Sunday, August 24, 2014

MISSIONE CERRUTI: La tentata colonia italiana nella Nuova Guinea

Scritto di Giacomo Gorrini, pubblicato nel 1896: Nuova Guinea (Battana, Key, Arru) e missione Cerruti (1869-70).

Giovanni Emilio Cerruti, che fin dal 1861 aveva fatto lunghi viaggi e soggiorni all'estero, sopratutto in Australia ed Oceania, si assunse, nell'agosto 1869, di trovare e acquistare entro quattro mesi, per conto del regio Governo, una località situata in vicinanza della Nuova Guinea, adatta quale colonia, e destinata precipuamente all'impianto di uno stabilimento italiano di deportazione.
Mappa delle Molucche con un cerchio rosso segnalando: Battana = Bacan; Key = Kai; Arru' = Aru

Essa doveva avere la capacità di ricevere e sostentare una popolazione di almeno ventimila abitanti, possedere clima salubre, abbondanza di acqua potabile, e almeno un porto accessibile a legni della massima portata. Il Cerruti aveva facoltà di prendere possesso del territorio appena ottenutane la cessione dai capi indigeni, e quando gli fosse constato che con tale acquisto non si ledevano i diritti di altre potenze. Infine, la cessione doveva conseguirsi in guisa da implicare l'abbandono della sovranità in favore dell'Italia. In corrispettivo, al Cerruti si assegnò una somma di centomila lire, salvo la resa dei conti, e senza l'obbligo di fornirgli alcuna eccedenza di spesa. Al Cerruti fu dato per compagno il capitano Di Lenna, al quale era specialmente commesso l'incarico degli studi topografici. Il Governo dispose altresì perchè la nave "Principessa Clotilde", ch'era di stazione nei mari della China e del Giappone, avesse possibilmente a trovarsi nei paraggi ove si sarebbero recati il Cerruti e il Di Lenna, nell'epoca stessa delle loro esplorazioni.

Il Cerruti, avendo seco il capitano Di Lenna ed un suo fratello, mosse il 13 novembre 1869 da Singapore sopra uno schooner inglese, l'Monandra, appositamente noleggiato, e fece rotta verso l'arcipelago indo-malesiano. Accertatosi a Makassar che il sultano del gruppo delle Batiane continuava ad essere pienamente indipendente dalla signoria olandese, si recò senza indugio sui luoghi, ed indusse, senza troppa fatica, il sultano a firmare a Battana, il 20 dicembre 1869, una convenzione, in virtù della quale ogni diritto di sovranità sopra il gruppo delle Batiane fu ceduto al Cerruti stesso, senz'altra riserva, all'infuori del rispetto alle proprietà private del sultano e degl'indigeni. Il corrispettivo di tale cessione consisteva in una pensione mensile di 2000 gilders olandesi di argento. La convenzione conteneva inoltre alcune disposizioni speciali, come sarebbe quella per cui il sultano doveva essere difeso contro ogni molestia o sopruso che gli venisse dall'estero o da privati, quella per cui il sultano stesso doveva essere consultato per ogni affare concernente gl'interessi dei nativi, quella infine per cui in ogni villaggio l'amministrazione dei nativi veniva affidata ad un indigeno. Infine il Cerruti promise di adoperarsi affinchè un regio legno venisse a prèndere possesso delle isole entro quattro mesi, e perchè entro dodici mesi fosse eseguita una prima spedizione di duemila condannati per l'inau- gurazione della colonia di pena. Da Battana, dopo breve sosta ad Amboina, il Cerruti si recò alle isole Key, e, dopo aver visitato quel gruppo, negoziò e firmò con un rayah di quelle isole una convenzione in data 16 gennaio 1870, la quale non si scosta dalla convenzione stipulata col sultano di Batianà se non in questo, che la pensione mensile è fissata nella somma assai più tenue, di 100 gilders olandesi d'argento. Infine, il Cerruti si volse all'arcipelago delle Arrù, e colà stipulò il 23 gennaio 1870 con due dei più influenti rayah, quello di Wogier e quello di Saunna, una convenzione, simile nella forma alle precedenti, la quale se ne scosta in quanto che la cessione è gratuita, nè vi si contiene promessa alcuna di accelerarne più o meno la esecuzione. Il Cerruti visitò ancora alcuni altri punti sulla costa della Nuova Guinea, corse grave pericolo in una località situata nel seno di Mac-Euer (assassinata bay), ove dovette difendersi dagl'indigeni, e, non avendo avuto notizia mai della Principessa Clotilde, per non perdere tempo, pose fine alla propria missione, e per la via di Makassar si restituì in Italia a rendervi conto del proprio operato e ad affrettarvi la decisione della occupazione (10 aprile 1870).

Ma gli eventi furono contrari. Caduto il ministero Menabrea, che al Cerruti aveva dato formale incarico, il nuovo che gli era successo, volendo procedere con ogni cautela, fece riprendere in esame le proposte e i contratti stretti dal Cerruti. Si mandarono poco dopo, come si dirà appresso, ispezioni sopra luogo: in massima, il giudizio fu contrario, sia per non sollevare temute difficoltà internazionali, sia perchè le località furono ritenute non idonee alla deportazione e non suscettibili di proficua colonizzazione: il sopravvenire poi delle gravissime complicazioni politiche e della guerra franco-germanica e dell'acquisto di Roma capitale d'Italia, fece convergere altrove l'attenzione del Governo.

Inoltre nel 1871 fu creata la "Commissione per le Colonie". Infatti il governo italiano considerava che trovare e istituire una colonia italiana per stabilirvi la deportazione dei carcerati italiani, sembrava, tutto considerato, la soluzione più breve e meno dispendiosa. Si voleva, perciò, un territorio lontano, isolato, possibilmente un'isola o un arcipelago, sotto la sovranità italiana, per estendervi le nostre leggi, con confini naturali e sicuri, con clima sopportabile, territorio che fosse eminentemente suscettibile di allevamento del bestiame e di coltivazione per i prodotti necessari alla sussistenza degli abitanti. Tale stato di cose impressionò la Commissione, la quale il 18 maggio 1871 votò la seguente deliberazione: "La Commissione non crede che nelle condizioni attuali d'Italia e del commercio generale sia di convenienza la fondazione di colonie sotto piena sovranità nazionale a scopo direttamente commerciale, ma che giovi fondarla a scopo di deportazione dove concorrano circostanze favorevoli alla produzione e al sorgere di utili rapporti commerciali con la madre patria". Entrando così nel campo della scelta di una località adatta per stabilirvi una colonia, che fosse atta insieme a commercio ed a deportazione, la Commissione si trovò di fronte a due fatti compiuti: l'occupazione già avvenuta di Assab, e i territori acquistati dal Cerruti per conto del Governo italiano nella Nuova Guinea.

La Commissione, lasciando impregiudicata e facendo voti che si chiarisse la questione di carattere internazionale, pure ammettendo che il conservare Assab, dopo nuovi studi, osservazioni e rilievi da farsi sul luogo, potesse essere utile sotto forma di scalo marittimo, escluse che Assab, per l'aridità del clima e per la ristrettezza dello spazio, potesse essere località adatta sia per fondarvi uno stabilimento penitenziario, sia per istituirvi una colonia di sperato sviluppo commerciale.

Quanto ai territori della Nuova Guinea, proposti e comperati dal Cerruti, tenuto conto della distanza grandissima, della grande inslubrità del clima, e delle inevitabili difficoltà e conflitti che si prevedevano con l'Olanda, la Commissione diede pure parere sfavorevole, e consigliò il Governo di non convalidare i proposti acquisti.

Il Cerruti, non scoraggiato, con fede di apostolo, lottò vigorosamente per anni ed anni, e tenne sempre viva la propaganda a favore dei territori della Nuova Guinea, pubblicando opuscoli, e sollevando polemiche infinite. Egli non cessava dal propugnare i vantaggi d'ogni genere che si sarebbero avuti con l'occupazione di que' punti della Nuova Guinea, e si sobbarcò ai calcoli più minuti, sostenendo la deportazione, e mostrando che, mentre un detenuto costava nel regno dugento cinquanta lire annue, fondando la colonia, e comprendendovi il trasporto de' detenuti e la sussistenza della truppa, ma deducendo il lavoro utile de' deportati, la spesa si sarebbe ridotta a lire centosessanta per ognuno. Come si avvertirà a suo luogo, ancora davanti la Commissione d'inchiesta per la marina mercantile (1881-1883) perorò il Cerruti la causa delle colonie da fondarsi dall'Italia nella Nuova Guinea e nella Polinesia. Ma tutto fu vano: egli non riuscì a convincere i suoi molti oppositori, che gli rimproveravano sopratutto l'avventatezza di giudizi e il non tenere alcun conto delle inevitabili difficoltà d'ordine internazionale.

