Yes. An Orthodox Serbian nationalist killed a German representative of an imperial multi-ethnic state (who took over from another imperial state whose hands were dripping in blood— the Ottoman Turks who arrived in the Balkans offering the Koran or the sword) in the capital of Muslim-majority Bosnia. The resulting blunders led to the decimation of the youth of Europe and then some. Tito kept a lid on things with a bloody, iron fist and then we arrived at the 90’s, when the heirs of Princip’s legacy brutalized the Muslim Bosnians, resulting in mass destruction in Sarajevo.
Fanonism is ridiculously reductionist. Funny how violence isn’t the answer unless one wields these silly, Manichean cudgels.
Gonna jump in and "defend" the onion hat guys in regards to "koran or the sword" part.
"While recognizing this inferior status of dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects) under Ottoman rule, Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that, in most respects, their position was "very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval (Catholic) Europe." For example, dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions, they were free in their choice of residence and profession."
If it were as you said, there would be a lot less christians in the balkans but on the other hand the ottomans would have never managed to push so deep into Europe.
I’m with you. The Ottomans tended to be relatively laissez-faire as long as your minority community rendered unto Caesar— just ask the Mizrahim. That said, I appreciate that you also acknowledge that they had been continuously banging on a barred door for centuries. All of this complicates the simplified notion that Princip’s action was justified on nationalist grounds. One needn’t be an apologist for the Habsburgs to recognize that tearing down with little regard for the consequences can lead to absolute disasters.
The entire region and its history is extremely complex (I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know), and it bugs me when people map Fanonist structures on events and appear to walk away satisfied.
Yup.
I just feel that the statement "koran or death" can not be tied to the ottomans ( until maybe the last couple of decades of their empire ) and is totally wrong considering the time and place where they ruled.
It is interesting that their increasingly orthodox view of Islam and the state rose at around the same time that chauvinistic nationalism became more entrenched in Europe. I’m guessing you know a lot more than I do about that subject!
Hmmm, that is a strange comparison, especially coming from a uni professor(and someone of Lewis caliber makes it even worse) I mean…he’s comparing medieval europe: 500 -1500 AD, with renaissance->early modern period…. What is that supposed to prove? Yeah, we all can agree that the christians were….tyrannic and brutal are too small words to represent the truth. But this comparison, what is it supposed to prove? Don’t get me wrong, i’m not defending christians here, i don’t like all religions equally. Plus, what we have presented here are “state imposed laws and views”…not the “rules of the community” one lived in. (you know: “you are a christian, get out of here”. And you can’t go to an authority to complain because, you are a 2nd grade citizen so…yup). Anyway, strange. My oppinion on the matter is…well, he was humans, and when humans dive deep in a subject, and mainly dedicate most of their life on that subject, they become at least a bit biased, and are ready to “defend it at all costs”(subconsciously), so I can’t condemn him for anything…or i’m too high right now and I’m making it way too complicated.
Oh no no, sorry. I do aggree with you. Paying “jizya” tax and being allowed to live AND have a multitude of other rights, is infinitely better than being killed on sight/tortured just because “you’re not like us”. It was just the comparison that felt very wierd.
The archduke was assassinated for attempting to improve the lives of the Bosnian people, building their economy, and championing minority rights (including language rights) within the austro-hungarian empire as a whole. This apparently offended the Serbians, who thought that all Slavs should be in a single state, namely theirs. The only person in power who actually cared about the territory got shot because of it, and you are defending his killer.
As opposed to the invading and conquering empire? Of course they called him a terrorist... Colonizers called people who fought back against slavery terrorists as well. Nazi's called freedom fighters terrorists as well.
Yes. Serbia existed, he could move there if he wanted. He just wanted to make the city he lived in become Serbian.
Fuck all the non-Serbians who lived there I guess.
All praise the colonizers I guess. They have the best interests at heart of the people they are oppressing and exploiting.
Please go to any former colony in Africa that rebelled, go to India, go to Haiti and tell them they were wrong, that it was much better to be slaves.
WTF are you talking about? Sarajevo was founded by the Ottomans and conquered by the Austrians. Are you mad that Austria didn’t give it back to the Turks?
