad , 504. , o w .

255

s -

CEU eTD Collection 258 in Yugoslavia only existence into came orthography, and alphabet of idea the supporting Macedonians. and the all region of unification the of language official the Macedonian proclaiming Anti 1944 August in Actually, 1944. as early as schools in introduced was language claim the purporting sources no are there First, questionable. seriously is Albanians.” and Turks themselves consider who “in Macedonia Bitola, in 1944 July 3 from event one to refers He tongue. mother their learning from youth Turkish the obstructing as leaving. onecommunities’ ofthe important reasons mostTurkish most for children their of education communities’ Turkish the into meddling government’s the considers C individuals T that documentation any providing without argues also Zaim schools, to children their sending on C Press, 1968), 1 1968), Press, 261 260 259 rih ae ad eae wr smtms ocd by forced sometimes were females and males urkish ommunism aimed to sever the social ties between the Turks who place who Turks the between ties social the sever to aimed ommunism muit” on Trs hogot h dfeet aes f h sae col ytm. systems. school state the of layers different the throughout Turks young ommunists”

Paul Shoup, Paul Abd Zaim, Sabahattin Sabahattin Zaim, Sabahattin their traditional living way and of carrying out the - acs Cucl f ainl ieain (ASNO Liberation National of Council Fascist ü lmecit iial, N Similarly, concerns aforementioned the Among region of Debar and Reka education in the Macedonian language will continue for those those for continue will language Macedonian the in education Reka and Debar of region whereas, , Scn, h ae sronig ea ws cuid y lain acss n the in Fascists Albanian by occupied was Debar surrounding area the Second, .

- N 308. Question National Yugoslav the and Communism ü redin

“A Report on the Last Yugoslavian Immigrants Last Yugoslavian onthe Report “A “A Report on the Last Yugoslavian Immigrants Lastthe Yugoslavian on “AReport , Balkanlar

rdn anan ta the that maintains üredin C ommunist representatives systematically strove to “turn into into “turn to strove systematically representatives ommunist ’ dan

where the revolutionary front issued a circular note saying th saying note circular a issued front revolutionary the where T ü rkiye 261

’ h fc i te aeoin agae tgte wt its with together language, Macedonian the is fact The ye

G öç öç ,

103 ve such as prohibition of wearing headscarves and and headscarves wearing of prohibition as such

260 Etikkleri of

However, the plausibility the However, religio muit wr priual vgln in vigilant particularly were ommunists

(New York and London: Colu London: (Newand York , M) was convened for the first time time first the for convened was M) ,” ,”

C 259.

muit t mry Slavic marry to ommunists us duties.

1945 ,

258 fe te salsmn of establishment the after

particu that 259 of

, mbiaUniversit

the Macedonian Macedonian the the Macedonian the account an such lar

importance - speaking speaking Zaim y at at CEU eTD Collection onre’ fiil oiis fre sc poess ih atclr oiia measures political particular with processes such “forced policies official countries’ these II, War World the after that difference the with Bulgaria, and Greece with alongside stands onwards Wars Balkans the ha that Turkey to Macedonia from communities Turkish of emigration with explained be cannot and roots beingminorities withtheir legal insocial community unsatisfied position like ours.” social and religious historical, grave has atavism’ movement ancient ‘the in embedded are migration for reasons the others Turks thecensus of1953.The in whodeclared rejects report that theargument themselves st report the Turkey, to Macedonia from emigrated people many so why reasons underlying the of bac most the among resistance ( treatments medical unauthorized cooperatives, ( trafficking penalizing as such socialism measures included building “for undertaken were which measures things, other p the Albanian occupation of Axis thatpart of Macedonia. during schools the in used and introduced been had language Macedonian the that unlikely is It city. the entered partisans Albanian and Yugoslav the when 1943 October until II War World 264 263 http://www.znaci.net/00001/228_2.pdf 262 iyn mektebi sibyân rohibiting wearing rohibiting ess itrcl sca ad utrl esn roe i te ie f h Trih ioiis and minorities Turkish the of life the in rooted reasons cultural and social historical, resses AJ AJ Crne Gore Srbije,Makedonije, oslobođenje za vojske narodnooslobodilačke Operacije , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Komisija Collection: , , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , What this report rather stresses is that the ‘migratory path’ to Turkey, to path’ ‘migratory the that is stresses rather report this What law the on comments CCFRM the of report the sources, Yugoslav to turns one If , dctn al hlrn ( children all educating ),

headscarves. According to the document this law represents, among all all among represents, law this document the to According headscarves. . Furthermore, it states that Macedonia is not an exception but rather but exception an not is Macedonia that states it Furthermore, .

kward population.” kward

(last

accessed June 2, 2012). 2, June accessed i.e ., especially females), laws on marriage, building building marriage, on laws females), especially ., 104

1956

of 263 e.g.,

- women, measures against Quranic schools schools Quranic against measures women, - 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 analysis the providing when Nevertheless, 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960

circumcision), etc. which encountered encountered which etc. circumcision),

- - K4/7, folio 38, p 38, folio K4/7, K4/7, liig “hs frenzied “This claiming: d

been developing since since developing been i

folio 38, p 38, folio . Dalmacije, ” “ i.e. These strategies strategies These

the history of of history the . 8. . . 7 264

- 8.

and and 262

CEU eTD Collection 266 265 Turkey. to migrate to way a find to but Macedonia in settle to not is coming for motivation underlying their because station temporary a as Skopje using are Herzegovina and the Metohija, and Kosovo from Macedonia to immigrating bypass neither we so emigration, for petitions wrote Pomaks and Albanians many that is thing other The Turkey. in are which families their with unite people these let and humane act should We […] criteria co “The stressed: report the migrating, from Turks the than other communities prevent and intervene not did government the why reasons the for As Turkey. to migrated Pomaks and Albanians of number significant a consequence, books.” register the in nationality of “correction clause the under nationality Turkish a d since report, the argues scope, in limited are efforts such Yet, minority. Turkish the of members the to confined migration the keep to attempts their in were intervened reasons themigration. for areresponsible established. just were that Turkey with relationships diplomatic friendly a and minorities to awarded equalities national from emigration that states report the hand, Turkey.” with relationships bad of circumstances the within pressures economic 268 267 eclare their nationality as they saw fit, and ”non and fit, saw they as nationality their eclare

AJ AJ AJ AJ , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , According to the repo the to According ed

nor ignore nor 266

t h nymte hr h at rpeettvs n Macedonia in representatives party the where matter only the rt,

The report does not allow for claims that political or economic or political that claims for allow not does report The d

them.” 268

nsultation with official Belgrade yielded more soft soft more yielded Belgrade official with nsultation Furthermore, the report states that those who are who those that states report the Furthermore, 105 Yugoslavia

- Turkish” Muslim communities could claim claim could communities Muslim Turkish” - - - - 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 X (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960

tre js rcnl a a eut of result a as recently just started

Sanjak, Montenegro and Bosnia Bosnia and Montenegro Sanjak, VIII - - - - K4/7, folio 38, 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, 38, folio K4/7, 38, folio K4/7, people were free to to free were people

265 p. 4. p. 8. p. 7. p.

