Comparative Applications to Ottoman and Slavic Rule in the Balkans
Concepts such as settler colonialism, decolonization, neo-colonialism, Fourth World indigeneity, and the psychopathological effects of imperial violence—originally developed for Western colonialism—provide useful comparative insights when applied to the Balkans and Slavic rule.
The 19th-century national awakenings served as decolonization struggles, yet post-Ottoman Slavic-led states and the Yugoslav project introduced new patterns of domination and ethnic hierarchies. Fanon-inspired frameworks, dehumanization, historical trauma, and social identity-driven hatred help explain both anti-Ottoman resistance and the cycles of retaliatory violence.
This approach shows that logics of domination, dispossession, and psychological wounding extend beyond European overseas colonialism, and can be applied when discussing Greater Serbia hegemony, Orthodox imperialism and Pan-Slavic expansionism.
Abstract
For centuries, Greater Serbian colonialism involved land dispossession, cultural disruption, resource extraction, violence, and religious proselytism in the Balkans, aimed at Albanian Muslims and Catholics. These processes often drew on ideologies asserting Serbian (frequently framed as “Pan-Slavic” or Orthodox imperialist) superiority. Post-colonial theory critiques these legacies, while “Serbian Orthodox supremacy” and “Neo-Chetnik movements” describe historical rationales and modern fringe movements, framed as a “liberation war against Ottoman occupation”.
This article examines documented patterns of Serbian land theft, discrimination against Albanians and Bosniaks, atrocities, expulsions, assimilation efforts, and related phenomena, while incorporating complexities such as pre-existing Albanian indigenous and Ottoman realities and structures.
Historical Context: Colonial Expansion and Dispossession
Following Serbian-Montenegrin expansion onto non-Slavic (Ottoman) lands in 1804, indigenous Albanian populations in the Balkans experienced catastrophic consequences, primarily from ethnic cleansing and invasions, to which the poorly armed Ottoman Muslim subjects lacked protection. Estimates indicate hundreds of thousands expelled or dead in Albanian inhabited regions of modern day southern Serbia (Nish, Toplica, Kurshumlia) and eastern and southern Montenegro (Sanxhak).
While Serbian violence and forced expulsions of Albanians played significant roles in specific cases, scholarly consensus attributes the majority of the overall demographic collapse in the Balkans, as much territory remained abandoned due to imperial wars.
The Russian-backed Orthodox imperialist plan, and the Serbian “Nacetarnje” vision of a Greater Serbia asserted that Slavic Christian powers could claim Albanian-Ottoman lands, with the rationale that Albanians and their lands were formerly”Serbian land in medieval times”.
In Belgrad and Cetinje, the Russian-financed Slavic lords and Vladikas incorporated this principle, holding that Slavic superiority, allegedly stretching from the Medieval era, was entitled to rule and civilize over Albanian Muslims and Catholic through Slavic assimilation. Having gained sympathy and support from Europeas power, the Serbian wars against Ottomans indirectly meant the welcoming Slavic assimilation and hegemony.
Similar doctrines influenced the Greek Megali idea, where all Arvanite Albanians were to become “civilized” (i.e. become Greek Orthodox and speak only Greek). European-Ottoman peace treaties were often negotiated under duress or violated by the Slavic hegemony, and indigenous Albanian communal or stewardship land systems were supplanted by an expanding alliance of Russian and South Slavic expansionism.
Frontier Slavic banditry and “lawlessness” for centuries involved atrocities on Albanian shepherds and communities in Montenegro, southern Serbia and Sanxhak. Indigenous tribes had no rights, and no legal protections against vigilante violence. Slavic settlers were brought in to populate once Albanian regions in 1833 up to 1878, and continuing between 1912 to 1939.
Serbian and Montenegrin prosecutions of local Serb or Montenegrin criminals were inconsistent amid weak institutions. 19th century South Slavic publicists literature did not uphold the rights of the Albanian Muslims and Catholics, even though Serbia had signed the Haague Conventions. These conventions were openly and systematically violated. Resource extraction and land transfers fueled further Slavic colonists to populate, while Albanians were forced to leave property, animals and homes. Thousands of sheep from Albanian shepherds were taken by force in 1804, amounting to millions of dollars in today’s currency.