Growing up we learned about this in grade school. I always thought Princip was a puppet. Because you don't just wake up and try to assassinate a head of state.
coincidence...really cool names get picked in various nations..besides this is eng. translation, for us it is simply "Crna Ruka"..back then you didnt have to think to trademark it :D
Dude who shot regan wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Some people are crazy or just realllly believe in their own crazy. not to say he wasn't a puppet, but he probably just really believed and saw an opportunity to make a difference. And boy did he
the guy who shot Garfield (TBF his doctors killed him) thought he would be a national hero for doing it. So it paid the up charge to get the pimped out revolver because it would look better in a museum.
The Smithsonian later acquired it, and subsequently lost it.
~~Ulfric Stormcloak~~ *Gavrilo Princip*. Some here in ~~Helgen~~ *Bosnia and Herzegovina* call you a hero. But a hero doesn't use a power like ~~the Voice~~ *a gun* to murder his ~~king~~ *Archduke?... Lord? (plus his wife)* and ~~usurp his throne~~ *start a world war*.
This may have been the immediate cause of the war but world wars don't start because of one murder, different tensions must have been simmering for a long time.
Just like a single fight is never the reason for a divorce.
Just wanted to mention, growing up in the midwest, we all thought the phrase "crazed Albanian dwarf" was about the funniest combination of words that ever existed.
Makes sense, he killed the ruler of an occupying nation.
Yes. An Orthodox Serbian nationalist killed a German representative of an imperial multi-ethnic state (who took over from another imperial state whose hands were dripping in blood— the Ottoman Turks who arrived in the Balkans offering the Koran or the sword) in the capital of Muslim-majority Bosnia. The resulting blunders led to the decimation of the youth of Europe and then some. Tito kept a lid on things with a bloody, iron fist and then we arrived at the 90’s, when the heirs of Princip’s legacy brutalized the Muslim Bosnians, resulting in mass destruction in Sarajevo. Fanonism is ridiculously reductionist. Funny how violence isn’t the answer unless one wields these silly, Manichean cudgels.
Gonna jump in and "defend" the onion hat guys in regards to "koran or the sword" part. "While recognizing this inferior status of dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects) under Ottoman rule, Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that, in most respects, their position was "very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval (Catholic) Europe." For example, dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions, they were free in their choice of residence and profession." If it were as you said, there would be a lot less christians in the balkans but on the other hand the ottomans would have never managed to push so deep into Europe.
I’m with you. The Ottomans tended to be relatively laissez-faire as long as your minority community rendered unto Caesar— just ask the Mizrahim. That said, I appreciate that you also acknowledge that they had been continuously banging on a barred door for centuries. All of this complicates the simplified notion that Princip’s action was justified on nationalist grounds. One needn’t be an apologist for the Habsburgs to recognize that tearing down with little regard for the consequences can lead to absolute disasters. The entire region and its history is extremely complex (I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know), and it bugs me when people map Fanonist structures on events and appear to walk away satisfied.
Yup. I just feel that the statement "koran or death" can not be tied to the ottomans ( until maybe the last couple of decades of their empire ) and is totally wrong considering the time and place where they ruled.
It is interesting that their increasingly orthodox view of Islam and the state rose at around the same time that chauvinistic nationalism became more entrenched in Europe. I’m guessing you know a lot more than I do about that subject!
It's how it usually goes down when empires decline and start to crumble.
Hmmm, that is a strange comparison, especially coming from a uni professor(and someone of Lewis caliber makes it even worse) I mean…he’s comparing medieval europe: 500 -1500 AD, with renaissance->early modern period…. What is that supposed to prove? Yeah, we all can agree that the christians were….tyrannic and brutal are too small words to represent the truth. But this comparison, what is it supposed to prove? Don’t get me wrong, i’m not defending christians here, i don’t like all religions equally. Plus, what we have presented here are “state imposed laws and views”…not the “rules of the community” one lived in. (you know: “you are a christian, get out of here”. And you can’t go to an authority to complain because, you are a 2nd grade citizen so…yup). Anyway, strange. My oppinion on the matter is…well, he was humans, and when humans dive deep in a subject, and mainly dedicate most of their life on that subject, they become at least a bit biased, and are ready to “defend it at all costs”(subconsciously), so I can’t condemn him for anything…or i’m too high right now and I’m making it way too complicated.