. 4. . On the other the On

267

As As a

CEU eTD Collection 271 270 269 of spirit the “in nationalities other among Macedonia. relati productive construct leaving would which are masses the of education Turks sustained a of the Instead that fact the to indifferent were who Party Communist and unacceptable. Macedonians categorically of chauvinism majority the that expressing migrating are who ethnic landscape. the change subsequently would which society in elements Muslim of the fear strengthening their express Macedonians some that assumed sentiments these that ground. explains the report on commonplace becoming were number Macedonia” the in better be diminishes would Albanians “it and leaving” are Turks that good is “it as such sentiments history.” recent in clash immediate is chauvinism was chauvinism Macedonian former that the to inherent pinpoints particularly document The movement. the migration the on of chauvinism consequences of revival side” “certain Turkish a and that Albanian states Macedonian, document the hand, other the On their Party. Communist of return member the to as migrate had to allowed migrate not was to it since card wanted membership who those Usually, Turkey. to migrate to wanted 273 272

AJ AJ AJ AJ AJ , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , However, the report distances itsel distances report the However, membe the to attention pays particularly report The

also present in the environment of “mixed nationalities which had been in an in been had which nationalities “mixed of environment the in present also

271

hs i i sae i te eot oe ma one report, the in stated is it Thus, 273 C

f from such statements and attitudes towards those those towards attitudes and statements such from f ommunism 270 h rpr as rpiad clege fo the from colleagues reprimands also report The 106

arose as a result of the social and political political and social the of result a as arose

çarşı 1956

- - - - - 1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 XVI (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960

social strata. To a less extent, it argues, argues, it extent, less a To strata. social , ” the report stresses that party members members party that stresses report the ” rs of the Communist Party who who Party Communist the of rs II - - - - - K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, 38, folio K4/7, f K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7,

folio 38, p 38, folio olio 38, p 38, olio C ommunists found found ommunists y observe that that observe y p. 11. p. . 11. . 11. . 11. . 10. .

onships onships 272

The The 269

CEU eTD Collection 276 275 274 of enemies the as they so detained be to like would They leaving. for justifications political a as some by used are harassments” sexual leaving. before especially disorders, some been Tur declaring Muslims other against and Turkey to emigration against propaganda for mosques Albania.” join or in stay to whether referendums future in decide to left people of number sufficient a be not will there hence, leave; will Muslims “the all that is fear Their Turkey. to migration pop the mobilize to trying were who intellectuals and clergy soci and Party our of betrayal a as construed case, any in be, not may and reasons the especially Turkey, to Turkey.” in behave their preserve “to necessary is it that argues c they not or whether of regardless acknowledged the towards act discriminatory a be to a stance such discerns report the vein, this In well. as migrate would members these expecting are ignoring CP the of members the of some sees report The CPY. the in Turks the of disillusionment the accept passively and chauvinism with react not should 279 278 277

AJ AJ AJ AJ AJ AJ kish nationality. kish , Collection: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , Collection: , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , Collecti , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Collection: Komisija , Likewise, this apparent discontent in the report is extended to the Albanian Muslim Muslim Albanian the to extended is report the in discontent apparent this Likewise, on: Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za on: Komisija

Komisija za nacionalne manjine CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ manjine nacionalne za Komisija 276 the C the 274

277 The report states that the Albanian Muslim clergy is gathering in and using using and in gathering is clergy Muslim Albanian the that states report The

emigration for wish Turks’] [the “Their that: argue to on goes report The can can When mentioning Turkish chauvinism Turkish mentioning When ommunist regime. ommunist C use their prison records in Turkey in order to legitimate themselves themselves legitimate to order in Turkey in records prison their use ommunist Turk ommunist

279 ’ s desire to leave, is motivated by familial and other other and familial by motivated is leave, to desire s

C 107 ommunist belief since it matters how they will will they how matters it since belief ommunist 278

ontemplated migrating. Moreover, the report report the Moreover, migrating. ontemplated C Disorders such as “heavy drinking, fighting, fighting, drinking, “heavy as such Disorders ommunist Turks whose needs should be be should needs whose Turks ommunist ------1960 (507), XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 XVIII (507), 1960 ulation which would obstruct the the obstruct would which ulation ,

the Turkish members since they they since members Turkish the the report states that there have have there that states report the ------K4/7, folio 38, p 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, p 38, folio K4/7, alism.” p. p. 12. p. 12. p. 11. p. 11. p. 13. p. Yugoslavia 13.

275

CEU eTD Collection Yugoslavia interview the that Most fact the Turkey. was for striking FPRY the leave to decisions their influenced that factors important most the of one as Turkey in members family of concentration the and kinship to refer interviewees Turkey. claimed migrants actual the that issues cultural and social the glean to accounts oral the to turn now will I repo it, to related CCFRM the and migration on historiography Turkish the examined Having Turkey. to migration for paragraphs) aforementioned the in overviewed reasons economic (alongside w the of reputation some seems it Here chauvinism. reviving are emph to who interesting Turks the and clergy Albanian the among nationalities s a ‘building of support the to contributing not as targeted are who groups report the in that interesting is it However, Turkey. to emigration the encouraging or opposing either are which groups specific targets Minorities Yugoslavia riters of the report consider kinship and family ties as one of the primary reasons reasons primary the of one as ties family and kinship consider report the of riters C With regard to cultural and social concerns of the mig the of concerns social and cultural to regard With sen report CCFRM the that argued be may It

muit twrs hi Trih ords w comrades Turkish their towards ommunists , most noted religious liberties and freedom of religious practices they actually actually they practices religious of freedom and liberties religious noted most , in lives their of context the in religion mentioned interviewees the when fact, In . ’

are to be found among Macedonian Macedonian among found be to are Yugoslavia asi z e that the writers of the report report the of writers the that e

once they migrate to Turkey. Between the lines, one may read how how read may one lines, the Between Turkey. to migrate they once o have to ocialist community based on equal conditions for life of all the the all of life for conditions equal on based community ocialist

nomd hi dcsos n mtvs o ter oig to coming their for motives and decisions their informed ees rarely cited religion as a primary factor for leaving leaving for factor primary a as religion cited rarely ees 108

C ommunists and non and ommunists apparently apparently t to the Commission for National National for Commission the to t ould

rants, I found that most of the the of most that found I rants, eventually result in the bad bad the in result eventually worried that the ignorance of of ignorance the that worried - C ommunists as well as as well as ommunists rt rt CEU eTD Collection notes: she issue, headscarves the to Macedoni comes in life of aspects social and cultural the of some on reflects Turkey to of city from Şahsine Similarly, in duties religious their performed of ideology Yugoslav the under pressure the to subjected and endangered culturally been had that ties family strong the into places with scholarship almost Turkish foreground, Mainstream matter. this to relation in historiography th opposed that way a in religion of historiography: Turkish the in presented question argumentation of line mainstream the to refers migrations, the primary a for as FPRY factor the in Muslims of conditions political adverse highlight to tended and in enjoyed 280

Religious The accounts of other interviewees also run against the grain of the Turkish Turkish the of grain the against run also interviewees other of accounts The “ hoca a was open grandfather My were duties. religious the mosques of all perform The freely could people the pressure. and religious of because leave not did Turks “[T]he oe te bnft rm uh is o te wn t so tesle a p as themselves show to want they to for forced lies were 69) (Şahsine, Turks.” such they say from to benefit like they Turkey in come, People us. came We forced voluntarily? nobody come she Did voluntarily, there]!? paid [we taxes same the pay to here, hands! our of out directly from everything relatives problem no mosques, Macedon in population Turkish the that or forbidden were Yugoslavia in things some that claim Turkey in people Some one. wear to her want father my did nor headscarf, a wear to wanted mom my “[N]either We were free to attend prayers in mosques. Whoever wanted to attend, he could.” could.” he attend, to wanted Whoever mosques. in prayers attend to free were We teacher, op.a. teacher, their former lives. Mustafa lives. former their . 280

