Serbian Community in London - Outline Example

Report on a Serbian community in London (UK) and actual or potential interventions Serbian community in London (UK) The first record of a remarkable Serbian presence in the United Kingdom was in 1860s. It is believed that the Serbian in the UK came from Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Turkish Empire, republic of Dubrovnik and other parts of Europe where the Serbian community lived for centuries. The ties between Britain and Serbia became tighter during the First World War as the two countries fought together as allies. When the Serbian army was defeated by the coalition of Austro-Hungarian, German and Bulgarian armies in November 1915 many Serbian intellectuals came to London to further the cause of Serbia. It can therefore be said that the presence of Serbia occurred in 1860-1940. This period was a time of European integration of the newly established Serbia then Yugoslavia (Mikes, M., 1984). The presence of the Serbian community in the United Kingdom was however, very rare prior to the emergence of World War II. Serbians who had settled in the united kingdom by then were motivated by economic reasons and were mainly coming from regions which outside Serbia. The peak of such migration was reached in the 1912–1914 period. The peak ended around 1922 and after that the large influx of Serbians in the United Kingdom was purely political. Those who left for the United Kingdom were mostly those associated with the defeated nationalist’s leadership in the Serbia. There were civil conflicts after that which forced many Serbians to seek refuge in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. For instance, the Tito’s Partisans captured and tortured their opponents and many of them were executed which led to those who survived to escape. From the official statistics of the events, it is estimated that 17,558 Yugoslavs were held captive by Italians in 1946 for being opponents of their leadership and supporting the nationalists. However, the survivors who were left behind indicate that there were very many and they were largely Serbs (Proudfoot 1957, pp. 159–61). Looking at ‘community’ from the perspective of community development Gilchrist (2009) demonstrates from The Well-connected Community that informal and formal networks strengthen communities which can improve partnership working. Gilchrist argues that networking is about community, exchange, risk management and solidarity, and shows that networking can benefit communities and those working with them. “Networking is the process by which relationships and contacts between people and communities are nurtured and utilized to share skills, knowledge and experience for mutual benefit.” (Gilchrist, 2009). Challenges facing Serbian community in London (UK) One of the main problems that the Serbs face in the UK is culture identity especially language maintenance. It is a big challenge in regard to the context of UK Serb diaspora. In the Serbian context, language has been extremely dynamic. The community had also a weakness in its size and this led to poor national organization. First challenge that the Serbian community faced is the long distance nationalism. This is an idea that was developed by Benedict Anderson (1998), this can provide a theoretical framework that can relate to the Serbian community. From the history of the Serbs who are in the UK they played very little breakup of Yugoslavia. The term ‘long distance nationalism’ refers to the ideology of a migrant group that does not politically orientate itself to the state in which it is located but to the country it is located, but to the country of its origin (Skrbiš, Z., 1999). The Serbs in the United Kingdom were largely discriminated except for some few ones who were given considerations. Many of them worked for meager wages and formed the biggest population of the poorly paid workers especially in London. They were part of the post-war immigrants who formed the labor force among with the Commonwealth immigrants and the Irish. After the effects of colonization are over, the community still faces discrimination in various social, economic and political institutions. Up to now, there is regional and class differentiation of the Serbian in the United Kingdom, most of them are concentrated in the villages with very little numbers in London and other cities. The only Serbians in the upper class are those who had military exposure and experience in the war (Ugresic, D., 1998). The Serbs are vilified in London as they are perceived as gullible domestic targets. They face the danger of wrongful accusations for crimes committed by others and the rules of political correctness are not observed when dealing with them as though they do not apply to them. They are held accountable for crimes based on generalizations as opposed to verification and observation of facts. This can be evidenced by the pronunciations made by Clare Short when he denounced the Serbs as ‘the scum of Europe’. There were other accusations of the London Serbs by the media after the London nail bombings where the Serbs were held responsible. Another crime was the murder of Jill Dando, a journalist who was killed in 1999 where the media held that the crime was committed by the Serb terrorists. Such occurrences made the lives of the Serbs in the last decade very suspicious around their peers, friends, colleagues and acquaintances who would suspect that all the Serbs were always up to something criminal. Current empowerment practices of Serbian community in London (UK) The community is currently organizing itself through the Council of the Great Britain which its sole aim is to promote and the Serbian language in Britain and all Serbian diaspora communities and also the provision of life skills and employment opportunities of the young Serbian people. The language problem has restricted the Serbs from accessing various important attributes in the United Kingdom such as education. The