Serbia has always been occupied as a country by Britain, Ottoman Empire, nazis and Soviet Union. A state of ethno nationalism occurred during the reign of Serbian prime minister Siobodan Milosevic (80s) he aimed to make Yugoslavia whole again, a secondary intention to unite the people of Serbia but these neighbouring countries resisted. Resulting in smaller countries erupting in genocide. Belgrade therefore became a economic build up during this period that the president wished to create the Capitol of not only Serbia but the Capitol of Yugoslavia, “Belgrade is the world”.
Milosevic lost his power because he was later viewed as, “corrupted”. He ultimately set the chain reaction of genocides within Yugoslavia and turned to post soviet countries for support for example Russia.
A continuation of consistent institutional blackout of mediated information occurred, (WW2) so that Serbia had little resistance though they wished to retain their identity and nationalisation despite radio and news distribution being absent. Resulting in the culture being “told” of their identity in order to retain security. A clear cut identity of who they were in order to identify the ‘enemy’ and who they were not was vital.
As westernised individuals, our position of how we perceive and represent the history of Serbia is vital. History of Yugoslavia culture is not interjected into mainstream education therefore it is made to be seen as propaganda, how can we understand the genocide that occurred if it is portrayed in the way we wish to view it? (Episteme) what is there and what is not.
Milosevic had Russia on good terms though what is known of the perceived threat to NATO (who supported Croatia) from Russia has little information and knowledge. This perspective is interesting to consider, why we don’t know enough of the attempted threat from Russia on behalf of Serbia ? (Who where against Britain during this period) a westernised view. In terms of Russia’s perspective, violence was a focus, not on how they will resolve their culture when this should be (westernised view again) the first things that should be resorted and reported upon: it should be how it affects the identity of the culture, why haven’t we bee told this? Because as a westernised culture it dosnt concern us – the nationalist mindset is within every country to a degree though if the media decides to distribute who we should perceive to fear, endorsed by the material traces of history (Serbia), the media becomes a “reality maker”. From what is shown to us in the media, including film, games and music. Such as the Hollywood representation of “behind enemy lines”. War turned into entertainment.
Continuing from this concept of a media blackout and a national identity can be analysed through Foucauldian in order to understand power and discipline (The Panopticon) stemming from this Serbia as a spectacle can be understood, evaluated.