User talk:Peter Z./Statement on Wikipedia

Peter Z's Notes

The claims cited in the While Visiting the Croatia Coast statement is news to me. I'm researching its content (I've started to add references to it). So far it seems to me to be not too far from the truth, however more research (maybe a few years) is needed.

• Firstly I have problems with population stats.
• Secondly it appears to me that the region has problems with interpreting multicultural and multiethnic history (& societies).

Peter Z. 09:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Latin/Illyrian/Slavic communities history of the historic Republic of Ragusa & Republic of Venice became a political football for the former Communist Yugoslavia.

• Republic of Ragusa was set up by Latin/Illyrian families.
• Republic of Venice was set up by Latin families.

Slavic communities later became part of these City States, which later became Republics.

Famous mixed marriages within these communities :

• Roger Joseph Boskovich (Republic of Ragusa)
• Fausto Veranzio (Republic of Venice)

Parents were Italian & Croatian.

Austro-Hungarian census 1816 registered: 66 000 Italian speaking people among the 301 000 inhabitants of Dalmatia. (ref from: Montani, Carlo. Venezia Giulia, Dalmazia - Sommario Storico - An Historical Outline)

Peter Z. 03:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Republic of Ragusa

Republic of Ragusa was set up by Latin/Illyrian families. The Republic's city, Ragusa (today called Dubrovnik) was established in the 7th century, post Slavic and Avar invasions. The refugees from Epidaurum (a Roman city) built the settlement in Dalmatia, today in southernmost modern Croatia. Over the centuries the City State-Ragusa started to have relations with the Slavic hinterland, then called Red Croatia (this term for the region ceased to be used from the 11th century onwards). Ragusa itself became an independent state in 1358.

The Croatians (Slavs), some time in the middle ages started to be part of the Republic's population. There is a theory that the Croatisation of the region started to happen in the 19-century, with the Republic becoming part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (then called the Habsburg Monarchy). The second theory is that it was much earlier.

It's quite possible that both are wrong and that the Republic was for centuries a multicultural and multiethnic society! It's ruling class were of mostly of Latin decent, but not all!

Peter Z. 03:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Korcula

Signor Arneri: "These three pears you see on the wall," said he, "are the arms of my family. Perussich was the name, when, in the earlier part of the fifteenth century, my ancestors built this palace; so that, you see. All the family, fathers, sons, and brothers, used to serve in the fleets of the Republic (Republic of Venice); but the hero of our race was Arniero Perussich, whose statue you see there, who fought, bled, and died at the Siege of Candia, whose memory was honoured by the Republic, and whose surviving family was liberally pensioned; so his name of our race. We became Arnieri, and ceased to be Perussich"

While Visiting the Croatia Coast

While visiting the Croatia coast (Dalmatia) of the Adriatic Sea, western journalists usually admire her ancient towns. They notice almost everywhere that the regional architecture is “heavily influenced” by a “Venetian” flavour. Years ago, a famous chef posing in front of a XVI century Dalmatian building for a documentary, claimed that its architecture was “quintessentially Croatian“. In the past, certain Western writers were almost convinced (and disgusted) that Croatians “imitated” Venetian and Italian Renaissance architecture in building Dalmatian towns.

Today, Croatian and international tourist guides are presenting the rich artistic patrimony of Dalmatian coastal towns as essentially “Croatian” or “a reflection of Croatia‘s history“. They almost never mention the autochthonous Italians (about 80.000 in the late 1800s) who lived there since Roman times and who built those architectural jewels before disappearing in modern times. Where did they go? Almost all of them became refugees. They were the victims of the first ethnic cleansing documented in the Balkans.

The history of Dalmatia is compromised by strategic interests and political correctness. The current ignorance about the eastern Adriatic coast is appalling and widespread. It is, in short, the consequence of a “damnatio memoriae” of political nature. On one side, in the West nobody knows the real history of the region. On the other side, ”’today a phalanx of nationalistic Croatian historians, political leaders, journalists and tourist operators, profiting from this vacuum are erasing, falsifying and misappropriating the real history on an international level using books, newspapers, tourist propaganda and Internet sites”’.

The late 1800’s.

Today’s Croatian coastline in the second half of the 1800’s Towns had Italian names:

• Zadar-Zara
• Split-Spalato
• Sibenik-Sebenico
• Trogir-Trau
• Dubrovnik-Ragusa

They had Italian communities in a dominant position and a cosmopolitan population (of Croatian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek & Jewish origin). Everybody spoke Italian and Venetian dialect, the “lingua franca” of the time.

Helped by the Austrian government (then all Eastern Adriatic coastline was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Croatians launched a political campaign against the “Italian Dalmatia” to annex the territory. Since the beginning it was an integral part of the political national aspirations of Croatians struggling to form their own state. Following the first exodus toward the end of the 1800s, in 1905 in Rome a Dalmatian Italian Association to help the refugees was founded.