I don’t recall any persecution on account of our faith. (Mustafa, 70) (Mustafa, faith. our of account on persecution any recall don’t I

–

“Ah, there was a huge tax imposed upon us. They were stealing stealing were They us. upon imposed tax huge a was there “Ah,

C out ommunism and and ommunism

- xeto, h rlgoiy f h Msi cmuiis n their and communities Muslim the of religiosity the exception,

she continues narration by mocking and imitating one of her her of one imitating and mocking by narration continues she Kumanovo Yugoslavia ,

who was more educated than most of the interviewees interviewees the of most than educated more was who

who was attending high school prior to her arrival arrival her to prior school high attending was who atheism. When asked whether they could have have could they whether asked When atheism. 109 ia was threatened. We could fast and go to to go and fast could We threatened. was ia , ‘Ibrahim’ and his spouse noted: spouse his and ‘Ibrahim’ ,

–

So why would why So

you want the same thing thing same the want you

roper roper a. When it it When a.

CEU eTD Collection s h piay esn o pol laig o Tre, Irhms pue mhszs the emphasizes spouse ‘Ibrahim’s Turkey, importance ofkinshi for leaving people for reason primary the As an religion where place the be to seems villages, peasant scattered by mostly populated from comes Kızıldoğan who ‘Ibrahim’ with different quite is it hand, spi the in perhaps, who, members family at pointing is headscarves towards It stance her interpret to Macedonia. possible in officer police a became later father her that and movement partisan the famil her of concern a really not were headscarves that out points Şahsine that note to interesting is it Muslims, of oppression the of

important aspect of everyday life. In this regard ‘Ibrahim’ states: states: ‘Ibrahim’ regard this In life. everyday of aspect important (Ibrahim, 68) afterwards,brotherhoodof unity!”fine. wereYou law however.lawsit know, and The Tito’s of many how go!’Oh, ‘Let’s said people opened roadsthe Whenaccept[…] to hard it foundpeople that time at normal. But It headscarf].is a [ you like just walk They today.Istanbul example for Take it. like not did people wearin prohibited law The 1952. in issued law a was there “[S]econdly, proof as headscarves of banning the to refers often that scholarship Turkish to contrast In families it; were there. (Ibrahim,stop 68) can’t you But time. that at socialism is what and capitalism is what came socialism is Here we country. capitalist a is it persecution, Turkey; in life such no was ‘ us: telling There were neighbours Macedonian it! Our voluntarily. That’s fragmented. became “[F]amilies unite.” (‘Ibrahim’s spouse) als I there, is daughter“My say: They sorrow. with Macedonia in stayed sister and mother your but Turkey to family husband’s your with went you example, For well. as go you family came 1912 [i.e.,wars Balkan the After […] Turkey to came people the why reasons The “[A]hh. rit of socialism did not find headscarves as an appropriate dress code. On the other other the On code. dress appropriate an as headscarves find not did socialism of rit

n the in - 13], the peoples ( peoples the 13], ee S te aiis h sae dcdd o irt a wl. eas o the of Because well. as migrate to decided stayed who families the So here.

Valandova p relationships: o want to come, too. When the families split, people yearn, they want to want they yearn, people split, families the When too. come, to want o

province. The The province. millet

) separated. Some of them stayed there; some of them of some there; stayed them of Some separated. ) y. She also states that her grandfather and father were in in were father and grandfather her that states also She y. Valandova 11

them came here! Those who came regretted came who Those here! came them

province, a poor poor a province, Don’t go! You won’t You go! Don’t

a Macedonian village named named village Macedonian a .’ But we had no idea no had we But .’

g headscarves. The headscarves. g mountainous region region mountainous i.e ., without ., find was

quite

CEU eTD Collection Similarly, Selim Şahinler, born in Skopje in a family of blacksmiths and Metin Ileri from from Ileri stating: Turkey to Metin Macedonia from path’ ‘migration and the on reflect Skopje blacksmiths of family a in Skopje in born Şahinler, Selim Similarly, Turkish the by produced in ‘I accounts, my of one only in motivation According f wearing prohibited before decades few A freedom. religious find to supposed are migrants that mention to charging fails While Muslims. and Turks the in contention of bone a been as had particular in headscarves practices and identities their on imposed communities Muslim the that anti Turkish, Mainstream time. the at Turkey difference of understanding poi interesting an highlights account ‘Ibrahim’s Mimesis: Auerbach in Turkey in Auerbach Mimesis: see etc. vote to womenrights Latinalphabet, introducing courts, religious and caliphate 281 ramework of reforms in 1920s and 1930s 1930s and 1920s in reforms of ramework

Someof reaching According to most of the interviewees, interviewees, the of most to According were leaving were people the reasons: (Selim the know don’t I […] leaving years].” are they leaving, is he see, [for “[Y]ou so doing been had ancestors 62) Our Şahinler, migrate. and members were “[W]e 71) (Mustafa, together.” them bring to way families of T to members migrating after back Since come have not could separated. families migrations of waves different “[I]n

the reforms ‘in spirit of progress and modernity’ and ofprogress ‘in spirit reforms the ly, religiosity and the issue of prohibition of headscarves fits in the cultural range of of range cultural the in fits headscarves of prohibition of issue the and religiosity ly,

the decision the

the prohibition of wearing headscarves in Turkey, the country in which these these which in country the Turkey, in headscarves wearing of prohibition the , a big family. We had neither a house nor money. You gather all family family all gather You money. nor house a neither had We family. big a

, so we decided to leave as well.” (Metin Ileri, 81) Ileri, (Metin well.” as leave to decided we so ,

headscarves Mustafa Kemal Atatürk pioneered such bans within the the within bans such pioneered Atatürk Kemal Mustafa headscarves

(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010), 8. 2010), Press, University Stanford (Stanford: to migration to Turkey. to migration to scholarship, scholarship, s

between the two socio two the between were very conscious of the threats that the Communist regime regime Communist the that threats the of conscious very were notes among the rests: the among notes brahim’ the the - 111 C guiding principle guiding family and kinship was the biggest considerationbiggest the was kinship and family ommunist scholarship on migration emphasizes emphasizes migration on scholarship ommunist

nt: a number of these migrants really had no no had really migrants these of number a nt:

’s Mustafa included banning of fez, closing of religious schools, schools, ofreligious fez,closing banning of included . urkey, the new migration was the only only the was migration new the urkey,

