Considering Serbo-Croatian is the same language, just called different things depending on what culture uses it, is it possible to keep a unified Serbo-Croatian/Illyrian identity? Even if the areas are divided by religious affiliation?
Before 1900, what were the Muslims in Bosnia considered to be, Serbs or Croats?
It's a bit more complicated than that. Serbian and Croatian are very similar because of linguistic convergence, not because they always were or something.
The Chakavian dialect of Croatian sounds extremely confounding to the average Serb. This was also the "dominant" Croatian literary dialect until more modern times, when Croatian was standardized after the speech of the Shtokavian Croats, who lived near Serbs and spoke the closest dialect to Serbian of all the Croats. There was a similar, though less drastic, development in Serbian. 99% of Serbian dialects are Shtokavian-type anyway, but it was standardized after the speech of Eastern Herzegovian Serbs - again, the dialect spoken by Serbs who lived near Croats.
Before 1900, what were the Muslims in Bosnia considered to be, Serbs or Croats?
I don't know about Bosnia specifically, but in Serbia, Muslim Serbs were called Turks.
They called themselves simply "muslims" or Bosnians. I would also like to point out that the demonym Muslimwith the capital M is archaic and outdated, same as "Negro" is in the United States.Before 1900, what were the Muslims in Bosnia considered to be, Serbs or Croats?
That's because that is what Serbs called them. They never called themselves that. The muslims in Serbia called themselves muslims, simply because they were largely ethnic Serbs who converted to Islam. Calling them "Turks" was just another way to make them into an "other" and justify later pogroms and massacres against them. There is even that old bogus story that the Turks brought the muslims from Anatolia on donkeys, again denying any possibility that their own people could possibly convert to a heathen faith.I don't know about Bosnia specifically, but in Serbia, Muslim Serbs were called Turks.
True, except nobody ever self-identified as a Turk, this was always featured as an appendage coming from outside sources (non-muslims) who considered all Balkan muslims "Turks" or holding to the "Turkish faith", that is Islam. There is even use of Mohammedan or Mohametan.Depends on the individual. Some considered themselves Serbs, others Croats, but most identified as the Bosnian Muslim community first, and as Croats/Serbs second or not at all.
They called themselves simply "muslims" or Bosnians. I would also like to point out that the demonym Muslimwith the capital M is archaic and outdated, same as "Negro" is in the United States.
That's because that is what Serbs called them. They never called themselves that. The muslims in Serbia called themselves muslims, simply because they were largely ethnic Serbs who converted to Islam. Calling them "Turks" was just another way to make them into an "other" and justify later pogroms and massacres against them. There is even that old bogus story that the Turks brought the muslims from Anatolia on donkeys, again denying any possibility that their own people could possibly convert to a heathen faith.
True, except nobody ever self-identified as a Turk, this was always featured as an appendage coming from outside sources (non-muslims) who considered all Balkan muslims "Turks" or holding to the "Turkish faith", that is Islam. There is even use of Mohammedan or Mohametan.
In Bosnia at least, before the national awakenings after the 1840s, few people identified themselves as Serbs or Croats, rather preferring to primarily state their religious identity, i.e. catholic or orthodox, to distinguish themselves from their muslim neighbors.
They called themselves simply "muslims" or Bosnians. I would also like to point out that the demonym Muslimwith the capital M is archaic and outdated, same as "Negro" is in the United States.
That's because that is what Serbs called them. They never called themselves that. The muslims in Serbia called themselves muslims, simply because they were largely ethnic Serbs who converted to Islam. Calling them "Turks" was just another way to make them into an "other" and justify later pogroms and massacres against them.
In Bosnia at least, before the national awakenings after the 1840s, few people identified themselves as Serbs or Croats, rather preferring to primarily state their religious identity, i.e. catholic or orthodox, to distinguish themselves from their muslim neighbors.
This is perhaps not related to this topic, but even today many Pomaks (like the Bosniaks Slavic speaking Muslims) in Bulgaria call themselves Turks, even if they don't speak Turkish and despite there being an actual Turkish minority in Bulgaria. So it certainly seems possible that this would happen in Bosnia or Serbia.Not really, it was simply a consequence of the Ottoman religion-based legal system which grouped all members of a single religious body together with the same group of rights and obligations, leading to outside identification with the culturally dominant one. As for the thesis that no Slavic-originating Muslims ever assimilated to a Turkish identity, that sounds pretty weird when we know there are millions of Turks originating from Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria and so on in modern day Turkey.
