{"title":"南斯拉夫国家社会主义之前和期间种族的跨国形成","authors":"C. Baker","doi":"10.7765/9781526126610.00009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"and migration, ideas of race, as well as ethnicity and religion, have demonstrably formed part of how people from the Yugoslav region have understood their place in Europe and the world. The region’s history during, and after, the era of direct European colonialism differed from the USA’s, France’s or Brazil’s; but this did not exclude it from the networks of ‘race in translation’ (Stam and Shohat 2012) which ran and run across the whole globe, not just around the postcolonial Atlantic. Among the political, social and cultural ‘legacies’ that the Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova (2005a: 69) argues give regions like the Balkans their intellectual coherence are, therefore, formations of racialised difference in areas to which the Yugoslav region has historical connections – even though Todorova’s own work on Balkan history is ambivalent about the utility of race. Perceptions that south-east Europe is distinct enough to be ‘a region’ arise, for Todorova, when historical experiences associated with specific regimes (and their collapse) intersect with constructions of territory. ‘The Balkans’, one such region-as-legacy, depends on the idea that the legacy of Ottoman rule in Europe still explains something about it; ‘Eastern Europe’ often stands for the perceived legacy of the collapse of multi-national long-nineteenth-century but was really, Todorova suggested, based on perceptions of the legacy of state socialism (2005a: 69–73). These perceptions themselves have often, wrongly, been bases for treating eastern Europe as inherently lagging behind the West – and yet it is precisely the history of fin-de-siècle European scientific racism, 3","PeriodicalId":263037,"journal":{"name":"Race and the Yugoslav region","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transnational formations of race before and during Yugoslav state socialism\",\"authors\":\"C. Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.7765/9781526126610.00009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"and migration, ideas of race, as well as ethnicity and religion, have demonstrably formed part of how people from the Yugoslav region have understood their place in Europe and the world. The region’s history during, and after, the era of direct European colonialism differed from the USA’s, France’s or Brazil’s; but this did not exclude it from the networks of ‘race in translation’ (Stam and Shohat 2012) which ran and run across the whole globe, not just around the postcolonial Atlantic. Among the political, social and cultural ‘legacies’ that the Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova (2005a: 69) argues give regions like the Balkans their intellectual coherence are, therefore, formations of racialised difference in areas to which the Yugoslav region has historical connections – even though Todorova’s own work on Balkan history is ambivalent about the utility of race. Perceptions that south-east Europe is distinct enough to be ‘a region’ arise, for Todorova, when historical experiences associated with specific regimes (and their collapse) intersect with constructions of territory. ‘The Balkans’, one such region-as-legacy, depends on the idea that the legacy of Ottoman rule in Europe still explains something about it; ‘Eastern Europe’ often stands for the perceived legacy of the collapse of multi-national long-nineteenth-century but was really, Todorova suggested, based on perceptions of the legacy of state socialism (2005a: 69–73). These perceptions themselves have often, wrongly, been bases for treating eastern Europe as inherently lagging behind the West – and yet it is precisely the history of fin-de-siècle European scientific racism, 3\",\"PeriodicalId\":263037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Race and the Yugoslav region\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Race and the Yugoslav region\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526126610.00009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Race and the Yugoslav region","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526126610.00009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
移民、种族观念以及种族和宗教观念显然构成了南斯拉夫地区人民如何理解他们在欧洲和世界上的地位的一部分。该地区在欧洲直接殖民时代期间和之后的历史与美国、法国或巴西的历史不同;但这并没有把它排除在“翻译中的种族”(Stam and Shohat 2012)的网络之外,这个网络在全球范围内运行,而不仅仅是在后殖民时期的大西洋。保加利亚历史学家Maria Todorova (2005a: 69)认为,在政治、社会和文化“遗产”中,给予巴尔干等地区智力连贯性的是,因此,在与南斯拉夫地区有历史联系的地区形成了种族化的差异——尽管Todorova自己关于巴尔干历史的著作对种族的效用持矛盾态度。对于Todorova来说,当与特定政权(及其崩溃)相关的历史经验与领土建设相交时,东南欧足以成为“一个地区”的观念就会出现。“巴尔干半岛”就是这样一个遗产地区,它依赖于这样一种观点,即奥斯曼帝国在欧洲的统治遗产仍然可以解释一些事情;“东欧”通常代表19世纪多民族崩溃的遗产,但实际上,托多诺娃认为,是基于对国家社会主义遗产的看法(2005:69-73)。这些观念本身常常错误地成为把东欧视为天生落后于西方的基础——然而,这恰恰是欧洲科学种族主义终结的历史
Transnational formations of race before and during Yugoslav state socialism
and migration, ideas of race, as well as ethnicity and religion, have demonstrably formed part of how people from the Yugoslav region have understood their place in Europe and the world. The region’s history during, and after, the era of direct European colonialism differed from the USA’s, France’s or Brazil’s; but this did not exclude it from the networks of ‘race in translation’ (Stam and Shohat 2012) which ran and run across the whole globe, not just around the postcolonial Atlantic. Among the political, social and cultural ‘legacies’ that the Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova (2005a: 69) argues give regions like the Balkans their intellectual coherence are, therefore, formations of racialised difference in areas to which the Yugoslav region has historical connections – even though Todorova’s own work on Balkan history is ambivalent about the utility of race. Perceptions that south-east Europe is distinct enough to be ‘a region’ arise, for Todorova, when historical experiences associated with specific regimes (and their collapse) intersect with constructions of territory. ‘The Balkans’, one such region-as-legacy, depends on the idea that the legacy of Ottoman rule in Europe still explains something about it; ‘Eastern Europe’ often stands for the perceived legacy of the collapse of multi-national long-nineteenth-century but was really, Todorova suggested, based on perceptions of the legacy of state socialism (2005a: 69–73). These perceptions themselves have often, wrongly, been bases for treating eastern Europe as inherently lagging behind the West – and yet it is precisely the history of fin-de-siècle European scientific racism, 3