- political orders orders political ,

who is very close to the narratives narratives the to close very is who

Yugoslavia

of which of

in place in Kader Konuk Kader

was secularization. was Yugoslavia , Turkish scholarship scholarship Turkish ,

Yugoslavia , East West East

officially officially

and and 281

CEU eTD Collection oral accounts of the migrants nuance and to certain extent challenge the tenor tenor the challenge extent certain to and nuance migrants the of accounts oral communi Muslim the of emigration the informing motivations and factors causal of conjunction the study SKO when 1948 until Yugoslavia) of League Communist Young (the SKOJ of member the was he that states also Ileri Metin level. federal the on Party Communist the of representatives highest t in was who father teacher a also uncle, his that states he although Party, Communist the of members becoming appealing comes Mustafa Party, interpreted be may account the His of answer. not did members Mustafa were Muslims other many that possible is it how asked being the After of because Party the into Muslims take to want not did if only you accept communists can They Muslims. the towards the prejudices that is reason first “ sa Mustafa whether was migration ainls ad oiia aed of agenda political and nationalist scholars Turkish Whereas Balkans. the from migrationon scholarship Turkish [T]he pressure from the Party. If you are not the member of the Party, you will stay hungry. And, the the And, hungry. stay will you Party, the of member the not are you If Party. the from pressure [T]he J was officially closed. closed. officially was J , This chapter attempts to offer answers to the main research question which was to to was which question research main the to answers offer to attempts chapter This Conclusion for impetus possible a as importance its assess to trying posed I that question Another

was closely associated with the Party in his youth. his in Party the with associated closely was

ties from ties id :

rm aiy f Islamic of family from Yugoslavia

he Communist Party. ‘Azra’ Party. Communist he Remarks the Turks were forced to enter the Communist Party Communist the enter to forced were Turks the

to Turkey from 1953 to 1968. What it demonstrated is that the that is demonstrated it What 1968. to 1953 from Turkey to Yugoslavia coas n tahr wo etil dd o find not did certainly who teachers and scholars 112

’ moid n h ielg of ideology the in embodied

s immediate family members were among the the among were members family immediate s

you are an atheist.” (Mustafa, 69) (Mustafa, atheist.” an are you by

My interviewee Şahsine also had a a had also Şahsine interviewee My looking at his family background. background. family his at looking hip claims that the that claims hip of the of . On this subject this On . C muim and ommunism

mainstream mainstream

CEU eTD Collection literature topic. onthesame becomes thus and migration of process the of migration understanding on sources secondary and records written the with examined religious than rather position identity was social and class one’s that argue may one diversity, on itself prided that state Yugoslav the threaten could who groups as understood communities Muslim famil considers interviewee one Only liberties. t of that most religion, maintain to interviewees comes it When policies. same the by affected were status class or religiousethnic, their of regardlessthan ‘Turks’andother communities migrate, to decision their i the to According Turkey. (1947 of program economic the Furthermore, a kinship e.g., dynamics, cultural complex more to 1953 from migrationwave the in resulteddirectly atheism

y’ and other people’s other and y’ - 91 lf a ipc o some on impact an left 1951) hs hss ie t so ta seta f rl cons hn utpsd n cross and juxtaposed when accounts oral of spectra that show to aimed thesis This

important in this period this in

nterviewees who find the economic reasons as the most important in important most the as reasons economic the find who nterviewees

decision

Yugoslavia . to leave. Likewise, in order to answer to what extent were extent what to answer to order in Likewise, leave. to

a nt moe rsrcin i rlto t religious to relation in restrictions imposed not had h interviewees the Yugoslavia that the banning of wearing headscarves influence headscarves wearing of banning the 113

nd familiar ties familiar nd

implemented in the First Five Year Plan Plan Year Five First the in implemented ’

ie n etie ter mgain to emigration their entailed and life

1968, the oral accounts mainly refer refer accounts mainly oral the 1968, a new reference to existing body of body existing to reference new a ,

as the main motives to leave. to motives main the as

attribute to a new new a to attribute d

his he he - CEU eTD Collection oil n pltcl circumstances political and social micro their perceive to started communities Muslim scholarship, to According policies. atheist its and Communism of were the from for communities motives and reasons the that argue unanimously almost predominate is topic this on literature of body main different have sources Yugoslav and Turkish on an depending oscillates reasons migration the concerning historiography the as well as immigrants the Yugoslavia of during migrated people 170,000 that estimates Turkey in Affairs Foreign of Ministry The 1968. to 1953 from period in Turkey to Yugoslavia explained insufficiently an be have versa Peninsula Balkan w 1968. to 1953 from period the in Turkey to Yugoslavia from communities Muslim the of emigration Conclusion uolva n t ery omtv pro ws o cene te region the ‘cleanse’ to was period formative early its in Yugoslavia to as far so go scholars it hd subjected to the the to subjected rawa From In this thesis thesis this In l

t en a widespread and well researched social phenomenon. In my thesis I addressed I thesis my In phenomenon. social researched well and widespread a en om he

(FPRY) , migrations and population exchanges from the from exchanges population and migrations , it e a s r l f y I studied I o political, economic and socio and economic political,

FPRY to Turkey. In my research I found that statistical data on the number of of number the on data statistical that found I research my In Turkey. to m state that the underlying motivation of the Federal Peoples Republic of of Republic Peoples Federal the of motivation underlying the that state eighteenth e r

Eu migration movement from the Federal Peoples Republic of of Republic Peoples Federal the from movement migration

revolves around the around revolves the conjunction of causal factors and motivations informing the informing motivations and factors causal of conjunction the r o p ea , and therefore, left for for left therefore, and , the political agendas of of agendas political the

c n e

n poss t u r when y e ss 114 i ons to the to ons takes on on takes

this period this

religiosity of the Muslim communities communities Muslim the of religiosity - t cultural cultural he ly written by the Turkish scholars. They They scholars. Turkish the by written ly O hs vrrhn nraie in narrative overarching this the subject of this migration, but the the but migration, this of subject the recent tt

o Turkish or Yugoslav sources. Both Both sources. Yugoslav or Turkish from the Federal Peoples Republic Republic Peoples Federal the from Turkey m pressure pressure a Epr bgn t protracted its began Empire n dissolution of socialism of dissolution the the - milieu imperilled by the new new the by imperilled milieu Balkans

n masse en migration of the Muslim Muslim the of migration of the of

to Turkey and vice vice and Turkey to d motives for this this for motives d Yugoslav ideology ideology Yugoslav s of Kosovo and and Kosovo of s .

Many Turkish Turkish Many

Turkish Turkish

in the in who who CEU eTD Collection uks scholarship Turkish complex more much is migration for explanation the that out Muslim this it hoped to I decided 1968, to 1953 from period in Turkey dynamics local the especially unexplained, and blurred are which things many are There migration. for reveals report CCFRM the that claim to not predominately population, Muslim for stake at be would what mention not does also It groups. Muslim report) Republic Federal the of Committee Central the by 1957 and topic this on literature of corpus largestthe constitutes nation Balkan forcedandassimilation deportations repressions, pillages,rapes, triggere were which Turkey to waves migration Empire. Ottoman the of remnants undesirable as considered state the which population Muslim the of Macedonia interestingly under

In attempt to find out what were the reasons and motives for migration from the migrationfrom for motives and reasons werethe what out find to Inattempt of line this Alongside migrants which would

between the Communist Party Communist inquestion. betweenand the thecommunities - researched

- os o mnin n ofca polic official any mention not does tts t h ed f h nntet century nineteenth the of end the at states allow the real historical actors and subjects of these events to shed more light on on light more shed to events these of subjects and actors historical real the allow

in Turkey with Turkey in ‘silent

and and

oi. hn cross I When topic. . ’. The onlyofficial The ’. offers very different very offers

argument the CCFRM report and Turkish scholarship Turkish and report CCFRM the the Turks and Albanians. and Turks the , Turkish Turkish Yugoslav - any xmnd e oa acut o frt generation first of accounts oral ten examined