E della Nuova Guinea si cessò di parlare per parte nostra. Ed era tardi ormai, in verità, in quanto altri paesi, e sovratutto Germania, Inghilterra ed Olanda, stavano disputandosela fra loro. G. Gorrini
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per chi vuole approfondire l'informazione

Aggiungo per concludere che un interessante scritto (intitolato "La Nuova Guinea e la questione delle colonie" del prof. Brunialti e pubblicato -in quegli anni contemporanei al Cerruti- su "L'esploratore: giornale di viaggi e geografia commerciale") appare nel websito https://books.google.it/books?id=UvYsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=La+Nuova+Guinea+e+la+questione+delle+colonie%22+del+prof.+Brunialti&source=bl&ots=22IQhQbHbw&sig=2hvtXCMGAojBvcAqmLc66UlndOc&hl=it&sa=X&ei=cTT_U9KRN4O7ggTc14KoBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Infine, per avere dettagliate informazioni sui primi tentativi coloniali italiani, consiglio di leggere: https://issuu.com/rivista.militare1/docs/somalia-vol-i-testo.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

EVOLUTION AND INFLUENCE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE IN US ENGLISH

EVOLUTION AND INFLUENCE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE IN US ENGLISH (by Mary Rubin D'Ambrosio of Union I. & University in Cincinnati/USA)

INTRODUCTION

The research is about the evolution of the Spanish language, in Europe and North America, and the related influence on the English of the United States. The purpose of the research is to show that the interaction between different people and their languages creates the enrichment of our language, with consequent benefits.

So, in order to facilitate the integration between the American English-speaking community and the growing Spanish-speaking minority in the United States, this research wants to explain how and why a foreign language like Spanish is constructive for the American-English language development.

The research even wants to create awareness that the Spanish Language is influencing positively our American society. The research aims to give a reaffirming confirmation that a language (like the U.S. .English) is a living organism receiving “loanwords” (from Spanish, for example) to enhance continuously itself. Indeed, the American society can be reassured that the “melting pot” which has created the unique characteristics of our Nation is working effectively even in function of the foreign languages (like Spanish).

This is why the research asserts that the necessity of better understanding the usefulness of Foreign Languages in our American Society and School System. After a brief study of the evolution of the Spanish Language from the Latin, the research explains in detail how and why the Spanish language has influenced the American English development. Furthermore, the research emphasizes the importance of the Spanish in the differentiation process of our language from the English language since Columbus and the colonial times.

The content of the research can be summarized briefly in this outline: First, a brief review of the Spanish Language development in Medieval Spain. Second, a study of the Spanish Language in colonial America. Then, the core of the research: the “loanwords” from Spanish in the American English. Finally, how and why the Spanish Language is constructive for the development of the US English and its differentiation from the British English.

Some experts agree that a successful language like our needs continuously new words (called “loanwords”) to adapt to a changing society, its time and its challenges. The more words from other languages are assimilated, the more expressive and useful our English can become (Duran, 1981).

This is precisely what has characterized the growing success of the American English worldwide: with Spanish “loanwords”, for example, our language can be more easily accepted and understood in Latin America, as well as in the Iberian Peninsula and the Philippines (Crystal, 1990).

Another feature related to the usefulness of the influence of the Spanish language in our language is the intrinsic facilitation of the integration process for the millions of Latino immigrants living in the United States. The more English speaking Americans accept to use some Spanish in conversations, the friendlier they will be to deal with the Latino minority and the consequent problems.

We have to avoid the possible creation in our country of a “language barrier” like those that existed in Europe last century, which were partially responsible for the nationalistic and xenophobic first and second world wars. Our famous “melting pot” of people and their languages is the best antidote to this dangerous problem (Ferguson & Shirley, 1982).

This is exactly why the Spanish influence in the US English (with more than ten thousand “loanwords”) is a very positive and useful contribution to our society.

Scholars pinpoint that the English language is “a Germanic skeleton with Latin flesh”, because the English lexicon is mainly Latin after many centuries of assimilation from Rome and from neo-Latin countries, like France and Italy (Marckwardt, 1980). So, the acceptance of the influence in our American English, of another neo-Latin language, Spanish, can only bring us a better future.

Indeed, strange mixed creations like the “Spanglish” or “Chicano” dialect can (at least in theory) aggravate the xenophobia of some Americans, like the influential White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASP) who are against those not accepting the “English only” politics (Hendrickson, 1986): the natural evolution of a language and the slow - century after century - assimilation of “loanwords” from other languages must be accepted and helped, but strange “mixtures” should be rejected (as History in Europe teaches us).

First Section: The Evolution of the Spanish Language

The evolution of the Spanish Language from the Fall of the Roman Empire

From the linguistic point of view the Spanish Language was created from the Latin after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D. In the middle of the Iberian Peninsula (called “Hispania” in Latin) there is a region named “Castilla”, or land of the Castles, where the Roman Legions had their main “castra” (or castle in Latin).
From there in the Middle Ages the Reconquista (or “reconquest” from the Arabs) spread the Castellano language to all of Spain. In the Renaissance years of Cervantes, Calderon de la Barca and Lope de Vega the Castellano became the official language of the Kingdom of Spain. That is why the Castellano language is synonymous of Spanish language (Duran, 1981).

The full romanization of the Iberian peninsula in the fifth century was clearly seen in the widespread use of the Latin in all the “Hispania” society, not only in the upper class as in Roman Britain. This is the main reason why in the middle ages a neo-Latin language developed in Spain, while in Britain the use of the Latin disappeared (even if many words remained in the new Anglo-Saxon language of the British isles).

Indeed, some lexicology researchers (Patterson and Urrutibeheity) pinpoint that 81 % of the Spanish language originated directly from the Latin, with another 11 % indirectly through other neo-Latin languages (French, Italian and Portuguese). Arabic contributed more than 4000 terms to Spanish. Some of them have passed to our English (like “alcohol”, “algebra”, “lemon”) trough a process called “loanwording” (or to borrow words from a dominant language to another).
There is even a small amount of German words (nearly one thousand) in the Spanish language, as a consequence of the few centuries of Visigoth rule of Spain. Finally, some dozen words in Spanish are originated from the old Greek and the Celtic.

The Linguist experts agree that Spanish is fully a neo-Latin language in phonology, morphology and syntax (Fernandez Flores, 1965).
As a final point, in the lexical analysis of Spanish, the 8 % of terms not originated from the Latin are borrowed from other languages in different periods of time in the last two thousand years.

Spanish Lexicon

The historical periods that saw the most rapid enlargement in the Spanish lexicon correspond to times in which Spain was experiencing important cultural development.
According to Patterson and Urrutibeheity, the lexicon of the Spanish language is made of words 24 % “inherited” from the Vulgar Latin, 35 % “created” by different kinds of affixation, compounding and agglutination, and finally 45 % “borrowed” (or “loanworded”) from other languages.

They even emphasize that borrowings were especially numerous during the fifteenth century (35 %), and the thirteenth (21 %), sixteenth (12 %) and seventeenth centuries(11 %). Thus, the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which correspond to the Renaissance and the transitional period immediately preceding it, contributed the majority (58%) of the loanwords.
This explains the strong influence of the Italian Renaissance language in Spanish artistic and literary words (Achard & Kemmer, 2004).
Indeed, a smaller percentage (21 %) were borrowed in the thirteenth century during the time of Alfonso el Sabio, a period of intense literary and intellectual activity in the Spain of the “Reconquista” against the Arabs.

It was also during these same eras that the Spanish lexicon was increased by the largest number of “created” words: in the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries an astonishing 48% of the total. The remarkable similarity of the figures for both borrowing and creating of Spanish words is an example of cultural expansion resulting in lexical growth (Patterson & Urrutibeheity, 1975).

During the Renaissance years there were the first interactions between the Spanish and the English languages, but were confined practically to a few literary and artistic words, often related to the Italian language (like “piano”). The strengths of the Spanish lexicon lie in its expressive power, richness of color and easy of understanding. Like English, and unlike French, Spanish possesses a great wealth of synonyms which provide means for subtlety and variety of expression.

Often in the Spanish vocabulary coexist two terms with the same referent, one from Latin and another borrowed from another language (even neo-Latin), offering different shades of meaning and greater or lesser degrees of formality.
This characteristic is similar in the English vocabulary, where practically every word can be expressed with two terms, one from German and another from Latin (e.g.: heaven and paradise, big and great, wealth and affluence, travel and voyage, etc.).
Other lexicon nuances are derived from the flexibility in altering Spanish words through affixation, functional shift and compounding, processes which often serve to express attitudinal factors (Duran, 1981).

In Spanish, as in German, words formed by composition are usually transparent in their meaning since the semantic values of their constituent parts are well known, thus facilitating the understanding of complex neologisms. English, in contrast, is more opaque in its non-Germanic words because they have been borrowed as wholes and the meanings of their components have become obscure.(Crystal, 1990).
As a result of composition and inflection, Spanish words tend to be longer than their English equivalent and thus, as any translator knows, a page in English is likely to be four-fifths of a page in its Spanish version (Shores, 1972).
Thus, an English person when writing a sentence or paragraph is very brief and precise, but a Spanish person will use plenty of redundancy and long phrases. For example, in an English article we can read “…...this is an easy - going behavior…..”, but in the language of Cervantes a Spanish writer will never translate the term “easy-going” in “…facil - andante….” (he will instead use a long group of words, like “……muy facil y con bastante movimiento…..”).

Finally, some linguists indicate that this Spanish redundancy creates problems when dealing with mathematical, scientific and technical phrases, while the synthesis capacity of the English is considered by them as one of the main reasons of the worldwide growth of the Shakespeare language in the current “high-tech” century (Duran, 1981).

The evolution of the Spanish Language after the Discovery of America

After Columbus in 1492 discovered America for the Kings of Spain, the Spanish language was brought to the new discovered continent. Spain colonized most of the land between the actual British Columbia in Canada and the tip of South America in Chile and Argentina. The “Conquistadores” defeated big local empires (Inca, Maya, Aztec) and imposed their Spanish language to the indigenous Indian population (Washburn, 1975).
The same was done by the British in North America, even if in smaller scale initially, because the French and the Portuguese in the century after the Columbus Discovery were more organized and powerful in their colonial expansion. Only at the end of the eighteenth century the English started to dominate North America (Fernandez Flores, 1965).