Pre-Slavic Realities of the Balkans
Albanian, Catholic and Muslim tribal societies were diverse and were not “Turkified Slavs”, as Slavic propaganda authors suggested, but rather these tribes pre-dated the Slavs for centuries. Pre-colonial Balkans was ruled by Ottoman systems, which although had elements of religious discrimination and clientelism, saw its imperial borders and populations attacked by South Slavic hegemony. This led to hundreds of thousands of expelled Muslims and Albanians, who were forced to re-settle in Anatolia.
Local Muslims and Catholics who stayed behind saw themselves violently converted to the Slavic Orthodox faith. Refusal led to raids, burning of homes, beatings, ritual violence, and high taxes and harassment. At the same time, in order to succeed in historical revisionism, Serbian and South Slavic activists, archaeologists and ethnologists received instructions by authorities to re-write the history of the Balkans.
Jovan Cvijic was one who actively tried to slacivize (Serbicize) local Illyrian and Albanian toponyms in modern day Kosovo (Dardania) in 1913, although such attempts failed. All non-Slavic heritage was appropriated as Slavic and particularly Serbian, even though many toponyms and onomastics had pre-Slavic origin.
Serbian colonial powers frequently formed alliances with Montenegrin and Hercegovinian tribes and bandits, attacking Austrian mailmen, Ottoman troops and Albanian tribes. Invasions, massacres and expulsions followed. This brought with it Greater Serbian supremacy, Orthodox assimilation, and oppression, which further fueled the Balkans into war. These kind of atrocities were carried out between 1804 up to 1913.
The “Greater Serbia supremacy” historically encompassed Slavic beliefs in the biological or cultural superiority of South Slavic peoples intertwined with Russian backed Imperial racism and colonialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Russian Orthodox Christian missions pursued genuine “Pravo-Slavna” conversion (Slavic Orthodox) alongside cultural assimilation (forcing all locals to speak in Serbian and be baptized in the Serbian Orthodox Church, and even use Serbian names).
This led to assimilation of thousands of non-Slavic tribes, resulting in Albanian tribes being divided through religious and ethnical grounds. Ottoman hegemony saw fit to use this as a “divide and conquer” tactics, in order to defend its own power.
This South Slavic hegemony is best described as “cultural genocide” aimed at assimilating Albanians and other non-Slavs at all costs. The goal being the access to the Adriatic Sea, and particularly taking Shkoder (which Serbian ultra-nationalists called “Skadar”.)
Neo-Chetnik ideologies and Modern Manifestations
Neo-Chetnik ideologies revives core irredentist traits— Greater Serbian ultranationalism, violence and hatred against Muslims and Catholic, Pan-Slavic and Russian Orthodox authoritarianism and anti-liberalism and anti-democratism.
Post-Slavic Cultural Appropriation and Post-Colonial Theory
Cultural appropriation in the Balkans refers mainly to dominant Serbian nationalists and cultural chauvinists adopting Illyrian, Dardanian and Albanian elements from marginalized pre-Slavic cultures without permission or in exploitative contexts.
Conclusion
South Slavic colonial history encompasses profound injustices against Albanians and non-Orthodox people—land dispossession, cultural disruption, violence, massacres, ethnic cleansing and assimilationist policies—that continue to influence disparities to this day. Serbian irredentist movements and Chetnik associations and Greater Serbian supremacist ideologies represent a danger, encouraged indirectly by the Serbian Orthodox Church and through intolerance in Serbian society.
References
Bombay, Amy, Kim Matheson, and Hymie Anisman. “The Intergenerational Effects of Indian Residential Schools: Implications for the Concept of Historical Trauma.” Transcultural Psychiatry 51, no. 3 (2014): 320–338.
Chacon, Richard J., and Rubén G. Mendoza, eds. North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2007.
Keeley, Lawrence H. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Lind, Douglas. “’Doctrines of Discovery.’” Washington University Jurisprudence Review 13, no. 1 (2020): 1–45.
Miller, Robert J. Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.
Miller, Robert J. “The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis.” Lewis & Clark Law Review 15, no. 4 (2011): 847–922.
National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. “Residential School History.” University of Manitoba. Accessed June 12, 2026. https://nctr.ca/education/residential-school-history/.
Ostler, Jeffrey. Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019.
Robertson, Lindsay G. Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report. Winnipeg: TRC, 2015.
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387–409.