Presumably any actual Turkish officials or settlers around identified as Turks, too.
Depends on the individual. Some considered themselves Serbs, others Croats, but most identified as the Bosnian Muslim community first, and as Croats/Serbs second or not at all.
Others considered them 100% Croats, 100% Serbs or 100% Turks, depending on what political statement was being made.
That was before the 1860s. After that they were considered to be Muslim Serbs by the state (again, some of them really identified as such, some didn't).
In Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian Muslim is not capitalized, except in the case when it is to denote a nationality, Muslim by nationality. Today there are very few people who identify as Muslims by nationality in the Balkans, mostly as holdovers from the communist era.What do you mean by this?
Actually "Turk" was used sparingly and usually as a derogatory term, until Ataturk when the Turkish national consciousness formed. Most people referred to themselves by their religious domination precisely because they were ALL "Osmanli", or Ottoman subjects. Exceptions exist of course, especially in countries where there was already a strong national identity or which had been conquere relatively late or had semi-independence from the Porte (Serbia, Wallachia, etc.) This is all because of the unique Millet system in the Ottoman empire, which did not recognize ethnicity, but distinguished solely by religious affiliation.Not really, it was simply a consequence of the Ottoman religion-based legal system which grouped all members of a single religious body together with the same group of rights and obligations, leading to outside identification with the culturally dominant one. As for the thesis that no Slavic-originating Muslims ever assimilated to a Turkish identity, that sounds pretty weird when we know there are millions of Turks originating from Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria and so on in modern day Turkey.
Yes? I don't understand what you're getting at. There was no "Turkish" as you use it today, to signify Turkish nationality. This is an anachronism. This "Turkish official" could be from anywhere in the Ottoman Empire, from Skoplje to Alexandria. Turk was even used as a derogatory term, i.e. calling someone a "Turk from Anatolia" basically meant uneducated country bumpkin.Presumably any actual Turkish officials or settlers around identified as Turks, too.
Really? Do you happen to have any sources? I'm genuinely curious.That's highly debatable, even in central Bosnia there were known cases of people declaring as Serbs or Croats well before 1840. Again, not much of a need to distinguish themselves from Muslims when the legal system already does it on its own.
Actually "Turk" was used sparingly and usually as a derogatory term, until Ataturk when the Turkish national consciousness formed. Most people referred to themselves by their religious domination precisely because they were ALL "Osmanli", or Ottoman subjects. Exceptions exist of course, especially in countries where there was already a strong national identity or which had been conquere relatively late or had semi-independence from the Porte (Serbia, Wallachia, etc.) This is all because of the unique Millet system in the Ottoman empire, which did not recognize ethnicity, but distinguished solely by religious affiliation.
You are also somehow conflating what I said, that Muslims who lived in Bosnia or Serbia didn't call themselves Turks (which is what I assumed was being said) with Balkan Muslims moving to areas where Turks (in the modern sense) were the majority and assimilating into those communities. Nowhere did I say this was not true. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Slavic Balkan Muslims fled for Istanbul and the Anatolian coast with the retreat of the Ottoman Empire. There is a pretty telling trail of shipwrecked refugee settlements in Albania too. What I actually said is that these people had no legitimate reason to call themselves Turks, because Turkish nationality in the modern sense didn't exist. There was no point. They were Muslims according to the Millet system. They were Ottoman subjects according to law. That was all that mattered. The Ottoman Empire was a multicultural state based on religious groups.
Yes? I don't understand what you're getting at. There was no "Turkish" as you use it today, to signify Turkish nationality. This is an anachronism. This "Turkish official" could be from anywhere in the Ottoman Empire, from Skoplje to Alexandria. Turk was even used as a derogatory term, i.e. calling someone a "Turk from Anatolia" basically meant uneducated country bumpkin.
Really? Do you happen to have any sources? I'm genuinely curious.
I wasn't even getting at that, I was merely replying to another poster's inquiry as to the demonym used to label Muslims in the Balkans. I think you may have misread or misinterpreted what I wrote.