This continued to be so during the turbulent formation of the first, monarchic, Yugoslavia, when Croatia accepted willy-nilly the Serbian domination. The Serbs and the Croatians continued the assault, violent, almost a civil war-against all Dalmatian towns inhabited by ethnic Italians. Then, after World War One tens of thousands of Dalmatian Italians abandoned their towns and villages in 1920-1930s and settled on Italian territory. During and after World War Two there was third and final exodus.

Yugoslav Communists

The winning Communist movement embraced the Croatian’s irredentist cause and included it in its war strategy and national political platform. The consequence was the violent expulsion of Italian speaking autochthonous inhabitants from the entire Eastern Adriatic coastline - from the southern Dalmatia to the Istrian peninsula - and the consequential erasing of two millennia of a very rich civilisation. Ethnic cleansing had happened in many parts of Europe in both old and modern times, so the demographic and cultural extirpation of Italian presence in Dalmatia, the Quarnero region and Istria is not really a new phenomena. But this slow, brutal and in 1945/46 also military operation had an unexpected development, something very peculiar.

After erasing almost all the Italian speaking population in Dalmatia proper, without succeeding completely in the Quarner region and Istria, Communist Yugoslavia adapted a new form of genocide: the stealing of the “enemy’s” history in order to obliterate his memory and aggrandise the country. Completely ignored in the West, this skulduggery is a new Pandora’s box-Balkan style.

Croatia, a country of about 4 million inhabitants, has “nationalised” the history of her Adriatic coastline, a territory that had never been part of the Slavic hinterland, historically, politically and culturally. In order to totally “Croatianize“ the coastal territories, the country is manipulating their history and striving to “show” the world that Dalmatia, the Quarner region and Istria have “always” been Croatian. There is no actual political contingency to justify this operation: the old Italian irredentism ended up definitely in the dustbin of the history, and no other countries (except for Slovenia) have pressing territorial ambitions toward Croatia. Never methodically investigated, nobody knows how and when these history misappropriations started. In 1858-60 Ivan Kukuljevic Sakcinski, who belonged to Croatian nobility, published his “Slovnik umjetnikah jugoslavenskih”, an encyclopaedic dictionary of Slav artists (then, Croatia was under Hungarians domination and Yugoslavia was still a dream). In this book among Slavic artists you can find the painter Vittore Carpaccio - born in Venice, 1460/65 ca. - 1525/26 ca. - only because Carpaccio used to create religious paintings commissioned by churches in Istrian peninsula and Dalmatia. Kukuljevic Sakcinski, a hot-headed nationalist, “opined” that the artist’s last name derived from a Croatian root: “Krpaci, Skrpaci or Krpatici”.

Republic of Ragusa

Take for example the history of the Republic of Ragusa, (officially the city is known as Dubrovnik only from 1919 on). Ragusa has been an independent republic governed since the Middle Ages by a Latin/Illyrian families. When it was abolished in 1808 by the Napoleonic army, the small but influential and immensely rich maritime republic left a gigantic archive in which all government documents were written, first in Latin, then in Dalmatian (an extinct Romance language formerly spoken in the Dalmatia region of Croatia,) and finally in modern Italian (the Republic had an office in charge of translations from Slavic vernacular). In the daily business of the government and in diplomacy - Ragusa had over 80 consulates in every major European and Middle Eastern city -, the official language of the small republic was Italian. Furthermore, The Republic of Ragusa is remembered as ”The fifth Maritime Republic of Italy” (with Venice, Pisa, Amalfi and Genoa). For centuries, the well-to-do Ragusan families sent their children to study in the Italian universities. Across the Adriatic sea, Ragusans had daily contacts with Italy. The celebrated libraries of Ragusa were full of Italian editions of every kind, but no books printed in Slavic languages. Today in some Croatian history books the real history of Ragusa disappears almost completely.

The historians maintain that Dubrovnik “is an important page of the history of Croatia”, although Ragusa had only commercial liaisons with a Croatian territory that has not been a state for nine centuries. They repeat obsessively that the maritime republic was Croatian “almost since the beginning of her history”, that her merchant fleet was completely Croatian. Every family of the town’s aristocracy - Basilio, Cerva, Ghetaldi, Luccari, Menze, etc. - is given arbitrarily “the equivalent Croatian name“. All Ragusan state institutions are receiving Croatian denominations; all monasteries in town are presented as “Croatian”, although the clergy was Italian. You find all these misappropriations in Wikipedia “the free encyclopaedia” site, where the authors (clearly Croats) are demonstrating how grotesque are their pretensions when, at a certain point, they report the list of Ragusan senators who attended the last session of their Greater Council, the one in which it was announced that the glorious republic was dissolved (29th of August 1814): of a little over forty incontestable Italian names of the senators, only one is of Croatian origin: Marino Domenico, count of Zlatarich.

