We have all heard of the Crusades: there were a bunch of them, a lot of people died, and they were religiously fueled to reclaim the Holy land. Well, in American Studies this week, I couldn't help but connect those tumultuous events to the Bosnian Civil War. It was similar, the Christians (In this case Serbia and Croatia) against the Muslims (Those from Bosnia). It seemed strange to me that, thousands of years after the Crusades, we have an event that mimics it in some ways. Now, I understand that the connection is not flawless, but again, it cannot be overlooked. For starters, multiple nations that had previous conflicts came together again, this being Croatia and Serbia, just as before, where in the initial Crusades the same thing occurred with France, Britain, and others. The difference is that the goal of the Bosnian war was not necessarily to reclaim a single city, but territory in general. Additionally, the other goal of the Crusades were to eliminate as many of a certain religion as possible, or a persecution, which is prevalent in the Bosnian war as well. Combatants on both sides, although more so on the side of the Christians, participated in purposeful attacks on the civilian population, including rapes and slaughters. The one part of the association that I cannot fit in in the intervention of the United Nations. Now, my knowledge of the Crusades is currently limited, but it does not seem as if an external force intervened all that much. So, a question I would leave with any readers is: Can you fit in the United Nations to this? If so, how? If not, why?
Additionally, I would question the success of this "Crusade." It seems as if the goals of the Christians were to eliminate and conquer, and they certainly eliminated many, but did they really succeed in terms of territory? I mean, they got pushed back by the UN, and they were not allowed to keep the area. Also, the repurcussions seemed pretty taxing, and the world's attention was re-focused on the Balkans in a negative light. So, I would also ask the questions: What did this accomplish? How does it compare to how the original Crusades ended?
-Chavez Rodriguez
Wow, that's an interesting parallel to draw. I think there are a number of ways that the Bosnian conflict can be compared to the Crusades, which you pointed out, although compacted into a much smaller time period. While the Crusades persisted for centuries, the Bosnian conflict lasted primarily within the decade. You pointed out that the UN doesn't really fit the metaphor, but I don't think it needs to fit. Like I said, with Bosnia you're looking at conflict on a much smaller scale than in the Crusades. That means it is has a greater impact when large power blocks (like the UN) to get involved. As for what it accomplished, probably not much on either side. Bosnia's demographics are still a notoriously mixed bag of Christians and Muslims.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Spencer, you pointed out a lot of points that compare the Bosnian Conflict to the Crusades. The UN does not fit what you suggested. The UN is powerful and when it gets involved with smaller conflicts it is going to leave a bigger mark.
ReplyDeleteI really see how the conflict was very interesting in how the conflict came out of a disputed area. I really think that the UN should really make more of an effort to solve problems instead of allowing a genocide to occur.
ReplyDelete