Indeed, since the end of the fifteenth century, some languages from Western Europe were present in the New World. The English, French, Dutch, and Portuguese languages started to expand –together with the Spanish – inside America from the coastal areas.
With the first European colonists came the new linguistic development of their languages. A mother country in all likelihood had several dialects, but speakers of these dialects in the new country erased differences which hinder easy understanding, in a process called “linguistic levelling” (Finegan, 1980).
The result was often similar to the “standard” dialect of the time in the homeland, or in the most important areas from where came the initial colonization. But there were differences in the process, mainly in the Spanish empire.

New World Spanish: Castilian or Andalusian

In the case of Spain, historians agree that in the sixteenth century the dialect from Castilla was the dominant in Spanish America, but after the seventeenth century the dominance passed to the Andalusian dialect of southern Spain (Menendez, 2003).
This has created the celebrated “Great Polemic” among Hispanic linguists as to the origins of the Latin American Spanish: is it a Castilian or an Andalusian dialect? The resolution of this question has been vastly complicated by the fact that either conclusion can be objectively supported by data available to modern linguists.

Scholars who believe that the Spanish of the New World has developed from the Andalusian emphasize the phonological resemblance between many varieties of the Latin American speech and that of southern Spain (like the “seseo” or special pronunciation of the “s”).
They even cite the historical evidence that the poor south of Spain (Andalusia and Murcia) gave 49 % of the male emigration to colonial Latin America, and 68 % of the female. Indeed the relatively rich regions of north and central Spain sent only most of the upper class members of the burocracy to rule the American colonies.
These convincing arguments are rebutted on equally good grounds by linguists who believe that the Latin American varieties of Spanish are of multiple rather than singular origin: They note that by the time of the conquest of Mexico and Peru, the Castilian had become officially recognized as the prestige dialect of Spain.

They pinpoint that it was impossible for a form of speech like the Andalusian, viewed as regional rather than national, to have become dominant in all the Spanish colonies (Fernandez Flores, 1965)
While the “anti-Andalucistas” admit that many varieties of Latin American Spanish are similar to the Andalusian dialect in pronunciation, they empathize that the phonology of the Mexican and Andean highlands shows great similarity to that of the Castilian.

Accordingly, for this group of linguists there are two major categories of Latin American dialects:
1) those resembling Castilian and centered in the highlands of Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.
2) those similar to the Andalusian, and spoken by the populations living in the remaining coastal areas of the Spanish colonies (from the Caribbean to Argentina and Chile).

This distribution of the New World Spanish into “highland” and “lowland” varieties is attributed by these linguists mainly to the following historical reasons:

1) when the Spaniards first undertook the conquest of America, they were attracted to lands such as Mexico and Peru that had riches and civilized (hence exploitable) populations to offer.
2) while in Europe, as a result of the Mediterranean trade, the great civilizations were coastal, in America the most advanced cultures (Aztec, Maya, Inca) had developed on the cool plateaus of the interior. Here it was that the sixteenth century “Conquistadores” (mainly from Castilla and surrounding areas) established the Spanish rule, and with it, their “lengua nacional”, the Castilian.
3) Hence the Castilian, as the official dialect of the government, was the language of the two great centers of the Hispanic colonial power, Mexico and Peru.
4) Toward the end of the sixteenth century, this situation was to change as domination over the American colonies began to pass into the hands of the Andalusians, when the Spanish Kings granted to the “Casa de Contratacion” in Seville (Andalusia) the privilege of administering the trade with the New World. 5) Under these circumstances, the Caribbean, daily visited by galleons from southern ports, soon became an Andalusian “lake”. South American coastal and lowland areas, hithero nelected by explorers and colonists, underwent vigorous development by the “Casa de Contratacion” throughout the seventeenth century.
6) In these areas, economically and culturally dominated by the Andalusians, the Andalusian dialect was implanted and prospered (Jones, 1979).

Historians believe that nearly one million Spaniards moved to the Spanish American Colonies between the Columbus Discovery and the nineteenth century, mainly as farmers (developing the typical “Hacienda/Rancho” Latin American economy) and approximately 65 % of them were from Andalusia and the surrounding poor southern regions of Spain (Extremadura and Murcia).

That is the main reason of the huge spread of the Andalusian dialect in the Spanish New World, which changed - in the distant areas of Argentina - even some basic Spanish grammar rules (e.g., the Spanish “tu” (you) is said “vos”, like in Latin).

To tell the truth, in contemporary Florida it is possible to perceive the difficulty of Latin American immigrants in understanding well each other, when an immigrant from Mexico (with Castilian dialect) talks to an immigrant from Cuba or Puerto Rico (with Andalusian dialect).

Transplanted Language Traits

Since the end of the fifteenth century, several European languages have been “transplanted” to overseas colonies in America, where they either supplanted the languages of the native population or have continued to coexist with them until the present.
These transplanted languages shared a number of traits similar in their evolution, like the cited leveling process. English spoken in colonial North America, for example, was similar to that of London, and the English colonists from the Yorkshire quickly stopped to use their own northern dialect in the New World (Finegan, 1980).

The same happened in the Spanish colonies. In fact, Spanish speakers of the sixteenth century Latin America were not an homogeneus group but represented many social classes and many geographical areas in a mixture similar to that of Spain. Thus the prestige dialect continued to exercise the same pressure abroad as at home, while differences due to influence of local dialects such as Leonese or Aragonese tended to be quickly eliminated.

In the seventeenth century, when the Andalusians became dominant in the New World, leveling continued, but on the basis of southern Spanish (the Andalusian dialect) rather than Castillian, producing a second manner of speaking.

Another trait shared by transplanted languages is their proclivity to retain traditional forms abandoned in their land of origin (Finegan, 1980). In American English, for example, pronunciations such as “heist” (hoist) and “pizen” (poison), once acceptable in English, are widespread in rustic usage. Similar to these are “chaw” (chew), “critter” (creature), and “tetched” (touched).
Morphological maintenance can be seen in “holp” (help) and “hit” (it). Similarly, Latin American Spanish exhibits some archaic features (Duran, 1981).

Phonologically, it has been seen to resemble sixteenth and seventeenth century usage more closely than it does that of contemporary Spain.

Morphologically, the single most important archaism, used instead of “tu” (you) mainly in Argentina, is “vos”, the intermediate level of formality in the Renaissance. In Argentina and Uruguay, alongside “vos” are its accompanying verb forms such as “tenes, decis, sos” and the imperatives “anda’, pone’, veni’”, used instead of “tienes, dices, eres” and “ve, pon, ven”.

Another trait is the common use in popular speech all around Latin America of an “s” added to the second person singular of the preterite: “vistes” (viste), “dijistes” (dijiste), “hicistes” (hiciste).
Lexically, the New World Spanish has an abundance of terms and meanings from earlier centuries, no longer used in contemporary Spain with their original senses. Some are “lindo” (bonito), “liviano” (lijero) and “fierro” (hierro).

A peculiar trait of transplanted languages is their adaptation to the new environments.

Colonists find themselves confronted with the need to talk about new fauna and flora, new artifacts, and new social and economic situations (Finegan, 1980).

Perhaps the most usual solution to this problem is the adoption of the concept together with its name in its culture of origin. For example, English settlers in North America were thus enabled to speak of strange animals such as “raccoons”, weapons such as “tomahawks” and shoes such as “moccasins” (Hendrickson, 1986).

Likewise, Latin American Spanish has borrowed from many indigenous languages words for plants and animals such as “maiz”, “patata” and “opossum”, and even words like “cacique” (Indian chief).

A final trait that Spanish shares with other colonial languages is the inevitable change due to isolation from the original source (Washburn, 1975).

An analogy can be drawn from the break-up of the Latin into a number of Romance dialects after the unifying force of the Roman Empire had disappeared. Every language is subject to drift, and when a group of speakers is cut off from a linguistic mainland, this tendency is increased. For example, a Briton can immediately identify a speaker of English from the United States by his accent, and so can do a Spaniard with a Mexican (Reed, 1977).

Lexicon also develops in new directions according to local cultural demands. So, a Briton had little need to refer to raccoons and to a Spaniard the size of a horse is irrelevant, but to an Argentine gaucho depending upon his horse for his livelihood and social prestige, the characteristics of his mount are extremely important. That is why in Argentine Spanish more than 500 terms have developed to describe the horse in the minutest detail.


Furthering the differentiation in lexicon was the slow pace of communication between Europe and its colonies before the twentieth century. The time to travel across the Atlantic between Europe and North America was nearly two months in the sixteenth century, one month during Napoleon times, ten days at the beginning of the twentieth century and only a few hours in our jet era. There is some evidence that modern technology may not only arrest but perhaps even reverse this type of linguistic diversification, based on time and distance.

The Spanish of Southwestern United States

From the Columbus times to the nineteenth century the Spanish was the official language of most of the actual South and West of the United States.

The Empire of Spain in North America stretched from British Columbia in Canada to the Mississippi river and Florida. In 1763 Spain received the Louisiana Territory from France, but after a few years Spain gave Florida to the USA.

As a consequence Florida, where the Spaniards built in 1565 the first town of North America, St. Augustine, was totally assimilated in the English speaking mainstream and the Andalusian dialect spoken there was completely lost during the nineteenth century (Jones, 1979).

