Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2011/April

Serbian writer, Serbian literature

In his written testament Selimovic himself declared himself of being a Serb by ethnicity, Serbian by national affiliation and that his work and language are part of Serbian literature exclusively. I am very sorry to notice that not even did he not consider himself a Bosniak, but also denied the existence of separate Bosniak ethnic group. He also denied the existence of separate Bosnian literature and his posthumous association with any other literature except Serbian, specifically Bosnian. In earlier versions of the page, there was a translation of his written will, those who had a problem with it and removed it cannot and will not make him more of a Bosniak and more of a part of Bosnian literature, the existence of which he strongly denied. Serb, Serbian, Serbian literature, period. 93.86.33.214 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the link to his letter to the Serbian academy of science and arts. I think Selimović left to Beograd in the late 1970s for perceived misunderstanding by his fellow countrymen. It is not an accident that the so-called Muslim chetnik company used his name during the Bosnian war. --Miacek (t) 12:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make much difference. Ethnicity is something man doesn't change easily. The use of term 'Bosniak' in ethnic sense is not older than 1990's. It first came into use more than a decade after Selimovic's death, and during his life when the idea of a separate Muslim ethnicity in Yugoslavia was first introduced, Selimovic decided to go against it. Bosniaks are a young, modern nation whose core are Slavic Muslims from Bosnia, but one cannot apply modern ethnic keys retroactively, before the nation/ethnicity even came to existence. Especially not in this case, when it was introduced to Selimovic when it was created in 1960's, and he decided against it. As if someone today created a separate Texas independent state and introduced the idea of Texas ethnicity and nationality and local dialect of English to be a 'Texasian language' and forcibly included all loyal Americans from Texas into it, even those who lived long before. 93.86.34.90 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One can and does apply ethnic terms retroactively. All nations/ethnicities were invented in certain point in time. It's preposterous to claim that Slavic Muslims as a separate nation did not exist before the formal introduction of the term Bosniak. Selimović is today prevalently treated as a writer of Bosniak cultural milieu, and we must follow what categorization on Wikipedia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right to some extent. People can and do apply ethnic terms retroactively. A lot of chauvinists do that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.65.164 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you? An Eskimo chauvinist perhaps? --Biblbroks (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I what? Eskimos can't be chauvinists. They're so super-cool, anything said in their favor can't be exaggerated. --93.87.239.109 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you apply ethnic terms retroactively? So Eskimos can't be chauvinists, yes? Haven't you just said something in their favour that is perhaps exaggerated? --Biblbroks (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't. Eskimos existed (under that name) before Mesa was even born (so did Canadians). I already said that there can't be any exaggeration concerning Eskimos. But, enough with jokes... I really don't like these "he was blue/no, he was green" kind of quarrel, but some informations in this article simply contradicts what he himself said. There seems to be double standards when it comes to criteria on which nationality of people from former Yugoslavia is determined. It looks like the begining of the article is trying to wangle reader to one POV.--93.87.239.109 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you? Who was then that made this edit - I think it could be considered as an application of some ethnic terms, and that retroactively. Don't you think that stating Meša was an Eskimo is a bit of an exaggeration concerning Eskimos - disregarding if it's in the positive or negative way - IMHO, it is somewhat an exaggeration, and, also IMO, it is concerning the Eskimos. That was for the jokes' part. As for the look of the article's beggining, what exactly do you mean? Which part, what POV? Please, be more specific! This is rather controversial topic, and due to this fact the article suffered quite some deal of biased edits - so, yes, I do believe it could, and should be improved. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're such an Eskimo-denier, and anti-Eskimo chauvinist. Just stop it! 'Key? :-* Now, let's get on essentially and formally serious part. I meant on introduction. Apart from it being aesthetically "ugly" (does it really needs to mention "Bosnia" that much?), we don't need to pretend why some editors are pushing Bosnia and Bosniaks so much. Furthermore, after reading it one could conclude that he was an ethnologist, not novelist. I mean, imagine article on Sophocles that starts with: Sophocles was a ancient Greek writer from Attica who is considered to have been one of the greatest classical writers. His most notable works deal with Greece and the culture of the Greek inhabitants of the Ancient Greek world. I don't know about the person(s) who wrote that part, but I thought that themes from his novels were somewhat deeper than that. Than again, I might be wrong, because I was forced to read his works long ago, so I might have forgotten something. But I sincerely doubt that's the case.

Next, when it comes to his nationality, it gets trickier, but only because some editors suddenly insist on "western" concept of that term (citizenship). If you choose that road, he can be considered Yugoslavian. But, in that case one have to ask why aren't other people from that era considered only Yugoslavian too, like this one, or this one. In that case all the Croats from Serbia (for an example) are of serbian nationality, and the concept of national minority doesn't makes sense at all anymore. If you choose to interpret nationality as "nacionalnost" ("ethnicity"?) than things are as clear as they can get. We have his own opinion on that, and on the literature to which he belongs.

I think it's rather vulgar to accent his nationality so much in the article, and he (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't deserve that. Maybe it would be better (not best) to delete whole introduction and the controversial part from teh box, write the new introduction which would contain only dry facts (e.g. place and date of birth/death, occupation, criminal record, etc.), and than, write his own opinion on that matter later in the article (which is mostly already written), than to have constant changes in the article. Regarding Bosnian muslim/Bosniak dilemma... I reaaaaally don't have the time nor will to go thoroughly into that, I'll just say this: you can't say that Stefan Nemanja or Bodin were Montenegrins, even though they were part of the population which included the ancestors of todays Montenegrins. The example is a little drastic, but only to make it easier to understand. I think that ethnic and national names that people use today shouldn't be used when we speak about period which happened before the "complete" formation of that ethnic or national group (i.e. retroactively). I don't want to go (at all) into whether, or which of that processes were over during the life of his parents. Somebody more versed in that area should decide that. But, I think the presented principle should be used.--Supercooleskimo (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)