115 atr htwr t tk for stake at were that factors

d by by d rely rather on an on rather rely

complete truth about the reasons and motives motives and reasons the about truth complete e o Ygsai which Yugoslavia of ies scholars tend to to tend scholars record I found is found Irecord , Yugoslav sources Yugoslav , older

of Macedonia of

Wees uks historiography Turkish Whereas . atrocities such as wars, massacres, massacres, wars, as such atrocities Nevertheless, one has to be careful be to has one Nevertheless, than official Yugoslav sources and and sources Yugoslav official than s

that followed the emergence of emergencefollowedof the that

oral history approach which I which approach history oral ihih a highlight a the

confidential report from from report confidential (hereafter the CCFRM CCFRM the (hereafter

on this topic aretopic this on state to get rid of the the of rid get to state ,

Iwa the targeted s struck to find find to struck s migrants continuity of of continuity

part FPRY scarce

icular icular ( e.g

to ., ., , CEU eTD Collection addressed migrate who those that means as categorized legally was agreement this of part a Tu e nation Occidentalisation. new the allowing thus legacy, Ottoman undesirable another yet as understood they what from free breaking in step large a be ac a The policy. emigration different a pursued FPRY the and Slovenes and Croats Serbs, of Kingdom (1918 Yugoslavia of Kingdom the of period to era Ottoman II Chapter In Turkey. to s Yugoslav former the from movements migration past the of context political and historical migrationwith this movement. Turkey in ties family and kinship relation to relation mi bout

partnership and friendship friendship and partnership h r i ks’ g

e ra v C i

ti n onv fr t The only emigration until the early 1960s was was 1960s early the until emigration only The broader a at look to me encouraged also topic my on sources written of scarcity The he on g om M

e h ofca plc of policy official the the Muslim communities. Muslim the po

n re ho ti li s on m ace e c ttl i o

e ” g don s e of

e m than

nous

The FRPY, on the other hand, seemed to pursue pursue to seemed hand, other the on FRPY, The e i nt 1938 a

w t ,

s of ho I t

outline

KSCS t d e n g i s S C S f o m o d g n i K e h t h c i h w FPRY w e two d

e of

r were - e 41) it

)

t ntos n ntoaiis in nationalities’ and ‘nations h a

he d hund . I . g that are typ are that l

Tu ov

o the historical background of the the of background historical the

leaving Yugoslavia on a voluntary basis voluntary a on Yugoslavia leaving The Al The n that and S draw draw we e ou r k r re n d e t d m h y h y - t

er tt t aclrt “ accelerate to state particular attention to migration in in migration to attention particular o e banian t

n n hous a l 116

ea t d ically ignored in the works of authors who deal deal who authors of works the in ignored ically . from from Sl

ve b

a ee a vs

nd t and Turkish and n he ebs göç serbest .

h FPRY the

signed in 1953 in signed The

c “ oun Tu the

r emigration policy was considered to considered was policy emigration k t r s” y vo

em t be to seems l commu h FR ad aeoi in Macedonia and FPRY the o Turkey. to t (voluntary migration), which which migration), (voluntary un e de r

t an . The migration that was a was that migration The . a - r toaiain n re and Ottomanisation y

migration migration a

nities nities g e r mi ee

g m It seems that the the that seems It . In . i r were granted the granted were n the period of the the of period the e a iti nt ti

n of on

from the late late the from a Chapter III, Chapter a w that forging forging that l

l it y m h

ea d

i Tu ‘ f ns e f t e r hn r k tate e f e or or n i

y c I - t

CEU eTD Collection legal and state and legal was 1960s and 1950s in Turkey to FRPY the from migration for prerequisite a was that Empire parties toadminister the t of time the in implemented those followed significantly Turkey in 1934 to 1923 from period the in adopted and proposed officially policies the from immigration (1923 period republican early the in group‘ some during evident particularly Turks. ethnically not were become had many where 1953 of themselves census the with case the not was this whereas, census 1948 the in reshuffling 1953.Thosereflectedin the censuses who wasand of 1948 FPRY. within minorities Turkish the and wasevent the be would what deciding in role contradictions many with spheres. political nationali of status social engineering social Turkishness’ whostated tothe they ones donotknowwhether origin was their Turkish not. or In the fourth chapter I turned to Turkey and the settlement and immigration policies in policies immigration and settlement the and Turkey to turned I chapter fourth the In also constitutive of an of constitutive also as ‘Turks’ knowing that the relationship with Albania deteriorated but deteriorated Albania with relationship the that knowing ‘Turks’ as

an discourse as an ideological tool for for tool ideological an as discourse ally of the FPRY the of ally

However, the process of building building of process the However,

y hc ofrd hm eti privileges certain them offered which ty strategies did so so did

akn. I Balkans. .

For instance, t instance, For sin Ethnicity of interviewees seem to be contested ground and this was this and ground contested be to seem interviewees of Ethnicity . The . ce the relationship between the FPRY and Albania was friendly, friendly, was Albania and FPRY the between relationship the ce .

initial step towards step initial I argued

. This also facilitated the emigration to Turkey for those who who those for Turkey to emigration the facilitated also This . -

RPP was particularly attached to Rumeli and Rumeli to attached particularly was RPP 1934) for contextualizing Turkey’ contextualizing for 1934) show mal trea

he Cominform resolution in 1948 played 1948 in resolution Cominform he how the notion of “Turkish culture ofconsciousness” notion “Turkish and the how n hs hpe how chapter this in tment of tment he he

codn t te CR report CCFRM the to According 117 Young Turk government, one of the last Ottoman last the of one government, Turk Young

eves hn oe nevees ascribed interviewees some when terviews

Turkish Republican Peoples’ Party’s Peoples’ Republican Turkish the a egalitarian, an

better diplomatic relationship with Turkey with relationship diplomatic better Albanian population Albanian

in the educational, cultural and and cultural educational, the in h stlmn ad immigration and settlement the socialist society socialist s official s registered as ‘Albanians’ Albanians , whereas, the same same the whereas, , policy regarding regarding policy “Balkan Turks” “Balkan ,

hs political this

a was fraught was that significant

declared declared used in in used Turkey

( RPP

)

CEU eTD Collection and the CCFRM report on migration. on report CCFRM the and 1968 to 1953 from period the in Turkey to Yugoslavia from communities Muslim the of migration the for motivations society. Turkish the in socio their on depending fluctuate which success of stories and resentment were salient most the which value among notions the of some evoke inevitably accounts their in interviewees the that found also which to state Turkish the by benefits peers Bulgarian further and Turkey to this migrates interviewees my of all that communities b interpreted and addressed migrationis volun on background social different interviewees’ the of settings FPRY the from migrants Kurds and Christians labels such of deprived officially were who when communities with especially alongside visible is status citizenship privileged whose nuances and challenge the tenor of the mainstream Turkish scholarship on migration from the the from migration on scholarship Turkish mainstream the of tenor the challenge and nuances

category In the the In ay n ivlnay irto tyn t answer to trying migration involuntary and tary who came who , the interviewees usually emphasise usually interviewees the , came final final who who

chapter I engaged with my main research question related to related question research main my with engaged I chapter voluntary and voluntary to according Turkey to . were forced to to forced were

substantiate substantiate -

Chapter VI, Chapter economical status and their and status economical . I c I . o argue to

are are ross examined the oral accounts with accounts oral the examined ross did compliant how they how their leave and were for this reason state reason this for were and leave

not expect any benefits from the state. the from benefits any expect not

ruh it pa h rl accounts oral the play into brought I I demonstrated how how demonstrated I y the interviewees since this is the first time that time first the is this since intervieweesy the my interviewees as free migrants migrants free as interviewees my

argument a

policy which policy with the legal category of of category legal the with need to be analysed accordi analysed be to need 118

their free choice in in choice free their s

y oprn ter migra their comparing by

own perception of perception own . I also engaged in engaged Ialso .

how the official policy of voluntary voluntary of policy official the how was not state not was a bottom

utpsd n exami and juxtaposed the - up approach to migration to approach up their - - Turkish sponsored, sponsored, sponsored. sponsored.

their present position position present their gt dfeet social different to ng ebs göçmen serbest theoretical discussion discussion theoretical

decision to migra to decision

such as Anatolian Anatolian as such ffrt generation first of When referring to to referring When re not entitled not re in wt their with tions

thereasonsand historiograph I found out found I i.e.