On the other side of the Mississipi the Castilian dialect of the “highlands” of Mexico has survived –for historical reasons- and is spoken continuously to our days in the Mexico bordering areas of the Soutwestern USA (Ferguson & Shirley, 1982).

The Spanish speaking population north of the Rio Grande is made mostly of mestizo descendants from the Spanish colonial times. That is the main reason of the huge amount of Amerindian words in their Castilian dialect (Washburn, 1975).
It has been calculated that only thirty thousand Spaniards emigrated from Spain to settle in California, and the areas north of the Rio Grande, during the centuries of the Spanish Empire.

They were able to create a political entity that survived only under the leadership of Spain and later of Mexico, but that was unable to remain independent from the pressure of the growing English speaking United States (Fernandez Flores, 1965). Spanish has been spoken in the region which is now the southwestern United States since the sixteenth century.

The first Spaniards here were Cabeza de Vaca and his men in 1536, who explored the area to find the famous “El Dorado”. There were no permanent settlers, however, until 1598 when Juan de Onate conquered the territory of actual Texas and claimed it for Spain. Santa Fe (New Mexico) was founded twelve years later and in 1630 had a population of 250 Spaniards, 50 mestizos and 700 indians.

Texas was organized as a Spanish political entity only in 1718 and California in 1767. In 1845 Texas was admitted to the United States, provoking Mexico and leading to the Mexican American war. This conflict ended with the annexation to the USA in 1948 of the entire Southwest north of the Rio Grande.
American settlers, welcome for the most part, flocked by the thousands to the newly won lands, that quickly were Americanized in culture and language. Improved economic opportunities in the Southwest drew immigrants from Mexico in the following years, and with the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) more immigrants arrived, refugees from the ranks of armies defeated in recent battles (Stavans, 2003).

Most of these Mexican immigrants were poor and uneducated mestizo farmers from ranches and small towns of northern Mexico. A smaller group, however, consisted of highly educated professionals such as physicians, lawyers and journalists who escaped from political persecution (Fernandez Flores, 1965).

Many of the larger and less privileged group, hoping for better economic opportunities, assimilated the English culture and language, losing their Spanish by the third generation. But most of the second group, more educated, maintained at home their Spanish culture and language to our days, speaking English only at work (Menendez, 2003).

The quality of the Spanish used by Mexican Americans has varied considerably during the twentieth century. Many immigrants were naturally Spanish-dominant, but the speech of their following generations has become increasingly anglicized before WWII.

This trend was reinforced by laws in several states forbidding the use of anything but English in the American Public Schools, but after 1950 the subordinate status of Spanish in the Southwest started to change (Finegan, 1980).

In the 1950s the “Chicano” movement started to demand equal status for Spanish speaking minorities in the USA. The young Mexican people of this organization were aware of their social and political situation and of their potential for power. With this perception of their identity came a rebirth of pride in the Spanish language, more interest in Standard Spanish and its use as a medium for writing, both literary and political, in support of the Mexican people in the Southwest (Varo, 1971).

As a result, the quality of Mexican American Spanish is today considerably higher than it was at its low ebb in the 1940s.

The kind of Spanish spoken in the Southwest is in general homogeneous and like rustic Spanish elsewhere in Latin America. As all the Castilian speaking areas of “highland” Spanish, it is characterized by “seseo” (use of the “s”) and “yeismo” (use of “y” instead of the Spanish “ll”).

Also general is the use of methatesis (or change of letters in a word): for example “probe” for “pobre” (poor) or “suidad” for “ciudad” (city). Particular to New Mexico is the methatesis “pader” for pared (wall).

Finally, there is even a small difference in pronunciation in the Spanish of Colorado (fully “loanworded” with English words) from the one in the bordering Mexico areas.

Second Section: The influence of the Spanish language in the US English

Overview

The influence of the Spanish language in the U.S. English is based on the historical fact that there has been a continuous interaction between the two languages in North America since the Columbus times. This influence is so pervasive that even States like Colorado (“Coloured”) and Metropolis like Los Angeles (“The Angels”) have Spanish names.

Indeed, two little areas of the American Southwest never stopped to have Spanish speaking communities. In north New Mexico and south Colorado there is a mountainous area where is spoken (by more than 200000 people) an archaic and rustic Castilian dialect more similar to the Spanish of Guatemala than to the one of Mexico. And in the delta of the Mississippi a dialect originated in the Canary islands is still spoken by more than 5000 people (St. Bernard county, Louisiana).

Even in our Florida some historians (Mormino & Pozzetta, 1987) pinpoint that in the Tampa area there has been a Spanish speaking community which has survived the retreat of the Spanish Empire from Florida after 1819. Ybor City, the city near Tampa founded in 1885 by Cubans in order to develop the “Cigar” industry in the USA, was initially populated with one thousand descendants of the Spanish mestizo fishermen living in the area when the USA bought Florida.

Small numbers of Spanish speaking fishermen, farmers and miners (similarly surviving the “Anglicization” of the nineteenth century United States) are reported by scholars to be present continually in that century in the bordering States of California (S. Diego), Arizona (S.Ignacio de Tubac) and Texas (El Paso, S.Antonio). But they did not form communities, until the arrival of the first Mexican immigrants during the late 1800s.
It is interesting an historical report done by the “Arizona Town Hall Research Committee” in 2002 about the relations between the Anglo and the Spanish speaking population of Arizona after the American takeover of 1848:

“…..Few of the newcomers to Arizona before 1880 were Anglos…in Tucson, where by 1860 Anglos numbered 168 in a town population of 925, interethnic marriages and relations with the original Hispanic population grew….the small Anglo population did not threaten Mexicans’ traditional way of life….what most bound both groups together was the Apache……nowhere in the Southwest Anglos and Mexicans got along as well as in southern Arizona before 1880…but the advent of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1880 signaled the end of an era in Arizona in many ways. Its impact on the Tucson based Mexican elite was disastrous…….and in the early 1890s a growing tide of anti-Mexican sentiment was sparked by an economic depression between the rising Anglo population…”.

This report is very indicative of the situation of the Hispanics in the nineteenth century American Southwest (Jones, 1979).

Anyway, even if most of the Spanish speaking population in the Southwest and Southeast have been fully assimilated in the last two centuries by the English speaking United States, they and their descendants have exercised a profound influence on the culture that has enveloped them (Fernandez Flores, 1965).
Undeniably the commerce, industry, agriculture, trades, architecture, customs and even laws in the States bordering Mexico have continued to show the imprint of the Hispanic civilization long after their political integration into the Union (Menendez, 2003). Even the typical gastronomy of the Southwest is crammed with Mexican Spanish influences, like the poetry and the music.

This influence has been growing after WWII with the influx of millions of Mexican and Latin American immigrants in our country, and it has partially reversed the process of full “anglicization” of the nineteenth century (Finegan, 1980).
Indeed, according to the last Census of 2004, there are 40 million Latino American residents in the United States, surpassing for the first time in history the Blacks as the first American minority. Mexicans are 67% of them (Puerto Ricans 9 % and Cubans 4 %).
The highest proportion of the State total population that is Hispanic is in New Mexico (43 %), followed by California (36 %) and Texas (35 %).

New Mexico is the only State of the Union that is officially bilingual English–Spanish. More than one third of New Mexicans claim Hispanic origins, the vast majority of whom descends from the original Spanish colonists in the northern portion of the State. Most of the considerable less numerous Mexican immigration resides in the southern part of New Mexico.

At least 35 % of New Mexicans are also fluent with a unique dialect of Spanish, the “New Mexican Spanish”, full of vocabulary often unknown to other Spanish speakers. This dialect, because of the historical isolation of the area, preserves some late medieval Castilian vocabulary considered archaic elsewhere, adopts many Indian words for local features and is full of English words for modern concepts (Washburn, 1975).

Actually the United States is considered to have the fourth largest Spanish population in the world, after Mexico, Colombia and Spain (Menendez, 2003). Finally, according to statistical projections, 25 % of the US population in the year 2050 will be Spanish speaking, with probable political and socioeconomic consequences.

Spanish Loanwords

The huge amount of Spanish loanwords in our American English is the biggest evidence of the influence of the Spanish language in our country.
Some scholars believe that there are ten thousand Spanish loanwords in our US English, and their number is increasing with the millions of Latino Americans entering - legally or illegally - to live in the USA (Newman, 1974). These loanwords are most evident in southern and western toponimy: Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Colorado, Los Angeles, El Paso, Rio Grande, Rio Amarillo are some of the many Spanish names we consider “All-American”.

But we have Spanish loanwords even in the terminology relating to the cattle industry, mining and farming, like “rancho” (ranch), and in the designations of American flora and fauna or of southwestern gastronomy.
English has gone through many historical periods in which large numbers of words from a particular language were borrowed. These periods coincide with times of major cultural contact between English speakers and those speaking other languages.

For example, the French language influenced profoundly the English after the Norman conquest of England by the French speaking William the Conqueror: even the English word “renaissance” is loan worded from the French of those years (Marckwardt, 1980).

Indeed, it is part of the cultural history of English speakers that they have adopted loanwords from the languages of whatever cultures they have come in contact with. There have been few periods when borrowings became unfashionable, and there has never been a national academy in Britain or in the USA to attempt to restrict new foreign loanwords, as there has been in many European countries (Germany, Italy, France, etc..)