Council of the Great Britain is mandated with the responsibility of promoting diverse cultures and languages in Britain and making Britain a diverse-culture country. This empowers the Serbs to learn various languages which will enable them access to education, economic, social and political aspects of the country and especially in London where survival is very challenges for someone with both cultural and language barrier(Ledwith, M., 2005). The Serbian community in London has been involved with the British Serbian fund which is used to raises funds for humanitarian activities. They used the funds and their human resources for humanitarian activities in Croatia and Bosnia wars where they assisted them although there were few Serbs who actively participated in the war. They were also involved in the aiding of the Yugoslavia after the NATO bombing. They are organized in units which advocate for peace between the Serbs and the international community. They also have organized Serbian Information Centre in London which disseminates information regarding the Serbs in the United Kingdom and also airs their grievances. After the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Serbian Information Centre in London, through their representatives, organized anti-war protests which were meant to advocate for peace in Yugoslavia. Their representatives went of air in both television and radio to urge people to maintain peace and for NATO to stop attacking Yugoslavia. The center is still making progress despite the fact that very little people pay attention to what they say or stand for. The Serbian community in London has invested a lot in strengthening community relations. The London Serbian community has established churches and clubs which in London helps the Serbs to meet and share their cultures and religious beliefs as such practices have for a long time been undermined. For a long time, they had been unable to establish churches and clubs due to split that happened between the Serbian Orthodox Churches which was headed form their parent church in the United States over the issues of communisms. The emergence of churches and clubs has helped the Serbs in empowering them as it is featured by high levels of attendance and the community is able to organize their community-based activities in line with their family connections, religions background, shared social-economic affiliations and the same political viewpoint. This helps them to transfer a sense of nationality and cultural identity to their children collectively therefore cementing their culture and relationships (Pitchford & Henderson, 2008). The Serbs has been using their family relations as the forum for transmission of both culture and religious beliefs. Their religion is based on Serbian Orthodoxy. The generations for the Serbs in London and the United Kingdom at large have been transferring their cultural practices to their children through narration of cultural folk tales from parents to children after meals and in other special occasion when the Serb community would meet to perform cultural practices and they would engage and discuss their national history, nationality and politics. Although the transmission of the culture of the Serbs has been successfully been transmitted orally over years, there is need for documentation of their history on books where the history can be preserved for many years to come even after the first and second generation has gone (Henderson, P., 2005). Potential empowerment of Serbian community in London (UK) Empowerment of the Serbian community in London should begin with the government acceptance of “Community Accountability”. This will enhance respect of the Serbian community as negative influences such as discrimination and sidelining in terms of facility access and resources will decrease. The United Kingdom can empower this community by embracing “Community Accountability” of the Serbian in their territory. The significant aspects that will help the Serbs here include involvement in areas affecting their lives in which the Serbs are involved in those decision that affect them through their representatives; enforceability of law, as the concept of political correctness has been ignored in many occasion when dealing with the Serbs and answerability to their grievances (Rocha Menocal and Sharma 2008, p5‐6). This community can also empower itself by promotion of their culture and national history through documentation of their history in books. This promotes national memories and those cultural aspects of the Serbs which has been central to their existence such as agriculture. Most of the culture being transmitted is about politics and culture. A book will preserve their memories in all aspects of their culture and ensure that the history is intact for generations to come. This will also help the curriculum of the Serbs which has faced many challenges due to the changes in the economic and political systems from nationalism to democracy and the transition period when most of the systems were undesignated (Commission for Curriculum Development, 2002). The government of the United Kingdom and other charity interventions can empower the Serbian community by promotion of agriculture. The Serbian community has history of productive agricultural practices back in Serbia. Due to the discrimination in many formal economic and political institutions, the Serbian community can be empowered by providing an enabling environment where they can practice professional agriculture. Agriculture is one of the most valued economic activities in Serbia and the Serbian in London can be empowered by promoting their economic activities in the United Kingdom. In Serbia, agriculture accounts for about 10% of their GPD ranging from farming, forestry and fishing and it’s given a lot of importance by the Serbians. The partnership of the Serbs and the government of the United Kingdom will empower the Serbs to become productive, reduce competition for jobs