Muslim Muslim granted granted - , laden laden i.e ned ned . te te ., y I

CEU eTD Collection may argue that one’s class and social and class one’s that argue may one communities diversity, on itself Muslim prided that state were Yugoslav the threaten could extent who groups as what understood to answer to order in Likewise, leave. to decision that considers marked have may interviewees ethnic that acknowledge beingHowever,cite by thoseYug who targeted period. Ottoman the from over left property of lots owned still who Muslims many were which migrate Five First the by Turkey for capitali dynamics cultural to point that stories offer interviewee The period. this describes scholarship bottom programscleansing of ideology the in embodied scholarship Turkish Whereas retraction ofinthe Balkans Ottoman rule andearly policies cleansing of thestates Balkan nation Balkans period. - st society, etc.) that informed their decisions to leave their ancestral homes in the Balkansthe in homes ancestral leavetheir to decisions their informed that society, etc.) st or

up approach up

to Turkey since these reforms targeted wealthy landowners and professionals, among among professionals, and landowners wealthy targeted reforms these since Turkey to whic . religious Likewise even ar even h opts for for opts h h prohibition the - Year Plan (1947 Plan Year

other the

( that informed the informed that e.g gue that they had they that gue affiliations , from the from

many of the of many early formative period of the FRPY. the of period formative early , isi ad aiir ties familiar and kinship ., communities communities a otniy f ulm itmod n h Balkans the in victimhood Muslim of continuity

actual migrants’ testimonies demonstrates how wrongly charged charged wrongly how demonstrates testimonies migrants’ actual caricaturizes f ern hasavs affected headscarves wearing of c . muim a ommunism -

1951) 1951) interviewees neetnl, hn hy mentioned they when Interestingly,

position rather position accounts oralthe 1968, to 1953 wavefrommigration

ee agtd y h Five the by targeted were religious liberties religious as the as

the the d atheism nd 119

oslav authorities because of their class status also their class authoritiesof status because also oslav most important most cite the FPRY’s the cite

nationalist and political agenda of Yugoslavia Yugoslavia of agenda political and nationalist

, promises of wealth and prosperity in a a in prosperity and wealth of promises , than religious than , thus showing that different conditions different that showing thus ,

s at n pre o erir Balkan earlier of parcel and part as

Out of ten interviewees, only one only interviewees, ten of Out factor i factor

economic reforms implemented implemented reforms economic i family’ his - Year plan plan Year identity was important in this this in important was identity nforming

religion

and other people’s people’s other and regardless of their their of regardless their decision to to decision their

on bc to back going ms of most , more complex complex more as the the on .

CEU eTD Collection QuestionnaireAppendices:

17) 16) 15) 14) 13) 12) 11) 10) 9) 8) 7) 6) 5) 4) 3) 2) 1)

If the interviwee is a member of migrant association: When did you become a member? a become you did When association: migrant of member a is interviwee the If school? goto they Did youchildren? have your Do family. aboutsomething know to like Iwould youryou wasWhat inTurkey?start did When towork? occupation youWhere didu settle youyou whom did When With arrive toTurkey? arrived and how? came migration across toin process? your happenedpropertyWhat with inYugosla your wereWhat migrate? decision factors thatinfluenced to about Turkey? know you did what yes, If arrival? your before Turkey of knowlegde any have you Did youryouHow did decision tomigrate? make your thereWas family Party? anyonefromawho wasofthe member Communist how?) and you encouraged who yes, (If Turkey? for Yugoslavia leave to encouraged you Were How leisure time? neighbours your you with would relationship How your describe neighbourhood. your about something me Tell with. lived you whom youyour How life would describe invillag youWhere and Yugoslavia? whom lived within What it means to you means it What to be a thisassociation? member to of What was reaction to your arrival? With whom youyour whom wasWhat your reactionWith to were arrival? time? of spending most IfyouDid Turkey any provide were did,what benefits? they? you challenges any there Were started? migration of process the how me tell you Can were

the pe

ople from you from ople

pon yourpon arrival? r surroundings

120

e/town? (Tellyour meabout the people house, e/town?

treated bytreated authorities? thelocal via before yourbefore arrivalvia Turkey? to

at that time? How did you spend you did How time? that at

your

CEU eTD Collection Gori_djvu.txt http://www.archive.org/stream/AromunskoVlaskiTragoviUGori/ Aljabak T Akif 2003 Macedonia Burçu. Ellis, Akan New York, 2009. Masters Bruce and Gábor Ágoston, A Herzegovina: and Bosnia in Nation ‘Muslim’ Historiography a of Discussion Historiographical “Formation Fikret. Adanır, Inno Empire Ottoman Kaiser FikretAdanır, Hilmar and Interwarin the Period Turkey to Muslims of Emigration on Turkey and Yugoslavia Between Agreement [The PATA,” И AB Bibliography

ü CE rk ДИћ , vations

. Љ G

M ABA öç , , . “ .

men AB Y . Sadik . E Њ Boulder, CO: East European Monographs: New York: Columbia University Press, Press, University Columbia York: New Monographs: European East CO: Boulder, ü

cel ( ДИ ve dited by René Lebouttedited by René MYC Y

. E last accessed May 14,2012).

M ” Olay

jA dited byFikret

ü I

Idrizi n lteci hdw eelge: eoy n Iett Aog Urban Among Identity and Memory Genealogies: Shadow ]

. Avdija] [Avdic, ” [ ı” irtos n Mgat i Hsoia Prpcie Praece and Permanencies Perspective. Historical in Migrants and Migrations ЛИ Novopazarski zbornik

Dernekleri . Y MAHCKO ü cel “ . Aroumunsko ”

. Incident Adanır andAdanır Faroqi Suraiya

I “Migration, Deportation and Deportation “Migration, Nation n .

Federasyonu Encyclopedia of The Ottoman Empire Ottoman The of Encyclopedia . Г The Florence: P.I.EFlorence:

“JY . CTAHOBH ]

T - toas n te akn: Dsuso on Discussion A Balkans: the and Ottomans

vla ü 15 rk Г 121 š OC

ki ( D )

1991

: ü Л 23. nyas ИШ OBEHCKO tragovi - Peter Lang Brussels, 2000 Peter S.A.,

): ı TBA Y Y TBA 112

[ Turkish .