U.S. English words borrowed (“loanworded”) from the Spanish language

The following are the most important words of Spanish origin present in our American language, with a simple explanation of their meaning and/or derivation:
Adios (good bye)
Adobe (brick)
Aficionado (fan)
Albino (albino)
Alcove (from Spanish “alcoba”, originally from the Arab word “al-qubba”)
Alligator (from Spanish “el lagarto”)
Amarillo (yellow)
Armadillo (from Spanish meaning little “armadura”)
Anchovy (from Spanish “anchoa”)
Armada (fleet)
Arroyo (creek)
Avocado (Spanish word originally from the Aztec “ahuacatl”)
Banana (banana)
Barracuda (barracuda)
Barbecue (Spanish word originally from the Caribbean “barbacoa”)
Bizarre (Spanish word originally from the Italian “bizzarro”)
Booby (from Spanish “bobo”)
Bronco (wild)
Burro (donkey)
Cafeteria (cafeteria)
Canary (from Spanish “canario”)
Canasta (basket)
Cannibal (Spanish word originally from the Caribbean “canibal”)
Canoe (from Spanish “canoa”)
Canyon (from Spanish “canon”)
Cargo (from Spanish “cargar”)
Chihuahua (dog breed named after Mexican city and State)
Chocolate (Spanish world originally fron the Aztec “xocolatl”)
Cigar,Cigarette (from Spanish “cigarro”)
Cocaine (Spanish word originally from the Inca “koka”)
Coco (Spanish word originally from the Caribbean “Ikakuo”)
Comrade (from Spanish “camarada”)
Conquistador (conqueror)
Coyote (Spanish word from the Aztec “coyotl”)
Creole (from Spanish “criollo”) Dago (offensive term from the Spanish name “Diego”)
Desperado (desperado)
Dorado (golden)
Embargo (embargo)
Fiesta (fiesta)
Filibuster (from Spanish “filibustero”)
Guerrilla (guerrilla)
Guitar (guitar)
Hammock (from Spanish “jamaca”)
Hacienda (hacienda)
Hurricane (Spanish word originally from the Caribbean “huracan”)
Jaguar (jaguar, originally from the Maya)
Key (from Spanish word “cayo”)
Llama (llama, originally from the Inca)
Macho (male)
Machete (machete)
Margarita (margarita)
Marihuana (from Spanish “marijuana”)
Mesa (altiplane)
Mestize (from Spanish “mestizo”, mixed race white-indian)
Mosquito (mosquito)
Mulatto (Spanish word “mulato”, originally from Italian “mulatto”)
Negro (black)
Patio (courtyard)
Picaresque (from Spanish “picaresco”)
Plaintain (from Spanish “platano”)
Plaza (square)
Potato (from Spanish “patata”, originally from Inca “papa”)
Pronto (immediately)
Ranch (from Spanish “rancho”)
Renegade (from Spanish “renegade”)
Rodeo (rodeo)
Salsa (salsa)
Savanna (from Spanish “savana”)
Savvy (from Spanish “sabio”)
Siesta (nap)
Sombrero (hat)
Stampede (from Spanish “estampida”)
Tobacco (from Spanish “tabaco”, originally from the Maya)
Tomato (tomato, originally from the Aztec “tomatl”)
Tornado (tornado)
Tuna (from Spanish “atun”)
Vanilla (from Spanish “vainilla”)
Vigilante (vigilante)

Geographical and place names in U.S. English can mainly be found in the Southwest and in Florida. About a fifth of those in California are somehow connected wit Saints’ names (San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, etc.) and with Angels (Los Angeles).
There are even many cases in which the original Spanish names have been translated - either partially or totally - into English, like “Rio de los Reyes” into Kings River or Playa Hermosa into Hermosa Beach (Reed, 1977).

Furthermore, the following State names are clearly from Spanish: Arizona, California, Texas, Colorado, Florida and Nevada. Some experts believe that even Montana, Georgia, Virginia and Carolina are Spanish (Menendez, 2003). The Bahamas name comes from the Spanish “Baja mar” (shallow sea), because these islands were part of Florida until the eighteenth century.

Finally, some big American rivers (like Rio Grande, Rio Colorado, etc.) and even mountainous areas (like the many “Mesa”) have Spanish names. South of the continental United States there is the island of Puerto Rico, that since 1898 was entered into the English speaking world and that until our days has stubbornly refused to become a US State (Navarro, 1966).
Puerto Ricans speak an Andalusian Spanish heavily influenced by US loanwords, and they consider themselves only Spanish speaking (even if the majority of them are bilingual Spanish-English). Besides, the 2 millions of Puerto Ricans living in our country (mainly in the New York area) have given some famous Spanish words to our music (like “salsa”).

As a final point, something similar is happening with the millions of Mexicans living in our country. Many of them speak a variety of Spanish that is heavily influenced by the English. So, in the last decades in California has sprouted the so called “Chicano” or “Tex-Mex” dialect (a hybrid Spanish-English, or “Spanglish”, characterized by Spanish morphology and syntax with English-derived vocabulary full of loanwords).
Some linguists even believe that the “Spanglish” can be considered as a growing new language, and this is creating huge problems with the Americans defending the English-only policy toward immigrants (Stavans, 2003).

The influence of the Spanish in the US English: BENEFITS

The benefits of the Spanish influence in our language are mainly two:

1) A growing and healthy language needs continuous new words to adapt to the changing history and to the socioeconomic challenges. For example, some philologists find that the societes without technological terms usually remain stacked at primitive agricultural levels. Indeed, the benefits of Spanish loanwords, received from the rancho/hacienda society of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, have proved to be helpful to the development of the English speaking society in the young United States colonizing the “Far West”.

2) The millions of Spanish speaking immigrants constitute a serious problem of integration for our Nation. Many political organizations in our country complain about this “invasion” and promote the forced assimilation of these immigrants trough the English-only policy in every area of the American society. This is creating divergences with the political organizations defending the right of the immigrants to maintain their languages, using the bilingualism in our society. In my opinion the solution to this integration problem can be centered on an English language that can be fully loanworded with Spanish words and easily understandable by the growing Hispanic community.

This is the main benefit the Spanish language can give to the USA: a “pacification” of the integration problem between the “Anglo” and the “Latino” communities. Actually some famous scholars even predict that after 2050 nearly 2/3 (or 66 %) of the American English words will possibly came from the Latin, mainly through the Spanish Language (Trifone, 2003).
This is going to be an astonishing fact, with deep repercussions in our society when considered together with the possibility of a Catholic and “Latino” majority in the future US population (Newman, 1974).

It is believed that the Catholic and “Latino” will only be the biggest groups (but not the majority) in the USA , so it is imperative for our society to be prepared to this likelihood, in order to reduce the foreseeable problems.
That is why must be supported the acceptance of an American English language that can be fully influenced by Spanish “loanwords”. In the long run it will prove to be a mitigatory factor that will facilitate the integration between the “Anglo” and the “Latino” parts of the US society (Achard & Kemmer, 2004).

Indeed, the “Spanglish” mixture (of English and Spanish) can only exacerbate the zealots of “English only” political positions. Even the bilingual solution (waiting for the minority assimilation) has proved to be a temporary solution in Europe.
Experts agree that the third generation of immigrants usually forgets the original language of their grandparents, as has happened with the immigrants from Europe, Asia and Africa (Ferguson & Shirley, 1982).

But in the case of the “Latino” immigrants, who are mostly from Mexico, this is not going to happen for many reasons (mainly cultural, historical, geographical and social), due to proximity of the Rio Grande frontier (Finegan, 1980). However, they can identify themselves in an American English gradually differentiated from the original British English and full of Spanish “loanwords”. In the long run they can substitute their original Spanish/Mexican for this “familiar” American English, helping in this way their integration process in the American “melting pot”.

This is the percentage of Hispanics in some States of the Union, according to the 2004 and 2000 census:

State ...................2004........ 2000.......... Status of Spanish

New Mexico....... 46.9 %..... 42.1 %........ Officially Bilingual
California............ 36.3 %..... 32.4 %........ Bilingualism proposed
Texas.................. 35.9 %..... 32.0 %........ Bilingualism proposed
Arizona............... 29.8 %..... 25.3 %........ Bilingualism proposed
Nevada............... 23.4 %..... 19.7 %
Colorado............. 18.9 %..... 17.1 %
Florida................ 18.8 %..... 16.8 %
New York........... 16.8 %..... 15.1 %
New Jersey........ 14.9 %..... 13.3 %
Illinois................. 13.7 %..... 12.3 %
Utah.................... 10.6 %...... 9.6 %
Connecticut........ 10.5 %...... 9.4 %

We have to consider that there are more than seven millions of Latino Americans living in our country illegally, so these percentages should be increased accordingly. Consequently, the Hispanic population is booming in the United States and nothing seems to indicate a reduction of this demographic process. Only the use of radical solutions, as some political extremists promote, can reverse this process. Other political representatives, more moderate, want more emphasis on the English-only policy, at least in the public schools of the States with more Hispanic presence (Hornby, 1977).

The zealots of the influential WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) pinpoint that the linguistic assimilation process that has happened with other communities (like German, Italian or Russian, where in two/three generations the “Anglicization” of the American melting pot has worked perfectly), in the case of the Latino Americans is not successful. The reasons, mainly for the Mexicans: the proximity to their motherland Mexico and the historical remembrance of the centuries of the Spanish Empire in the American “Far West” (Jones, 1979).

Furthermore, these critics of the Hispanic “invasion” always remember what has happened between France and Germany (and other European countries) when a big linguistic minority lives in a bordering region belonging to a country speaking a different language. World War I (and WWII) started in Alsace, a French region with a huge German speaking community bordering Germany. These zealots fear that the Rio Grande can have a history of war similar to the Rhine (Newman, 1974). Of course, this scenario cannot ever happen, because the American and European mentalities are different. Anyway, the melting pot can happen even linguistically with the “Latinization” of the actual American English full of Hispanic loanwords.