and also promote their culture (Popple, K., 2000). Charity organizations like the USAID can empower the Serbian community in London by promotion of community mobilization efforts which enables the Serbs to change the perception and attitudes they have had in London for the longest time and transform their challenges into opportunities which will suit them. Such efforts have been attempted in Serbia and resulted in fruitful results. The same can be done on the Serbs in London, even though they are not many in number, the efforts can empower them to have a sense of belonging and identify as British Serbs. Where such mobilization has been done, participants have demonstrated realization of their full potential by doing things they did into know they had the capacity before the programs was initiated on them. The charity organizations can partner with community committees in the establishment of viable structures which are sustainable to ensure that the Serbs community in London is able to sufficiently rebrand itself (Rochester, 2012). In closing, the large scale influx of Serbians in London and other parts of the United Kingdom was first caused by economic reasons but later the reasons became political as the Serbians escaped the political situation caused by defeat of their nationalist leadership. According to Gilchrist main themes of exploring network theory and analysis, considering the implications of this for communities and identifying a networking role for community development the Serbian community in London is well connected though national identity, cultural and religious practices. The Serbian community in London has faced many challenges historically, some of which they continue to face such as discrimination, vilification and association with criminals, long distance nationality and cultural and language maintenance. The community has set in measures to empower themselves and make an effort to promote peace by engaging in humanitarian activities, fund raising and establishment of clubs and churches to strengthen their social relations. They can further empower themselves by ensuring documentation of their cultural and national identity in books to preserve it. The government and charity organizations can empower them by promotion of agriculture, community mobilization efforts and “Community Accountability”. Bibliography Craig, G., Mayo, M., Popple, K., Shaw, M., & Taylor, M., 2011. The community development reader. Bristol: Policy Press. (available as an e-book). CCD, 2002. Policy for Curriculum Development in Obligatory and Secondary Education Commission for Curriculum Development, Belgrade. Gilchrist, A., 2009. The Well-connected Community: A Networking Approach to Community Development. Bristol: Policy Press Ledwith, M., 2011. Community Development: A Critical Approach. Bristol: Policy Press Annette, J &Mayo, M (eds.) ,2008. Active learning for active citizenship. Nottingham: NIACE Banks, S., Butcher, H., Henderson, P and Robertson, J (eds.) (2003) Managing community practice. Bristol: Policy Press. Banks, S., Butcher, H., Henderson, P. & Robertson, J. (eds.) 2007. Critical community practice. Bristol: Policy Press. Brent, J, 2009. Searching for community: Representation, power and action on an urban estate. Bristol: Policy Press Burns, D., Heywood, F., Taylor, M., Wilde, P. & Wilson, M., 2004. Making community participation meaningful: A handbook for development and assessment. Bristol: Policy Press Butcher, H.L., Banks, S., Henderson, P. & Robertson, J. 2007. Critical Community practice. Bristol: Policy Press Cantle, T., 2001. Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team London: Home Office Dines, N., Cattell, V., Gesler, W and Curtis, S., 2006. Public spaces, social relations and well- being in East London. Bristol: Policy Press Dominelli, L., 2006. Women and community action. Bristol: Policy Press Edwards, M ., 2005. Civil Society. London: Polity Press Field, J., 2008. Social Capital. London: Routledge (Henderson, P., 2005). Including the excluded: From practice to policy in European community development. Bristol: Policy Press Hussain, D & Palmer, C.S., 2006. Faith as social capital: Connecting or dividing? Bristol: Policy Press Ledwith, M., 2005. Community development – a critical approach. Bristol: BASW/Policy Press Ledwith, M., 2009. Participatory Practice: Community-based Action for Transformative Change. Bristol: Policy Press Mayo, M., 2005. Global Citizens: Social Movements and the Challenge of Globalization. London: Zed Books. Mikes, M., 1984. ‘Instruction in the mother tongues in Yugoslavia’, in Prospects, Volume 14, No.1, 121-132. Packham, C., 2008. Active Citizenship and Community Learning. Exeter: Learning Matters Pears, R. & Shields, G., 2010. Cite them right: The essential referencing guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan Pitchford, M & Henderson, P (eds.), 2008. Making spaces for community development. Bristol: Policy Press Popple, K., 2000. Analysing community work, its theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press Prochaska, F., 2002. Schools of citizenship: Citizen and civic virtue. London: Civitas Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Proudfoot, M.J. 1957. European Refugees 1939–52, A Study of Forced Population, London: Faber and Faber Richardson, L., 2008. DIY Community Action: Neighbourhood problems and community self- help. Bristol: Policy Press Rochester, C. Et Al, 2012. Volunteering and Society in the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Skrbiš, Z., 1999. Long Distance Nationalism, Diasporas, Homelands and Identities, Aldershot: Ashgate Taylor, M., Wilson, M., Purdue, D & Wilde, P., 2007. Changing neighbourhoods: Lessons from the JRF Neighbourhood Programme. Bristol: Policy Press. Twelvetree, A., 2008. Community Work, (4Rev Ed edition) London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ugresic, D., 1998. The Culture of Lies London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Read More