- Leiden, Brill,Boston: 2002 125. u Aromunsko

- TYPCK П

World Gori EP - Building: The Case of the Building: ofthe The Case И .” O И ] 52 ]

- . Y Vlaski Internet Archive Archive Internet Facts on File, Inc. File, on Facts П ( ИЗ PE 1979 ME Г - Tragovi OBOP ulm in Muslims )

Ђ . (

Istanbul . Y

И Д -

u BA - O :

CEU eTD Collection Bornat, Joanna and Arzu Öztürkmen Arzu and Joanna Bornat, Multiethnic States Z. Milica Bookman, Nathan,Paris: Editions 1997. Daniel. Bertaux, http://www.rifatbali.com/images/stories/dokumanlar/basel.pdf Nationalism Yugoslavia toTurkey] (1920 Arnavutlar Özgür. Nürcan Baklacıoğlu, Post the of Immigrants Muslim Macedonia From Case The Turkey: in Identity and “Citizenship Beltan. Sude Bahar, [Collection: Commission for National Minorities] Arhiv Jugoslavije [Archives of Yugoslavia] 38, Minorities] National for Commission [Collection: [ Jugoslavije Arhiv Greenwood 2009 Publishing Group, Folklife ai Rft . Pltc o Triiain uig h Snl Pry Period Party Single the During Turkification of “Politics N. Rifat Bali, [ Jugoslavije Arhiv B.Allcock, John 1 - 25. Eie by Edited .

. Edited by Hans ie tre: n tnscooia Perspective Ethnosociological An Stories: Life Explaining Yugoslavia . - London: Frank Class,2002. 1990) 1990) i Lce Teea . aga, and Vaughan, A. Theresa Locke, Liz rhvs f Yugoslavia of Archives rhvs f Yugoslavia of Archives . tnc rus n oin Eooi Cmeiin n Mgain in Migration and Competition Economic Motion: in Groups Ethnic Istanbul: Derin Yayınları,2011. Frin oiy n Mgain Migration Migration: and Policy [Foreign -

Lukas Kieser. Dış Politika ve Göç: Yugoslavya’dan Türkiye’ye Göçlerde Göçlerde Türkiye’ye Yugoslavya’dan Göç: ve Politika Dış .

. ” MA “Oral History “Oral

(London: Hurst&Company, 2000). . CK SKJ SKJ . CK XVII,

London: I.B.London: 2006 Taurus, thesis, Boğaziçi University 2006. 122 ]

] . .

Kolekcija Kolekcija

1969

CKSKJ 1956 CKSKJ . ” I n -

1961 (CKSJ XVIII),1961 (CKSJ file K Encyclopedia of Women’s Folklore and and Folklore Women’s of Encyclopedia

file file Kmsj z ncoan manjine nacionalne za Komisija : : Komisija za nacionalne manjine manjine nacionalne za Komisija :

aln Greenhill Pauline . ( . K

- last accessed June 4,2012). June last accessed - 3 Tasae by Translated . 196 , unit 16 , unit 0 (507), XVIII (507), 0 .

- 36, .

f Albanians of ”

In 6 - . 7. Turkey Beyond Beyond Turkey

Abingdon,OX: - o Wengaf Tom - 90 Turkish 1980 3, unit 1 3, unit - K4/7, folio K4/7,

- from from

36.

CEU eTD Collection eo Edvin.“‘Re Pezo, http://www.ejts.org/document565.html Social Practices AComparative Perspective ofkinship. post et communiste l’Albanie dans politique souillure et incontrollable parenté biographie’: “La Gilles. Rapper, de 2007 Macedonia in Ethnicity and Class Migration, Friction: NecessityContemporary “FromPastto Rozita. Dimova, 1981 History and Biography Bertaux 154. Consequences] its and Turkey to Yugoslavia from [Migrations Çavuşoğlu, Halim. “Yugoslavya the 1930s in Minorities the and Nationalism Turkish Kemalism: and Assimilation “Race, Soner. Çağaptay, KostovicovaBojicic and Vesna Trans in Balkans,” the The and Turkey Between Ears: Links Your Us Lend Statesmen Balkans, “Friends, Esra. Bulut, Uppsal Magnusson Kjell of Honour in Essays Currents. Xavier Bougarel, Slavic Muslims to Turkey (1918 Turkey to Muslims Slavic

: .

1 a MultiethnicPapers 49,2005 - - 14. im, sbl. Te ie itr Apoc to Approach History Life “The Isabell. Wiame, . ”

Middle Eastern Studies Middle Eastern . ”

Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Social for Institute Planck Max . -

oqeig pc’ Ygsa Mgain oiis n Eirto o Non of Emigration and Policies Migration Yugoslav Space’: Conquering “Balkan Muslim Diasporas and the Idea of a ‘European Islam ‘European a of Idea the and Diasporas Muslim “Balkan - communiste . Edited by Edited . - Dzelilovic . – ” -

1941) Makedonya Topraklarından Türkiye’ye GöçlerMakedonya TopraklarındanNedenleri Türkiye’ye ve Daniel Bert Daniel European Journal of Turkish Studies Turkish of Journal European

40 .

( 3 .

” last accessed May 27,2012). ( 2004 . I n New York, 2008. New Transnationalism in the Balkans the in Transnationalism T aux. aux. 123 ): r an

Eie by Edited . s SAGE Studies in International Sociology 23, Sociology International in Studies SAGE na - 101. tio .

t l e td o Itra Migration Internal of Study he Societies

, Working Paper no. 4 Halle/Salle, Halle/Salle, 4 no. Paper Working , oilv ui e alii et Dulić Tomislav .

Bilig, Bilig,

rntrioil P Transterritorial , , Thematic issues 4, The The 4, issues Thematic , Spring - . tt ad tt in State and State

Edited by Edited

1 (2007) 41 . ’” I .

n: Uppsala: Uppsala:

Balkan Denisa Denisa o : liti . 123 ” c I s . n ” - : -

CEU eTD Collection Kirişçi, Kemal. “Post Second World Second “Post Kemal. Kirişçi, World. Modern CambridgeUniversity Press, 2008 the in Turkey 4 Vol. Turkey: of History Cambridge “ Kemal. Kirişçi, Practices Immigration and Citizenship Eastern Studies Turkish “Disaggregating Kemal. Kirişçi, Keyder. Çağlar Keyder, 191 J Toumarkine Alexandre Overview and Jeanne Hersant, 1912 Ryan. Gingeras, http://ejts.revues.org/index629.html Studies Journal ofTurkish Benoit Fliche, M Mi Perspectives onTurkey http://ejts.revues.org/index397.html ov ün g a 8 r nov c - a - 1923 1941 h ti

e o n i Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Inc.:Lanham, Publishers, 1999 Oxford, Rowman&Littlefield Boulder,New York, n c : R.Ol .

, ”

. ( ”

Vladan in European Journal of Turkish Studies ofTurkish Journal European Oxford: Oxford University Oxford Press,Oxford: 2009).

o . .

t d

h 36 “The Setting “The Sca Patcs n Mblsto o Knhp A Introduction An Kinship: of Mobilisation and Practices “Social e o e Sorrowful Shores: Violence, Ethnicity, and the End of the Ottoman Empire, Empire, Ottoman the of End the and Ethnicity, Violence, Shores: Sorrowful nb v irto ad uky te yais f tt, oit ad politics and Society State, of Dynamics the Turkey: and Migration

, . i

3 P o “ I

s o I u ( t n June 2000 s rg ori .

t Spring 12(1995) - S

Y V j ea , e ugo e 4

rc 1 rl . ( - ” a h 2006 2 (2008) s g

l I a of

n ): G v . Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local the and Global the Between Istanbul:

1 m ) H . (

- R

( - 22. bH o last accessed 4,2012). June last accessed May 28,2012). eg War Immigration from Balka from Immigration War m : , i

56 e

on : 2009 l a - 61 19 , nd? 67 - . 77. . 124

th Mus .