In order to sustain this hope there it is a very interesting research made in 2003 by the Italian Professor of Lexicology M. Trifone, Director of the Linguistic Center at the Siena University.
He studied how many times the English words “heaven” and “paradise” appeared in the “New York Times” newspaper of the year 1902 and 2002. Both words have the same meaning, but the first comes from the German and the second from the Latin (through the Italian Language). He discovered that in 1902 “heaven” was used 70 % of the times and “paradise” only 30 %, but in 2002 the German “heaven” was used only 36 % and the Latin “paradise” an astonishing 64 % of the times. He then researched many other words (like “hell” and “inferno”, “end” and “finish”, “big” and great”, etc.) and found the same similar results. In one century there had been a complete reversal, showing the increasing influence of “loanwords” from the Latin in the American English.

Trifone explained this fact with the massive immigration in our country from Italy in the first decades of the 1900s, and with the recent arrival in the USA of millions of Latino Americans (in the example, the Spanish “paraiso” is similar to the Italian “paradiso”). He emphasized that these two big communities with their neo-Latin languages influenced and are influencing the “Latinization” of the American English in the last century.

This and other remarkable researches explain why professor Trifone, considered the main Italian Scholar in Linguistic, believes that in the second half of our century the American English may have 2/3 of its words originated from the Latin Language. As a result, he even believes that only the grammar and syntax (fully German) will disallow the classification of the American English as a neo-Latin language, similar to the French Language (which has nearly 3/4 of its words from Latin).

In conclusion, if our American English will experience a “Latinization” so huge, thanks mainly to the influence of the Spanish spoken by millions of Latino Americans, our language will be easily understandable by them. This will facilitate their integration in our linguistic melting pot as has happened with other big communities (like Germans or Italians), and so the Hispanics will reject hybrid solutions like the Spanglish or the Chicano dialect.

This fact in turn will reduce (and may be even finish) the tensions between the “Anglo” and the “Latino” in our country (Stavans, 2003) . Too good to be true? “Ai posteri l’ardua sentenza” (the future will tell), as the Italian poet Dante said.
Anyway, the main benefit our language (and society) is receiving from the Spanish language is the facilitation of the integration process of the growing “Latino” and the shrinking “Anglo” communities in the USA, thanks to the acceptance of an American English fully loaded with Spanish loanwords.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achard, M. & Kemmer S. (2004). Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: C.S.L.I. Publications
Arizona Town Hall Research (2002). Historical report. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from
http://courses.ed.asu.edu/gonzalez/Efiles&folders/Townhall.txt
Crystal, D. (1990). The English Language. London: Penguin Books
Duran, R. (1981). Latino language and communicative behavior. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex
Ferguson, C. & Shirley, B. (1982). Language in the USA. New York: Cambridge U.P.
Fernandez Flores, D. (1965). The Spanish heritage in the United States. Madrid: Publicaciones Espanolas.
Finegan, E. (1980). Attitudes toward English Usage: the history of a war of words. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hendrickson, R. (1986). American Talk: the Words and Ways of American Dialects. New York: Viking
Hornby, P. (1977). Bilingualism: psychological, social and educational implications. New York: Academic Press.
Jones. O. L. (1979). Los Paisanos: Spanish settler on the northern frontier of New Spain. Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press.
Marckwardt, A. (1980). American English. New York: Oxford U.P.
Menendez, G. F. M. (2003). El Desplazamiento Linguistico del Espanol por el Ingles. Madrid: Ediciones Catedra S.A.
Mormino,G. & Pozzetta, G. (1987). The Immigrant World of Ybor City. Urbana. IL: University of Illinois Press.
Navarro, T. (1966). El Espanol en Puerto Rico. Rio Piedras, PR: Nueva Editorial Universitaria.
Newman, E. (1974). Strictly Speaking: Will America be the Death of English? New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Patterson, W. & Urrutibeheity, H. (1975). The Lexical Structure of Spanish. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Reed, C. (1977). Dialects of American English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusett Press.
Shores, D. (1972). Contemporary English: Change and Variation. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott Publishers.
Stavans, Ilan. (2003). Spanglish: The Making of a New American Language. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Trifone, M. (2003). Tecniche Lessicografiche : Aspetti della Lessicologia Italiana ed Inglese. Siena: Betti Editrice
Varo, C. (1971). Consideraciones antropologicas y politicas en torno a la ensenanza de “Spanglish” en New York. Rio Piedras, PR: Ediciones Libreria Internacional.
Washburn, W. E. (1975). The Indian in America. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

ISTRIA 1809: the Slavs threw the first stone of the ethnic conflict

Slavs were the first to start the ethnic & national conflict in the eastern Adriatic.

One of the least known issues in the conflict in Istria and Dalmatia between Italians and Slavs turns out to be who or what started it. In fact, until the late eighteenth century in the Republic of Venice peoples of the lands of Istria and Dalmatia lived in harmony under the Venetian Republic. To the point that the "Schiavoni" (as were nicknamed the Slavs in Venice) were among the major supporters and defenders of the Venetian Republic when was attacked and submitted in 1797. Suffice it to recall what happened in that year in the Bay of Kotor(Bocche di Cattaro), where the banner of Venice was buried among the cries of neo-Latin and Slavic people who shared the common pain of defeat.

Istria for centuries had been divided between "Venetian Istria" (the area west and south of the peninsula) and "Austrian Istria" (the area north-east): in the Venetian Istria in the late eighteenth century the neo-Latin element was completely dominant, while in the Austrian Istria the Slavs had settled numerous (with even some Istrorumanians) making a reduced minority with a strong presence of neo-Latins.

We all know that the French Revolution brought many ideals, one of which was the concept of nation that is also based on a common language. We note then that Napoleon's troops in the eastern Adriatic shook the secular status quo of the peaceful Istrian - Dalmatian society and consequently in the nineteenth century there was the rise of Italian and Slovenian-Croatian nationalisms, which harbored - among other things - even the two bloody world wars of the twentieth century.

Today the ultranationalist Slavs defend themselves against accusations of having exterminated south of Trieste almost completely the Italians, claiming that this was done as a reaction to the attacks of the fascists in their "Fascist Era" (called "Ventennio" in Italian) and at the beginning of World War II. While the Italians accuse Austria of being the root-cause of violence by the fascists because of having favored the Slavs in Venezia Giulia and Dalmatia until the First World War, to the detriment of Italian community with numerous abuses (and deaths) since the times of the Italian independence wars.

But who or what started all this? That is, who were those who threw the "first stone" ?

The answer lies in the creation of the "Illyrian Provinces " by Napoleon. In fact, after having joined Istria and Dalmatia to the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy in 1805, Napoleon decided to create this new balkan state after a few years (with capital Ljubljana) and to annex to it these two regions that had been part of the Venetian Republic for centuries.

But for Istria there was the opposition of the people (almost all Italian at that time), supported by the Viceroy of the Kingdom of Italy Eugene de Beauharnais, who wrote directly to Napoleon to get -or better, to keep- the union of Istria (already Venetian for centuries) to his Kingdom of Italy. Unfortunately arrived from Paris only the permission to join to the Kingdom of Italy just the forests and salt marshes of Istria (which were about 20% of the territory of Istria) ..... and in this way for the first time in many centuries Istria was detached from Italy. The inhabitants of Pola, Rovigno and Capodistria protested, but there was nothing to do.

It should be noted, moreover, that Beauharnais in his letter to Napoleon wrote that "Your majesty (i.e.: Napoleon ) already had included Dalmatia between the Illyrian Provinces but Istria, always Venetian, it was excepted to remain Italian" (http://www .coordinamentoadriatico.it / fil ... ). So we have a clear-cut change in the thinking of Napoleon in his decision about Istria!

(Map of the Kingdom of Italy in 1808, when included Istria, Dalmatia and the former Republic of Ragusa until Cattaro in the Montenegro coast)

What or who changed the decision of Napoleon about Istria? Officially it was -among other things- the need to determine as the eastern border of the Kingdom of Italy the river Isonzo, but in reality this was due to the influence of the Enlightenment group of the Slovenian "Circle of Zois " who had a lot of weight in Paris (then capital of the Enlightenment).

The so-called "Circle of Zois" was the most important center of Illuminism in Ljubljana and was founded by Sigmund Zois. This Zois (whose father was a Lombard from Valtellina) was an important patron in the arts and sciences, by funding numerous publications and scientific projects. But above all he is remembered for having contributed to the codification of the Slovenian language (until then considered only a Slavic dialect) and done by Zois and members of his circle (who became even promoters of the first newspaper in Slovenian language: the "Lublanske novize" - "News of Ljubljana").

To this circle belonged among others, the linguist Jernej Kopitar, the historic and dramatic writer Anton Tomaž Linhart, the poet Valentin Vodnik and even the French Charles Nodier (related to the famous Joseph Fouche, one of the leaders of napoleonic Freemasonry). And in these Masonic connections of the Circle Zois is to be seen the "key" that explains the main sudden change of Napoleon, who - as is clear from the letter of Beauharnais - initially wanted to keep united the former Venetian Istria to the Kingdom of Italy.