In 2006, with his book “Dubrovnik - A history” published in England and sold in every English speaking country, the British author did an unwanted favour to the extremely voracious Croatian nationalistic historiography. Using only Croatian sources and materials, he wrote an essentially extremely nationalistic Croatian book in English language. Explaining his readers the mystery of place, institutions and personal Italian names translated into Croatian, he wrote: “I have used the Slavic form throughout, simply because that is the one most commonly found in the historiography” (obviously Croatian). “No other significance - he pointed out - is implied”. And with this elegant explanation, the deontology of the historian took a vacation. A “patriotic mission”.

Some Croatian historians and researchers are a legion of agit-props engaged in the “patriotic mission” of promoting the grandeur of their homeland. Their patriotism obeys to a categorical imperative: the country comes first, at any cost, even lying. They “Croatianize“ everybody and everything. Literally hundreds of public figures, artists, scientists, and academics - Italian Dalmatia had in XIX century 32 newspapers and periodicals, a rich history, an incredible artistic, academic and literary life, and glorious maritime traditions - today are mentioned as “Croatian“. Of the original Italian speaking population of the town only about 40 individuals survived. Unnoticed by academic authorities in the West, an implacable (first Panslavistic, then Pan Croat) “nationalisation” of non-Croatian history continued for decades in a dramatic crescendo.

In the last half century it reached epidemic proportions:

• Andrea Antico, born in Motovun (Montona) in Istria, a composer and music publisher of the 1500s (he is studied in every music school of this globe), was re-baptised Andrija Staric (or Starcevic)
• The Renaissance painter Lorenzo De Boninis, born in Dubrovnik, is presented in Croatian history books and tourist guides as “Lovro Dobricevic”
• Nicola Fiorentino, an Italian born XVI century architect active for decades in Dalmatia, becomes the fake Croat “Nikola Firentinac“.

Robert D. Kaplan

In 1998, writing for “The Atlantic” magazine Robert D. Kaplan (author of influential “Balkan Ghosts”) seemed to be the first American essayist to reveal the truth about the suppression of the Italian past of Ragusa by Croatia (and by extension of Dalmatia). “A nasty, tribal principality, he wrote - who are attempting to transform, in the old Republic, its character subtly from that of a sensuous, cosmopolitan mélange into a sterile, nationalistic uniformity”.

Writers

Giovan Francesco Biondi, a writer born in 1572 on the Dalmatian island of Hvar (Lesina) is introduced to the Western cybernauts as an improbable “Ivan Franc Biundovic”, although he was a diplomat (and maybe a spy) in the service of the Venetian Republic and with his three books is considered the first modern Italian novel writer. (The “super-patriotic” Croatians historians completely ignore the “Italian” aspects of his biography, reducing his creations to “an excellent history of the British civil wars while living in England” to be added to Croatian merits).

The case of Francesco Patrizi, a XVI century philosopher and scientist who was a teacher of “La Sapienza” university in Rome, is almost incredible. He became “Franjo Petric” (or “Petricevic”), that means a “Croat”, only because he was born on the island of Cres (Cherso) in the Quarner gulf. Croatian academic and political circles are so proud of “Franjo Petric” that almost every year they are holding in Zagreb, the capital of the country, and on “Cres“, an academic symposium dedicated to this magnificent intellectual mind. Many years ago they published one of his books printed in Italy in 1500s. They took the original, ornate volume, translated it into modern Croatian language and published it presenting the book as an anastatic edition of the original, in order to demonstrate the high level of their national civilisation in the 1500s (when Croatian capital Zagreb was still a village and Croatians in toto were still an agricultural/pastoral population). But they made a mistake: they used the Croatian diacritic signs (“accents” on certain consonants) invented only in the middle of the 1800s. Another example is that of Pier Paolo Vergerio, a catholic bishop and an historical figure in the turbulent times of the Reformation. He lived in Capodistria, a small town on the Istrian peninsula. In a Croatian history book, written by a Croatian academic and published in the USA, the bishop is presented as “Petar Pavao Vergerije”, without pointing out that he was Italian, that the town of Capodistria never had anything to do with Croatia, never had a noticeable Slavic minority among her population and today is part of Slovenia.

There is a Ragusan writer who, from 1909 up to today, underwent involuntarily to a name-change quiet a few times: Benko or Beno Kotruljevic, Kotruljic, Kotrulic or Kotrulj. Croatian historiographers do not care much in this regard. To them is important that this was “one of the first Croatian writers on scientific subjects”. “Croatian”, they repeated a hundred times in their essays on this historical figure. But that gentleman’s real name was Benedetto Cotrugli (or de Cotruglis). This is the way he signed his correspondence and also his famous book, “Della mercantura et del mercante perfetto.” (Book on the Art of Trade), one of the first manuals on merchandising, bookkeeping and “the good merchant”, published in Venice in 1573. This book is known in every university and a college with an Economy department. Cotrugli went to school and lived for all his adult life in Italy, serving as a diplomat the Kingdom of Naples and as director of the Mint in L‘Aquila. He never wrote anything in Croatian language. By the way, his book was published in Croatia only in 1963, five centuries after it was written. But he is considered “Croatian”. This kind of uncontrolled appetite is also directed toward classic antiquity.