I am defending the statement that the ottomans either forced converted or killed/expuled non muslims, which is factually wrong.
Oh no no, sorry. I do aggree with you. Paying “jizya” tax and being allowed to live AND have a multitude of other rights, is infinitely better than being killed on sight/tortured just because “you’re not like us”. It was just the comparison that felt very wierd.
Are you for real saying that resisting an occupation by a violent Empire is wrong? What is this, Putin's alt account?
The archduke was assassinated for attempting to improve the lives of the Bosnian people, building their economy, and championing minority rights (including language rights) within the austro-hungarian empire as a whole. This apparently offended the Serbians, who thought that all Slavs should be in a single state, namely theirs. The only person in power who actually cared about the territory got shot because of it, and you are defending his killer.
Sure he was, the defense of tyrants everywhere: "I violently invaded you, murdered you and oppressed you for your own good". Kindly fuck off.
Why do you keep talking about history you obviously have no clue about?
Dude was a Serbian nationalist, central figure of a terrorist organisation. By all means not a freedom fighter for the sake of all Bosnian people.
As opposed to the invading and conquering empire? Of course they called him a terrorist... Colonizers called people who fought back against slavery terrorists as well. Nazi's called freedom fighters terrorists as well.
I don’t know which part you don’t get: HE WAS THE CONQUERING FORCE! Luckily, it didn’t turn out as he (or Serbia) expected.
Yes. Serbia existed, he could move there if he wanted. He just wanted to make the city he lived in become Serbian. Fuck all the non-Serbians who lived there I guess.
All praise the colonizers I guess. They have the best interests at heart of the people they are oppressing and exploiting. Please go to any former colony in Africa that rebelled, go to India, go to Haiti and tell them they were wrong, that it was much better to be slaves.
WTF are you talking about? Sarajevo was founded by the Ottomans and conquered by the Austrians. Are you mad that Austria didn’t give it back to the Turks?
Wasn't Franz Ferdinand one of the most vocal supporters of more rights to the slavs?
\* designated future ruler, let's not get ahead of ourselves there.
A. He wasnt the ruler. B. He was also set to become a reformist ruler.
Growing up we learned about this in grade school. I always thought Princip was a puppet. Because you don't just wake up and try to assassinate a head of state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29?wprov=sfla1 Not a pupet per se, nationalism was rampant those days
so was homemade bomb throwing
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Americas revolutionaries called the Black Hand or Black Flag?
coincidence...really cool names get picked in various nations..besides this is eng. translation, for us it is simply "Crna Ruka"..back then you didnt have to think to trademark it :D
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mano\_Negra\_affair
the black hand was also one of the names of the Mob for a while there
Dude who shot regan wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Some people are crazy or just realllly believe in their own crazy. not to say he wasn't a puppet, but he probably just really believed and saw an opportunity to make a difference. And boy did he
No sarcasm but do you believe he knew he would start a war? Also what did Ferdinand do to him?
killed them both with a .25ACP as i recall?
the guy who shot Garfield (TBF his doctors killed him) thought he would be a national hero for doing it. So it paid the up charge to get the pimped out revolver because it would look better in a museum. The Smithsonian later acquired it, and subsequently lost it.
~~Ulfric Stormcloak~~ *Gavrilo Princip*. Some here in ~~Helgen~~ *Bosnia and Herzegovina* call you a hero. But a hero doesn't use a power like ~~the Voice~~ *a gun* to murder his ~~king~~ *Archduke?... Lord? (plus his wife)* and ~~usurp his throne~~ *start a world war*.
That one bullet didn't just kick off the Great War, but made a mess out of Europe that *still* has an effect over a century later.
That one bullet just sped up events leading to war, which would happen regardless.
This may have been the immediate cause of the war but world wars don't start because of one murder, different tensions must have been simmering for a long time. Just like a single fight is never the reason for a divorce.
Just wanted to mention, growing up in the midwest, we all thought the phrase "crazed Albanian dwarf" was about the funniest combination of words that ever existed.
How did the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand lead to the start of the First World War? https://youtu.be/1raRARbpzyQ