In January 1810 was so secret (or "Masonic") this change, that is remembered by historians like Bernardo Benussi that " Marshal Marmont requested confirmation to Caulk (head of the Provisional Government of Istria http://arupinum.xoom.it/govprov.htm ) about the desire of Napoleon to detach from the Kingdom of Italy the region of Istria, making it a part of the Illyrian Provinces. The Caulk asks for confirmation to the government of Milan, which was blinded about the imperial will and falls from the clouds."

In short, this "sudden and unexpected" change appears to be the first demonstration of a Slavic methodology -repeated and expanded in the following decades- to seize , with stratagems and often fakes well set up, and annex all that was Italian in Istria and Dalmatia (from literature and history, to the Marco Polo nationality..... until ownership of the properties of the Italian exiles after 1945 (the reader should study this interesting article written in English by Dino Veggian about these appropriations: http://researchomnia.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ) .

The removal of Istria from Italy was perceived as an offensive strike by the Italians in the region: it was the first time that there was a rift in the ex-venetian Istria between the majority of Istrian Italians and the slavic minority (then very small). Unfortunately, this fracture - as we know - became more and more huge in the following decades degenerating into open conflict, until the terrible conclusion in the famous "Istrian exodus" of the Italians.

From all this clearly we note, in simple words, that the Slavs were the ones that started the ethno-national conflict in the eastern Adriatic. The Slavs of the Zois Circle threw "the first stone", when they obtained to annex "suddenly" the former Venetian Istria to their Illyrian Provinces against the will of almost all stakeholders (from the viceroy Eugene de Beauharnais to the vast majority of the local population who was Italian) !

It should also be remembered that in 1806 the whole territory was divided into two districts, Capodistria and Rovigno, and in 7 cantons: Capodistria, Pirano, Buie, Parenzo, Rovigno, Labino and Vodnjan . In turn, the cantons were divided in 22 municipalities of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd class according to the number of inhabitants. Capodistria presided over the first 4 cantons for a total of 60,641 inhabitants and Rovigno, who was then the most populous city in Istria, for the last 3, for a total of 28,615 inhabitants. The total population of the former Venetian Istria in 1807, therefore, did not exceed the 90,000 inhabitants, of which about 70,000 Italians according to the "Adviser to the Kingdom of Italy " Bargnani: that shows that are clearly false the allegations -almost all made at the time of the dictator Tito- of a community where the Slavs reached in those years about 50% of the total population of the former Venetian Istria! In reality the Slavs who lived there were just 25% of the total inhabitants in those years, according to a contemporary person who was serious and honest .....

It should also be pointed out that at the time of the Napoleonic Istria, Istria was divided into the ex-Venetian Istria (from Capodistria to Pola, where the vast majority was of Italian ethnicity) and the former Austrian-Istria (the area of Pisino, with a reduced Slav and istrorumenian majority) and was plagued by the phenomenon of banditry in the countryside.

One of the few bright spots of the French occupation, in fact, was that their efficient war machine dealt a severe blow to this ancient scourge of Istria. It was particularly harsh the repression of brigandage in Ciceria (implemented in 1810 by the " Battalion Royal d'Istria ", made mainly of Italians from ex-Venetian Istria), where it was applied the principle of "collective responsibility", meaning that villages in the surroundings where operated the robbers had to respond in a severe way or through the delivery of hostages or through a ransom if the culprits had not paid the innocents.

So because the majority of these brigands were Slavs, since that moment the brigantage repression started a clash between citizens of the villages & cities (Italians and pro-French) on one side and farmers (Slavic and pro- Austrian ) on the other side: this was a typical feature of Istria at the time of nationalism during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.

Friday, January 10, 2014

CROATIA IS ERASING AND MISAPPROPRIATING WITH FALSIFICATIONS THE PAST OF DALMATIA

Croatia is erasing, distorting and misappropriating the past of Dalmatia, Quarner region and Istria (and nobody says anything).

--------------------NOW YOUR HISTORY BELONGS TO US--------------------

While visiting the Dalmatian coast 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” (or “Italianate“) “accent” or “flavor”. 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 autochtonous Italians (about 80.000 in 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 ethnic cleansing of the autochtonous Italian population of today’s Croatian coastline started in the second half of the 1800’s. Then, towns like Zadar, Split, Sibenik, Trogir, Dubrovnik had Italian names (and were called Zara, Spalato, Sebenico, Trau, Ragusa), Italian communities in a dominant position and a cosmopolitan population (of Croatian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek, Jewish, etc. 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. It continued to be so during the turbulent formation of the first, monarchic, Yugoslavia, when Croatia accepted willy-nilly the Serbian domination and on the same time continued the assault - violent, almost a civil war - against all Dalmatian towns inhabited by ethnic Italians. Following a first exodus toward the end of the 1800s, in 1905 in Rome a Dalmatian Italian Association to help the refugees was founded. Then, after WWI tens of thousands of Dalmatian Italians abandoned their towns and villages in 1920-1930s and settled on Italian territory. During WW2 a third and final exodus: 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 350.000 Italian speaking autochtonous inhabitants from all the Eastern Adriatic coastline - from the southern Dalmatia to the Istrian peninsula - and the consequential erasing of two millennia of a very rich civilization. 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 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, Croatia adapted a new form of genocide: the stealing of the “enemy’s” history in order to obliterate his memory and aggrandize the country. Completely ignored in the West, this skullduggery is a new Pandora’s vase “Balkan style“.

Sack and disinform

Croatia, a country of about 5 million inhabitants, has “nationalized” the history of her Adriatic coastline, a territory that had never been part of the Slavic hinterland, either historically, politically or 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 encyclopedic dictionary of Yugoslav artists (then, Croatia was under Hungarian 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”. Take for example the history of the Republic of Ragusa, officially known as Dubrovnik only from 1919 on. Ragusa has been an independent republic governed since the Middle Ages by a Latin/Illirian oligarchy. 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 Italian “volgare” 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 Serbo-Croatian language.

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 encyclopedia” 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 (Aug. 29, 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 favor 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 obey 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, 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“. 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 was attempting to transform, in the old Republic, its character subtly from that of a sensuous, cosmopolitan mélange into a sterile, nationalistic uniformity”. Of the original Italian speaking population of the town only about 40 individuals survived the ethnic cleansing.

Unnoticed by academic authorities in the West, an implacable (first Panslavistic, then Pancroat) “nationalization” of non-Croatian history continued for decades in a dramatic crescendo. In the last half century it reached epidemic proportions: Andrea Antico, born in Montona (today Motovun) in Istria, a composer and music publisher of the 1500s (he is studied in every music school of this globe), was rebaptised Andrija Staric (or Starcevic); the Renaissance painter Lorenzo De Boninis, born in Ragusa/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“. Giovan Francesco Biondi, a writer born in 1572 on the Dalmatian island of Lesina (Hvar) 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 “superpatriotic” 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 Cherso (Croatian “Cres“) 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 civilization 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”, one of the first manuals on merchandising, book-keeping 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. A reliable Croatian archeologist, Josip Vlahovic, studied a bas-relief in the Split (Spalato) 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 Spalato (Split), who wrote extensively about that barbarian band, that Medioeval 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 Traù, 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 “neutralized” 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. 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 becames “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 V or VI 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 civilization 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. (di.ve.)

Monday, December 23, 2013

NEOLATIN PRESENCE IN SERBIA AND MACEDONIA

One of the books more famous about the neolatin presence in Serbia and Macedonia was written at the end of the nineteenth century by Sir Arthur Evans: "Antiquariam researches in Illyricum" (Sir Arthur Evans' complete book)

Map in hungarian language showing in red the neolatin areas (like "Romanija Planina" and "Stari Vlah") in the Dinaric Alps of Serbia and Bosnia in the eleventh century & later (click on it to enlarge):

In this book -written by a british scholar known as impartial and not linked to latin or slav nationalism- it is clearly declared that in the Middle Ages (and until some centuries after ther year 1000 AD) there was a huge population of neolatins who survived the massacres of the barbarian invasions in the balkan lands of the Dinaric Alps, from actual Croatia & Bosnia to Serbia & Macedonia.

Indeed it is stated at pag.31 of the book that:

"Politically the country outside the limits of the still Roman coast-towns was by Constantine (Porphyrogenitus)'s time in the hands of Slavonic Zupans, but side by side with the dominant race the older inhabitants of the land continued to inhabit the Dinaric glens and Alpine pastures. The relics of the Roman provincials who survived the Slavonic conquest of Illyricum were divided, in Dalmatia at all events, into two distinct classes, the citizens of the coast-towns, who retained their municipal and ecclesiastical institutions and something of Roman civilization under the aegis of Byzantium, and the Alpine population of the interior, the descendants for the most part of Romanized Illyrian clansmen recruited by the expropriated coloni of the municipia, or at least that part of them who had been forced to give up fixed agricultural pursuits for a semi-nomad pastoral life. Both classes spoke the Latin language, approaching, in various stages of degradation, the Romance variety still spoken by the Rouman population of parts of Macedonia and the Danubian provinces; and both were indiscriminately spoken of by their Slavonic neighbours as Vlachs, or Mavrovlachs: Romans, or Black Romans (Morlachs)."
.
In short, Evans says there is evidence - of archaeological type and of other kind -showing that in the territories that were the Roman province of Dalmatia a substantial proportion of the population (probably the majority before the year 1000 AD) was of Romance language until the beginning of the Renaissance. And this language was similar to the one spoken in the nineteenth century in the still Vlach-Romanian region "Timok" (Vlachs of Serbia)
of Serbia, located in the hills bordering the "Iron Gates" of the Danube river. This statement contrasts with what was stated by academic historians of the era of the Yugoslav ommunist dictator Tito, who denied (or rather, tried to delete) this strong presence of neo-Latin populations. Moreover there is still a region of eastern Bosnia called "Romanija" (read my article on italian wikipedia: (Romanija)
, with a precise map ) and a region of western Serbia with the name "Stari Vlah" (ie "Historical Wallachia " in Serbian): from local cemeteries ( and the registers of the churches) we deduce that at the time of the first Turkish invasions the population of these two regions was mostly neo-Latin, even if reduced to an advanced state of Slavicization.