Archaeology

A reliable Croatian archaeologist, Josip Vlahovic, studied a bas-relief in the Split Baptistery, portraying a Middle Ages king on the throne, with a crown on his head and holding a cross. At his side there is a figure, maybe a court official, and in front of him another figure prostrated on the floor. Examining the clothing, hairstyle and other details, Vlahovic concluded, honestly, that the bas-relief was ”most probably” created by a band of Longobards, who settled in Dalmatian interior in the VI century before moving out of the territory, in an uncertain period, and disappearing.

According to Daria Garbin, an archeologist living in Split, who wrote extensively about that Longobards, that the bas-relief king “could be” the Longobard Alaric. Finally, the elegant and rich book “Croatia in the Early Middle Ages - A cultural survey”, published by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, printed in London in 1999, and distributed in all English speaking countries, is embellished by a magnificent, full-page picture of the same bas-relief. Beside the picture, there is the explanation: “Marble carving of a Croatian king (maybe Zvonimir)”. Here the Longobards do not receive any attention. One of the most frequent tricks in this “propagandistic history” is to find a couple of Croatian personalities and squeeze between them the Slavicized name of an Italian local personality in order to “demonstrate” that a Dalmatian town was, yes inhabited by “some” Italians, but was predominantly Croatian.

Take for example Trogir, known for a millennia as the Italian Dalmatian town of Trau, incredibly rich in arts and architecture, and since 1997 protected by the UNESCO. On a Croatian Internet site you can notice that a humanist and writer from Trogir, Koriolan Cipiko, active in 1500s is sandwiched between two Croatian historical figures that had nothing to do with him nor Trogir. Here the intention is to “neutralised” completely that gentleman, whose real name was Coriolano Cippico, a member of an illustrious centuries old Dalmatian dynasty (of bishops, writers, philosophers, army and navy leaders, you name it) of Roman origin.

Another Croatian site says that “during this period Italian citizens, until 1918 the ruling class and almost half part of the population, were forced to leave for Italy”. Forced by whom? The authors of the site cautiously don’t say it. In another Croatian site we find that in the same period Trogir had 16.000 inhabitants, that means that 8.000 were Italians. Today the Italians living in Trogir are only a handful. There are literally hundred of episodes and cases like these, in numerous Croatian history books and tourist guides published in English language and distributed in the West, and now also on Internet. Outright falsehoods, half-truths, tendentious presentations, patriotic rhetoric and grotesque nationalistic grandiosity are very common in them. This part of the Croatian academic world knows no limits in the national appetite for glory, veneration of patriotic heritage, and stealing of other people’s cultural icons to show off.

Marco Polo/Franz Joseph Haydn

Nowadays in Croatia (and through Internet in the United States also) they maintain that Marco Polo was born on Croatian island of Korcula (historically Curzola; up to 1920s the main town of the island was populated by an Italian majority) and that he was a Croat, not a Venetian, without any document to prove it.

They also appropriate Giovanni da Verrazzano, the Tuscan explorer who is considered to be the first European to have discovered the bay of New York, in 1524 (decades before Henry Hudson). For this primacy his name was given to the spectacular modern bridge that connects Brooklyn with Staten Island. But now Verrazzano is proclaimed “Croat”. Why? Because while exploring the Eastern Atlantic coast going North, he used to give some Dalmatian names to certain territories and islands he discovered during his voyage. So Verrazzano becomes “Vranjanin or Vrancic”.

The same destiny is reserved to an Austrian composer, Franz Joseph Haydn, only because he was born (in 1723) in an Austrian region inhabited by a community of Croatian origins who settled there in VII century A.D. during barbarian invasions of Europe. Certain Croatian nationalistic historiographers are busy creating for their country the desolating fake image of a civilized and highly spiritual nation, using the heritage of a civilisation the country eradicated in the first historically documented, but still unknown, Balkan ethnic cleansing.

Today nobody is noticing and condemning this threatening phenomena. These charlatans with a master degree are doing a tremendous disservice first of all to their own country. They are also dangerous. In a region in the past tremendously violent and today with so many unsolved problems, this kind of piracy is very ominous and should be stopped.

• Preceding unsigned comment added on Wikipedia's Talk-pages by IP 200.112.16.153 (28 December 2009)
• Comment edited by Peter Zuvela.