2 (

“Hometown Organizations in Turkey: An An Turkey: in Organizations “Hometown - 21 2005 li

m st

M C )

e i n g t r u a r ti y on .

dtd by Edited n Countries to Turkey,” to Countries n f r om dtd by Edited

Y u g

os . Edited by Edited . U l a l f v ea Kasaba Reşat

i a . B ”

t r . o unnbau European European ”

Middle Middle . . Çağlar Çağlar ”

r k New New The The e e y r

. .

CEU eTD Collection Greece.” 2001. diss.,University ofMichigan, PhD Recollec of “Genres Penelope. Papailias, Ltd.,Book Services 1971. King. R. Robert and E. Stephen Palmer, 1821 Muslims “ Justin. McCarthy, 2012) http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/edebiyat/guneydoguavrupa/files/12.pdf FakültesiBölümü Tarih South the for (1944 Girişimleri Macedonia] of Integration and Establishment Olan Ilgili ile 5 April the York, 14, 2000. New at (ASN), Nationalities presented of Study Kosovo’, the for and Association the Macedonia of Convention of Annual Turks Identity: Civic and Expect Ethnic to ‘Between What Kosovo: of “Turks Şule. Kut, 2012). 511g%3d% http://www.kucukcekmece.bel.tr/kucukcekmece/detay.aspx?SectionID=PMO1LxuU1hr6IoJQtL Küçukç Kovacevic, sdvora Nada. “Pastir 2010) Konuk,

Lazarov, . .

ekmece Municipality. Kader.

Lazar. 3d&ContentID=WEKZNfXlTb8WB0BToALrFw%3d%3d - - 1922 European Studies] Studies] European

East West Mimesis: Auerbach in Turkey in Auerbach Mimesis: West East “Büyük Güçler ve Türkiye’nin Makedonya Devletinin Kurulmasi ve Birleşmesi ve Kurulmasi Devletinin Makedonya Türkiye’nin ve Güçler “Büyük The Land to be Lost be to Land The .

Princeton: Darwin 1995. Press, : 159

- 171 . . ”

Politika 1) 1982 (12), - 1960)”[ . ” Yugoslav Comunism and Macedonian Question Macedonian and Comunism Yugoslav tion: History, Testimony and Archive in Contemporary in Archive and Testimony History, tion: I . n

May 26, 2005. May Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman of Cleansing Ethnic The Exile: and Death

h Get Migration Great The Güneydoğu Avrupa Arıştırmaları Dergisi Arıştırmaları Avrupa Güneydoğu 125 - 1998

. ”

e ril prl bsd n uhrs paper author’s on based partly article he Istanbul:

(Stanford: Stanford University Press, Press, University Stanford (Stanford:

sabl nvriei Edebiyat Üniversitesi, Istanbul

( last accessed February 19, 19, February accessed last

(last accessed(last April 19, n te Initiatives the and

. [ Journal Gazele for th

CEU eTD Collection Sarajevo: 1977 Svjetlost, revolucija i pitanje Nati [The borbe“ narodnooslobodilačke svjetlu u Jugoslaviji u pitanje “Nacionalno Broz. Josip Tito, Migration (Spring, 1999) Studies Migration and History Oral Stories: “Moving Alistair. Thompson, 2012 Hungary 86 Report/205, Background Rankovic “Aleksandar Slobodan. Stankovic, domovinom Enviro sredini” novoj prolagođavanje njihovo i Tursku u Muslimana jugoslavenskih “Iseljavanje Sulejman. Smlatic, 1993. Hugh. Poulton, Dialogue the Art of Pope, Nicole Berkeley:California UniversityPress, of 2011.

http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/86 Genre as History “Oral Alessandro. Portelli, Christine. Philiou, nl usin n uolva n ih o Pol’ Lbrto Movement] Liberation People’s of Light in Yugoslavia in Question onal ) .

n ment] .

Zagreb, 1978 and Hugh. .

[Emigration of Yugoslav Muslims to Turkey and Their Adaptation to a New New a to Adaptation Their and Turkey to Muslims Yugoslav of [Emigration Iseljeništvo naroda i narodnosti Jugoslavije i njegove uzajamne veze s s veze uzajamne njegove i Jugoslavije narodnosti i naroda Iseljeništvo akn Mnrte ad tts n Conflict in States and Minorities Balkan: . igah o a Epr: oenn Otmn i te g o Revolution of Age the in Ottomans Governing Empire: an of Biography Madison, WI:1997. Wisconsin, University of

Te ainl usin n Rvlto] Eie by Edited Revolution]. and Question National [The Turkey andAfter Unveiled: Atatürk . : :

24 251 - - 3 37. - - 256. 4, 1983 147,

- 1 - Ygsai, pn oit Archives Society Open Yugoslavia, 9 . - ” oiia Poie f Yu of Profile Political 126

The Battle of Valle Giulia: Oral History and History Oral Giulia: Valle of Battle The - . 3 . London: Murray, 1997. John - 147.shtml London: Minority Rights Group, Group, Rights Minority London:

olv Stalinist goslav

( last accessed May May accessed last . ”

Oral History Oral ai Suljević Kasim .

I n . Nacionalno Nacionalno . ” Budapest, Budapest,

RAD 27 13, 13, , 1 . CEU eTD Collection http://focus 1999/2000) Türkeistudien. für Zentrum Istanbul, [ Sempozyumu Göç Ulusararası on Report “A Sabattin. Zaim, http://ejts.revues.org/index2583. Engineering,” 2003 Ü 1934. of http://ejts.revues.org/index822.html Law Settlement Erol. Ülker, Turkish the of (1923 decade http://ejts.revues.org/index822.html first the in communities Muslim Republic the of “Assimilation Erol. Ülker, http://www.imir Bulgaria Society of Rebuilding and Consequences Bulgaria from Migrations “Turkish Omer. Turan,

Üngör, Ümit U. “Geographies of Nationalism and Violence: Rethinking Young Turk ‘Social Turk Young Rethinking Violence: and Nationalism of “Geographies U. Ümit Üngör, lker .

, H . ü

Turkey, June 2006. Turkey, June

dai - .

“Assimilation, Security “Assimilation, migration.hwwi.de/index.php?id=1234&L=1 .

European Journal of Turkish Studies Journal ofTurkish European Makedonya - bg.org/imir/books/Forced_Ethnic_Mig - 1934) .

” G

öç lerinin üki aruh e Znrm fr Türkeistudien für Zentrums des Jahrbuch Türkei the Last Yugoslavian Immigrants.” A Immigrants.” Yugoslavian Last the Conference on the Internat the on Conference html ( Studies Turkish of Journal European ”

( and Geographical Nationalization in Interwar Tur Interwar in Nationalization Geographical and (last last acessed 4,2012). June uoen ora o Trih Studies Turkish of Journal European

last accessed May 5,2012). 50. accessed May 4,2012). Y . ı l ofrne ed 22 held Conference ı nda 127

Birlik .

Forced ” 7 (2008). rations.pdf

Yaz (lastMay accessed 29,2012). i onal Migration held in Zeytinburnu in held Migration onal

lar tnc irto o te Balkans: the on Migration Ethnic

- Bornova (last May accessed 27,2012) 3 eray 05 n Sofia, in 2005 February 23 n unpublished paper unpublished n , Izmir : Meta

key: The The key: Münster

(2007). (2008) Bas from ı m ]. . - , .

CEU eTD Collection

128