It should be remembered, moreover, that the Roman presence in the present territory of Serbia was notable because of the number of Roman cities that survived until the times of the Byzantine Heraclius in the eighth century. Next the names of these cities, in that century inhabited by neo-Latin people (with the actual Slavic name in brackets): Acumincum (Stari Slankamen); Rasa (Stari Ras); Bassianae (Donji Petrovci); Bononia (Banoštor); Budalia (Martinci); Burgunae (Novi Banovci); Cornacum (Susek); Cusum (Petrovaradin ), Felix Romuliana (Gamzigrad ); Horreum Margi (Knjaževac ); Justiniana First (Caricin Grad); Margum (Dubravica - Požarevac); Naissus (Niš) ; Neoplanta (Novi Sad); Remesiana (Bela Palanka); Rittium (Surduk); Semendria (Smederevo), Singidunum (Belgrade); Sirmium (Semska Mitrovica); Taurunum (Zemun); Timacum majus (Ćuprija); Ulpiana (Lipljan) and Viminacium (Kostolac).

Only in the ninth century is finally used only the Slavic name of these cities: which is probably a reason to deduce that almost around the year 1000 AD there had to be in many of these cities a residual community of neo-Latin inhabitants, according to the eminent German historian Theodore Mommsen.

In other words, in the century after CharleMagne the Vlastimirovic dinasty of Serbia created a process of "serbianization" in the areas of these cities that assimilated most of the neolatin population by the year 1000. But some areas away from the main valleys remained unaffected, like in the Stari Vlah and the Timoc region, probably because full of not easily accessible mountains.

Obviously, what was written by Evans is linked a little to what I wrote last September about the "City-states of Dalmatia" (Neolatin city-states in Dalmatia)
and in recent years in italian language on the "Neo-Latins of the Dinaric Alps" ((Neolatini dinarici)
and on the "Romance language and people ​​of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (Neolatini in Bosnia-Erzegovina)

Evans 's book is centered on Serbia and Macedonia (although there are numerous references to Croatian and Bosnian territories), including the Montenegro with the Bay of Kotor-Cattaro in the territory of Serbia. In my opinion one of the most interesting sections is the third. In fact, parts III and IV of the book concern especially the Roman "Dardania", which is the current northern Macedonia, and contain numerous and detailed references to the presence of neo-Latin populations during the Middle Ages from Montenegro (and from "Raska" - "Stari Vlah" ) until the ancient Scupi (currently called Skopije, the capital of Macedonia). For example, on p.107 Evans states that "There is definite evidence that in the Middle Ages there was a Rouman population in the neighbourhood of Skopia".

In addition, Evans says -like the historian Mommsen- that the Romanization of Roman Dalmatia was complete after five centuries of Roman Empire in Illyria, in contrast to the claims of the Slavic nationalist of communist Tito (who continually write that inside Illyria there had been little penetration of Latin culture, and that the local language was still the one of the native population when arrived the Slavs). Indeed 17 Roman emperors were born in the territories that now belong to Serbia and Macedonia, and imperial cities like "Felix Romuliana" -in the area of ​​the river Timok- attest to this roman presence that is currently awarded by the Unesco with the title of "World Heritage".

It should also be noted that the scholar Noel Malcolm believes that the area of origin of the Aromanian language is located in southern Serbia and northern Macedonia, and that from here these "Vlachs" were moved by the Turks to Bosnia to repopulate areas devastated by wars and epidemics.(Malcolm: Bosnian Serbs related to Vlachs)
And now -according to him- they would be the origin of the local Orthodox Serb population. This fact would explain -always according to Malcolm- the disappearance of the Romance populations from Dardania (and Kosovo), which of course would have been assimilated locally because reduced to only a few families after the transfer.

In addition, Malcolm says that the difference between the Bulgarian and the Croatian-Serbian language is due precisely to this neo-Latin presence (in the area of Naissus/Nis, Ulpiana/Pristina and Scuti/Skopje), which joined Romania with the Albanian Kosovo and blocked contacts & linguistic exchanges among the Bulgarian & Serbian Slavs at least up to the time immediately following the conquests of Charlemagne (and may be up to the year 1000 AD for two centuries more).

Indeed Malcolm writes in his "Kosovo:a short history" that "...the Slav presence in Kosovo and the southernmost part of the Morava valley may have been quite weak in the first two or three centuries of Slav settlement. If Slavs had been evenly spread across this part of the Balkans, it would be hard to explain why such a clear linguistic division emerged between the Serbo-Croat language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian one. The scholar who first developed this argument also noted that, in the area dividing the early Serbs from the Bulgarians, many Latin place-names survived long enough to be adapted eventually into Slav ones, from Naissus (Nish), down through the Kosovo town of Lypenion (Lipljan) to Scupi (Skopje): this contrasts strongly with most of northern Serbia, Bosnia and the Dalmatian hinterland, where the old town names were completely swept aside. His conclusion was that the Latin-speaking population, far from withering away immediately, may actually have been strengthened here (and in a western strip of modern Bulgaria around Vidin), its numbers swelled, no doubt, by refugees from further north. These Latin-speakers would have thus formed 'a wide border-zone between the Bulgarians and the Serbs'.Kosovo's protective ring of mountains would have been useful to them; and the Roman mountain-road from Kosovo to the Albanian coast - along which several Latin place-names also survive, such as Puka, from 'via publica' - might also have connected them with other parts of the Latin-speaking world. (The hill-top town of Koman, mentioned earlier, is only a few miles from Puka, and may well have had a Latin-speaking population too.) If this argument is correct, we might expect many of the ancestors of the Vlachs to have been present in the Kosovo region and the mountains of western Bulgaria".

As a corollary to what Malcolm says, we must remember that the so-called "Culture of Koman" (that existed in northern Albania during the seventh and eighth century and is mentioned by him) is classified by scholars (like Popovic and Bowden) as likely to be post-Roman: so it would be connected (and perhaps integrated) to the romance people who lived in the neo-Latin Nis-Skopjie area of southern Serbia and northern Macedonia (Koman culture, p.57)

As I wrote before, it must be inferred from the studies made ​​in this respect by Evans and others that the neo-latins who survived the invasions of the sixth and seventh centuries were scattered around the ninth century in the Dinaric Alps, especially between Banja Luka (which probably takes its name from "Bagni di San Luca") - Sarajevo (the current Romanija ) - Drina/Morava (the ancient Stari Vlah), and reached the mountains Velebit of the Dalmatian coast (where survived the dalmatian cities and islands of the autoctonous Dalmatians).

To the southeast these neo-Latin Dinaric populations were connected with the partially Romanized populations of the Albanians, while were continued to the northeast by the Romanians of the Timok region.(Map of Neolatin/Morlachs areas)
With the creation of Croatia by king Tomislav and of Serbia by the Vlastimirovic dinasty began their assimilation - often forced - by the Slavs. Assimilation practically completed at the time of the Turkish invasions in the Renaissance (except of course for the Venetian hinterland of Dalmatia where survived the "Dalmatian Italians" and the partially slavicized "Morlachs").

I think it is impossible to quantify their numerical amount in the Dinaric Alps region: I believe the most we could do is a rough calculation of the percentage of their presence. So, from 100% of the total population in the Dinaric Alps before 580 AD, the neolatin population could be expected to have declined to 66% at the time of Tomislav (concentrated in the highlands and mountains) and to 50% after the year 1000 AD, then to have decreased to 10% in the fourteenth century (when the Turks arrived) and finally to have disappeared in the sixteenth/seventeenth century. In other words, the existence of these Romance populations in the area of the Dinaric Alps would last a millennium. But then again, we are always in the field of approximate assumptions.

Finally, we must remember that until the last century the Vlach area was bigger than what is today in the southern Balkans, according to maps like this done by Koryakov: Detailed map of Vlachs in southern Balkans

Summing up the current neo-latin presence in Serbia and Macedonia:
SERBIA. Romance populations now exist in Serbia only in the region of the river Timok (Map of neolatin areas in Timok)
near the Iron Gates of the Danube, but there are some groups of Romanians in Vojvodina (just north, bordering the area of ​​Timisoara in Romania (Map of neolatin areas in Vojvodina)
). This area until the nineteenth century reached the river Morava and before the Renaissance probably extended up to the hill regions of "Stari Vlah" and "Romanija" ( populated mostly by neo-Latins until the thirteenth century ) of western Serbia and eastern Bosnia.
MACEDONIA.In Macedonia ( MACEDONIA: ITS RACES AND THEIR FUTURE; chapter VI of Brailsford about the Vlachs)
remain very small areas populated by "Vlachs" especially around Bitola (Vlachs in Macedonia)
near the border with Greece.There are even a few "Megleno-Vlachs" next to the Florina & Aridena provinces of northern Greece ( (Vlachs in the border Greece-Macedonia)
. But up to the year 1000 AD what was once the Roman Dardania had residual but significant communities of Romance people even near Skopije. The last members of these neolatin communities in Dardania (and Kosovo) were transferred to Bosnia by the Turks, according to the historian Malcolm.